[Federal Register: September 1, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 169)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53346-53352]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01se04-8]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket Nos. 90-571 and 98-67; FCC 04-137]
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission addresses cost recovery and
other matters relating to the provision of telecommunications relay
services (TRS) pursuant to Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (ADA). This document is intended to improve the overall
effectiveness of TRS to ensure that persons with hearing and speech
disabilities have access to telecommunications networks that is
consistent with the goal of functional equivalency mandated by
Congress.
DATES: Effective October 1, 2004 except for the amendment to Sec.
64.604 (a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which contains information
collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that
are not effective until approved by Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). Written comments by the public on the new and modified
information collections are due November 1, 2004. The Commission will
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective
date for that section.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
information collection requirements contained herein should be
submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room
1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet
to Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov, and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer,
Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, via the
Internet to Kristy_L._LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, or via fax at (202) 395-
5167.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl King, of the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-2284 (voice), (202) 418-0416
(TTY), or e-mail Cheryl.King@fcc.gov. For additional information
concerning the PRA information collection
[[Page 53347]]
requirements contained in this document, contact Judith B. Herman at
(202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Report and Order, Order on
Reconsideration contains new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. These will
be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other
Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified
information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. The
Report and Order addresses issues arising from Telecommunications Relay
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and
Speech Disabilities, Cost Recovery Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (TRS Cost Recovery MO&O &
FNPRM), CC Docket No. 98-67, FCC 01-371, 16 FCC Rcd 22948, December 21,
2001; published at 67 FR 4203, January 29, 2002 and 67 FR 4227, January
29, 2002; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,
Declaratory Ruling and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (IP Relay
Declaratory Ruling & FNPRM), CC Docket No. 98-67, FCC 02-121, 17 FCC
Rcd 7779, April 22, 2002; published at 67 FR 39863 , June 11, 2002 and
67 FR 39929, June 11, 2002; Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Second Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, (Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM), CC Docket 98-67,CG
Docket 03-123, FCC 03-112, 18 FCC Rcd 12379, June 17, 2003; published
at 68 FR 50973, August 25, 2003 and 68 FR 50993, August 25, 2003;
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, (VRS Waiver Order),
CC Docket 98-67, DA 01-3029, 17 FCC Rcd 157, December 31, 2001; Sprint
Petition for Declaratory Ruling, (711 Petition), CC Docket 98-67, filed
May 27, 2003; Hands on Sign Language Services, Inc., Application for
Certification as an Eligible VRS Provider, Request for Expedited
Processing and Request for Temporary Certification During Processing
(Hands on Application), CC Docket 98-67, filed August 30, 2002; and
Communication Services for the Deaf, Petition for Limited Waiver and
Request for Expedited Relief, (CSD Petition), CC Docket 98-67, filed
June 12, 2003. The Order on Reconsideration resolves petitions filed
against the Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, (Bureau
TRS Order), CC Docket 98-67, DA 03-2111, 18 FCC Rcd 12823, June 30,
2003; Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM; and the Telecommunications
Relay Services and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (Coin
Sent-Paid Fifth Report and Order), CC Docket 90-571, FCC 02-269, 17 FCC
Rcd 21233, October 25 2003; published at 68 FR 6352, February 7, 2003
and 68 FR 8553, February 24, 2003. Copies of any subsequently filed
documents in 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. The complete text of this decision may be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554. Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. at their 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) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This Report and Order, Order on
Reconsideration can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document
Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration contains new or
modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the
general public to comment on the information collection requirements
contained in the Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration as required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public
and agency comments are due November 1, 2004. In addition, the
Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we
previously sought specific comment on how to Commission might ``further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees.'' In this present document, we have
assessed the effects of the new rule changes that clarify many of the
current requirements for TRS providers which impose new and/or modified
reporting requirements for TRS providers, and find that most TRS
providers are not small entities, and are either interexchange carriers
or incumbent local exchange carriers, with very few exceptions. The
Commission refrained from requiring features such as interrupt
functionality and talking return call because comments expressed
concern that such features might be cost prohibitive, and might be
unduly burdensome to the TRS provider and the TRS user. This Report and
Order adopts rules that will improve the effectiveness of TRS and
ensure access to telecommunications networks for persons with hearing
and speech disabilities while imposing the least necessary regulation.
Because such cost-prohibitive and unduly burdensome measures were
rejected by the Commission, no arbitrary and unfair burdens are thereby
imposed on smaller entities.
Synopsis
In this Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, the Commission
addresses cost recovery and other matters relating to the provision of
telecommunications relay services (TRS) pursuant to Title IV of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The Report and Order
addresses: (1) Cost recovery issues arising from the TRS Cost Recovery
MO&O &FNPRM; (2) cost recovery issues arising from the IP Relay
Declaratory Ruling & FNPRM; (3) issues arising from the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking contained in the Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM;
(4) petitions seeking extension of the waivers set forth in the VRS
Waiver Order; (5) the 711 Petition; (6) the petition by a provider of
VRS for ``certification'' as a TRS provider eligible to receive
compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund; and (7) the petition for
limited waiver concerning Video Relay Service (VRS) and interpreting in
state legal proceedings. The Order on Reconsideration addresses
petitions for reconsideration of three TRS matters: (1) the petitions
for reconsideration of the June 30, 2003 Bureau TRS Order with respect
to the per-minute compensation rate for VRS; (2) the Second Improved
TRS Order & NPRM; and (3) the Coin Sent-Paid Fifth Report & Order.
[[Page 53348]]
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (CG Docket No. 03-123)
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), (see 5 U.S.C. 603; the RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 14-121, Title II, 110 Statute 857 (1996)), an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to which this Report and Order
responds. Telecommunication Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Second
Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 03-112, 18
FCC Rcd 12379 (June 17, 2003) (Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM). The
Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM
section of the Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM, including comment on
the IRFA incorporated in that proceeding. The comments we have received
discuss only the general recommendations, not the IRFA. This present
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. See 5
U.S.C. 604. We also expect that we could certify the Report and Order
under 5 U.S.C. 605 because it appears that only one TRS provider is
likely a small entity (because it is a non-profit organization).
Therefore, there are not a substantial number of small entities that
may be affected by our action.
Need for, and Objective of, This Report and Order
This proceeding was generally initiated to establish technological
advancements that could improve the level and quality of service
provided through TRS for the benefit of the community of TRS users.
This proceeding would ensure compliance with the requirement that
telecommunications relay services (TRS) users have access to telephone
services that are functionally equivalent to those available to
individuals without hearing or speech disabilities. The intent of the
proposed rules is to improve the overall effectiveness of TRS, and to
improve the Commission's oversight of certified state TRS programs and
our ability to compel compliance with the federal mandatory minimum
standards for TRS.
The Commission issued the NPRM in the Second Improved TRS Order &
NPRM to seek public comment on technological advances that could
improve the level and quality of service provided through TRS for the
benefit of TRS users. In doing so, the Commission sought to enhance the
quality of TRS and broaden the potential universe of TRS users,
consistent with Congress's direction under 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(2) that TRS
regulations encourage the use of existing technology and not discourage
or impair the development of improved technology. The Commission sought
comment on: (1) Whether, in times of emergency, TRS services should be
made available on the same basis as telephone services for the general
public, and whether the Commission's rules should be amended to provide
for continuity of operation for TRS facilities in the event of an
emergency; (2) whether additional requirements were necessary for
ensuring the security of IP Relay transmissions; (3) how TRS facilities
might determine the appropriate PSAP to call when receiving an
emergency 711 call via a wireless device; (4) whether wireless carriers
should be required to transmit Phase I or Phase II E-911 information to
TRS facilities; (5) whether certain additional features, services, or
requirements should be required, namely non-shared language TRS, speed
of answer and call set-up times for the various forms of TRS, use of
communication access real-time translation (CART), interrupt
functionality, LEC offerings, talking return call, speech recognition
technology, improved transmission speeds, and additional TTY protocols;
(6) issues concerning increasing public access to information and
outreach; and (7) procedures for determining eligibility payments from
the Interstate TRS Fund. The intent of the proposed rules is to improve
the overall effectiveness of TRS, and to improve the Commission's
oversight of certified state TRS programs and our ability to compel
compliance with the federal mandatory minimum standards for TRS.
In this Report and Order, the Commission establishes new rules and
amends existing rules governing TRS to further advance the functional
equivalency mandate of section 225. First, the Commission adopts the
per minute reimbursement methodology for IP Relay. Second, the
Commission requires that TRS providers offer anonymous call rejection,
call screening, and preferred call-forwarding to the extent that such
features are provided by the subscriber's LEC and the TRS facility
possesses the necessary technology to pass through the subscriber's
Caller ID information to the LEC. Third, the Commission grants VRS
waiver requests of the following TRS mandatory minimum requirements:
(1) Types of calls that must be handled; (2) emergency call handling;
(3) speed of answer; (4) equal access to interexchange carriers; (5)
pay-per-call services; (6) voice initiated calls--VCO and HCO; (7)
provision of STS and Spanish Relay. Fourth, the Commission amends the
definition of ``711'' by deleting the words ``all types of'' from the
definition, in order to clarify its meaning. Fifth, in the Order on
Reconsideration, the Commission adopts the interim TRS compensation
rates for traditional TRS, IP Relay and STS that were established in
the Bureau TRS Order. See Bureau TRS Order. The Commission also adopts
a compensation rate for VRS that increases the interim rate established
in the Bureau TRS Order. Sixth, the Commission has amended the
definition for an ``appropriate'' PSAP to be either a PSAP that the
caller would have reached if he had dialed 911 directly, or a PSAP that
is capable of enabling the dispatch of emergency services to the caller
in an expeditious manner. These amended and new rules will improve the
overall effectiveness of TRS to ensure that persons with hearing and
speech disabilities have access to telecommunications networks that is
consistent with the goal of functional equivalency mandated by
Congress. No changes were made to the following items proposed in the
NPRM: (1) Whether, in times of emergency, TRS services should be made
available on the same basis as telephone services for the general
public, and whether the Commission's rules should be amended to provide
for continuity of operation for TRS facilities in the event of an
emergency; (2) whether additional requirements are necessary for
ensuring the security of IP Relay transmissions; (3) whether wireless
carriers should be required to transmit Phase I or Phase II E-911
information to TRS facilities; (4) whether certain additional features,
services or requirements should be required for non-shared language
TRS, speed of answer and call set-up times for the various forms of
TRS, use of communication access real-time translation (CART),
interrupt functionality, talking return call, speech recognition
technology, improved transmission speeds, and additional TTY protocols;
(5) issues concerning increasing public access to information and
outreach; and (6) procedures for determining eligibility payments from
the Interstate TRS Fund.
[[Page 53349]]
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRFA
No comments were filed directly in response to the IRFA in this
proceeding. Furthermore, no small business issues were raised in the
comments. The Commission has nonetheless considered the potential
significant economic impact of the rules on small entities and, as
discussed below, has concluded that the rules adopted may impose some
economic burden on at least one small entity that is a TRS provider.
Accordingly, in consideration of this small entity and other small
entities that may be similarly situated, we issue this final regulatory
flexibility analysis rather than issue a final regulatory flexibility
certification.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
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 rules adopted herein. 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3). The RFA
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 5 U.S.C. 601(3), 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.'' 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). 15 U.S.C. 632. A small organization is generally ``any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entity
licensees and regulatees that, in theory, may be affected by these
rules. For some categories, the most reliable source of information
available at this time is data the Commission publishes in its Trends
in Telephone Service Report. FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry
Analysis and Technology Division, ``Trends in Telephone Service'' at
Table 5.3, Page 5-5 (Aug. 2003) (Trends in Telephone Service). This
source uses data that are current as of December 31, 2001.
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard specifically directed toward
providers of incumbent local exchange service. The closest applicable
size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517110. This provides that such a
carrier is small entity if it employs no more than 1,500 employees.
Commission data from 2001 indicate that there are 1,337 incumbent local
exchange carriers, total, with approximately 1,032 having 1,500 or
fewer employees. Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3. The small
carrier number is an estimate and might include some carriers that are
not independently owned and operated; we are therefore unable at this
time to estimate with greater precision the number of these carriers
that would qualify as small businesses under SBA's. Therefore, the
majority of entities in these categories are small entities.
Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. We have included small
incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. As
noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter
alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a
telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and
``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' 15 U.S.C. 632. The SBA's
Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent
local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation
because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. Letter from
Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard,
Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a
definition of ``small-business concern,'' which the RFA incorporates
into its own definition of ``small business.'' See 15 U.S.C. 632(a)
(Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret
``small business concern'' to include the concept of dominance on a
national basis. 13 CFR 121.102(b). We have therefore included small
incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we
emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size standard specifically directed toward
providers of interexchange service. The closest applicable size
standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517110. This provides that such a carrier is
small entity if it employs no more than 1,500 employees. Commission
data from 2001 indicate that there are 261 interexchange carriers,
total, with approximately 223 having 1,500 or fewer employees. Trends
in Telephone Service at Table 5.3. The small carrier number is an
estimate and might include some carriers that are not independently
owned and operated; we are therefore unable at this time to estimate
with greater precision the number of these carriers that would qualify
as small businesses under SBA's size standard. Consequently, we
estimate that there are no more than 223 interexchange carriers that
are small businesses possibly affected by our action.
TRS Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
definition of ``small entity'' specifically directed toward providers
of telecommunications relay services (TRS). Again, the closest
applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517110.
Currently, there are 10 interstate TRS providers, which consist of
interexchange carriers, local exchange carriers, state-managed
entities, and non-profit organizations. The Commission estimates that
at least one TRS provider is a small entity under the applicable size
standard. The FCC notes that these providers include several large
interexchange carriers and incumbent local exchange carriers. Some of
these large carriers may only provide TRS service in a small area but
they nevertheless are not small business entities. MCI (WorldCom), for
example, provides TRS in only a few states but is not a small business.
Consequently, the FCC estimates that at least one TRS provider is a
small entity that may be affected by our action.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
Reporting and Recordkeeping. This Report and Order may involve new
mandatory reporting requirements. First, the Commission requires that
TRS providers offer anonymous call rejection, call screening, and
preferred
[[Page 53350]]
call-forwarding to the extent that such features are provided by the
subscriber's LEC and the TRS facility possesses the necessary
technology to pass through the subscriber's Caller ID information to
the LEC. However, the Commission does not adopt specific requirements
for the functionality of these features. We anticipate that TRS
providers will offer these features to the extent, and in a manner,
that is best suited to their facilities. Second, the Commission granted
waiver requests of the Commission's mandatory minimum standards for
VRS, providing that VRS providers submit annual reports to the
Commission. The report must be in narrative form detailing; (1) the
provider's plan or general approach to meeting the waiver standards;
(2) any additional costs that would be required to meet the standards;
(3) the development of any new technology that may affect the
particular waivers; (4) the progress made by the provider to meet the
standard; (5) the specific steps taken to resolve any technical
problems that prohibit the provider from meeting the standards; and (6)
any other factors relevant to whether the waivers should continue in
effect. The report may be combined with the existing VRS/IP Relay
reporting requirements scheduled to be submitted annually to the
Commission on April 16th of each year. All such compliance requirements
will affect small and large entities equally, with no arbitrary, unfair
or undue burden for small entities.
Other Compliance Requirements. The rules adopted in this Report and
Order require that TRS facilities route emergency TRS calls to either a
PSAP that the caller would have reached if he had dialed 911 directly,
or a PSAP that is capable of enabling the dispatch of emergency
services to the caller in an expeditious manner to the designated PSAP
to which a direct voice call from a non-TRS number would be delivered.
Furthermore, the rules require that TRS facilities provide certain
technological features including: anonymous call rejection, call
screening, and preferred call-forwarding. These rules will affect TRS
providers. All such compliance requirements will affect small and large
entities equally, with no arbitrary, unfair or undue burden for small
entities.
Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
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 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) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
One of the main purposes of this Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration is to clarify many of the current requirements for TRS
providers. The Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration impose new
and/or modified reporting requirements for TRS providers. In addition,
they impose new service requirements. Because these new service
requirements are similar to services currently being offered, the
Commission expects a minimal impact on small business. First, the
Commission permanently adopts the per minute reimbursement methodology
for IP Relay. The per-minute reimbursement methodology simplifies the
compliance and reporting requirements for small entities by permanently
adopting the interim methodology. Second, the Commission requires that
TRS providers offer anonymous call rejection, call screening, and
preferred call-forwarding to the extent that such features are provided
by the subscriber's LEC and to the extent that the TRS facility will
possess the necessary technology to pass through the subscriber's
Caller ID information to the LEC. This new requirement does not
adversely impact small business entities because these features are
only required where it is technologically feasible to do so; the
Commission does not require providers to purchase new equipment or
upgrade their equipment to accommodate these new requirements. Third,
the Commission grants waiver requests of several TRS mandatory minimum
requirements for VRS service. These standards were waived because the
Commission determined that they were either technologically infeasible,
extremely difficult to comply with given the infancy of the service, or
they were more closely related to verbal communication, as opposed to a
visual service. Furthermore, these waivers consolidate the reporting
requirements for providers, and ensure that VRS facilities are only
responsible for those rules that are technologically feasible.
Therefore, these waivers have no adverse impact on small businesses.
Fourth, the Commission amends the definition of ``711'' by deleting the
words ``all types of'' from the definition, in order to clarify its
meaning. This rule clarifies the definition of 711, thereby simplifying
the application of the rule for TRS providers. This clarification has
no adverse impact on small entities but, on the contrary, will benefit
all entities equally. Fifth, in the Order on Reconsideration, the
Commission adopts the interim TRS compensation rates for traditional
TRS, IP Relay, and STS for the 2003-2004 fund year that were
established in the Bureau TRS Order, and are effective from June 30,
2003, through the June 30, 2004, end of fund year. The Commission also
adopts a compensation rate for VRS that increases the interim rate
established in the Bureau TRS Order; the new rate is effective from
September 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. The new VRS compensation rate
was established after review of supplemental expense and service data
filed with the TRS administrator. The per-minute reimbursement
methodology takes into account the projected cost and demand data of
all TRS providers for a given service. Therefore, it does not unduly
burden small businesses. Sixth, the Commission has amended the
definition for an ``appropriate'' PSAP to be either a PSAP that the
caller would have reached if he had dialed 911 directly, or a PSAP that
is capable of enabling the dispatch of emergency services to the caller
in an expeditious manner. The revision of this rule simplifies the
ability of TRS providers to comply with the Commission's emergency call
handling requirement for TRS. The revision has no adverse impact on
small entities.
Currently, most TRS providers are not small entities, and are
either interexchange carriers or incumbent local exchange carriers,
with very few exceptions. The Commission refrained from requiring
features such as interrupt functionality and talking return call
because commenters expressed concern that such features might be cost
prohibitive, and might be unduly burdensome to the TRS provider and the
TRS user. This Report and Order adopts rules that will improve the
effectiveness of TRS and ensure access to telecommunications networks
for persons with hearing and speech disabilities while imposing the
least necessary regulation. Because such cost-prohibitive and unduly
burdensome measures were rejected by the Commission, no arbitrary and
unfair burdens are thereby imposed on smaller entities.
[[Page 53351]]
Report to Congress
The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, Order on
Reconsideration, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the
Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Report and
Order, Order on Reconsideration and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will
also be published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1,2,
4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 218, and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 218, and 225,
this Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration are adopted, and part
64 of Commission's rules is amended as set forth in the rule changes.
Hamilton's Petition for Waiver Extension is granted to the extent
indicated herein.
Hands On's Petition for Waiver is granted to the extent indicated
herein.
Sprint's Petition for Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 98-67
(filed May 27, 2003) (711 Petition) is granted as provided herein.
Hands On's Application for Certification as an Eligible VRS
Provider (filed August 30, 2002) (Hands On Application) is dismissed
without prejudice.
Communication Services for the Deaf, Petition for Limited Waiver
and Request for Expedited Relief, CC Docket 98-67 (filed June 12, 2003)
(CSD Petition) is denied as provided herein.
The petitions of AT&T, CSD, Hands On, Sorenson, and Sprint for
reconsideration of the Bureau TRS Order are denied.
The Interstate TRS Fund shall compensate VRS providers at the rate
of $8.854 per completed interstate or intrastate conversation minute,
which rate shall apply to the provision of eligible VRS services by
eligible VRS providers effective September 1, 2003.
Interim per-minute compensation rates set forth in the Bureau TRS
Order for traditional TRS, IP Relay, and STS are hereby adopted as the
final compensation rates for such services for the period July 1, 2003,
through June 30, 2004. These rates are $1.368 per completed interstate
conversation minute for traditional TRS and per completed interstate or
intrastate conversation minute for IP Relay; and $2.445 per completed
interstate conversation minute for STS.
Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, the Bureau TRS
Order is affirmed.
Petitions for reconsideration of Telecommunication Relay Services
and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Fifth Report and
Order, CC Docket No. 90-571, FCC 02-269, 17 FCC Rcd 21233 (Oct. 25,
2002) (Coin Sent-Paid Fifth Report & Order) are denied as provided
herein.
Petitions for reconsideration of Telecommunication Relay Services
and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 98-67, FCC 03-112,
18 FCC Rcd 12379 (June 17, 2003) (Second Improved TRS Order) are
granted to the extent indicated herein.
Amendments to Sec. Sec. 64.601 through 64.605 of the Commission's
rules are adopted, effective October 1, 2004 except Sec. 64.604 (a)(4)
of the Commission's rules which contains information collection
requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), that are not
effective until approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing
the effective date for that section.
The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, Order
on Reconsideration, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Telecommunications, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
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), (c),
Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201,
218, 225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 64.601 is amended by revising paragraph (1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 64.601 Definitions.
* * * * *
(1) 711. The abbreviated dialing code for accessing relay services
anywhere in the United States.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 64.604 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4),
(c)(5)(iii)(B) and (c)(5)(iii)(I) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.604 Mandatory minimum standards.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(4) Handling of emergency calls. Providers must use a system for
incoming emergency calls that, at a minimum, automatically and
immediately transfers the caller to the nearest Public Safety Answering
Point (PSAP). An appropriated PSAP is either a PSAP that the caller
would have reached if he had dialed 911 directly, or a PSAP that is
capable of enabling the dispatch of emergency services to the caller in
an expeditious manner.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) Contribution computations. Contributors' contribution to the
TRS fund shall be the product of their subject revenues for the prior
calendar year and a contribution factor determined annually by the
Commission. The contribution factor shall be based on the ratio between
expected TRS Fund expenses to interstate end-user telecommunications
revenues. In the event that contributions exceed TRS payments and
administrative costs, the contribution factor for the following year
will be adjusted by an appropriate amount, taking into consideration
projected cost and usage changes. In the event that contributions are
inadequate, the fund administrator may request authority from the
Commission to borrow funds commercially, with such debt secured by
future years' contributions. Each subject carrier must contribute at
least $25 per year. Carriers whose annual contributions total less than
$1,200 must pay the entire contribution at the beginning of the
contribution period. Service providers whose contributions total $1,200
or more may divide their contributions into equal monthly payments.
Carriers shall complete and submit, and contributions shall be based
on, a ``Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet'' (as published by the
Commission in the Federal Register). The worksheet shall be certified
to by an
[[Page 53352]]
officer of the contributor, and subject to verification by the
Commission or the administrator at the discretion of the Commission.
Contributors' statements in the worksheet shall be subject to the
provisions of section 220 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended. The fund administrator may bill contributors a separate
assessment for reasonable administrative expenses and interest
resulting from improper filing or overdue contributions. The Chief of
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau may waive, reduce, modify or
eliminate contributor reporting requirements that prove unnecessary and
require additional reporting requirements that the Bureau deems
necessary to the sound and efficient administration of the TRS Fund.
* * * * *
(I) Information filed with the administrator. The administrator
shall keep all data obtained from contributors and TRS providers
confidential and shall not disclose such data in company-specific form
unless directed to do so by the Commission. Subject to any restrictions
imposed by the Chief of the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, the
TRS Fund administrator may share data obtained from carriers with the
administrators of the universal support mechanisms (See 47 CFR 54.701
of this chapter), the North American Numbering Plan administration cost
recovery (See 47 CFR 52.16 of this chapter), and the long-term local
number portability cost recovery (See 47 CFR 52.32 of this chapter).
The TRS Fund administrator shall keep confidential all data obtained
from other administrators. The administrator shall not use such data
except for purposes of administering the TRS Fund, calculating the
regulatory fees of interstate common carriers, and aggregating such fee
payments for submission to the Commission. The Commission shall have
access to all data reported to the administrator, and authority to
audit TRS providers. Contributors may make requests for Commission
nondisclosure of company-specific revenue information under Sec. 0.459
of this chapter by so indicating on the Telecommunications Reporting
Worksheet at the time that the subject data are submitted. The
Commission shall make all decisions regarding nondisclosure of company-
specific information.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 64.605 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 64.605 State certification.
(a) State documentation. Any state, through its office of the
governor or other delegated executive office empowered to provide TRS,
desiring to establish a state program under this section shall submit,
not later than October 1, 1992, documentation to the Commission
addressed to the Federal Communications Commission, Chief, Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, TRS Certification Program, Washington, DC
20554, and captioned ``TRS State Certification Application.'' All
documentation shall be submitted in narrative form, shall clearly
describe the state program for implementing intrastate TRS, and the
procedures and remedies for enforcing any requirements imposed by the
state program. The Commission shall give public notice of states filing
for certification including notification in the Federal Register.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-19955 Filed 8-31-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P