[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30848-30856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8374]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 06-57]


Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services 
for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Video Relay 
Service Interoperability

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether and 
how an open global database of proxy numbers of Video Relay Service 
(VRS) users may be created so that a hearing person may call a VRS user 
through any VRS provider without having to ascertain the first VRS 
user's current Internet-Protocol (IP) address.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 17, 2006. Reply comments are 
due on or before July 31, 2006. Written comments on the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) proposed information collection requirements must 
be submitted by the general public, Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), and other interested parties on or before July 31, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [CG Docket number 03-
123 and/or FCC Number 06-57], by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone (202) 418-
0539 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. In addition, a copy of any 
comments on the PRA information collection requirements contained 
herein should be submitted to Leslie Smith, Federal Communications 
Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or 
via the Internet to [email protected], and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB 
Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20503, or via the Internet to [email protected], or via 
fax at (202) 395-5167.

[[Page 30849]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Chandler, Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at (202) 418-1475 
(voice), (202) 418-0597 (TTY), or e-mail at [email protected]. 
For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained in this document, contact 
Leslie Smith at (202) 418-0217, or via the Internet at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(FNPRM), Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; CG 
Docket No. 03-123, FCC 06-57, contains proposed information collection 
requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. It will be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 
section 3507 of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal 
agencies are invited to comment on the proposed information collection 
requirements contained in this document. This is a summary of the 
Commission's FNPRM, FCC 06-57, adopted May 3, 2006, and released May 9, 
2005, in CG Docket No. 03-123.
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415 and 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.
     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, which in this instance 
is CG Docket No. 03-123. Parties may also submit an electronic comment 
by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an 
e-mail to [email protected], and include the following words in the body of 
the message, ``get form .'' A sample form and 
directions will be sent in response.
     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 in this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies of 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 the Commission continues 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.
     The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or 
messenger-delivered 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.
     Commercial mail sent by 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 should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    Pursuant to Sec.  1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, 
this matter 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 
presentation 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 Sec.  1.1206(b) of the 
Commission's rules.
    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 [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 
418-0432 (TTY).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The FNPRM 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 PRA of 1995, Public Law 
104-13. Public and agency comment are due July 31, 2006. Comments 
should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection 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), the Commission seeks 
specific comment on how it may ``further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.''
    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.
    Title: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Video 
Relay Service (VRS) Interoperability, Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 03-123.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Number of Respondents: 8.
    Number of Responses: 3,000,000.
    Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities; State, Local 
or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Time per Response: 40 to 1,000 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Annual and one-time reporting requirement; 
recordkeeping; third party disclosure.
    Total Annual Burden: 11,840 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: $0.
    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
    Needs and Uses: On May 9, 2006, the Commission released a 
Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), In the 
Matter of Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG 
Docket No. 03-123, FCC 06-57. In this FNPRM:

[[Page 30850]]

    The Commission seeks comment on the feasibility of establishing a 
single, open, and global database of proxy numbers for VRS users that 
would be available to all service providers, so that a hearing person 
can call a VRS user through any VRS provider, and without having first 
to ascertain the VRS user's current IP address.
    The Commission also seeks comment on nature of the proxy numbers 
that might be used and how they might be administered.
    The Commission seeks comment on the role of the Commission in 
creating and maintaining the database.
    In this FNPRM, the Commission recognizes: (a) That when a hearing 
person contact a VRS user by calling a VRS provider, the calling party 
has to know in advance the IP address of the VRS user so that the 
calling party can give that address to the VRS CA; (b) that because 
most consumers' IP addresses are dynamic, the VRS consumer may not know 
the IP address of his or her VRS equipment at a particular time; (c) 
that some VRS providers have created their own database of ``proxy'' or 
``alias'' numbers that associate with the IP address of their 
customers, even if a particular person's IP address is dynamic and 
changes; (d) that databases are maintained by the service provider and, 
generally, are not shared with other service providers; and (e) that a 
person desiring to call a VRS consumer via the consumer's proxy number 
can only use the services of the VRS provider that generates the 
number.
    The FNPRM contains the following information collection 
requirements involving an open, global database of VRS proxy numbers.
    The FNPRM seeks comment on: (1) Whether VRS providers should be 
required to provide information to populate an open, global database of 
VRS proxy numbers and to keep the information current; (2) whether the 
Interstate TRS Fund administrator, a separate entity, or a consortium 
of service providers should be responsible for the maintenance and 
operation of an open, global database of VRS proxy numbers; (3) whether 
Deaf and hard of hearing individuals using video broadband 
communication need uniform and static end-point numbers should be 
linked to the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) that which would 
remain consistent across all VRS providers so that they can contact one 
another and be contacted to the same extent that Public Switched 
Telephone Network (PSTN) and VoIP users are able to identify and call 
one another; (4) whether participation by service providers should be 
mandatory so that all VRS users can receive incoming calls.

Synopsis

    California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of 
Hearing is a coalition of eight community-based nonprofit agencies 
providing various social services to deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers 
in California, (CCASDHH or Petitioner) filed a Petition for Declaratory 
Ruling that raises the issue of VRS providers using a proprietary 
database of ``proxy'' or ``alias'' numbers that allow their customers 
to use their existing telephone number (or some other number) as a 
proxy for their Internet Protocol (IP) address. California Coalition of 
Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (CCASDHH or Petitioner), 
Petition for Declaratory Ruling on Interoperability, CC Docket No. 98-
67, CG Docket No. 03-123, filed February 15, 2005. This arrangement 
permits a VRS provider to determine automatically the IP address of a 
VRS user when a hearing person initiates a VRS call. These databases, 
however, are generally used only for calls made via one provider's 
service and using that provider's equipment. The FNPRM seeks comment on 
whether and how an open and global database of proxy number for VRS 
users may be created so that a hearing person may call a VRS user 
through any VRS provider without having to ascertain first the VRS 
user's current IP address. The Commission also seeks comment in the 
FNPRM on whether it should adopt specific Internet protocols or 
standards to ensure that all VRS providers can receive calls from, and 
make calls to, any VRS consumer, and all VRS consumers can make calls 
through any VRS provider.

Traditional TRS and VRS

    When Congress enacted section 225 of the Communications Act, and 
the Commission implemented the TRS, relay calls were placed using a 
text telephone device (TTY) connected to the Public Switched Telephone 
Network (PSTN). In such a ``traditional'' TRS call, a person with a 
hearing (or speech) disability dials a telephone number for a TRS 
facility using a TTY. In this context, the first step for the TRS user, 
the completion of the outbound call to the TRS facility, is 
functionally equivalent to receiving a ``dial tone.'' Both persons with 
hearing and speech disabilities and voice telephone users can initiate 
a traditional TRS call by dialing 711 to reach a TRS provider. See, 
e.g., 47 CFR 64.601(1).
    VRS allows persons using American Sign Language (ASL) to access the 
telephone system through a broadband Internet video connection between 
the VRS user and the communications assistant (CA). A VRS user may 
initiate a VRS call either via a VRS provider's Web site or directly 
through VRS equipment connected to the Internet. With VRS, the dial 
tone equivalent is when the VRS user establishes a video connection 
with the CA, who then places an outbound telephone call to a hearing 
person. During the call, the CA communicates in ASL with the VRS user 
and by voice with the hearing person. The conversation between the two 
end users flows in near real time and in a faster manner than with a 
TTY or a text-based TRS call. VRS, therefore, provides a degree of 
``functional equivalency'' that is not attainable with text-based TRS 
by allowing those persons whose primary language is ASL to communicate 
in sign language, just as a hearing person communicates in, e.g., 
spoken English.
    A hearing person may also initiate a VRS call by calling a VRS 
provider through a toll-free telephone number. However, unlike the 
voice telephone network, VRS equipment is not linked to a uniform 
numbering system that correlates to a VRS user's IP address. Most VRS 
users have ``dynamic'' IP addresses, which are temporary addresses 
assigned to the user by an Internet service provider, and change 
periodically. This makes it difficult for a hearing person to know in 
advance the IP address of the VRS user he or she desires to call. If 
the calling party is not calling a VRS user through a VRS provider that 
maintains a database of its customers' IP addresses, the calling party 
must determine in advance the VRS user's correct IP address and give 
that address to the VRS provider.

The Petition

    Petitioner addresses Sorenson's practice of using a database of 
``proxy'' numbers that allows its customers to use their existing 
telephone number (or some other number) as a proxy for their IP 
address. Petition at 3-4, notes 3, 5-6. This arrangement permits a 
hearing person to call a VRS user through Sorenson without having to 
know the VRS user's IP address. Petitioner asserts that this 
``restricted database'' precludes a hearing person from making a VRS 
call through another provider's service using the VRS user's proxy 
number. Petition at 6. Petitioner notes thats although a hearing person 
may still be able to call a VRS user by providing the VRS provider with 
the VRS user's IP address, most VRS users have dynamic IP addresses so 
that they likely do not know their IP address to give to the

[[Page 30851]]

calling party. Petition at 6. The Petition asserts that acquiring a 
static (i.e., permanent) IP address is costly and that consumers 
generally do not have such IP addresses. Petition at 3, notes 3, 6.

The Comments

    Commenters addressed the use of proxy numbers for the IP addresses 
of VRS users. CSD notes, for example, that presently ``there is no 
uniform means of identifying and accessing VRS users that offers the 
ease of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) enjoyed by voice 
users.'' Instead, CSD asserts, each VRS provider has its own system for 
enabling hearing persons to make a relay call to a VRS user. CSD 
maintains that this results in serious confusion for hearing 
individuals who want to make a VRS call and requires them to have ``the 
specific provider information and extension of the individual they are 
trying to reach.'' CSD states that a ``seamless numbering scheme'' is 
needed that will allow all VRS users--deaf and hearing--to contact each 
other with the same ease that other telephone users do so. Finally, CSD 
notes that such a numbering scheme would facilitate the handling of 
emergency calls.
    Sorenson responds that, because VRS equipment is generally 
connected to the Internet through a dynamic IP address, it developed a 
means by which callers can reach a device identified by an IP address. 
Sorenson assigns a unique number to each videophone (usually the 
consumer's telephone number), and the VP-100 and Sorenson's servers 
``work together to match the unique identifier with the user's dynamic 
IP address.'' As a result, Sorenson creates a directory ``that matches 
pseudo phone numbers (which remain constant) with dynamic IP 
addresses,'' so that a hearing person seeking to call a Sorenson VRS 
user can do so by calling a Sorenson and providing the CA with the VRS 
user's ``phone number.'' Sorenson states that this ``proprietary 
videophone number dialing feature is part of Sorenson's integrated VRS 
solution and is not available independently of the VP-100.'' Sorenson 
claims that ``users find this feature very helpful because the 
videophone number does not change and there is no need to acquire a 
static (fixed) IP address or domain name.''

The FNPRM

    In this FNPRM, the Commission addresses two issues: (1) The 
feasibility of establishing a single global database of proxy numbers 
for VRS users that would be available to all service providers, so that 
a hearing person can call a VRS user through any VRS provider, and 
without having first to ascertain the VRS user's current IP address; 
and (2) whether the Commission should adopt specific Internet protocols 
or standards to ensure that all VRS providers can receive calls from, 
and make calls to, any VRS consumer, and all VRS consumers can make 
calls through any VRS provider.
    Proxy Numbers for VRS Users. As noted above, a hearing person may 
contact a VRS user by calling a VRS provider's toll free number. The 
VRS CA, however, will be able to establish the video-to-video link with 
the VRS user only if the CA knows the IP address of the VRS user's 
equipment. Often, that requires that the calling party know in advance 
the IP address of the VRS user so that the calling party can give that 
address to the VRS CA. Because most consumers' IP addresses are 
dynamic, the VRS consumer may not know the IP address of his or her VRS 
equipment at a particular time.
    Some providers have created their own database of ``proxy'' or 
``alias'' numbers that associate with the IP addresses of their 
customers, even if a particular person's IP address is dynamic and 
changes. These numbers often resemble telephone numbers, which makes it 
easier for VRS users to give their ``number'' to hearing persons who 
may wish call them via VRS. These databases, however, are maintained by 
the service provider and, generally, are not shared with other service 
providers. Therefore, a person desiring to call a VRS consumer via the 
consumer's proxy number can only use the services of the VRS provider 
that generates the number. See, e.g., Sorenson Ex Parte (January 6, 
2006) at 16.
    In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the feasibility of 
establishing a single, open, and global database of proxy numbers for 
VRS users that would be available to all service providers, so that a 
hearing person can call a VRS user through any VRS provider, and 
without having first to ascertain the VRS user's current IP address. In 
assessing the feasibility of this proposal, commenters should address 
both technical and the economic issues. Technical issues include the 
need for standard protocols so that the database system can work with 
all VRS equipment and services. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether there are aspects of proxy numbers that are dependent on 
functionalities outside of a database, such as functionalities in the 
user's equipment. If so, parties should address whether standardization 
is required. Commenters should address any other technical issues they 
believe are relevant to this issue.
    The Commission also seeks comment on nature of the proxy numbers 
that might be used and how they might be administered. As the 
Commission has noted, some VRS databases associate users with ten-digit 
telephone numbers. Others allow the user to create their own unique 
identification. Communication Service for the Deaf (CSD) states that 
``in order for VRS to be functionally equivalent to voice telephone 
services, deaf and hard of hearing individuals using video broadband 
communication need uniform and static end-point numbers linked to the 
North American Numbering Plan (NANP) that will remain consistent across 
all VRS providers so that they can contact one another and be contacted 
to the same extent that Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and 
VoIP users are able to identify and call one another.'' CSD Ex Parte 
(October 20, 2005) at 3. Accordingly, CSD urges that this matter be 
referred to the North American Numbering Council (NANC). The Commission 
seeks comment on this approach.
    The Commission further seeks comment on the maintenance and 
operation of such a database. Commenters should address whether this 
type of database should be the responsibility of the Fund 
administrator, a separate entity, or a consortium of service providers. 
Commenters that urge creation of an oversight committee should specify 
the scope and composition of the committee.
    Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the role of the Commission 
in creating and maintaining the database. Commenters should address 
what specific rule changes would be necessary to establish the 
database. Commenters should also address whether participation by 
service providers should be mandatory so that all VRS users can receive 
incoming calls. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on what ongoing 
Commission oversight or regulation, if any, would be necessary.
    Adoption of Specific VRS Internet Protocols or Standards. 
Videophones and other devices that send video via the Internet to make 
VRS calls operate via specific call signaling protocols or standards 
that connect the two endpoints to the call. Internet telephony requires 
standards or protocols so that the end-user devices can communicate 
with each other. H.323 is one standard for transmitting real-time voice 
and video over packet-based networks.

[[Page 30852]]

Another newer standard is SIP (Session Initiation Protocol). In 
declining to mandate the provision of VRS in the Improved TRS Order, 
the Commission stated because VRS was in its early stages of 
technological development the Commission would ``permit market forces, 
not the Commission, to determine the technology and equipment best 
suited for the provision of [VRS], and allow[] for the development of 
new and improved technology.'' Telecommunications Relay Services and 
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, (Improved TRS Order), 15 FCC Rcd 5153, 
paragraph 23; published at 65 FR 38432 (June 21, 2000) and 65 FR 38490 
(June 21, 2000).
    With traditional TRS, the Commission initially proposed requiring 
TTYs to be capable of communicating in either ASCII or Baudot formats. 
Telecommunications Services for Hearing-Impaired and Speech-Impaired 
Individuals, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, CC Docket 
No. 90-571, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 5 FCC Rcd 7187, 7188-7189, 
paragraph 12 (November 16, 1990); published at 55 FR 50037 (December 4, 
1990) (noting that although ASCII offers a higher data transfer rate, 
not all TTY users have compatible equipment and rely instead ``on 
Baudot code equipment''). Baudot code was developed in the late 1800's 
and is a 5 bit coding scheme limited to 32 characters. ASCII was 
developed in the 1960's and is a 7 bit coding scheme specifically 
intended for data processing. See generally R. Horak, Communications 
Systems and Networks at 196-198 (3rd edition 2002). In adopting the TRS 
regulations, the Commission noted that both codes were being used by 
TTY users and existing TRS providers, although ASCII was the superior 
technology and had the advantage of being able to be used by personal 
computers. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC 
Docket No. 90-571, Report and Order and Request for Comments, (TRS I), 
6 FCC Rcd 4661, paragraph 20; published at 56 FR 36729 (August 1, 
1991). The Commission concluded that it would not adopt a phase-out 
period for Baudot because many persons who rely on TRS have access only 
to Baudot terminals. Therefore, the Commission adopted the proposed 
rule requiring TRS to be capable of communicating in both ASCII and 
Baudot formats. TRS I, 6 FCC Rcd 4661, paragraph 20. The rule states 
that ``TRS shall be capable of communicating with ASCII and Baudot 
format, at any speed generally in use.'' 47 CFR 64.604(b)(1).
    Subsequently, the Commission noted that new TTY transmission 
protocols had evolved since the initial TRS regulations were adopted, 
and therefore sought comment on whether these enhanced protocols, such 
as the V.18 protocol, should be required to be used by TRS providers. 
Improved TRS Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5197-5199, paragraphs 139-146. The 
Commission also noted that Baudot was still the dominant protocol. In 
the June 2003 Second Report and Order, the Commission stated that it 
did not receive adequate comments on this issue and sought further 
comment on ``the extent to which innovative non-proprietary protocols 
for TTY products are currently being used, and any advantages or 
disadvantages such protocols may present to TRS providers.'' 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67 
and CG Docket No. 03-123, Second Report and Order, Order on 
Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second Improved TRS 
Order), 18 FCC Rcd 12440-12441, paragraph 127; published at 68 FR 50093 
(August 25, 2003) and 68 FR 50973 (August 25, 2003). In the 2004 TRS 
Report and Order, the Commission concluded that the record did not 
reflect that there were any new non-proprietary TTY protocols available 
on the market. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC 
Docket Nos. 90-571 and 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123 Report and Order, 
Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(2004 TRS Report and Order), 19 FCC Rcd 12512, paragraph 88; published 
at 65 FR 53346 (September 1, 2004) and 65 FR 53382 (September 1, 2004). 
The Commission therefore declined to mandate the use of additional TTY 
protocols. At the same time, it recognized that it is desirable to make 
TRS ``universal for all types of callers by ensuring its compatibility 
with various TTY protocols'' and stated that it would continue to 
monitor this issue. 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 12512, 
paragraph 89 (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Presently, unlike with traditional TRS calls made using TTYs and 
the PSTN, the Commission has not mandated the use of particular 
protocols by VRS providers to ensure that all consumers and providers 
can communicate with each other. With the increasing use of VRS and 
changes in technology, we now seek comment on whether we should adopt 
specific protocols for VRS calls and if so, what protocol or protocols 
should be adopted.
    As the provision of VRS has developed, nearly all VRS equipment 
(the VP-100, the D-Link, and webcams) uses the H.323 protocol, and all 
present providers use this protocol. As a result, this equipment is 
inherently interoperable with any of the VRS providers' service, and 
vice versa. Some newer videophone equipment, however, uses other 
protocols, such as SIP. A SIP device cannot, without translation, 
communicate with an H.323 device. Without a translation mechanism, if a 
VRS consumer has a SIP-based videophone the consumer will only be able 
to use the relay services of a provider that can handle SIP-based 
calls. Similarly, if a provider can only accept SIP-based calls, a 
consumer with an H.323-based videophone will not be able to use that 
provider's service, nor will a hearing person attempting to call a VRS 
user with an H.323-based videophone. As a result, it is clear that the 
development and use of videophones that use new Internet protocols that 
are incompatible with existing videophone protocols creates a barrier 
to realizing the goal of ensuring that all VRS providers can receive 
calls from, and make calls to, any VRS consumer, and ensuring that all 
VRS consumers can make calls through any VRS provider.
    The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether, following the 
model of traditional TRS, it should mandate specific Internet protocols 
that VRS providers must use to receive and place VRS calls. The 
Commission notes that it does not regulate TRS equipment, but only 
providers to the extent they seek compensation from the Fund. If so, 
the Commission seeks comment on what standard or standards we should 
mandate, and an appropriate transition period for the adoption of these 
standards. The Commission also seeks comment on what costs may be 
involved if it requires all providers to be able to receive and make 
calls through specific multiple protocols, and whether such costs 
should be compensable by the Fund. The Commission further seeks comment 
on whether it should invite the providers, consumer groups, and other 
interested parties to work together to jointly propose standards to the 
Commission and if so, on the appropriate timing of such an endeavor.
    The Commission also seeks comment on whether it can ensure

[[Page 30853]]

interoperability in some way other than mandating protocols, and on any 
other issues relating to ensuring that VRS consumers can use VRS 
equipment to call any of the VRS providers, and the VRS providers can 
make calls to all VRS consumers.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this FNPRM. 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 104-121, 110 Statute 857 
(1996). 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 FNPRM provided in paragraph 57 of the 
FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    Currently, it is difficult for a voice telephone user to call a VRS 
user because either the voice telephone user or the CA must know the IP 
address of the VRS user, and most VRS consumer's IP addresses are 
dynamic and therefore continually change. Some VRS have developed a 
solution to this problem by creating their own database of unique 
``proxy'' number for their customers, which generally resemble 
telephone numbers. The provider has a method of ensuring that the proxy 
number will always correlate with the VRS user's IP address, even when 
the IP address changes. The record reflects, however, that these proxy 
numbers can be used only if the voice telephone user is using the VRS 
provider that assigned the consumer the proxy number.
    The FNPRM therefore seeks comment on the feasibility of 
establishing and maintaining an open and a single, open, and global 
database of proxy numbers for VRS users so that a hearing person may 
call a VRS user through any VRS provider and without having to 
ascertain first the VRS user's current IP address. This would permit 
VRS users to have one number for their VRS equipment that voice 
telephone users could ``call'' through any VRS provider, similar to the 
way that traditional TRS calls are presently made to the PSTN number of 
TTY users. The Commission asks if there are aspects of proxy numbers 
that are dependent on functionalities outside of a database, such as 
functionalities in the user's equipment and, if so, the Commission 
further asks whether standardization should be required. The Commission 
also seeks comment on any other technological considerations that may 
be relevant to this issue.
    In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the nature of the 
proxy numbers that might be used and how they might be administered. 
The Commission also asks whether this matter should be referred to 
North American Numbering Council (NANC). See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    The Commission seeks comment on the maintenance and operation of 
such a database. The Commission specifically seeks comment on whether 
the maintenance and operation of such a proposed database be the 
responsibility of the Fund administrator, a separate entity, or a 
consortium of service providers. The Commission invites further comment 
on the role of the Commission in creating and maintaining the database, 
including whether participation by service providers should be 
mandatory so that all VRS users can receive incoming calls. Finally, 
the Commission asks what ongoing Commission oversight or regulation, if 
any, would be necessary.
    The Commission notes that the development and use of videophones 
that use new Internet protocols are incompatible with existing 
videophone protocols, which creates a barrier to realizing the goal of 
ensuring that all VRS providers can receive calls from, and make calls 
to, any VRS consumer, and ensuring that all VRS consumers can make 
calls through any VRS provider.
    The Commission therefore invites comment on whether it should 
mandate specific Internet protocols that VRS providers must use to 
receive and place VRS calls. The Commission notes that it does not 
regulate TRS equipment, but only providers to the extent they seek 
compensation from the Fund. If so, the Commission seeks comment on what 
standard or standards it should mandate, and an appropriate transition 
period for the adoption of these standards. The Commission seeks 
comment on what costs may be involved if it requires all providers to 
be able to receive and make calls through specific multiple protocols, 
and whether such costs should be compensable by the Fund. The 
Commission further seeks comment on whether it should invite the 
providers, consumer groups, and other interested parties to work 
together to jointly propose standards to the Commission and if so, on 
the appropriate timing of such an endeavor.
    The Commission also seeks comment on whether it can ensure 
interoperability in some way other than mandating protocols, and on any 
other issues relating to ensuring that VRS consumers can use VRS 
equipment to call any of the VRS providers, and the VRS providers can 
make calls to all VRS consumers.

Legal Basis

    The authority for the actions proposed in this FNPRM may be found 
in sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201-205, 218 and 225 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 201-205, 218 
and 225, and sections 64.601-64.608 of the Commission's regulations, 47 
CFR 64.601-64.608.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the 
Proposed Rules Will Apply

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term 
``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business 
concern'' under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating 
by reference the definition of ``small business concern'' in the Small 
Business Act, 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 
SBA. 15 U.S.C. 632.
    As noted above, the FNPRM seeks comment on establishing a global 
database of proxy IP addresses for VRS users that would be available to 
all VRS providers. As a result, the Commission believes that the 
entities that may be affected by the proposed rules are only VRS 
providers. Neither the Commission

[[Page 30854]]

nor the SBA has developed a definition of ``small entity'' specifically 
directed toward VRS providers. The closest applicable size standard 
under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, for which 
the small business size standard is all such firms having 1,500 or 
fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517110. Currently, there 
are eight VRS providers. Approximately two or fewer of these entities 
are small entities under the SBA size standard. See National 
Association for State Relay Administration (NASRA) Statistics. These 
numbers are estimates because of recent and pending mergers and 
partnerships in the telecommunications industry.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    The proposed rule establishing an open, global database of VRS 
proxy numbers would require VRS providers to provide information to 
populate the database and to keep the information current. Further, the 
proposed rule mandating specific Internet protocols and or standards 
would require VRS providers to use compatible video protocols in order 
to receive and place VRS calls.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
alternatives, specific to small businesses, 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.'' 5 
U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4).
    As noted above, a hearing person may contact a VRS user by calling 
a VRS provider's toll free number. The VRS CA, however, will be able to 
establish the video-to-video link with the VRS user only if the CA 
knows the IP address of the VRS user's equipment. Often, that requires 
that the calling party know in advance the IP address of the VRS user 
so that the calling party can give that address to the VRS CA. Because 
most consumers' IP addresses are dynamic, the VRS consumer may not know 
the IP address of his or her VRS equipment at a particular time. Some 
providers have created their own database of ``proxy'' or ``alias'' 
numbers that associate with the IP addresses of their customers, even 
if a particular person's IP address is dynamic and changes. These 
numbers often resemble telephone numbers, which makes it easier for VRS 
users to give their ``number'' to hearing persons who may wish to call 
them via VRS. These databases, however, are maintained by the service 
provider and, generally, are not shared with other service providers. 
Therefore, a person desiring to call a VRS consumer via the consumer's 
proxy number can only use the services of the VRS provider that 
generates the number. See, e.g., Sorenson Ex Parte (January 6, 2006) at 
16.
    In this FNPRM, the Commission contemplates the feasibility of 
establishing a single, open, and global database of proxy numbers for 
VRS users that would be available to all service providers, so that a 
hearing person can call a VRS user through any VRS provider, and 
without having first to ascertain the VRS user's current IP address. In 
assessing the feasibility of this proposal, commenters should address 
both technical and the economic issues. Technical issues include the 
need for standard protocols so that the database system can work with 
all VRS equipment and services. The Commission asks whether there are 
aspects of proxy numbers that are dependent on functionalities outside 
of a database, such as functionalities in the user's equipment. If so, 
parties should address whether standardization is required. The 
Commission requests that commenters address any other technical issues 
they believe are relevant to this issue. The Commission considers the 
potential impact of these technical and economic issues on small 
business and the alternatives in easing the burden on small businesses.
    The Commission also invites comment on nature of the proxy numbers 
that might be used and how they might be administered. As the 
Commission has noted, some VRS databases associate users with ten-digit 
telephone numbers. Others allow the user to create their own unique 
identification. CSD states that ``in order for VRS to be functionally 
equivalent to voice telephone services, deaf and hard of hearing 
individuals using video broadband communication need uniform and static 
end-point numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) 
that will remain consistent across all VRS providers so that they can 
contact one another and be contacted to the same extent that Public 
Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and VoIP users are able to identify 
and call one another.'' CSD Ex Parte (October 20, 2005) at 3. 
Accordingly, CSD urges that this matter be referred to the North 
American Numbering Council (NANC). CSD Ex Parte (October 20, 2005) at 
3. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and the alternatives 
to this approach that may have a minimal burden on small businesses. 
The Commission further seeks comment on the maintenance and operation 
of such a database. The Commission invites commenters to address 
whether this type of database should be the responsibility of the Fund 
administrator, a separate entity, or a consortium of service providers 
and whether the proposed responsibility would pose a significant burden 
on small businesses. The Commission asks that commenters that urge 
creation of an oversight committee should specify the scope and 
composition of the committee.
    Finally, the Commission contemplates the role of the Commission in 
creating and maintaining the database. The Commission provisionally 
considers that specific rule changes may be necessary to establish the 
database and that the alternatives to these rule changes may be needed 
to alleviate the burden on small businesses. The Commission requests 
that commenters address whether participation by service providers 
should be mandatory so that all VRS users can receive incoming calls. 
The Commission considers the exemption of a mandatory participation by 
small entities as it may create a significant burden on small 
businesses. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on what ongoing 
Commission oversight or regulation, if any, would be necessary and on 
what would be the alternatives in considering the impact on small 
businesses.
    Videophones and other devices that send video via the Internet to 
make VRS calls operate via specific call signaling protocols or 
standards that connect the two endpoints to the call. Internet 
telephony requires standards or protocols so that the end-user devices 
can communicate with each other. H.323 is one standard for transmitting 
real-time voice and video over packet-based networks. Another newer 
standard is SIP (Session Initiation Protocol). In declining to mandate 
the provision of VRS in the Improved TRS Order, the Commission stated 
because VRS was in its early stages of technological development the

[[Page 30855]]

Commission would ``permit market forces, not the Commission, to 
determine the technology and equipment best suited for the provision of 
[VRS], and allow [* * *] for the development of new and improved 
technology.'' Improved TRS Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 5153, paragraph 23.
    With traditional TRS, the Commission initially proposed requiring 
TTYs to be capable of communicating in either ASCII or Baudot formats. 
Telecommunications Services for Hearing-Impaired and Speech-Impaired 
Individuals, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, CC Docket 
No. 90-571, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 5 FCC Rcd 7187, 7188-7189, 
at paragraph 12 (November 16, 1990) (noting that although ASCII offers 
a higher data transfer rate, not all TTY users have compatible 
equipment and rely instead ``on Baudot code equipment''). Baudot code 
was developed in the late 1800's and is a 5 bit coding scheme limited 
to 32 characters. ASCII was developed in the 1960's and is a 7 bit 
coding scheme specifically intended for data processing. See generally 
R. Horak, Communications Systems and Networks at 196-198 (3rd edition 
2002). In adopting the TRS regulations, the Commission noted that both 
codes were being used by TTY users and existing TRS providers, although 
ASCII was the superior technology and had the advantage of being able 
to be used by personal computers. TRS I, 6 FCC Rcd at 4661, at 
paragraph 20. The Commission concluded that it would not adopt a phase-
out period for Baudot because many persons who rely on TRS have access 
only to Baudot terminals.
    Therefore, the Commission adopted the proposed rule requiring TRS 
to be capable of communicating in both ASCII and Baudot formats. TRS I, 
6 FCC Rcd at 4661, at paragraph 20. The rule states that ``TRS shall be 
capable of communicating with ASCII and Baudot format, at any speed 
generally in use.'' 47 CFR 64.604(b)(1) of the Commission's rules. 
Subsequently, the Commission noted that new TTY transmission protocols 
had evolved since the initial TRS regulations were adopted, and 
therefore sought comment on whether these enhanced protocols, such as 
the V.18 protocol, should be required to be used by TRS providers. 
Improved TRS Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 5197-5199, paragraphs 139-146. The 
Commission also noted that Baudot was still the dominant protocol. 
Improved TRS Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 5197-5199, paragraphs 139-146. In the 
June 2003 Second Report and Order, the Commission stated that it did 
not receive adequate comments on this issue and sought further comment 
on ``the extent to which innovative non-proprietary protocols for TTY 
products are currently being used, and any advantages or disadvantages 
such protocols may present to TRS providers.'' Second Improved TRS 
Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 12440-12441, paragraph 127. In the 2004 TRS Report 
and Order, the Commission concluded that the record did not reflect 
that there were any new non-proprietary TTY protocols available on the 
market. 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12512, paragraph 88. 
The Commission therefore declined to mandate the use of additional TTY 
protocols. At the same time, it recognized that it is desirable to make 
TRS ``universal for all types of callers by ensuring its compatibility 
with various TTY protocols'' and stated that it would continue to 
monitor this issue. 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12512, 
paragraph 89 (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Presently, unlike traditional TRS calls made using TTYs and the 
PSTN, the Commission has not mandated the use of particular protocols 
by VRS providers to ensure that all consumers and providers can 
communicate with each other. However, with the increasing use of VRS 
and changes in technology, the Commission now contemplates whether we 
should adopt specific protocols for VRS calls and if so, what protocol 
or protocols should be adopted. The Commission further contemplates the 
effects of adopting specific protocols on small businesses. As the 
provision of VRS has developed, nearly all VRS equipment (the VP-100, 
the D-Link, and webcams) uses the H.323 protocol, and all present 
providers use this protocol. As a result, this equipment is inherently 
interoperable with any of the VRS providers' service, and vice versa. 
Some newer videophone equipment, however, uses other protocols, such as 
SIP. A SIP device cannot, without translation, communicate with an 
H.323 device. Without a translation mechanism, if a VRS consumer has a 
SIP-based videophone the consumer will only be able to use the relay 
services of a provider that can handle SIP-based calls. Similarly, if a 
provider can only accept SIP-based calls, a consumer with an H.323-
based videophone will not be able to use that provider's service, nor 
will a hearing person attempting to call a VRS user with an H.323-based 
videophone. As a result, it is clear that the development and use of 
videophones that use new Internet protocols that are incompatible with 
existing videophone protocols creates a barrier to realizing the goal 
of ensuring that all VRS providers can receive calls from, and make 
calls to, any VRS consumer, and ensuring that all VRS consumers can 
make calls through any VRS provider.
    The Commission therefore contemplates, following the model of 
traditional TRS, mandating specific Internet protocols that VRS 
providers must use to receive and place VRS calls. The Commission notes 
that it does not regulate TRS equipment, but only providers to the 
extent they seek compensation from the Fund. If so, the Commission 
seeks comment on what standard or standards it should mandate, and on 
an appropriate transition period for the adoption of these standards. 
The Commission provisionally considers what costs may be involved if it 
required all providers to be able to receive and make calls through 
specific multiple protocols, and whether such costs should be 
compensable by the Fund as a way to ease financial burden on small 
businesses. The Commission further seeks comment on whether it should 
invite the providers, consumer groups, and other interested parties to 
work together to jointly propose standards to the Commission and if so, 
on the appropriate timing of such an endeavor.
    The Commission also considers the alternatives of ensuring 
interoperability other than mandating protocols. The Commission further 
asks for comments on any other issues relating to ensuring that VRS 
consumers can use VRS equipment to call any of the VRS providers, and 
the VRS providers can make calls to all VRS consumers. The Commission 
also requests for comments that will propose any alternative that will 
minimize adverse economic impact on small entities.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    None.

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1.2 and 225 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152 and 225, 
this further notice of proposed rulemaking is adopted.
    The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.


[[Page 30856]]


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-8374 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P