[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 14, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6960-6966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2573]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 06-182]


Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services 
for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Internet-Based 
Captioned Telephone Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; clarification.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission grants a request for 
clarification that Internet Protocol (IP) captioned telephone relay 
service (IP captioned telephone service or IP CTS) is a type of 
telecommunications relay service (TRS) eligible for compensation from 
the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) when offered in compliance with the 
applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards. The Commission also grants 
the request that all IP CTS calls be compensated from the Fund until 
such time as it adopts jurisdiction separation of costs for this 
services. The Commission conditions its approval on Ultratec's 
representation that it will continue to license its captioned telephone 
technologies, including technologies relating to IP CTS, at reasonable 
rates. Also in this document, the Commission seeks approval from the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for any Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA) burdens contained in this document that will modify OMB Control 
Number 3060-1053 to have TRS providers offering IP CTS file annual 
reports with the Commission.

DATES: Effective April 16, 2007. Written comments on the PRA modified 
information collection requirements must be submitted by the general 
public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested 
parties on or before April 16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit PRA comments identified by [CG Docket No. 03-
123 and/or OMB Control Number 3060-1053], by any of the following 
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Parties who choose to file by e-mail should submit 
their PRA comments to [email protected] and to Allison E. Zaleski at 
[email protected]. Please include the docket number 03-123 
and/or OMB Control number 3060-1053 in the subject line of the message.
     Mail/Fax: Parties who choose to file by paper should 
submit their PRA comments to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications 
Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, and 
to Allison E. Zaleski, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via fax (202) 395-5167.
     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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Chandler, Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-1475 (voice), (202) 418-0597 
(TTY), or e-mail [email protected]. For additional information 
concerning the PRA information collection requirements contained in the 
document, send an e-mail to [email protected] or contact Cathy Williams at 
(202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document contains modified information 
collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
These will be submitted to OMB for review under Sec.  3507 of the PRA. 
OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to 
comment on the modified information collection(s) contained in this 
proceeding. On July 19, 2005, the Commission released 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Order (Two-Line 
Captioned Telephone Order), CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 05-141, which was 
published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2005 (70 FR 54292), 
concluding that two-line captioned telephone service is a type of TRS 
eligible for compensation from the Fund, effective October 14, 2005. 
This is a summary of the Commission's document FCC 06-182, adopted 
December 20, 2006, released January 11, 2007. Document FCC 06-182 
addresses issues arising from a Petition for Rulemaking to Mandate 
Captioned Telephone Relay Service and Approve IP Captioned Telephone 
Relay Services (Petition), filed October 31, 2005, by Self-Help for the 
Hard of Hearing (SHHH), the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the 
Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG Bell), the American

[[Page 6961]]

Academy of Audiology (AAA), the American Association of People with 
Disabilities (AAPD), the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 
(ASHA), the Association of Late-Deafened Adults (ALDA), the Deaf and 
Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network (DHHCAN), the League for the 
Hard of Hearing (LHH), the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), the 
National Cued Speech Association (NCSA), Telecommunications for the 
Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI), the California Association of the 
Deaf (CAD), and the California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf 
and Hard of Hearing (CCASDHH) (Petitioners), a Request for Expedited 
Clarification for the Provision of and Cost Recovery for Internet 
Protocol Captioned Telephone Relay Service (Ultratec Petition to 
Clarify), filed January 17, 2006, by Ultratec, Inc. (Ultratec), and a 
Request to Amend Petition for Rulemaking to Mandate Captioned Telephone 
Relay Service; Request for Expedited Clarification on the Provision 
(Petition to Amend), filed January 19, 2006 by Petitioners. 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 full text of document FCC 06-182 and 
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. Document FCC 06-182 
and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be 
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may 
contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at 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 [email protected] or 
call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 06-182 can also be 
downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Document FCC 06-182 contains 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 document FCC 06-182 as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. Public and agency comments are due April 16, 2007. 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), the 
Commission previously sought specific comment on how it might ``further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.'' In this present document, the 
Commission has assessed the effects of its determination that IP 
captioned telephone service is a type of TRS eligible for compensation 
from the Interstate TRS Fund, and finds that such action will not 
affect businesses with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

The Petition

    Petitioners describe IP CTS as using the Internet to provide 
captioned telephone service. (See, e.g., Petition at 19. Ultratec 
suggests, for example, that regardless of how the call is set up, IP 
captioned telephone service should be considered any relay service that 
``allows the user to simultaneously listen to, and read the text of, 
what the other party in a telephone conversation has said, where the 
connection carrying the captions between the service and the user is 
via an IP addressed and routed link.'' Karen Peltz Strauss, Legal 
Consultant for Ultratec, Inc. Ex Parte Letter, July 19, 2006 (Ultratec 
Ex Parte), Attachment at 1-2.) Petitioners ask the Commission to 
clarify that IP CTS is a form of TRS eligible for compensation from the 
Fund, and that all such calls be compensated from the Fund. (Petition 
at 19-20.) Petitioners state that the Commission has already determined 
that both captioned telephone service and IP Relay service are forms of 
TRS, and assert that IP captioned telephone service is simply ``an 
extension of these already-approved services.'' (Petition to Amend at 
2.)
    Petitioners emphasize that there are multiple methods of using the 
Internet to provide captioned telephone service. (Petition at 19 
(``Petitioners have learned that multiple methods of using Internet 
transport to produce captioned telephone service have already been 
developed * * *, [which] will allow voice and text to be carried by IP 
or a combination of IP and circuits over the PSTN.''); Ultratec 
Petition to Clarify at 7 (``Ultratec has developed a number of methods 
for delivering captioned telephone service via IP connections that are 
ready for deployment upon the FCC's approval''; redacting from public 
filing a full description of various methods of how the service may be 
provided.)) The record also reflects that a consumer can use IP CTS 
with an existing voice telephone and a computer, and therefore, unlike 
with present captioned telephone service, no specialized equipment is 
required. (See, e.g., Ultratec Ex Parte.) For example, an IP captioned 
telephone call can be set up similar to a two-line captioned telephone 
call, except that the line from the user to the provider would be via 
the Internet, not a second PSTN line. The consumer would make a voice 
to voice call to the other party on a standard telephone and the PSTN; 
at the same time, the voice of the called party is directed from the 
consumer's telephone to a personal computer (or similar device) that 
routes it to the provider via the Internet. The provider, in turn, 
sends back to the consumer the text of what was spoken. As a result, 
the consumer can both hear (to the extent possible) what the called 
party is saying over the standard voice telephone headset, and read the 
text of what the called party said on the computer or similar device. 
(See, e.g., Ultratec Ex Parte, Attachment at 4. Ultratec also notes 
that there are a number of ways in which IP captioned telephone calls 
can be set up and handled, and that no special software is required. 
See, e.g., Ultratec Ex Parte Attachment at 3-7.)
    Petitioners state that IP CTS benefits consumers by giving them the 
flexibility of using a computer, PDA, or wireless device to make such a 
call, without having to purchase special telephone equipment. (Petition 
at 19.) In addition, they note that captions provided on a computer 
screen can accommodate a much wider group of individuals, including 
people with hearing disabilities who also have low vision, because they 
can take advantage of the large text, variable fonts, and variable 
colors that are available. (Petition at 19.) Petitioners also note that 
employers are now routinely equipping their employee's workstations 
with computers and connections to the Internet, and migrating away from 
reliance on the PSTN. Petitioners state that captioned telephone users 
should not be excluded from being able to use Internet technologies to 
communicate. (Petition at 19; see also Ultratec Petition to Clarify at 
4-7 (addressing benefits of IP captioned telephone service)).
    Petitioners further assert that, like VRS and IP Relay, the 
Commission

[[Page 6962]]

should permit all IP captioned telephone service calls to be 
compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund. (Petition at 19-20; see also 
Ultratec Petition to Clarify at 6.) Petitioners note that under this 
arrangement, multiple national providers are able to compete for 
customers. (Petition at 20; see also Ultratec Petition to Clarify at 
6.) Petitioners also assert that IP CTS providers should be subject to 
the Commission certification procedures applicable to other Internet-
based forms of TRS. (Petition at 20.) Finally, Ultratec requests that 
the same waivers of the TRS mandatory minimum standards applicable to 
captioned telephone service and IP Relay also be made applicable to IP 
captioned telephone service. (Ultratec Petition to Clarify at 7-8 
(listing waivers)).

The Comments

    The Petition was placed on Public Notice. (Petition for Rulemaking 
Filed Concerning Mandating Captioned Telephone Relay Service and 
Authorizing Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned Telephone Relay Service, 
CG Docket No. 03-123, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 18028, (November 14, 
2005); published at 70 FR 71849, November 30, 2005)). Five providers 
and governmental entities submitted comments and six entities submitted 
reply comments. (Comments were filed by the California Public Utilities 
Commission and the People of the State of California (CA PUC) (December 
29, 2005); the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) (December 21, 
2005); Hamilton Relay, Inc. (Hamilton) (December 30, 2005); Sprint 
Nextel Corporation (Sprint) (December 30, 2005); and MCI, Inc. (now 
Verizon) (Verizon) (December 30, 2005). Reply comments were filed by 
Petitioners (January 17, 2006); CA PUC (January 17, 2006); Missouri 
Public Service Commission (MO PSC) (January 17, 2006); National 
Association of State Utility Commissioners (NASUCA) (January 17, 2006); 
Ultratec (January 17, 2006); and Verizon (January 17, 2006)). All of 
these commenters urge the Commission to recognize IP captioned 
telephone service as a type of TRS service. (See, e.g., FPSC Comments 
at 3; NASUCA Reply Comments at 2; Ultratec Reply Comments at 2, 21; see 
also Hamilton Comments at 2 (supporting IP CTS as a type of TRS but 
questioning its general availability at this time). No commenters 
oppose this request.)) Numerous individuals also submitted comments, 
all generally supporting of the Petition. (Individual comments can be 
found in Docket No. 03-123 at http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi.) In addition, the Commission's Consumer Advisory 
Committee (CAC) TRS Working Group has requested that the Commission 
recognize IP captioned telephone service as a TRS service eligible for 
compensation from the Fund. (See Report of the TRS Working Group to the 
Federal Communications Commission Consumer Advisory Committee (November 
2006) (CAC TRS Working Group Recommendation.))
    Commenters also support compensating all such calls from the 
Interstate TRS Fund. (See, e.g., Hamilton Comments at 2-3; Ultratec 
Reply Comments at 2, 21; FPSC Comments at 3-4. Although Petitioners 
assert that all calls should be compensated by the Fund so that 
multiple national providers could offer service and compete for 
customers, some commenters also assert that, like VRS and IP Relay, 
providers cannot determine which calls are intrastate and which are 
interstate. See, e.g., Hamilton Comments at 2-3; FPSC Comments at 3-4; 
cf. NASUCA Reply Comments at 6-9 (suggesting that IP CTS calls can be 
separated into intrastate and interstate calls, but not objecting to 
having the Fund compensate all such calls on an interim basis). 
Verizon, however, suggests that the Fund should not pay for all IP CTS 
calls. Verizon Reply Comments at 4.) Further, Hamilton asserts that 
because IP CTS is similar to VRS and IP Relay (i.e., Internet-based), 
there should be federal certification of IP CTS providers so that the 
Commission can ensure the providers are offering service in compliance 
with the mandatory minimum standards. (Hamilton Comments at 4. No 
commenters oppose this request.)

Discussion

    The Commission concludes that IP CTS is a type of TRS, and that all 
such calls may be compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund. The 
Commission also concludes that providers seeking to offer this service 
and to be compensated from the Fund may seek certification from the 
Commission pursuant to the recent certification rules adopted by the 
Commission. (See Telecommunications Relay Services, and Speech-to-
Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, 
CG Docket No. 03-123, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 20 
FCC Rcd 1719 (December 12, 2005); published at 70 FR 76208, December 
23, 2005 (TRS Provider Certification Order)). In addition, the 
Commission sets forth those TRS mandatory minimum standards 
inapplicable to the provision of this service. Finally, the Commission 
conditions its approval on Ultratec's representation that it will 
continue to license its captioned telephone technologies, including 
technologies relating to IP CTS, at reasonable rates.
    IP Captioned Telephone Service and Compensation from the Fund. The 
recognition of IP captioned telephone service as a type of TRS pursuant 
to Section 225 of the Communications Act follows from the nature of 
this service. The provision of TRS has evolved as new forms of 
technology have been developed and as consumers have identified the 
particularized needs of persons with hearing and speech disabilities. 
Since the adoption the TRS rules and the provision of TRS as a text-
based service via TTYs and the PSTN, the Commission has recognized VRS 
and STS, IP Relay, and most recently, captioned telephone service. (See 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, 
Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 13140 (July 19, 2005); published 
at 70 FR 51643, August 31, 2005 (ASL-to-Spanish VRS Order) (recognizing 
ASL-to-Spanish VRS service as a form of TRS); Two-line Captioned 
Telephone Order.) In so doing, the Commission has noted that:

    In enacting Section 225 of the Communications Act, Congress did 
not narrow its definition of TRS only to a specific category of 
services otherwise defined in the Communications Act, such as 
``telecommunications services.'' Rather, Congress used the broad 
phrase ``telephone transmission services'' that is constrained only 
by the requirement that such service provide a specific 
functionality. The requisite functionality is that the service 
provides the ability for an individual who has a hearing or speech 
impairment to communicate by wire or radio with a hearing individual 
in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of 
individuals without any such impairment to do so. Congress further 
provided that TRS includes ``services that enable two-way 
communication between an individual who uses a TDD [i.e., TTY] or 
other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who does not use 
such a device.'' In this context, the Commission has found that the 
phrase ``telephone transmission service'' used in Section 225 of the 
Communications Act, should be interpreted broadly to include any 
transmission service (involving telephonic equipment or devices) to 
the extent that such transmission provides the particular 
functionality that the definition specifies. (See Captioned 
Telephone Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd at 16124, paragraph 8; 
published at 68 FR 55898, September 29, 2003.)

    The record reflects that IP captioned telephone service simply 
describes a new way that consumers with hearing

[[Page 6963]]

disabilities can access the telephone system through TRS that will 
accommodate persons who wish to speak to the other party and 
simultaneously both listen to what the other party is saying and read 
captions of what is being said. As such, it is a service that borrows 
from both the IP Relay and captioned telephone services that the 
Commission has previously recognized as forms of TRS. Like IP Relay, 
the consumer is connected to the relay provider via the Internet, not 
the PSTN. Like captioned telephone service, the provider sends to the 
consumer the text of what the other party is saying.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that IP captioned telephone service 
is a type of TRS. The Commission emphasizes that such service may be 
initiated, set up, and provided in numerous ways, including using 
specific telephone equipment or IP-enabled devices, and various 
combinations of the PSTN and IP-enabled networks. (See Ultratec Ex 
Parte, Attachment at 3-7 (setting forth various ways in which IP CTS 
calls can be offered); CAC TRS Working Group Recommendation at 3 
(noting that ``multiple methods of transport are now available for 
delivering captioned telephone relay service over the Internet'' and 
that the ``ability to make calls over one's own computer or IP-enabled 
device can * * * eliminate the significant costs that are associated 
with purchasing specially designed captioned telephone devices''); 
Gregg Vanderheiden, Ex Parte e-mail, CG Docket No. 03-123 (August 17, 
2006) (stating that there is a ``generic'' way to do ``captioned IP 
telephony'' with any computer)). A service will be considered IP 
captioned telephone service as long as it allows the user to 
simultaneously listen to, and read the text of, what the other party in 
a telephone conversation has said, and the connection carrying the 
captions between the service and the user is via the Internet rather 
than the PSTN. (Cf. Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd 
at 16127, paragraph 17 (``to avoid authorizing a particular proprietary 
technology, rather than a particular functionality or service, the 
Commission defines the captioned telephone * * * service that it 
recognize as TRS in the Declaratory Ruling as any service that uses a 
device that allows the user to simultaneously listen to, and read the 
text of, what the other party has said, on one standard telephone line. 
TRS providers, therefore, that may choose to offer captioned telephone 
* * * service are not bound to offer any particular company's 
service''). The Commission also notes that IP captioned telephone 
service may be offered as either a ``one-line'' or ``two line'' 
service, which gives consumers and providers flexibility in how they 
use or offer this service. See generally Ultratec Ex Parte.) As a 
result, the Commission does not set forth in greater detail how this 
service must be provided, as long as it meets applicable TRS mandatory 
minimum standards (discussed below) and the captions are delivered via 
an IP network to the user fast enough so that they keep up with the 
speed of the other party's speech. (At this time, the Commission 
declines to adopt a quantitative measure for this service that is more 
stringent than the 60 words per minute (wpm) standard applicable to 
text-based TRS services. See Petition at 22; 47 CFR 64.604(a)(1)(iii) 
of the Commission's rules. The Commission recognizes, however, that 
when the captions are generated by voice recognition technology, the 
captions are generated at a speed well above the 60 wpm standard. See 
Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd at 16134-35, 
paragraph 38 and note 106 (suggesting that with voice recognition 
technology captions are generated at approximately 140 wpm). Further, 
if captions are not keeping up with the speech (although a short delay 
is inevitable), at some point the provider is no longer offering relay 
service and the call is not compensable. Therefore, a provider offering 
this service has a strong incentive to ensure that the text is 
delivered promptly to the IP captioned telephone user.)
    The Commission expects, however, as with captioned telephone 
service, that the service will be provided in a way that is automated 
and invisible to both parties to the call. For example, presently with 
captioned telephone service the consumer does not communicate directly 
with a CA to set up the call; similarly, we expect that IP captioned 
telephone service should permit the consumer to directly dial the 
called party and then automatically connect the CA to the calling party 
to deliver the captions. The Commission does not, however, require that 
all captioned telephone calls be set up and handled in this manner. Cf. 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, 
Order, 21 FCC Rcd 9147, 9148, paragraph 2 (August 14, 2006); published 
at 71 FR 49380, August 23, 2006 (2006 Captioned Telephone Waiver Order) 
(noting that ``as presently offered,'' the consumer directly dials the 
number of the called party, not the number of the relay center). The 
Commission also notes that for calls initiated by a voice telephone 
user (inbound calls), the calling party dials an 800 number and then 
the number of the IP captioned telephone user. See Petition at 22.) 
Similarly, although the Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling 
explained that the captions were generated by voice recognition 
technology, and therefore no typing was involved, (See, e.g., Captioned 
Telephone Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd at 16122, paragraph 4, and 
16127, paragraph 16), the Commission does not preclude providers of IP 
captioned telephone service from generating the captions in other ways 
(e.g., typing), as long as the captions are generated quickly enough to 
appear on the consumer's device nearly simultaneously with the speech. 
(See 2006 Captioned Telephone Waiver Order at paragraph 4 (clarifying 
that certain requirements does not apply to this service if it is 
offered via voice recognition technology and not typed text)). The 
principle characteristic of any captioned telephone service is that the 
consumer nearly simultaneously receives both the actual voice of the 
other party to the call and text of what the party is saying, not that 
the captions are generated by voice recognition technology or any other 
particular way. (See Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd 
at 16127, paragraph 17 (captioned telephone service is ``any service 
that uses a device that allows the user to simultaneously listen to, 
and read the text of, what the other party has said'')). The Commission 
recognizes that because this service offers consumers additional 
features--e.g., portability, lower cost and easier availability, 
greater accessibility for persons with multiple disabilities (see, 
e.g., Ultratec Petition to Clarify at 4-7; CAC TRS Working Group 
Recommendation at 3)--it represents an important step towards 
functional equivalency. (See CAC TRS Working Group Recommendation at 3-
4.)
    Moreover, the Commission expects that this will not be a service 
under the control of one vendor or provider. In this regard, the 
Commission conditions its approval on Ultratec's representation that it 
will continue to license its captioned telephone technologies, 
including technologies relating to IP CTS, at reasonable rates. (See 
KPS Consulting, Ex Parte Letter, CG Docket No. 03-123 (November 27, 
2006) (stating that Ultratec ``has licensed its technologies at 
reasonable rates since captioned telephone service first became 
available * * * and will

[[Page 6964]]

continue to license its technologies, including technologies relating 
to IP captioned telephone, going forward'')).
    The Commission also concludes that, on an interim basis, all IP CTS 
calls may be compensated from the Fund if provided in compliance with 
the Commission's rules. (See CAC TRS Working Group Recommendation at 1 
(urging that this service be compensated from the Fund)). This is 
consistent with the present treatment of VRS and IP Relay calls. (The 
Declaratory Ruling does not affect the compensation of captioned 
telephone calls recognized in the Captioned Telephone Declaratory 
Ruling, which are not Internet-based (i.e., are not calls where the 
connection carrying the captions between the service and the user is 
via the Internet). See Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC 
Rcd at 16128-29, paragraphs 19-22 (declining to permit all captioned 
telephone calls to be compensated from the Fund, noting that for such 
calls providers can determine if a particular call is interstate or 
intrastate)). The Commission believes this arrangement will be an 
incentive for multiple providers to offer this service on a nationwide 
basis. (See generally Ultratec Petition to Clarify at 6.) The 
Commission notes that this is an interim measure and that we intend to 
revisit the cost recovery methodology for this service in the future, 
(as noted above, in the pending 2006 TRS Cost Recovery FNPRM, the 
Commission has raised the issue of the appropriate cost recovery 
methodologies for all forms of TRS), including jurisdictional 
separation of costs. The Commission will also consider at a future date 
whether IP CTS and captioned telephone service should be mandatory 
forms of TRS.).
    In addition, the Commission notes that, presently, interstate 
captioned telephone calls are compensated at the same rate as 
traditional TRS calls, and IP Relay is compensated at a separate rate. 
(For the 2006-2007 Fund year, traditional TRS and captioned telephone 
service are compensated at the rate of $1.291 per minute, and IP Relay 
is compensated at the rate of $1.293 per minute. See Telecommunications 
Relay Services, and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with 
Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Order, CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, 21 
FCC Rcd 7018 (June 29, 2006); Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling, 
18 FCC Rcd at 16129, paragraph 22.) Because the Commission believes 
that, for cost recovery purposes, the provision of IP captioned 
telephone service more closely resembles IP Relay service, not 
captioned telephone service, IP captioned telephone calls shall be 
compensated at the same per-minute rate as IP Relay service. (In the 
Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling, the Commission concluded that 
although captioned telephone service would be compensated at the 
traditional TRS rate, because there was only one provider of the 
service, which used proprietary technology, the projected costs and 
minutes of use for captioned telephone service would not be included in 
determining the traditional TRS rate. Captioned Telephone Declaratory 
Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd at 16129-30, paragraph 23. Because it is presently 
unclear how many providers may choose to offer IP CTS, and how it will 
be offered, the Commission similarly concludes that the projected costs 
and minutes of use for IP CTS shall not be included in determining the 
IP Relay compensation rate, which will apply to IP CTS. At the same 
time, the Commission directs providers of IP CTS to submit their cost 
and use data specific to this service to the Fund administrator so that 
we will be able to monitor and review the costs associated with this 
service.)
    Federal Certification for IP CTS Providers. In the TRS Provider 
Certification Order, the Commission adopted a means by which common 
carriers seeking to offer IP Relay or VRS may seek ``certification'' 
from the Commission as an eligible provider. (See TRS Provider 
Certification Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 20586-90, paragraphs 17-26.) The 
Commission noted that the present eligibility criteria for compensation 
from the Interstate TRS Fund set forth in the Commission's rules do not 
reflect advances in the way that TRS is offered, particularly with 
respect to the Internet-based forms of TRS. (See 47 CFR 
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F)(3) of the Commission's rules, setting forth three 
eligibility categories for TRS providers seeking compensation from the 
Fund. As the Commission has explained, these categories include being 
part of a certified state program, contracting with an entity that is 
part of a certified state program, or being a common carrier obligated 
to provide TRS in a state that does not have a certified state program. 
TRS Provider Certification Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 20586-87, paragraphs 
18-19.) As a result, the Commission adopted a Commission certification 
alternative that would permit common carriers desiring to offer VRS 
and/or IP Relay, and not the other forms of TRS, to receive 
compensation from the Fund. (TRS Provider Certification Order, 20 FCC 
Rcd at 20586, paragraph 17.) This process is described in that order 
and the Commission's rules. (TRS Provider Certification Order, 20 FCC 
Rcd at 20587-90, paragraphs 22-26; 47 CFR 64.605 of the Commission's 
rules.)
    The Commission concludes that an entity desiring to provide IP 
captioned telephone service, like an IP Relay provider, may choose to 
seek certification from the Commission under these rules. (In a 
subsequent rulemaking, the Commission will add IP CTS to these 
certification rules. See 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F)(4) and Sec.  
64.605 of the Commission's rules.) As a general matter, potential IP 
CTS providers may become eligible for compensation from the Fund by 
being accepted into a certified state TRS program or subcontracting 
with an entity that is part of a certified state program, or by seeking 
Commission certification. (If eligibility is via a certified state 
program, the Commission reminds the state programs that they must 
notify the Commission within 60 days of substantive changes in their 
program. See 47 CFR 64.605(f)(1) of the Commission's rule.) Present 
eligibility to receive compensation from the Fund for the provision of 
other forms of TRS (including captioned telephone service) does not 
confer eligibility with regard to the provision of the IP CTS 
recognized in the Declaratory Ruling.
    Applicable Mandatory Minimum Standards. The Commission does not 
mandate the provision of IP captioned telephone service at this time. 
(Presently VRS, IP Relay, and captioned telephone service are not 
mandatory TRS services). Because the Commission does not mandate IP 
captioned telephone service, this service need not be offered 24/7 at 
this time. See 47 CFR 64.604(b)(4) of the Commission's rules.) 
Nevertheless, to be eligible for compensation from the Fund, providers 
must offer service in compliance with all applicable TRS mandatory 
minimum standards. The Commission has waived or found to be 
inapplicable various mandatory minimum standards for the provision of 
captioned telephone service (see Captioned Telephone Declaratory 
Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd at 16130-39, paragraphs 24-54 (addressing mandatory 
minimum standards that are either inapplicable or waived for captioned 
telephone service); Captioned Telephone Waiver Order) and IP Relay, 
(see generally 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12594 
(summarizing waivers for IP Relay and VRS)), given the nature of these 
services. Because IP captioned telephone service shares characteristics 
with both of these services, the Commission sets forth herein those 
mandatory minimum standards either

[[Page 6965]]

inapplicable or presently waived for IP CTS.
    Although, as noted above, the Commission recognizes that IP 
captioned telephone service can be provided in a variety of ways, its 
defining characteristics--i.e., that the provider relays captions to 
the consumer via the Internet, and that the captions are delivered to 
the consumer in a way that is timely, automated and invisible--make 
certain mandatory minimum standards inapplicable to the provision of 
this service. Therefore, consistent with the Commission's treatment of 
various mandatory minimum standards in the context of captioned 
telephone service and IP Relay, the Commission concludes that providers 
of IP captioned telephone service need not, at this time, meet the 
following requirements: (1) gender preference (the gender preference 
rule requires relay providers to accommodate a user's requested CA 
gender. See 47 CFR 64.604(a)(1)(vi) of the Commission's rules. This 
requirement does not apply to captioned telephone service. See 
Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd at 16137-38, 
paragraphs 47-48); (2) handling calls in ASCII and Baudot formats 
(providers of traditional TRS (i.e., text-based TRS calls made via a 
TTY and the PSTN) must ensure that the TTY can communicate in either 
the ASCII or Baudot formats. See 47 CFR 64.601(3) and (4) of the 
Commission's rules; 47 CFR 64.604(b)(1) of the Commission's rules. This 
requirement does not apply to captioned telephone service. See 
Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd at 16139, paragraphs 
53-54); (3) call release (call release is a TRS feature that allows the 
CA to drop from the call after the CA has set up a telephone call 
between two TTY users. See 47 CFR 64.601(5) of the Commission's rules. 
This requirement does not apply to captioned telephone service. See 
Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd at 16138-39, 
paragraphs 51-52. It is waived for IP Relay until January 1, 2008. See 
2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12594); (4) Speech-to-Speech 
(STS) (captioned telephone service providers need not offer STS at this 
time. See Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd at 16131-
32, paragraphs 28-31. STS service is waived for IP Relay until January 
1, 2008. See 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12594); (5) 
Hearing Carry Over (HCO) and VCO services (VCO permits a person with a 
hearing disability, but who is able to speak, to speak directly to the 
other party to the call (instead of typing text), but receive in return 
the called party's spoken words as text on the TTY. See 47 CFR 
64.601(18) of the Commission's rules. HCO permits a person with a 
speech disability, but who is able to hear, to type text to the other 
party to the call (which is voiced by the CA), but listen in return to 
what the called party is saying. See 47 CFR 64.601(8) of the 
Commission's rules. HCO does not apply to captioned telephone service. 
See Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd at 16131-32, 
paragraphs 28-31. VCO and HCO services are waived for IP Relay until 
January 1, 2008. See 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12594); 
(6) outbound 711 calling (outbound 711 dialing permits a relay user to 
dial 711 to reach a relay provider. This requirement does not apply to 
captioned telephone service. See Captioned Telephone Declaratory 
Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd at 16131, paragraph 34); (7) emergency call handling 
(emergency call handling requires relay providers to be able to 
automatically contact the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point 
when they receive an incoming emergency call. See 47 CFR 64.604(a)(4) 
of the Commission's rules. The Commission notes that this requirement 
is presently waived for other Internet-based forms of TRS (IP Relay and 
VRS) until January 1, 2008. See 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 
at 12594; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,  CG 
Docket No. 03-123, Order, DA 06-2532 (released December 15, 2006) 
(extending VRS waiver until January 1, 2008). The Commission recognizes 
the importance of access to emergency services for all forms of TRS, 
however, and anticipates addressing access to 911 services for IP CTS 
when it addresses 911 access for the other Internet-based forms of TRS 
pursuant to the 2005 VRS/IP Relay 911 NPRM; published at 71 FR 5221, 
February 1, 2006. See also Federal Communications Commission E9-1-1 
Disability Access Summit, held November 15, 2006 (transcript filed in 
CG Docket No. 03-123)); (8) equal access to interexchange carriers 
(This requirement requires providers to relay long distance calls 
through the consumer's choice of interexchange carrier. See 47 CFR 
64.604(b)(3) of the Commission rules. This requirement is waived 
permanently for IP Relay, provided that IP Relay providers offer free 
long distance service to their customers. See 2004 TRS Report and 
Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12524-25, paragraphs 124-27, and 12594. Similarly, 
if an IP CTS provider does not offer interexchange carrier of choice, 
the provider must offer free long distance service to their customers); 
(9) pay-per-call (900) service (pay-per-call (900) services are calls 
that include a charge billed to the calling party. See 47 CFR 
64.604(a)(3)(iv) of the Commission rules. This requirement is waived 
for IP Relay until January 1, 2008. See 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 
FCC Rcd at 12594); (10) three-way calling (three-way calling allows 
more than two parties to be on the telephone line with the CA. See 47 
CFR 64.601(16) of the Commission's rules. This requirement is waived 
for IP Relay until January 1, 2008. See 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 
FCC Rcd at 12594); (11) speed dialing (speed dialing allows a TRS user 
to place a call using a stored number maintained by the TRS provider. 
The TRS user gives the CA a ``short-hand'' name or number for the 
user's most frequently called telephone numbers. See 47 CFR 64.601(13) 
of the Commission's rules. This requirement is waived for IP Relay 
until January 1, 2008. See 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 
12594); and (12) certain rules applying to CAs. (The Captioned 
Telephone Declaratory Ruling waived certain requirements applying to 
the CAs, including that: (1) CAs must be competent in interpreting 
typewritten American Sign Language (ASL); (2) TRS providers must give 
CAs oral-to-type tests; and (3) CAs may not refuse sequential calls. 
See Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd at 16134-37, 
paragraphs 36-46. These waivers expired on August 1, 2006. In the 2006 
Captioned Telephone Waiver Order, the Commission clarified that these 
requirements do not apply to captioned telephone services where the 
user does not type the outbound message, the CA generates text for the 
user principally using voice recognition technologies (instead of 
typing), and the CA does not play a role in setting up a call. See 2006 
Captioned Telephone Waiver Order, at paragraph 4. These requirements 
also do not apply to IP CTS in similar circumstances.) For those 
waivers presently contingent on annual reporting requirements, 
providers of IP CTS must also file such reports. (Consistent with the 
present treatment of waivers for IP Relay, IP CTS providers must file 
annual reports addressing the waivers for STS, emergency call handling, 
pay-per-call (900) services, VCO and HCO, call release, three-way 
calling, and speed dialing. These reports must be filed by April 1 of 
each year, beginning April 1,

[[Page 6966]]

2008. See 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12594; see also 2004 
TRS Report and Order at 12520-21, paragraph 111 (detailing required 
contents of annual report)).
    The Commission recognizes that depending on how IP CTS is offered, 
providers may be able to offer some of the features and services noted 
above. The Commission encourages all IP CTS providers to offer 
consumers as many of these features as possible if it is technically 
feasible to do so, and expect that competition between providers will 
serve as an incentive for providers to do so. (See also CAC TRS Working 
Group Recommendation at 3 (setting forth possible features of this 
service)). The Commission also again emphasizes that providers must 
offer service in compliance with all applicable non-waived mandatory 
minimum standards to be compensated from the Fund.

Congressional Review Act

    The Commission will not send a copy of the Declaratory Ruling 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) 
because the adopted rules are rules of particular applicability, 
granting a request for clarification that IP CTS is a type of TRS 
eligible for compensation from the Fund.

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 
218 and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 218 and 225, and Sections 1.2, 1.3, 64.604 
and 64.605 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2, 1.3, 64.604 and 
64.605, the Declaratory Ruling hereby is adopted.
    Petition to Amend filed by Petitioners is granted to the extent 
indicated herein.
    Ultratec Petition to Clarify is granted to the extent indicated 
herein.
    The Declaratory Ruling shall be effective April 16, 2007.
    The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center shall send a copy of the Declaratory 
Ruling, including the Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-2573 Filed 2-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P