Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67333 

firms are small entities that might be 

affected by our action. 

Equipment Manufacturers 

76. Wireless Communications 

Equipment Manufacturing. The Census 

Bureau defines this category as follows: 

‘‘This industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in manufacturing 

radio and television broadcast and 

wireless communications equipment. 

Examples of products made by these 

establishments are: Transmitting and 

receiving antennas, cable television 

equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 

cellular phones, mobile 

communications equipment, and radio 

and television studio and broadcasting 

equipment.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for Radio 

and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, which is: All such firms 

having 750 or fewer employees. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2002, there were a total of 1,041 

establishments in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 1,010 had employment of under 

500, and an additional 13 had 

employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under 

this size standard, the majority of firms 

can be considered small. 

77. Semiconductor and Related 

Device Manufacturing. These 

establishments manufacture ‘‘computer 

storage devices that allow the storage 

and retrieval of data from a phase 

change, magnetic, optical, or magnetic/ 

optical media.’’ The SBA has developed 

a small business size standard for this 

category of manufacturing; that size 

standard is 500 or fewer employees. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

1997, there were 1,082 establishments 

in this category that operated for the 

entire year. Of these, 987 had 

employment of under 500, and 52 

establishments had employment of 500 

to 999. 

78. Computer Storage Device 

Manufacturing. These establishments 

manufacture ‘‘computer storage devices 

that allow the storage and retrieval of 

data from a phase change, magnetic, 

optical, or magnetic/optical media.’’ The 

SBA has developed a small business 

size standard for this category of 

manufacturing; that size standard is 

1,000 or fewer employees. According to 

Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 

209 establishments in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of these, 

197 had employment of under 500, and 

eight establishments had employment of 

500 to 999. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

79. The Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry seeks 

comment broadly on certain 

modifications to the compliance levels 

set forth in rules section 20.18(h). 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

80. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) and exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities.’’ 

81. The Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry seeks 

comment on various proposed changes 

to location accuracy standards. To assist 

in the analysis, commenters are 

requested to provide information 

regarding how small entities would be 

affected if the Commission were to 

adopt its proposed changes or any 

alternative proposals offered by other 

commenters. 

82. With regard to accuracy testing, 

we tentatively concluded that we 

should adopt a mandatory testing 

regime. We seek comments both as to 

the parameters of this testing regime and 

any alternative testing regimes that may 

assist small business in complying with 

the requirements. Should we require 

testing every two years or would a 

different schedule be more appropriate? 

We seek comment on various 

alternatives for tracking compliance 

with the location accuracy 

requirements. 

83. With regard to interconnected 

VoIP, the Commission tentatively 

concluded that ‘‘to the extent that an 

interconnected VoIP service may be 

used in more than one location, 

providers must employ an automatic 

location technology that meets the same 

accuracy standards that apply to those 

CMRS services.’’ Should interconnected 

VoIP providers be subject to the 

Commission’s CMRS E911 location 

requirements? Should the Commission 

consider first appointing an advisory 

committee to examine the technological 

and economic impacts of such a 

requirement? We seek comment on this 

and any other alternative proposals. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

84. None. 

D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis 

85. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27579 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket No. 03–123; WC Docket No. 

05–196; WC Docket No. 10–191; FCC 10– 

161] 

Telecommunications Relay Services 

and Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals With Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities, E911 Requirements for IPEnabled Service Providers, InternetBased Telecommunications Relay 

Service Numbering 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on steps 

the Commission should take to improve 

assignment of telephone numbers 

associated with Internet-based 

Telecommunications Relay Service 

(iTRS), specifically, Video Relay Service 

(VRS) and IP Relay. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rules 

are due on or before December 2, 2010 

and reply comments are due on or 

before December 17, 2010. Written 

comments on the Paperwork Reduction 

Act proposed information collection 

requirements must be submitted by the 

public, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), and other interested 

parties on or before January 3, 2011. If 

you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments, but find it 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
67334 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this summary, you 

should advise the contact listed below 

as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No.10–191, 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:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• 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. 

• In addition to filing comments with 

the Secretary, a copy of any comments 

on the Paperwork Reduction Act 

information collection requirements 

contained herein should be submitted to 

the Federal Communications 

Commission via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov 

and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of 

Management and Budget, via e-mail to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via 

fax at 202–395–5167. 

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: 

Heather Hendrickson at (202) 418–7295, 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Competition Policy Division. For 

additional information concerning the 

Paperwork Reduction Act information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, send an e-mail to 

PRA@fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams 

at 202–418–2918. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 

03–123; WC Docket No. 05–196; WC 

Docket No. 10–191; FCC 10–161, 

adopted September 16, 2010, and 

released September 17, 2010. The 

complete text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

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

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

document may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863- 2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using: (1) The Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the Web site for submitting 

comments. 

Æ For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

Æ Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue 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. 

Æ The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

Æ Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: 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) or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). Contact the FCC 

to request reasonable accommodations 

for filing comments (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: fcc504@fcc.gov; 

phone: (202) 418–0530 or (202) 418– 

0432 (TTY). 

In addition, one copy of each 

pleading must be sent to each of the 

following: 

Æ The Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554; Web site: 

http://www.bcpiweb.com; phone:1–800– 

378–3160; and 

Æ Heather Hendrickson, Competition 

Policy Division, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5– 

C225, Washington, DC 20554; e-mail: 

Heather.Hendrickson@fcc.gov or 

telephone number (202) 418–7295. 

Filings and comments are also 

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. 

Copies may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY– 

B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

Customers may contact BCPI through its 

Web site: www.bcpiweb.com, by e-mail 

at fcc@bcpiweb.com, by telephone at 

(202) 488–5300 or (800) 378–3160 

(voice), (202) 488–5562 (TTY), or by 

facsimile at (202) 488–5563. 

Comments and reply comments must 

include a short and concise summary of 

the substantive arguments raised in the 

pleading. Comments and reply 

comments must also comply with § 1.49 

and all other applicable sections of the 

Commission’s rules. We direct all 

interested parties to include the name of 

the filing party and the date of the filing 

on each page of their comments and 

reply comments. All parties are 

encouraged to utilize a table of contents, 

regardless of the length of their 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67335 

submission. We also strongly encourage 

parties to track the organization set forth 

in the NPRM in order to facilitate our 

internal review process. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis: 

This document contains proposed 

information collection requirements. 

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 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency 

comments are due January 3, 2011. 

Comments on the proposed 

information collection requirements 

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 techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on 

how we might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1089. 

Title: Telecommunications Relay 

Services and Speech-to-Speech Services 

for Individuals with Hearing and 

Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements 

for IP–Enabled Service Providers; 

Internet-Based Telecommunications 

Relay Service Numbering, CG Docket 

No. 03–123, WC Docket No. 05–196, and 

WC Docket No. 10–191; FCC 08–151, 

FCC 08–275, and FCC 10–161. 

Form Number(s): Not applicable. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities; Not-for-profit 

institutions; Individuals or households; 

State, local or tribal government. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 15 respondents and 

5,763,199 responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: .25–1.5 

hours (average time per response). 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. The statutory 

authority for the collection is contained 

in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 225, 251, and 

303(r) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 

154(i), 154(j), 225, 251, 303(r). 

Frequency of Response: On occasion, 

quarterly and one time reporting 

requirements, recordkeeping and third 

party disclosure requirements. 

Total Annual Burden: 279,891 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: $4,269,135. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No 

impact(s). 

Nature of Extent of Confidentiality: 

An assurance of confidentiality is not 

offered because the Commission has no 

direct involvement in the collection of 

personally identifiable information (PII) 

from individuals and/or household. 

Needs and Uses: On September 16, 

2010, the Commission adopted 

Telecommunications Relay Services and 

Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals with Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP– 

Enabled Service Providers; InternetBased Telecommunications Relay 

Service Numbering, CG Docket No. 03– 

123, WC Docket No. 05–196, and WC 

Docket No. 10–191, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, FCC 10–161 (the iTRS Toll 

Free NPRM) seeking comment on steps 

the Commission should take to improve 

assignment of telephone numbers 

associated iTRS, specifically, VRS and 

IP Relay. The Commission proposes 

several requirements to both encourage 

use of geographically appropriate local 

numbers, and ensure that the deaf and 

hard-of-hearing community has access 

to toll free telephone numbers that is 

equivalent to access enjoyed by the 

hearing community. The iTRS Toll Free 

NPRM proposes to revise the ‘‘User 

Notification’’ information collection 

requirement adopted in the First and 

Second Numbering Orders to add 

additional requirements. Specifically, in 

addition to provisioning their registered 

users’ routing information to the TRS 

Numbering Directory and maintaining 

such information in the database, the 

Commission proposes that VRS and IP 

relay providers must: (1) Remove from 

the Internet-based TRS Numbering 

Directory any toll free number that has 

not been transferred to a subscription 

with a toll free service provider and for 

which the user is the subscriber of 

record, and (2) ensure that the toll free 

number of a user that is associated with 

a geographically appropriate NANP 

number will be associated with the 

same Uniform Resource Identifier URI 

as that geographically appropriate 

NANP telephone number. 

In addition to the information that the 

Commission instructed VRS and IP 

Relay providers to include in the 

consumer advisories required by the 

First and Second Numbering Orders, the 

Commission proposed that VRS and IP 

Relay providers include certain 

additional information in their 

consumer advisories under the iTRS 

Toll Free NPRM. Specifically, the 

consumer advisories must explain: (1) 

The process by which a VRS or IP Relay 

user may acquire a toll free number 

from a toll free service provider, or 

transfer control of a toll free number 

from a VRS or IP Relay provider to the 

user; and (2) the process by which 

persons holding a toll free number may 

have that number linked to their tendigit telephone number in the TRS 

Numbering Directory. The Commission 

also proposes that VRS and IP Relay 

providers that have already assigned or 

provided a toll free number to a VRS or 

IP Relay user must, at the VRS or IP 

Relay user’s request, facilitate the 

transfer of the toll free number to a toll 

free subscription with a toll free service 

provider that is under the direct control 

of the user. 

To view a copy of this information 

collection request (ICR) submitted to 

OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http:// 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, 

(2) look for the section of the Web page 

called ‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ (3) 

click on the downward-pointing arrow 

in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box below the 

‘‘Currently Under Review’’ heading, (4) 

select ‘‘Federal Communications 

Commission’’ from the list of agencies 

presented in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, 

(5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ button to the right 

of the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, (6) when the 

list of FCC ICRs currently under review 

appears, look for the OMB control 

number of this ICR and then click on the 

ICR Reference Number. A copy of the 

FCC submission to OMB will be 

displayed. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

1. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared the 

present Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on small 

entities that might result from this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(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 provided 

above. The Commission will send a 

copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. In 

addition, the NPRM and the IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
67336 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

A. Need for, and Objective of, the 

Proposed Rules 

2. In the NPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on steps the 

Commission should take to improve toll 

free access for Internet-based 

Telecommunications Relay Service 

(iTRS). Specifically, as a continuation of 

the Commission’s ten-digit numbering 

plan for iTRS, we propose rules, and 

seek comment, to ensure that toll free 

numbers are as available, and used, by 

deaf and hard-of-hearing users as they 

are for hearing users. For example, the 

Commission seeks comment on ways to 

ensure that iTRS users in most cases use 

a local number as the primary telephone 

number. The Commission seeks 

comment on prohibiting iTRS providers 

from assigning new toll free numbers to 

users. The Commission also seeks 

comment on methods for an iTRS 

provider to assist an iTRS user in the 

process of transferring his or her 

assigned toll free number to a 

subscription with a toll free service 

provider. The Commission seeks 

comment on a proposal that a deaf or 

hard-of-hearing iTRS user that obtains a 

toll free number from, or ports a toll free 

number to, a toll free service provider 

that has mapped the number to the 

user’s local number in the SMS/800 

Database, may also have that toll free 

number mapped to the user’s local 

number in the iTRS Directory. The 

Commission seeks comment on a oneyear transition period for iTRS users to 

transfer toll free numbers to a direct 

subscription with a toll free service 

provider. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether there is any reason 

not to remove any non-user selected toll 

free numbers from the iTRS database. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

consumer outreach efforts to educate 

and assist iTRS users with the changes 

to toll free access. 

B. Legal Basis 

3. The legal basis for any action that 

may be taken pursuant to this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is contained in 

sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 225, 251(e), and 255 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

225, 251(e), and 255, and §§ 0.91, 0.141, 

0.291, 0.361, and 1.3 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.141, 

0.291, 0.361, 1.3. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

4. 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 adopted herein. 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. 

5. With regard to whether a 

substantial number of small entities 

may be affected by the requirements 

proposed in this, the Commission notes 

that, of the fifteen providers affected by 

the NPRM, four meet the definition of 

a small entity. The SBA has developed 

a small business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which is: 

All such firms having 1,500 or fewer 

employees. The fifteen providers 

currently receiving compensation from 

the Interstate TRS Fund for providing 

any form of TRS are: American 

Network, AT&T Corp.; CSDVRS; CAC; 

GoAmerica; Hamilton Relay, Inc.; Hands 

On; Healinc; Kansas Relay Service, Inc.; 

Michigan Bell; Nordia Inc.; Snap 

Telecommunications, Inc; Sorenson; 

Sprint; and State of Michigan. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

6. Should the Commission decide to 

adopt any of the proposed rules to 

improve toll free access for iTRS, such 

action could potentially result in 

increased, reduced, or otherwise 

modified recordkeeping, reporting, or 

other compliance requirements for 

affected iTRS providers. For instance, 

VRS and IP Relay providers would be 

required to include an advisory on their 

Web sites describing the process by 

which a VRS or IP Relay user may 

acquire a toll free number from a toll 

free service provider, or transfer control 

of a toll free number from a VRS or IP 

Relay provider to the user; and the 

process by which persons holding a toll 

free number may have that number 

linked to their ten-digit telephone 

number in the TRS Numbering 

Directory. We seek comment on the 

effect of these proposals, and 

commenters are encouraged to quantify 

the costs and benefits of any reporting, 

recordkeeping, or compliance 

requirement that may be established in 

this proceeding. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

7. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance and reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for 

small entities. As stated above, only four 

current providers would be affected by 

this NPRM. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

None. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment 

on steps the Commission should take to 

improve assignment of telephone 

numbers associated with Internet-based 

Telecommunications Relay Service 

(iTRS), specifically, Video Relay Service 

(VRS) and IP Relay. VRS allows 

individuals with hearing and speech 

disabilities to communicate using sign 

language through video equipment, and 

IP Relay allows these individuals to 

communicate in text using a computer. 

We seek to encourage use of 

geographically appropriate local 

numbers, and ensure that the deaf and 

hard-of-hearing community has access 

to toll free telephone numbers that is 

equivalent to access enjoyed by the 

hearing community. 

2. In June 2008, the Commission 

instituted a ten-digit numbering plan for 

iTRS in order to make access by deaf 

and hard-of-hearing people functionally 

equivalent to access enjoyed by the 

hearing community, as required by 

statute. The Commission recognized 

that doing so would further the 

functional equivalency mandate by 

ensuring that Internet-based TRS users 

can be reached by voice telephone users 

in the same way that voice telephone 

users are called. The Commission 

sought to ensure that iTRS users can be 

reached via telephone, just as hearing 

users can be reached via telephone. As 

a result of that order, most deaf and 

hard-of-hearing iTRS users have 

obtained local telephone numbers. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67337 

Although iTRS providers are required to 

assign local numbers to their customers, 

at least some iTRS providers assign a 

toll free number as well, even if the 

customer does not request one. Thus, a 

large number of personal toll free 

numbers have been issued to iTRS 

users. 

3. The automatic issuance and 

prevalence of toll free iTRS numbers 

presents several concerns. For example, 

the use of toll free numbers increases 

the risk of confusion and delay during 

an emergency call. The automatic 

issuance of toll free numbers also may 

be inconsistent with the statutory 

requirement to provide service that is 

functionally equivalent to hearing 

individuals, and is at odds with other 

Commission policies such as local 

number portability (LNP). Consumer 

groups representing deaf and hard-ofhearing users have raised similar 

concerns, and agreed with the 

Commission on the need to limit or 

prohibit the distribution of toll free 

numbers by iTRS providers. In this 

NPRM, we seek comment on proposed 

rules designed to align access to local 

and toll free numbers by iTRS users 

more closely with the way that hearing 

users obtain toll free numbers. We 

expect to establish rules that will ensure 

that an iTRS user’s local number is used 

routinely as the primary telephone 

number that hearing users dial to reach 

the deaf or hard-of-hearing user via an 

iTRS provider and that deaf and hardof-hearing users employ for point-topoint calling with other deaf and hardof-hearing users. 

II. Background 

4. Authority. The Commission has 

authority to adopt and implement a 

system for assigning iTRS users local 

numbers linked to the NANP pursuant 

to sections 225 and 251(e) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (the Act). Section 225 requires 

the Commission to ensure that 

functionally equivalent TRS be available 

nationwide to the extent possible and in 

the most efficient manner, and directs 

the Commission to adopt regulations to 

govern the provision and compensation 

of TRS. Section 251 grants the 

Commission authority to oversee 

numbering administration in the United 

States. Establishing rules governing the 

use of toll free numbers by iTRS 

providers in connection with iTRS 

services is a continuation of the 

implementation of the Commission’s 

numbering plan, and is essential to the 

Commission’s goal of making the 

numbering system used by deaf and 

hard-of-hearing individuals functionally 

equivalent to the system used by 

hearing individuals. 

5. Internet-based TRS Orders. On June 

24, 2008, the Commission issued the 

First Internet-based TRS Order, (73 FR 

41307, July 18, 2010) in which it 

adopted a uniform numbering system 

for iTRS. Prior to the Commission’s 

numbering plan, there was no uniform 

numbering system for iTRS. Rather, 

iTRS users were reached at a dynamic 

IP address, a proxy or alias number, or 

a toll free number. In the case of toll free 

numbers, an iTRS user would provide 

the number to any hearing user. When 

a hearing user dialed the iTRS user’s toll 

free number, the voice call was routed 

by the PSTN to the provider that had 

subscribed to the number and assigned 

it to a user. That toll free number was 

not linked to a user-specific local 

number but the provider would be able 

to translate the toll free number dialed 

by the hearing user to the iTRS user’s IP 

address in the provider’s database. 

However, prior to December 31, 2008, 

iTRS providers did not share databases, 

and therefore, the iTRS user and people 

calling that user were forced to use the 

service of the iTRS provider that gave 

the user the toll free number. This 

arrangement was in tension with the 

Commission’s interoperability 

requirements, which prohibit a VRS 

provider that seeks compensation from 

the Interstate TRS Fund from restricting 

the use of its equipment or service so 

that a VRS user cannot place or receive 

a call through a competing VRS 

provider. 

6. The Commission established the 

numbering system to advance functional 

equivalency by ensuring that deaf and 

hard-of-hearing iTRS users can be 

reached by hearing telephone users in 

the same way that hearing telephone 

users are reached. The numbering 

system was designed to ensure that 

emergency calls placed by iTRS users 

would be directly and automatically 

routed to the appropriate emergency 

services authorities. The system also 

provides the benefits of local number 

portability, to allow deaf and hard-ofhearing iTRS users to port their 

telephone numbers from one iTRS 

provider to another. The Commission’s 

numbering plan included the creation of 

a central database mechanism that maps 

the NANP telephone numbers assigned 

to iTRS users’ devices to an appropriate 

IP address known as a Uniform 

Resource Identifier (URI). In the First 

Internet-based TRS Order’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 

Commission sought comment on issues 

involved in using toll free numbers for 

iTRS, including any impact that such 

numbers may have on the provision of 

911 service and whether iTRS users 

should be subject to a fee for use of a 

personal toll free number, as hearing 

users are. 

7. In the Second Internet-based TRS 

Order, FCC 08–275 (75 FR 29914, May 

28, 2010) released on December 19, 

2008, the Commission addressed issues 

included in the First Internet-based TRS 

Order’s Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, FCC 08–151 (73 FR 41307, 

July 18, 2008). Among other things, the 

Commission provided existing users a 

three-month ‘‘registration period,’’ 

during which iTRS users could select a 

default provider, provide their 

Registered Location, and obtain their 

new ten-digit NANP telephone 

numbers, followed by a three-month 

‘‘permissive calling period,’’ which 

ended on November 12, 2009. During 

these registration and permissive calling 

periods, existing iTRS users were able to 

place and receive calls via the method 

used prior to implementation of the 

Commission’s numbering plan. At the 

conclusion of the permissive calling 

period, however, providers were 

required to register any unregistered 

user before completing a non-emergency 

VRS or IP Relay call. 

8. The Commission also found that, to 

further the goals of the numbering 

system, ‘‘Internet-based TRS users 

should transition away from the 

exclusive use of toll free numbers’’ and 

required all iTRS users to obtain ‘‘tendigit geographically appropriate 

numbers, in accordance with our 

numbering system.’’ The Commission 

reasoned that local numbers, and not 

toll free numbers, should be used when 

contacting Public Safety Answering 

Points (PSAPs). Accordingly, the 

Commission stated that a user’s toll free 

number must be mapped to the user’s 

local, geographically appropriate 

number. Moreover, the Commission 

found that, just as voice telephone users 

are responsible for the costs of obtaining 

and using toll free numbers, the TRS 

fund should not compensate providers 

for the use of toll free numbers by iTRS 

users. 

9. Toll Free Clarification Public 

Notice. In August 2009, the Consumer 

and Governmental Affairs Bureau and 

the Wireline Competition Bureau (the 

Bureaus) released the Toll Free 

Clarification Public Notice (24 FCC Rcd 

10626, August 11, 2010) to clarify the 

intent of the Second Internet-based TRS 

Order that any toll free number retained 

or acquired by an iTRS user must be 

directed to the user’s local number in 

the Service Management System (SMS)/ 

800 database by November 12, 2009, 

and that a toll free number and a local 

number should not be directed to the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
67338 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

same URI in the iTRS Directory. 

Additionally, the Bureaus 

acknowledged that certain point-topoint calls, as well as inbound dialaround calls, would require the use of 

a local number. 

10. CSDVRS and TDI Petitions. On 

September 10, 2009, CSDVRS filed a 

petition for expedited reconsideration of 

the Toll Free Clarification Public Notice. 

CSDVRS claimed, among other things, 

that the Toll Free Clarification Public 

Notice violated the Administrative 

Procedure Act, impeded VRS 

interoperability, and undermined 

functional equivalency by eliminating 

toll free numbers for point-to-point and 

dial-around calls. Subsequently, the TDI 

Coalition, which represents deaf and 

hard-of-hearing iTRS users, filed a 

Petition for Emergency Stay and a 

Request to Return to the Status Quo 

Ante. The TDI Coalition asked the 

Commission to stay certain portions of 

the Toll Free Clarification Public Notice, 

and direct any iTRS provider that had 

removed toll free numbers from the 

iTRS Directory to reinstate those 

numbers. The TDI Coalition claimed 

that this relief was necessary to avoid 

‘‘disruption of service to the severe 

detriment of people who are deaf, hardof-hearing, deaf-blind or have speech 

disabilities who currently use toll free 

numbers.’’ 

11. Toll Free Waiver Order and 

Extensions. In response to TDI’s 

concerns that certain point-to-point 

calls would not be completed, on 

December 4, 2009, the Bureaus waived 

the portion of the Toll Free Clarification 

Public Notice that stated that a toll free 

number and a local geographic number 

should not be directed to the same URI 

in the iTRS Directory. Also, the Bureaus 

directed those iTRS providers that had 

removed working, assigned toll free 

numbers that did not point to the iTRS 

user’s local number in the SMS/800 

database in accordance with the Toll 

Free Clarification Public Notice, to 

reinstate those toll free numbers to the 

iTRS Directory. This four-month waiver 

was designed to give the Commission 

time to consider the CSDVRS petition 

for reconsideration as well as iTRS toll 

free issues generally. The Commission 

also recognized that it would take 

consumers and certain small businesses 

time to transition to geographically 

appropriate local numbers. On April 2, 

2010, the Bureaus extended the waiver 

for an additional four months, until 

August 4, 2010, and on August 4, 2010, 

the Bureaus further extended the waiver 

until February 4, 2011. 

12. Continued Distribution of Toll 

Free Numbers. Although Commission 

rules require iTRS providers to give 

each customer a local number, some 

providers are routinely distributing toll 

free numbers in addition to local 

numbers. These toll free numbers are 

being distributed at no charge to the 

user and are provided even if the iTRS 

user does not request it. This practice 

encourages the use of toll free numbers, 

which is inconsistent with the 

Commission’s ruling that iTRS users 

should ‘‘transition away from the 

exclusive use of toll-free numbers to 

ten-digit, geographically appropriate 

numbers, in accordance with our 

numbering system.’’ 

13. There are several problems with 

the use of toll free numbers in the 

context of iTRS. 

• Lack of Functional Equivalency and 

Consumer Confusion. The First Internetbased TRS Order attempted to ensure 

that ‘‘Internet-based TRS users can be 

reached by voice telephone users in the 

same way that voice telephone users are 

called.’’ Hearing users are not typically 

reached via personal toll free numbers, 

nor are they automatically provided a 

personal toll free number when they 

sign up for service. Moreover, evidence 

in prior proceedings reflects that the 

automatic issuance of toll free numbers 

can cause confusion and frustration. An 

iTRS user may not understand the 

purpose of the toll free number, or 

understand that it is duplicative of the 

local number. In addition, many iTRS 

users do not want to receive a toll free 

number, even if it is provided free of 

charge. Finally, because iTRS customers 

are issued a local number, they do not 

need toll free numbers to achieve 

functional equivalency. 

• Emergency Calling. One of the 

primary purposes for developing a 

numbering system for iTRS that is 

linked to the NANP was to ensure that 

emergency calls placed by iTRS users 

‘‘will be routed directly and 

automatically to the appropriate 

emergency services authorities’’ by iTRS 

providers. The Commission reaffirmed 

that the local numbers will ensure 

automatic routing. In a typical 911 call, 

the call taker at the PSAP will see the 

user’s local number displayed and will 

verbally confirm that number as the 

call-back number. If the person placing 

an emergency call through iTRS 

provides a toll free number as the callback number (for example, out of habit), 

there will be a discrepancy with the 

local number displayed. This 

discrepancy could cause confusion and 

in turn affect critical response time. 

• Lack of Portability and Impairment 

of Full Competition. When an iTRS 

provider secures a toll free number for 

one of its users, the ‘‘toll free 

subscriber,’’ for porting purposes of the 

toll free number, is the iTRS provider 

and not the user. Thus, when an iTRS 

user leaves the service provider, the 

user cannot easily and reliably take the 

toll free number with him or her. For 

example, many iTRS providers that 

would otherwise be a competitive 

alternative to that service provider 

simply do not support provider-paid 

personal toll free numbers. As a result, 

an iTRS user that has relied heavily on 

a personal toll free number may be 

reluctant to switch providers. Further, 

although the Commission has found that 

iTRS providers are obligated to take all 

steps necessary to port on behalf of the 

user, we do not believe this is 

consistently achievable for toll free 

numbers. Moreover, as a technical 

matter, the Commission’s iTRS 

Directory is not able to automatically 

synchronize the porting of a device’s 

local number and toll free number from 

one provider to another. 

Because local numbers are readily 

portable and toll free numbers are not, 

the automatic issuance of personal toll 

free numbers limits user choice and 

reduces competition, raising concerns 

about functional equivalency. One 

policy goal of the Commission’s 

numbering plan was to create 

competition in the iTRS market and 

enhance consumer choice. For example, 

the Commission made clear that iTRS 

users could ‘‘dial around’’ their default 

provider in order to utilize the services 

of a different iTRS provider. Moreover, 

the Commission stated that an iTRS user 

could select and register with a new 

default provider at any time and have 

his or her number ported to that 

provider. To the extent that iTRS 

providers promote the use of toll free 

numbers, that practice is at odds with 

our interoperability requirements and 

competitive goals. 

• Number Conservation. To the extent 

that iTRS providers automatically 

provide a personal toll free number at 

the same time they provide the requisite 

local number, the toll free number is 

duplicative. The Commission has 

articulated a policy of promoting 

number conservation. Issuing toll free 

numbers that do not serve a unique 

purpose, and indeed, that the customer 

does not request, undermines that 

policy. While iTRS users are free to 

obtain a toll free number in the same 

manner as hearing users do, we seek to 

discontinue the automatic and 

unnecessary dissemination of toll free 

numbers. 

• Costs to the Fund. In the Second 

Internet-based TRS Order, the 

Commission concluded that costs 

associated with iTRS users’ toll free 

numbers are not compensable from the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67339 

TRS Fund. We remain concerned, 

however, that costs associated with 

obtaining and distributing toll free 

numbers may be directly or indirectly 

compensated. We are also concerned 

that extensive use of toll free numbers 

may increase per-minute costs to the 

Fund. Although staff analysis cannot 

determine whether ‘‘unlimited free 

calling’’ encourages more calls to be 

placed from hearing people to iTRS 

users, analysis does indicate that 

‘‘unlimited free calling’’ encourages such 

calls to be held longer than otherwise 

would be the case; the extra minutes of 

traffic that toll free numbers generate in 

this fashion are compensable from the 

Fund. 

III. Discussion 

14. In this NPRM, we seek comment 

on proposed rules intended to improve 

access to telephone numbers associated 

with iTRS and to ensure that such 

numbers are assigned in the same 

manner as numbers are assigned to 

hearing telephone users. While iTRS 

users are of course free to obtain toll free 

numbers, our goal is to encourage iTRS 

users to use the local number as their 

primary—and in most cases exclusive— 

telephone number, as this is the case for 

hearing users. Similarly, the local 

number should be the number that the 

user gives out for contact information, 

applications and resumes, and online 

purchases, and that is presented, for 

example, for Caller ID purposes. We are 

not seeking to prevent deaf or hard-ofhearing individuals who want the use of 

a toll free number from obtaining one. 

Instead, we are seeking to ensure that 

toll free numbers do not serve as default 

personal numbers simply because a 

customer is deaf or hard-of-hearing. 

Deaf and hard-of-hearing users who 

wish to use a toll free number for 

business or personal use may acquire a 

toll free number, or keep a toll free 

number that an iTRS provider has 

already assigned, in a manner consistent 

with how toll free numbers are used by 

hearing individuals. 

15. Pursuant to our authority under 

sections 225 and 251 of the Act, we 

propose rules to address the problems 

identified above that are caused by the 

promotion and disproportionately high 

use of toll free numbers in connection 

with iTRS services. Moreover, we seek 

comment on ways to ensure that those 

iTRS users who have a need for toll free 

numbers for business purposes or who 

wish to obtain a toll free number for 

personal use are able to use toll free 

numbers in the same manner as hearing 

users. Our specific requests for 

comment are set forth below. 

16. User-Selected Toll Free Use. We 

propose that the first step in reforming 

the use of toll free numbers for iTRS be 

to prohibit iTRS providers, acting in the 

capacity of a user’s default number 

provider, from also automatically 

assigning a new toll free number to the 

user. The Commission’s previous efforts 

have not led to a significant reduction 

in the assignment of toll free numbers 

by iTRS providers. We therefore believe 

that immediately prohibiting iTRS 

providers from automatically issuing 

toll free numbers is the best way to 

achieve the goal of encouraging the use 

of local numbers. Furthermore, the 

consumer groups representing iTRS 

users support this approach. Indeed, 

consumer groups have expressed a 

desire to work with the Commission to 

promote use of local numbers as the 

primary contact for deaf and hard-ofhearing persons. We seek comment on 

this approach. 

17. Continuing Use of and Access to 

Toll Free Numbers. We emphasize that 

our proposed rules do not preclude 

iTRS users from having toll free 

numbers if they want them. On the 

contrary, we believe that iTRS users 

should have the same access to toll free 

numbers that hearing users do. A 

hearing user who wants a toll free 

number for personal or business use 

contacts a toll free service provider to 

obtain a toll free number; we believe 

that deaf and hard-of-hearing users 

should do the same. Moreover, we 

recognize that it would be 

disadvantageous to iTRS users who 

want to continue to use a toll free 

number to have to obtain a new number 

and inform people of that new number. 

Accordingly, we propose that any iTRS 

user who wants to keep a toll free 

number that was issued by an iTRS 

provider may do so. At the user’s 

request, the iTRS provider must 

facilitate the transfer of the user’s toll 

free number to a direct subscription 

with a toll free service provider, making 

the iTRS user the toll free subscriber for 

that number. At that point, the iTRS 

user will be a customer of the toll free 

service provider: The toll free service 

provider will bill the iTRS user directly, 

and the iTRS provider that originally 

provided the toll free number will have 

no continuing role in administering the 

toll free number on the user’s behalf. 

18. No Support for Toll Free Numbers 

from TRS Fund. The Commission has 

concluded that the costs associated with 

assigning and providing to iTRS users 

toll free numbers are not compensable 

from the TRS Fund. Thus, if an iTRS 

user transfers his or her toll free number 

from an iTRS provider to a toll free 

service provider (or obtains a toll free 

number directly from a toll free service 

provider), the user assumes 

responsibility for all costs associated 

with the toll free number. 

19. Transfer of Toll Free Numbers. We 

seek comment on ways that iTRS 

providers can help transfer a toll free 

number assigned by the iTRS provider 

to the user’s direct subscription with a 

toll free service provider. We seek 

comment on any jurisdictional or policy 

issues the Commission should consider 

in regard to this change in toll free 

subscription. Consistent with our Toll 

Free Clarification Public Notice, toll free 

numbers that are used in conjunction 

with the iTRS Numbering Directory will 

be mapped to the user’s local number. 

We seek comment on any technical or 

policy issues involved with this 

proposal or mapping the toll free 

number to the user’s local number in the 

SMS/800 database. 

20. We also seek comment on how 

iTRS providers should assist an iTRS 

user in the process of transferring his or 

her toll free number to a toll free service 

provider. We propose that, at a 

minimum, iTRS providers modify the 

user notifications they currently provide 

to include information on how users can 

acquire or transfer a toll free number 

and how toll free numbers may be 

linked to ten-digit telephone numbers in 

the iTRS Directory. We also seek 

comment on whether there are any 

additional steps the Commission should 

take to protect users or ensure they get 

unbiased and full information? We want 

to make the transition to a new toll free 

number process as easy as possible for 

iTRS users. Commenters should 

therefore address what information 

would be most helpful to users, and 

what steps the Commission can take to 

minimize customer confusion. 

21. Toll Free Numbers in the iTRS 

Directory. When a hearing customer 

obtains a toll free number from a toll 

free provider, that number is mapped to 

the user’s local number in the SMS/800 

database. We believe that when a deaf 

or hard-of-hearing person obtains a toll 

free number from a toll free provider, 

the number should also be mapped to 

the user’s local number in the iTRS 

Directory. This will permit a deaf or 

hard-of-hearing user to be reached at a 

toll free number both by other deaf and 

hard-of-hearing users on direct calls that 

are completely Internet-based, and by 

hearing users who ‘‘dial around’’ the 

user’s default provider. 

22. Parties have identified routing 

problems that occur when toll free 

numbers are not linked to the associated 

local numbers in the iTRS Directory. We 

also recognize that these routing 

problems can create a ‘‘walled garden’’ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
67340 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

for the dominant iTRS provider. 

Therefore, we believe that mapping the 

toll free number to the local number in 

the iTRS directory is an important 

aspect of functional equivalency 

because it allows deaf and hard-ofhearing users to receive calls through 

any iTRS provider, and propose that 

such mapping to the iTRS directory be 

mandatory. We seek comment on that 

proposal. 

23. Transition Period. We recognize 

that it would take time for iTRS users 

to become aware of and conform to the 

toll free number procedures that may 

result from this NPRM. We agree with 

the TDI Coalition that we need to allow 

a reasonable period of time for 

consumer outreach and education to 

transition consumers from toll free 

numbers to local numbers. We believe 

that a one-year transition period would 

be sufficient. During this time, the 

Commission, iTRS providers, and 

consumer groups can engage in outreach 

efforts to educate users on the problems 

of toll free numbers in the iTRS context, 

the benefits of using geographically 

appropriate numbers in this context, 

and the steps for obtaining toll free 

numbers directly from a toll free service 

provider. Moreover, iTRS users can 

update contact information, obtain a toll 

free number from a toll free provider, if 

desired, and make any other necessary 

adjustments. We also expect to use the 

transition period to educate users on the 

new procedures for obtaining a toll free 

number. We seek comment on our 

proposal to allow a one-year transition 

period. We also seek comment on 

whether there are any other issues we 

must consider in connection with the 

proposed transition period. 

24. Removing Non-Selected Toll Free 

Numbers from the iTRS Directory. We 

believe that an important outcome of 

this proceeding should be to cleanse the 

iTRS Directory of extra or unwanted toll 

free numbers. Accordingly, we propose 

that after the transition period, any toll 

free numbers that have not been 

mapped to local numbers in the SMS/ 

800 database by a toll free service 

provider be removed from the iTRS 

Directory. We seek comment on whether 

there is any reason not to remove these 

numbers from the iTRS Directory. 

Moreover, we seek comment on whether 

there should be a process where, during 

the transition period, iTRS users who 

know they do not want their toll free 

number(s) can request that those 

numbers be deleted from the iTRS 

Directory. Such a procedure may help 

clean up the iTRS Directory on an 

ongoing basis as opposed to being done 

all at once at the end of the transition 

period. We seek comment on whether 

this proposal may cause any service 

disruption to users and, if so, steps we 

can take to minimize such disruption. 

We also seek comment on whether there 

are any technical or policy 

considerations regarding, for example, 

toll free number administration, that 

must be addressed. 

25. Consumer Outreach. We believe 

that the success of the Commission’s 

numbering plan was in major part due 

to the outreach efforts by consumer 

groups, as well as by iTRS providers 

and the Commission. We believe this 

will be the case for our efforts to revise 

the Commission’s policies and 

procedures regarding toll free number 

use in connection with iTRS service as 

well. Consumer groups representing 

deaf and hard-of-hearing iTRS users 

have stated that iTRS providers have 

given inconsistent information 

regarding the use of and need for toll 

free numbers. We recognize that deaf 

and hard-of-hearing individuals may be 

used to the current process for obtaining 

toll free numbers and that any change 

will require substantial education and 

outreach. We also recognize that iTRS 

providers will need to play a major role 

in consumer education because of their 

relationships with the users and their 

history as providers of toll free numbers. 

Consumer advocacy groups as well as 

the Commission will also play a 

significant role in consumer outreach 

and education efforts. The Commission 

is committed as well to playing a 

significant role in conducting consumer 

outreach and education on this issue. 

We seek input on ways to make 

information about the availability and 

use of toll free numbers available to 

iTRS users, such as fact sheets and Web 

sites. We encourage consumers to assist 

in outreach efforts through their 

community contacts, and welcome other 

ideas about what the Commission might 

do to help facilitate consumer outreach 

efforts. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

1. Ex Parte Presentations 

26. This proceeding shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. Other requirements pertaining 

to oral and written presentations are set 

forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules. 

2. Comment Filing Procedures 

27. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, interested 

parties may file comments and reply 

comments regarding the further notice 

on or before the dates indicated on the 

first page of this document. All filings 

should refer to WC Docket No. 10–191. 

Comments may be filed using: (1) The 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS); (2) the Federal 

Government’s e-Rulemaking Portal; or 

(3) by filing paper copies. 

28. Electronic Filers: Comments may 

be filed electronically using the Internet 

by accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

29. Paper Filers: Parties who choose 

to file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

30. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

31. Effective December 28, 2009, 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 

overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal 

Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) 

must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 

Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. 

Postal Service first-class, Express, and 

Priority mail must be addressed to 445 

12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554. 

32. People with Disabilities: 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 

and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 

202–418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 

(tty). 

33. Parties should send a copy of their 

filings to Heather Hendrickson, 

Competition Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, Room 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67341 

5–C225, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554, or by e-mail to 

heather.hendrickson@fcc.gov. Parties 

shall also serve one copy with the 

Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals 

II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488–5300, 

or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com. 

34. Documents in WC Docket No. 

10–191 will be available for public 

inspection and copying during business 

hours at the FCC Reference Information 

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

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

The documents may also be purchased 

from BCPI, telephone (202) 488–5300, 

facsimile (202) 488–5563, TTY (202) 

488–5562, e-mail fcc@bcpiweb.com. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

35. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 225, 251(e), and 255 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

225, 251(e), and 255, and §§ 0.91, 0.141, 

0.291, 0.361, and 1.3 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.141, 

0.291, 0.361, 1.3, that this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. 

36. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this NPRM, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Telecommunications. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 64 as follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

1. The authority citation for part 64 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403 

(b)(2)(B), Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat. 56. 

Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 

225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise 

noted. 

2. Section 64.611 is amended by 

redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as 

paragraphs (f) and (g), by adding a new 

paragraph (e) and by adding paragraph 

(g)(1)(v) and (g)(1)(vi) to read as follows: 

§ 64.611 Internet-based TRS registration. 

* * * * * 

(e) Toll free numbers. A VRS or IP 

Relay provider: 

(1) May not assign or issue a toll free 

number to any VRS or IP Relay user. 

(2) That has already assigned or 

provided a toll free number to a VRS or 

IP Relay user must, at the VRS or IP 

Relay user’s request, facilitate the 

transfer of the toll free number to a toll 

free subscription with a toll free service 

provider that is under the direct control 

of the user. 

(3) Must remove from the Internetbased TRS Numbering Directory any toll 

free number that has not been 

transferred to a subscription with a toll 

free service provider and for which the 

user is the subscriber of record as of 

[end date of transition period]. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) The process by which a VRS or IP 

Relay user may acquire a toll free 

number from a toll free service provider, 

or transfer control of a toll free number 

from a VRS or IP Relay provider to the 

user; and 

(vi) The process by which persons 

holding a toll free number may have 

that number linked to their ten-digit 

telephone number in the TRS 

Numbering Directory. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 64.613 is amended by 

redesignating paragraph (a)(3) as (a)(4), 

by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), 

and by adding a new paragraph (a)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 64.613 Numbering directory for Internetbased TRS users. 

(a) * * * 

(1) The TRS Numbering Directory 

shall contain records mapping the 

geographically appropriate NANP 

telephone number of each Registered 

Internet-based TRS User to a unique 

Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). 

(2) For each record associated with a 

VRS user’s geographically appropriate 

NANP telephone number, the URI shall 

contain the IP address of the user’s 

device. For each record associated with 

an IP Relay user’s geographically 

appropriate NANP telephone number, 

the URI shall contain the user’s user 

name and domain name that can be 

subsequently resolved to reach the user. 

(3) As of [date reserved], Internetbased TRS providers must ensure that 

the toll free number of a user that is 

associated with a geographically 

appropriate NANP number will be 

associated with the same URI as that 

geographically appropriate NANP 

telephone number. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–27578 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2010–0055; MO– 

92210–0–0008–B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Bay Springs 

Salamander as Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 

finding on a petition to list the Bay 

Springs salamander (Plethodon 

ainsworthi) as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. Based on our review, we find 

the petition does not present substantial 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted at this time. Therefore, we 

are not initiating a status review in 

response to this petition. However, we 

ask the public to submit to us any new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the status of, or threats to, 

the Bay Springs salamander or its 

habitat at any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on November 2, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R4–ES–2010–0055. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, MS Field Office, 

6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, 

Mississippi 39213. Please submit any 

new information, materials, comments, 

or questions concerning this finding to 

the above street address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, 

Mississippi Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES), by telephone (601–321– 

1122), or by facsimile (601–965–4340). 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS