[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 23, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14568-14570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5736]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123; DA 05-447]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Clarification.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission addresses the current waiver 
of the telecommunications relay services (TRS) requirement that TRS 
providers (including providers of captioned telephone service) offer 
three-way calling functionality as a TRS mandatory standard. Also in 
this document, the Commission clarifies the manner in which TRS 
providers may comply with this rule; as a result, a waiver of this 
requirement is no longer necessary.

DATES: Effective February 18, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Jackson, Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at (202) 418-2247 (voice), 
(202) 418-7898 (TTY), or e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 17, 2003, the Commission released a 
Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration (Second Improved TRS 
Order), published at 68 FR 50973, August 25, 2003, CC Docket No. 98-67 
and CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 03-112. In the Second Improved TRS Order, 
the Commission required that TRS providers offer three-way calling as a 
standard feature of TRS. On February 24, 2004, the Commission released 
an order waiving the requirement that TRS providers offer three-way 
calling functionality for one year until February 25, 2005. On November 
30, 2004, the Commission released a Public Notice, published at 70 FR 
2360, January 13, 2005, CC Docket No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123; 
DA 04-3709, seeking comment on whether TRS providers (including 
providers of captioned telephone service) will be able to offer the 
three-way calling functionality as a TRS mandatory minimum standard as 
of the February 24, 2005, waiver expiration date, or whether it is 
necessary to extend this waiver. Also, in that document, the Commission 
sought comment on whether, instead of a waiver, the requirement might 
be modified or clarified, and, if so, how. This is a summary of the 
Commission's document DA 05-447, released February 18, 2005. This 
document does not contain new or modified information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. In addition, 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, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). The 
Commission will not send a copy of this document pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act because the document neither adopts nor 
modifies a rule, but clarifies an existing rule. See 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A). To request materials in accessible formats for people 
with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 
(TTY). This document can also be downloaded in Word or Portable

[[Page 14569]]

Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.

Synopsis

    In the Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM, the Commission required 
that TRS providers offer three-way calling as a standard feature of 
TRS. See Telecommunications 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 and CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 03-112; 
published at 68 FR 50973 and 68 FR 50993, August 25, 2003, (Second 
Improved TRS Order & NPRM). We defined three-way calling to be a TRS 
feature that allows more than two parties to be on the telephone line 
at the same time with the communications assistant (CA). We stated that 
three-way calling could be arranged in one of two ways: first, the TRS 
consumer may request that the TRS facility and the CA set up the call 
with two other parties, or, second, one of the parties to the call may 
set up the call.
    In the August 1, 2003, Captioned Telephone Order, we recognized 
captioned telephone service as a type of TRS. See Telecommunications 
Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with 
Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 98-
67, FCC 03-190; published at 68 FR 55898, September 29, 2003, 
(Captioned Telephone Order). Captioned telephone service is an enhanced 
Voice Carry Over (VCO) service that allows a user, on one standard 
telephone line, to both listen to what the other party is saying and 
simultaneously read captions of what the other party is saying. This 
way, a typical user of this service, who has the ability to speak and 
some residual hearing, can both listen to what is said over the 
telephone and read captions for clarification. A CA using specially 
developed voice recognition technology generates the captions. That 
order did not waive the requirement that providers of captioned 
telephone service offer three-way calling.
    On September 24, 2003, AT&T Corp. (AT&T) filed a petition seeking 
waiver of the deadline for providing three-way calling, asserting it 
was not possible for the TRS facility to set up a three-way call, 
subject to clarification regarding how three-way calling may be 
provided in compliance with the Commission's regulations. See AT&T 
Petition for Limited Reconsideration and for Waiver at 7-10 (filed 
Sept. 24, 2003) (AT&T Waiver Request). The AT&T Waiver Request was 
placed on Public Notice and comments and reply comments were received 
in response. All of the commenters stated that they interpreted the 
three-way calling requirement to be fully satisfied if a TRS facility 
processes such a call initiated by an end user using a LEC's customer 
calling service (CCS) feature. See Three-Way Calling Waiver Order at 
paragraph 4 &n.9 19 FCC Rcd 2993, February 24, 2004.
    On December 11, 2003, Ultratec, Inc. (Ultratec) and Sprint 
Corporation (Sprint) filed a joint petition, (see Petition for 
Clarification by Ultratec, Inc. and Sprint Corporation) (filed Dec. 11, 
2003) (Joint Petition), seeking clarification that the three-way 
calling requirement either does not apply to captioned telephone 
service, such as CapTel, or, in the alternative, that a TRS provider 
complies with this rule regardless of the actual method used to set up 
these calls. CapTel is a proprietary technology of Ultratec. See 
Captioned Telephone Order at paragraph 4 n. 11.
    On February 24, 2004, in response to these petitions, the Consumer 
& Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) released an order waiving the 
requirement that TRS providers offer three-way calling functionality 
for one year, i.e., until February 24, 2005. See Three-Way Calling 
Waiver Order at paragraph 5. The Bureau noted that it was not 
technologically possible for a TRS facility to set up a three-way call.
    On November 30, 2004, in anticipation of the February 24, 2005 
expiration date of the three-way calling waiver as set forth in the 
Three-Way Calling Waiver Order, the Commission released a Public Notice 
seeking comment on whether TRS providers would be able to offer three-
way calling as of the waiver expiration date, or whether it is 
necessary to extend the waiver. See Federal Communications Commission 
Seeks Comment on Expiration of Waiver of Three-Way Calling Requirement 
for Providers of Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), in CC Docket 
No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, DA 04-3709; published at 70 FR 2360, 
January 13, 2005. The Commission also sought comment on whether, 
instead of a waiver, the requirement might be modified or clarified 
and, if so, how.
    In response to the November 30, 2004, Public Notice, four comments 
and two reply comments were filed. Comments were filed by AT&T (Dec. 
17, 2004); MCI (Dec. 17, 2004); SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) (Dec. 
17, 2004); and Ultratec, Sprint, & Hamilton Relay, Inc. (Hamilton) (as 
Joint Commenters) (Dec. 17, 2004). Reply Comments were filed by 
Hamilton (Dec. 30, 2004) and by Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. 
(TDI) & National Association of the Deaf (NAD) (as Joint Commenters) 
(Dec. 30, 2004). All commenters generally agree that it is still not 
technologically possible for a TRS facility to originate or set up a 
three-way call. See AT&T Comments at 3-4; SBC Comments at 2; Ultratec, 
Sprint, & Hamilton Joint Comments at 3-6; Hamilton Reply Comments at 2; 
and TDI & NAD Joint Reply Comments at 2. MCI, however, suggests that it 
can establish a three-way call, and that the waiver for three-way 
calling should be allowed to expire. MCI Comments at 2.
    All parties also generally agree that the three-way calling 
requirement should be deemed satisfied if the provider handles or 
facilitates a three-way call when arranged by one of the parties to the 
call. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 3; Ultratec, Sprint, & Hamilton Joint 
Comments at 4-6. AT&T states, for example, that it ``processes three-
way TRS calls established by the end user through LEC-provided CCS 
[custom calling features] or through bridging via the user's own 
premises equipment,'' and that ``the most reasonable interpretation of 
the Second Improved TRS Order is that the Commission requirement is 
fully satisfied if a TRS center processes such three-way calling 
initiated in that manner.''
    Ultratec, Sprint, and Hamilton assert that a captioned telephone 
provider or CA is not capable of initiating or setting up a three-way 
call. See Ultratec, Sprint, & Hamilton Joint Comments at 3-4. They 
further note that the ``CapTel technology does not permit CapTel users 
to set up three-way calling from their captioned telephone devices.'' 
They assert that the three-way calling requirement should be 
interpreted to mean that the provider must be capable of handling a 
three-way call if any of the parties to the call sets up the call; 
i.e., that the three-way calling requirement is met if the ``parties to 
a relay call are able to participate in a [three-way call], even if the 
TRS providers handling these calls are not able to set up these calls 
themselves.'' They add that ``CapTel services, as well as other TRS 
services provided by Hamilton and Sprint, are already in compliance 
with this interpretation of the * * * three-way calling standard.'' See 
also TDI & NAD Joint Reply Comments at 2 (agreeing with Ultratec, 
Sprint and Hamilton's view that the three-way calling obligation is met 
when parties to a relay call are able to participate in a three-way 
call, even if the TRS provider is not able to set up the call).

[[Page 14570]]

    Based upon our review of the prior orders addressing this issue, 
and the comments, we clarify that TRS providers (including providers of 
captioned telephone service) will satisfy the three-way calling 
requirement set forth in the Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM if they 
ensure that the TRS facility or CA facilitates or handles a three-way 
call, as the CA would handle any TRS call, where and to the extent the 
three-way call has been arranged by any one of the parties to the call, 
e.g., using a party's LEC-provided custom calling service (CCS), by 
bridging two telephone lines via customer terminal equipment, or by 
some other means. Therefore, we clarify that TRS providers are not 
required to be able to arrange, initiate, or set up a three-way call 
(but they may do so).
    In addition, because providers may meet the three-way calling 
requirement in various ways, we will not further specify any particular 
method(s) of handling such calls, so long as the provider is able to 
handle or facilitate a three-way call, in some manner, whether 
initiated by one of the parties to the call or set up by the provider. 
We therefore agree with Sprint that there is no requirement that a 
captioned telephone provider be able to set up a three-way call, or 
that the captioned telephone user be able to initiate a three-way call, 
so long as the captioned telephone provider provides for three-way 
calling in some manner. See Ultratec, Sprint, & Hamilton Joint Comments 
at 3-6.
    We believe that permitting flexibility in the manner in which a 
provider handles or facilitates three-way calling is consistent with 
the ultimate objective of ensuring that TRS users have access to this 
feature. AT&T requests that we clarify the ``appropriate basis for 
billing end users that are parties to the conference call.'' AT&T 
Comments at 4 n.10. In the Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM we 
addressed how the costs of three-way TRS calls may be recovered from 
the Interstate TRS Fund. Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM at paragraphs 
74-75. To the extent AT&T seeks guidance on how a provider may recover 
the costs of providing three-way calling service generally (i.e., not 
the costs of providing the relay service), we note only that a provider 
may not impose charges on a TRS user that are different than those that 
would be charged to a hearing person using voice telephone service and 
the three-way calling feature.
    Because we have clarified that a TRS provider meets the three-way 
calling requirement set forth in the Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM 
by handling such calls when initiated or set up by one of the parties 
to the call (or by the provider setting up the call), the record 
reflects that waiver of this requirement is no longer necessary. 
Accordingly, the one-year waiver of this requirement set forth in the 
Three-Way Calling Waiver Order will expire, pursuant to that order, on 
February 24, 2005.
    The expiration of this waiver will not affect the current three-way 
calling waiver for IP Relay and VRS. See Second Improved TRS Order & 
NPRM at paragraph 76.

Federal Communications Commission.
Jay Keithley,
Deputy Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05-5736 Filed 3-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P