[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79683-79696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30999]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 03-123; WC Docket No. 05-196; FCC 08-275]


Telecommunications Relay Services, Speech-to-Speech Services, 
E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission addressed several issues relating to the 
Commission's Internet-based TRS Order, which adopted a system to assign 
users of Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS), 
specifically Video Relay Service (VRS) and Internet-Protocol (IP) 
Relay, ten-digit numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan 
(NANP).

DATES: Effective December 31, 2008, except for the information 
collection requirements contained in Sec.  64.605 that are not 
effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) will publish a 
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for the 
information collections in this section.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Dever, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, (202) 418-1578.
    For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained in this document contact 
Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order and Order on Reconsideration (Order) in CG Docket No. 03-123, 
and WC Docket Nos. 05-196, adopted December 19, 2008, and released 
December 19, 2008. The text of this document is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from 
the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 
(800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-
mail at www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web 
site at http://www.fcc.gov.
    In addition to filing comments with the Office of the Secretary, a 
copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information 
collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Judith 
B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-B441, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected].
    The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a report to be 
sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 
the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This Order contains new or modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this R&O as required 
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 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 the Commission 
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
    In this Order, the Commission assessed the effects of imposing a 
requirement that Internet-based TRS providers institute procedures to 
verify the accuracy of registration information. The Commission took 
steps to minimize the information collection burden for small business 
concerns, including those with fewer than 25 employees. For example, 
Internet-based TRS providers may choose their use of verification 
procedures. Indeed, the Commission only required that Internet-based 
TRS providers implement a reasonable means of verifying registration 
and eligibility information that is not unduly burdensome. Moreover, 
the Commission concluded that all Internet-based TRS providers, 
including small entities, will be eligible to receive compensation from 
the Interstate TRS Fund for their reasonable costs of complying with 
the verification requirements adopted in the Order. These measures 
should substantially alleviate any burdens on businesses with fewer 
than 25 employees.

Synopsis of the Report and Order

    1. In this Order, the Commission addresses several issues relating 
to the Internet-based TRS Order, 73 FR 41286, July 18, 2008, which 
adopted a system to assign users of Internet-based Telecommunications 
Relay Service (TRS), specifically Video Relay Service (VRS) and 
Internet-Protocol (IP) Relay, ten-digit numbers linked to the North 
American Numbering Plan (NANP). The Commission determined that the 
numbering system will ensure that VRS and IP Relay users (collectively 
``Internet-based TRS users'') can be called in the same manner that 
voice telephone users are called--using a standard ten-digit telephone 
number--and that emergency calls placed by Internet-based TRS users 
will be routed directly and automatically to appropriate emergency 
services authorities by the Internet-based TRS providers. The 
Commission mandated that the new numbering and emergency call handling 
plan be implemented by December 31, 2008. In an accompanying Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further NPRM), 73 FR 41307, July 18, 
2008, the Commission sought comment on additional issues relating to 
the implementation of the ten-digit numbering plan and emergency call

[[Page 79684]]

handling requirements for Internet-based TRS.
    2. The Order addresses issues critical to ensuring a successful 
transition to ten-digit numbering by December 31, 2008. Specifically, 
the Commission addresses 911 implementation issues, the timing for user 
registration, use of toll free numbers for Internet-based TRS service, 
eligibility requirements and verification procedures, assignment of 
telephone numbers, and numbering cost issues. The Commission also 
addresses a petition for reconsideration filed by CSDVRS, GoAmerica, 
Viable, and Snap; a petition for clarification filed by CSDVRS; a 
petition for reconsideration and clarification filed by Sorenson 
regarding 911 and E911 issues; a petition for limited waiver filed by 
Sorenson regarding the use of ``proxy'' and ``alias'' numbers, and a 
petition for clarification filed by NENA and the Association of Public-
Safety Communications Officials International (APCO) concerning the 
types of information a VRS communications assistant may provide to 
emergency personnel when relaying an emergency VRS call.
    3. Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) 
requires the creation of a nationwide TRS program to allow persons with 
hearing and speech disabilities access to the nation's telephone 
network. TRS must be available to the extent possible and in the most 
efficient manner, and must offer telephone system access that is 
``functionally equivalent'' to voice telephone services, as reflected 
in the TRS mandatory minimum standards. The functional equivalency 
standard serves as the benchmark in determining the services and 
features TRS providers must offer to consumers. In some circumstances, 
TRS equipment also permits persons with hearing disabilities to 
communicate directly with each other (i.e., point-to-point calls).
    4. When Congress adopted section 225, relay calls were placed using 
a text telephone device (TTY) connected to the Public Switched 
Telephone Network (PSTN). Since then, the Commission has recognized new 
forms of TRS, including Internet-based forms of TRS such as VRS, IP 
Relay, and IP CTS. Because Internet-based relay services have not been 
linked to a uniform telephone numbering scheme and, instead, have used 
shifting (or ``dynamic'') IP addresses, there has been no consistent 
means by which to reach an Internet-based TRS user. Also, because IP 
addresses have not necessarily correlated to an Internet-based TRS 
user's geographic location, there has been no consistent means by which 
an Internet-based TRS provider can directly and automatically route an 
Internet-based TRS emergency call to an appropriate public safety 
answering point (PSAP).
    5. The Internet-based TRS Order addressed both of these issues. 
First, to ensure that voice telephone users can call a VRS or IP Relay 
user simply by dialing a ten-digit number, i.e., in the same manner 
that they would call another voice telephone user, the Commission 
required Internet-based TRS providers to assign NANP telephone numbers 
to persons who use their service. The Commission determined that 
Internet-based TRS users should obtain telephone numbers directly from 
an Internet-based TRS provider, given that such a process is 
functionally equivalent to the process by which voice telephone 
subscribers obtain telephone numbers. The Commission also determined 
that to obtain a telephone number, an Internet-based TRS user must 
register with his or her selected (or ``default'') Internet-based TRS 
provider. In addition, the Commission extended its local number 
portability (LNP) obligations to Internet-based TRS providers, so that 
the full array of obligations relating to the porting of numbers from 
one service provider to another will apply when an Internet-based TRS 
user wishes to port his or her telephone number to a new default 
provider.
    6. To make it possible for providers to route a call from a voice 
telephone user to a VRS or IP Relay user, using the TRS user's ten-
digit telephone number, the Commission adopted a central numbering 
directory mechanism that maps the Internet-based TRS user's ten-digit 
NANP telephone number to the current Internet address of his or her end 
device. The Commission concluded that Internet-based TRS providers 
would provision routing information directly to the central numbering 
directory on behalf of their registered users. The Commission also 
determined that this routing information will be in the form of a 
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). A telephone number assigned for IP 
Relay use will have an associated URI containing a domain name and user 
name, and a telephone number assigned for VRS use will have an 
associated URI containing an IP address and device-specific protocol 
information. The Commission further determined that building, 
maintaining, and operating the central numbering directory would best 
be accomplished by a neutral third party administrator under contract 
with the Commission and compensated through the Interstate TRS Fund 
(Fund). The Commission concluded that, for security reasons, only 
Internet-based TRS providers should be authorized to query the central 
numbering directory for the purpose of obtaining information from the 
numbering directory to complete calls.
    7. Second, to ensure that Internet-based TRS users can make 
emergency calls that will be directly and automatically routed to the 
appropriate PSAP, the Commission required that Internet-based TRS 
providers, prior to the initiation of service, obtain consumer location 
information from each of their registered users. Further, the 
Commission required each Internet-based TRS provider to transmit all 
911 calls to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or 
appropriate local emergency authority that services the caller's 
Registered Location and that has been designated for telecommunications 
carriers under the Commission's part 64 rules. Each such 911 call must 
carry a call back number, the name of the relay provider, the 
communications assistant's (CA's) identification number, and the 
caller's Registered Location. The Commission further instructed that 
such calls must be routed through the use of ANI (or pseudo-ANI, if 
necessary) via the dedicated Wireline E911 Network, and the Registered 
Location must be available from or through the ALI Database. The 
Commission made clear that Internet-based TRS providers may not fulfill 
their 911 obligations by routing 911 calls to ten-digit NPA-NXX numbers 
(so called ``administrative numbers'') of PSAPs where a selective 
router is utilized.
    8. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on fourteen 
different issues relating to the assignment and administration of ten-
digit telephone numbers for Internet-based TRS. Specifically, the 
Commission sought comment on: (1) Certain peripheral issues concerning 
the proper handling of 911 calls placed via Internet-based TRS; (2) 
registration period; (3) the eligibility of Internet-based TRS users to 
receive multiple telephone numbers; (4) the use of toll-free numbers; 
(5) what steps the Commission should take, if any, to facilitate 
implementation of standards-based signaling between service providers; 
(6) the assignment of a single telephone number to multiple services; 
(7) multi-line telephone systems; (8) eligibility to obtain Internet-
based TRS telephone numbers; (9) the regulatory treatment of IP CTS; 
(10) additional security measures designed to ensure the integrity of 
the TRS system and

[[Page 79685]]

Internet-based TRS equipment and networks; (11) verification of 
registration; (12) application of the anti-slamming rules to protect 
relay consumers against unauthorized default provider changes; (13) the 
extent to which the CPNI rules should apply to Internet-based TRS 
providers; and (14) whether, and to what extent, in connection with the 
compensation of Internet-based TRS providers for their reasonable 
actual costs of complying with the Internet-based TRS Order, the costs 
of acquiring numbers, and porting fees, should be passed on to 
Internet-based TRS users. The Commission received numerous comments on 
these issues.
    9. On August 15, 2008, CSDVRS, GoAmerica, Viable and Snap filed a 
petition seeking reconsideration and clarification of the Commission's 
Internet-based TRS Order with respect to the obligations of default and 
former default providers to route consumer information. The petitioners 
request that the Commission revise its rule to allow the consumer 
either (1) to continue to use the devices once they have ported their 
number with the understanding that their routing information will 
continue to be provisioned by the original provider that supplied the 
device or (2) to acquire a new device from the new default provider. 
Sorenson filed an opposition to the Petition for Reconsideration and 
the TDI Coalition and Hamilton filed comments in response to the 
Petition for Reconsideration. CSDVRS and GoAmerica filed replies to 
Sorenson's opposition to the Petition for Reconsideration.
    10. On August 15, 2008, CSDVRS also filed a petition seeking 
clarification that the Commission's rules require VRS providers to 
provide fully interoperable relay service. CSDVRS requests that the 
Commission clarify that every VRS provider has an obligation to ensure 
that it is as easy for a VRS user to place outbound calls via competing 
providers as it is to place outbound calls via the user's default 
provider. Sorenson filed an opposition to CSDVRS's Petition for 
Clarification and CSDVRS and GoAmerica filed replies to Sorenson's 
opposition.
    11. On August 18, 2008, Sorenson filed a petition for 
reconsideration and clarification seeking the Commission to: (1) Allow 
the continued use of ``proxy'' numbers; (2) recognize that 911 calls 
must be routed over administrative lines in certain circumstances; and 
(3) clarify the date by which E911 must be fully implemented. The TDI 
Coalition filed an opposition to Sorenson's Petition for 
Reconsideration and the Joint Responders filed a partial opposition. 
AT&T filed reply comments. On September 30, 2008, Sorenson filed a 
petition for limited waiver of the prohibition on the use of ``proxy'' 
and ``alias'' numbers. CSDVRS, GoAmerica, Hamilton Relay, and TDI 
Coalition filed oppositions to Sorenson's petition for limited waiver. 
Sorenson filed a reply to the oppositions.
    12. On October 24, 2008, NENA and APCO filed a request for 
clarification that the Commission's rule governing the non-disclosure 
by a CA of the content of a relayed conversation does not prohibit a 
VRS CA, when relaying an emergency call, from disclosing background 
visual and auditory information to emergency personnel. Sorenson and 
the TDI Coalition filed ex partes in support of this request.

A. 911 Issues

    13. 911 Calls and the Call Completion Rule. The Commission's rules 
require Internet-based TRS providers to use a system that ensures that 
the provider will answer an incoming emergency call before other non-
emergency calls, i.e., that the provider will prioritize emergency 
calls and move them to the top of the queue. In the Further NPRM, the 
Commission sought comment on whether, as an additional step to ensure 
the prompt handling of emergency calls, the call completion rule should 
be modified so that if an Internet-based TRS provider's CA is handling 
a non-emergency relay call and identifies an incoming 911 call that 
would be placed in queue, the CA may terminate the existing call to 
answer the 911 call immediately. As the Commission noted, under the 
current call completion rule, a CA may not terminate an ongoing call 
for any reason, including to answer a 911 call that would otherwise 
wait in a queue for the next available CA.
    14. Based on the record, the Commission concludes that it should 
not modify the call completion rule to allow CAs to terminate an 
existing call in order to answer a 911 call. As several providers note, 
allowing CAs to terminate a non-emergency call is inconsistent with the 
principle of functional equivalency and the role of the CA as a dial 
tone. Moreover, the assumption that the CA would be terminating a call 
to answer a call that is more urgent may, in fact, not always be true. 
As Sprint Nextel notes, a call between a patient and her doctor might 
be terminated to answer an emergency call that presents less life-
threatening issues. Further, several providers note that there is 
little evidence in the record to demonstrate that 911 calls made to 
Internet-based TRS providers have been substantially delayed, or that 
there is otherwise any compelling reason to modify the current call 
completion rule, particularly in view of the requirement that providers 
prioritize incoming 911 calls. For these reasons, the Commission 
declines to modify our rules to permit CAs to terminate existing calls 
to answer 911 calls. The Commission will revisit this issue in the 
future, however, if it receives information that, notwithstanding the 
emergency call prioritization rule, emergency callers have had to wait 
more than a minimal amount of time to reach a CA.
    15. Prioritization of ``Call Backs'' If 911 Call is Disconnected. 
As noted above, in the Interim Emergency Call Handling Order, the 
Commission required providers to implement a system to ensure that 
incoming emergency calls are answered before other non-emergency calls 
so that an emergency caller does not have to wait in a queue for the 
next available CA. The interim rules also require the CA to give the 
emergency personnel, at the beginning of the call, the CA's callback 
number so that the emergency personnel can call back the CA if the call 
gets disconnected. The latter rule was superseded by the Internet-based 
TRS Order, which requires, effective December 31, 2008, that the CA 
give the emergency personnel the caller's ten-digit number, rather than 
the CA's call back number.
    16. As the Commission stated in the recent VRS Numbering Waiver 
Order, the requirement that VRS providers implement a system to ensure 
that all incoming emergency calls are prioritized and do not have to 
wait in a queue also applies to callbacks from the emergency services 
personnel. Therefore, the Commission again reminds providers that they 
must ensure not only that incoming 911 calls are prioritized, but also 
that callbacks from the emergency services personnel to the consumer 
via the consumer's ten-digit number are answered by the provider before 
non-emergency calls.
    17. Relay of Visual and Auditory Information to Emergency 
Personnel. Recognizing the Commission's commitment to adapt the 
Commission's rules to ``ensure that people with disabilities who desire 
to use interconnected'' IP-enabled services ``obtain access to E911 
services,'' NENA and APCO request clarification that VRS CAs may, 
``when reasonably necessary, * * * provide visual information to a 9-1-
1 telecommunicator that will protect the life of the caller and/or 
others, including first responders.'' Authorizing such actions would 
``allow interpreters to step in and describe a

[[Page 79686]]

situation accurately when the deaf user is unable to do so.'' NENA and 
APCO further ask that the Commission clarify that VRS CAs may retain 
records of what they see and hear during an emergency call.
    18. The Commission agrees in part and so clarifies. The 
Commission's rules (and the statute) generally prohibit a CA from 
``intentionally altering a relayed conversation'' and from ``keeping 
records of the content of any conversation beyond the duration of a 
call.'' The Commission reads these provisions to preserve the content 
and privacy of the ``relayed conversation,'' but background visual and 
auditory information regarding an emergency that a CA may see and hear 
during a VRS call is not part of the ``conversation.'' Thus relaying 
background visual and auditory information to emergency personnel 
regarding an ongoing emergency does not contravene the statutory and 
regulatory protections for ``relayed conversations.'' Bolstering the 
Commission's interpretation is the Commission's recognition that just 
as emergency personnel garner important information from the sounds 
they hear during an emergency call with a hearing user (the crackling 
of a fire, the explosion of a gunshot), emergency personnel may get 
functionally equivalent information from the sights a CA sees during an 
emergency call with a VRS user (the flames of a fire, the brandishing 
of a gun). Allowing a VRS CA to relay visual and auditory information 
regarding an ongoing emergency to emergency personnel should help 
protect the safety and lives of VRS users and emergency responders. 
Thus the Commission clarifies that, consistent with the Commission's 
rules and the Act, a CA may relay background visual and auditory 
information regarding an ongoing emergency to assist emergency 
personnel in responding to an emergency VRS call. Moreover, because of 
the importance of quick action in the face of an ongoing emergency, the 
Commission clarifies that VRS CAs may retain a record of background 
visual and auditory information regarding an emergency for a reasonable 
time after an emergency call has terminated for the sole purpose of 
providing that information to emergency personnel should they call 
back.

B. Registration Period

    19. In the Internet-based TRS Order, the Commission required that 
every Internet-based TRS provider offer its users the capability to 
register with that provider as the ``default provider'' and provide or 
port for that user a NANP telephone number. In addition, the Commission 
required Internet-based TRS providers to obtain registration 
information from all new users and assign all new users a NANP 
telephone number. The Commission explained that requiring users to 
register and assigning them NANP telephone numbers has benefits that 
include facilitating the effective provision of 911 service. In the 
Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the length of the 
registration period during which Internet-based TRS providers will 
register existing users, obtain their initial Registered Location, and 
provide the users new ten-digit NANP telephone numbers. The Commission 
also sought comment on whether there should be a cut-off date for 
users' registration with a default provider.
    20. The Commission received a number of comments on this issue. 
AT&T proposes a three-month registration period and a three-month 
permissive calling period. During these periods, AT&T recommends 
education and outreach efforts. AT&T recommends that at the end of the 
permissive calling period, Internet-based TRS providers cease 
completing the non-emergency calls of unregistered Internet-based TRS 
users. The TDI Coalition recommends a six-month period conditioned on 
the Commission undertaking periodic review of actual registrations 
resulting from outreach and education efforts of the Commission and 
Internet-based TRS providers. CSDVRS recommends a 12-month registration 
period with the requirement that each VRS provider submit its number of 
new registrations on a quarterly basis to the Commission. CSDVRS also 
recommends procedures to be put in place after the cut-off date in 
which callers will be routed to customer service to become registered.
    21. Several commenters recommend no cut-off of calling capabilities 
for unregistered users. NENA claims that education of Internet-based 
TRS users is preferable to cutting off service. Sorenson also does not 
recommend a cut-off period. Rather, Sorenson recommends promoting 
registration and education about the benefits of signing up with a 
default provider, but not refusing service to individuals who choose 
not to register. GoAmerica recommends that registration should be 
required to obtain a ten-digit number, but not required to use 
Internet-based TRS service, i.e., users should not be forced to 
register if they do not want to. GoAmerica further comments that 
mandatory registration is ``contrary to functional equivalence'' as 
hearing people do not have to register.
    22. As the Commission stated in the Internet-based TRS Order, 
registration is essential to the assignment and use of NANP telephone 
numbers and has important public safety benefits. The Commission 
disagrees with GoAmerica that registration is contrary to functional 
equivalency. For traditional voice communications services, users 
``register'' when they sign up for service by providing their name and 
address, and in the case of interconnected VoIP, registration is 
mandatory. The Commission repeats that Internet-based TRS providers 
must register eligible new users before providing them service. For 
example, any newly-provisioned user (i.e., a user being sent a new 
device, or application software download) must be given a NANP 
telephone number. The Commission also adopts AT&T's recommendation to 
provide, for eligible existing users, a three-month registration period 
followed by a three-month permissive calling period; during this six-
month period Internet-based TRS providers will engage in consumer 
education and outreach efforts.
    23. As noted by AT&T, the permissive calling period is comparable 
to the permissive calling period that is used in area code relief 
situations to provide flexibility as consumers adapt to the new 
numbering scheme. Accordingly, Internet-based TRS users may place and 
receive calls via the method used before December 31, 2008 during the 
three-month registration and three-month permissive calling periods. 
Once an Internet-based TRS user obtains a NANP telephone number, the 
user may still be reached by his or her ``proxy'' or ``alias'' number, 
but the Internet-based TRS provider will provide a message notifying 
the caller of the user's new NANP telephone number and advising the 
caller that after June 30, 2009, the user may only be reached by the 
NANP telephone number.
    24. Providers should have no trouble getting most of their users 
with hearing and speech disabilities registered by the three-month 
target deadline, but the permissive calling period provides flexibility 
for a transition period in case, for some reason, some users need more 
time to register. Moreover, during the permissive calling period, 
Internet-based TRS providers can continue to engage in targeted 
education and outreach. As discussed in our Internet-based TRS Order, 
registration is necessary for Internet-based TRS providers to associate 
an Internet-based TRS user's telephone number with his or her IP 
address to allow for the routing and completion of calls. Moreover, 
mandatory registration is critical to the

[[Page 79687]]

effective handling of 911 calls. Specifically, registration allows 
Internet-based TRS providers to provide first responders with location 
information for emergency calls placed over Internet-based TRS. The TDI 
Coalition agrees that registration is necessary for users to benefit 
from effective 911 call handling. In addition, mandatory registration 
will facilitate the implementation of appropriate network security 
measures by reducing access to the Internet-based TRS providers' 
databases and therefore, limit the exposure of the databases to abuses, 
such as hacking. In order to ensure that Internet-based TRS users can 
realize the benefits of the numbering system adopted in the Internet-
based TRS Order, registration must be mandatory with a definitive cut-
off date by which Internet-based TRS providers may not complete the 
non-emergency calls of unregistered users.
    25. The Commission establishes the following registration schedule: 
The registration period will begin on December 31, 2008, the 
implementation date of the new ten-digit numbering system. The three-
month registration period will end on March 31, 2009, and the 
permissive calling period will end on June 30, 2009. At the end of the 
permissive calling period, existing Internet-based TRS users who have 
not registered with a default provider will be treated like new 
Internet-based TRS users. Internet-based TRS providers must register 
these eligible users before they may make non-emergency calls, in 
accordance with the E911 goals set forth in the Internet-based TRS 
Order. The Commission encourages all Internet-based TRS providers to 
register their eligible users during the three-month registration 
period, but acknowledge that there may be a need for additional time 
and therefore, allow a three-month permissive calling period. The 
Commission also encourages Internet-based TRS providers to keep it 
apprised of the status of customer registrations during the 
registration period through ex parte filings in these dockets.
    26. Some providers have stated that they are unable to distinguish 
a new user from an ``existing'' user who is dialing around the default 
provider with which he or she is registered. The Commission notes that, 
as a new user is ``an individual that has not previously utilized VRS 
or IP Relay,'' someone to whom the provider has already issued a proxy 
number, for example, or someone who has been issued a device that is in 
contact with a provider's server, would not fall into the category of a 
``new'' user. In support of mandatory registration for new users as of 
December 31, 2008, the Commission permits providers to request a user's 
ten-digit NANP number, which can be used to verify whether the user is 
registered with another provider. Such verification can be made with a 
simple query to the Numbering Directory using the ten-digit number. 
This interim solution will be available to providers as of December 31, 
2008. However, the Commission may consider enhancing this method with 
the capability to do a reverse directory lookup of identifying 
information in the incoming call against the URIs of registered users, 
or the Commission may adopt some other solution if operational 
experience and the record in this proceeding indicate that another 
method would be preferable. In any event, if a provider is unable to 
discern whether someone attempting to use its service is an existing 
user, then it should treat such user as a new user.
    27. The TDI Coalition recommends that once users register with a 
default provider, they should be able to place relay calls immediately, 
at least on a temporary basis, through, for example, the assignment of 
a temporary ``guest'' or application number/identification system. 
Similar to the TDI Coalition, Sorenson claims that providers must be 
prepared to assign a user a NANP number within an acceptable period of 
time (e.g., three days, but no longer than a week). The Commission 
believes that under our registration and permissive calling plan, there 
should be no delay problems for existing Internet-based TRS users, as 
they may continue to place calls without a ten-digit, geographically 
appropriate number until the end of the permissive calling period. For 
new users, the Commission agrees with the TDI Coalition and concludes 
that to the extent technically feasible, Internet-based TRS providers 
must allow newly registered users to place calls immediately.
    28. Sorenson Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification. 
Sorenson raises two issues in its Petition for Reconsideration and 
Clarification related to registration and routing of 911 calls. First, 
Sorenson requests that the Commission clarify that its new rules 
applicable to E911 Service, which are effective December 31, 2008, only 
apply to 911 calls of registered users. Because the new rules require 
providers to make available certain information that they can obtain 
only from registered users, such as Registered Location information, 
the Commission hereby amends the new rules to apply to 911 calls placed 
by registered users. Sorenson also requests permission to route 911 
calls to the administrative lines of PSAPs in certain cases, such as 
when a user's Registered Location is in a geographic area not served by 
a Wireline E911 Network, or when a non-default provider is handling a 
911 call but does not have access to the 911 caller's Registered 
Location or other relevant information. The Commission recognizes that 
in certain circumstances such as these, the new rules may not be fully 
applicable. Therefore, the Commission amends our emergency calling 
rules to specify that the new rules only apply to 911 calls placed by 
users whose Registered Location is in a geographic area served by a 
Wireline E911 Network and is available to the provider handling the 
call.
    29. Sorenson Petition for Limited Waiver. Finally, Sorenson 
requests that the Commission grant it a one-year waiver of the 
Commission's prohibition on the use of ``proxy'' or ``alias'' numbers 
after December 31, 2008. Sorenson claims a waiver is necessary to avoid 
user disruption associated with the transition to NANP numbers by 
allowing Sorenson users to continue receiving calls dialed using proxy 
numbers. There is strong opposition in the record to Sorenson's 
petition. Contrary to Sorenson's position, the TDI Coalition claims 
that continued use of proxy numbers will actually create more confusion 
for users. Specifically, the TDI Coalition argues that many proxy 
numbers are duplicates of NANP numbers and therefore, using proxy 
numbers once NANP numbers are assigned could cause confusion for users 
and interoperability problems for Internet-based TRS providers. Parties 
also highlight that callers using proxy numbers will not have their 
location information automatically transmitted to the appropriate PSAP 
or receive emergency callbacks through alternative VRS providers in the 
case of a disconnect. Moreover, commenters argue that granting 
Sorenson's petition would allow Sorenson to continue to maintain its 
closed directory system to the detriment of other competing VRS 
providers. There is consensus among the commenters that any customer 
confusion that may arise by the termination of ``proxy'' and ``alias'' 
numbers with the assignment of ten-digit NANP numbers can be adequately 
addressed by a message provided by Sorenson that notifies that caller 
of the new NANP number of the called party. As stated above, an 
Internet-based TRS user may be reached by his or her ``proxy'' or 
``alias'' number until the end of the permissive calling period. 
Additionally, the Commission

[[Page 79688]]

concluded that Internet-based TRS providers must provide a message 
notifying callers that after June 30, 2009, the user may only be 
reached by his or her NANP telephone number. Accordingly, consistent 
with the record in this proceeding, the Commission denies Sorenson's 
petition for limited waiver.
    30. Sua Sponte Clarification and Reconsideration. The Commission 
also clarifies, on its own motion, that all users of Internet-based TRS 
must be assigned ten-digit, geographically appropriate numbers, meaning 
numbers within their local rate centers. In our June 24, 2008 Internet-
based TRS Order, the Commission noted that in ``unusual and limited 
circumstances,'' Internet-based TRS providers could encounter 
difficulty obtaining truly local telephone numbers for their users. The 
Commission suggested that in such circumstances, Internet-based TRS 
providers could ``temporarily employ suitable workarounds,'' such as 
assigning a user a telephone number reasonably close to the user's rate 
center or using remote call forwarding, but only until a geographically 
appropriate number became available. First, the Commission clarifies 
that under no circumstances should a toll-free number be assigned to a 
user as such a workaround. As the Commission states below, toll-free 
numbers must always route to a user's ten-digit, geographically 
appropriate number. The Commission clarifies this because it is 
concerned that the assignment of a toll-free number as a user's primary 
identifier could degrade the provision of E911 service to that user--a 
concern made more acute by the short time that providers, users, and 
the database administrator have to implement the new numbering system. 
Second, the Commission reconsiders its prior suggestion that Internet-
based TRS providers can use workarounds in instances where they cannot 
obtain geographically appropriate numbers, such as assigning a non-
local but ``close'' telephone number or using remote call forwarding. 
The Commission anticipates that the instances in which geographically 
appropriate numbers will be unavailable from wholesale carriers will be 
rare, but in those rare instances the Commission now requires Internet-
based TRS providers to bring the situation to its attention, and the 
Commission will work with the carriers in that area and other entities 
to resolve it so that all users of Internet-based TRS service will have 
truly local geographically appropriate ten-digit numbers. To be clear, 
Internet-based TRS providers must assign to each user a locally rated, 
ten-digit, geographically appropriate number. The Commission delegates 
to the Wireline Competition Bureau the authority necessary to work with 
the Internet-based TRS providers, the carriers, and the numbering 
administrators to resolve any such situations.

C. Use of Toll Free Numbers for Internet-Based TRS

    31. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the use 
of toll free numbers for Internet-based TRS, including any impact the 
use of such numbers may have on the provision of 911 service. AT&T 
claims that Internet-based TRS users should be discouraged from using 
toll free numbers, and those users who elect to retain their toll free 
numbers should be required to pay for their use. AT&T also advocates 
transitioning away from toll free numbers due to concerns about the 
ability of 911 databases to effectively route 911 calls when associated 
with a toll free number because, by design, toll free numbers operate 
as inbound numbers only. GoAmerica claims that toll free numbers go 
beyond functional equivalency, and recommends that all Internet-based 
TRS users who are assigned toll free numbers be assigned geographically 
appropriate numbers. GoAmerica argues that, should an Internet-based 
TRS user want a toll free number, the user should be able to get one, 
and, like AT&T, GoAmerica recognizes that toll free numbers do not work 
with E911 systems.
    32. The TDI Coalition encourages the use of geographically 
appropriate numbers and argues that if a provider offers toll free 
numbers, ``such offering must be no more than an optional alternative 
to geographic numbers.'' The TDI Coalition also argues that mechanisms 
can be put in place to facilitate the provisioning of 911 services 
through the use of pseudo-ANI, similar to VoIP 911. Sorenson also 
believes that Internet-based TRS users should be able to obtain toll 
free numbers, should not have to surrender their toll free numbers--
i.e., they should be able to have a geographically appropriate number 
and a toll free number, provided both numbers are assigned by the same 
provider. Sorenson argues that the providers should be responsible for 
the costs of the users' numbers and should be permitted to submit costs 
to the Interstate TRS Fund in connection with only one number (toll 
free or geographic) per device.
    33. CSDVRS recommends that VRS providers be allowed, but not 
required, to issue toll free numbers and that users should be able to 
obtain toll free numbers from any provider, not just the default 
provider. With respect to 911 service, CSDVRS states that since toll 
free numbers do not have access to 911 services, devices assigned only 
a toll free number will need to carry clear disclaimers about their 911 
limitations.
    34. The Commission concludes, for the reasons discussed above in 
connection with registration, that Internet-based TRS users should 
transition away from the exclusive use of toll free numbers to ten-
digit, geographically appropriate numbers, in accordance with our 
numbering system. Important to this finding is that ten-digit NANP 
numbers will ensure that emergency calls will be routed directly and 
automatically to the appropriate PSAP. Accordingly, similar to the 
Commission's registration plan, Internet-based TRS users are allowed a 
three-month period to transition to ten-digit, geographically 
appropriate numbers, with an additional three-month permissive calling 
period for unregistered users. At the end of the permissive calling 
period, the Commission requires Internet-based TRS providers to have 
assigned ten-digit, geographically appropriate numbers to all current 
holders of toll free numbers who wish to continue using those toll free 
numbers. An Internet-based TRS user may retain a current toll free 
number or obtain a new toll free number so long as that toll free 
number is directed to the ten-digit, geographically appropriate number. 
As discussed below, voice telephone users are responsible for the costs 
of obtaining and using their individual toll free numbers and 
therefore, functional equivalency does not require that the use of toll 
free numbers in connection with Internet-based TRS should be 
compensable from the Interstate TRS Fund.

D. Eligibility Requirements and Verification Procedures

    35. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on who 
should be eligible to obtain telephone numbers. Specifically, the 
Commission sought comment on the need for eligibility requirements or 
verification procedures when telephone numbers are assigned; e.g., must 
the recipient have a hearing or speech disability and therefore need to 
use TRS to access the telephone system and, if so, should the recipient 
be required to verify that fact, or can a number be assigned to a voice 
telephone user who may desire to

[[Page 79689]]

communicate directly (video-to-video) with a TRS user? The Commission 
also sought comment on related issues, including the effect of 
particular proposals on the Interstate TRS Fund, potential number 
exhaustion concerns, possible other means by which the Commission or 
providers can facilitate the provision of ``point-to-point'' Internet-
based calls, and the scope of section 225 with regard to these 
questions.
    36. Eligibility To Obtain Ten-Digit Numbers. The Commission 
concludes that, at this time, only individuals with a hearing or speech 
disability will be eligible to obtain ten-digit telephone numbers under 
the numbering system adopted in the Internet-based TRS Order. Although 
several commenters request that the Commission also allow hearing 
persons to obtain ten-digit numbers from Internet-based TRS providers 
for the purpose of enabling point-to-point video communications (i.e., 
non-relay calls) between a hearing person and an individual with a 
hearing or speech disability, the Commission declines to do so at this 
time.
    37. While the Commission recognizes the potential benefits of 
facilitating direct communication between TRS users and voice telephone 
users, the Commission nevertheless limits the assignment of ten-digit 
numbers to persons with hearing and speech disabilities at this time. 
First, the Commission is cognizant of the limitations imposed by 
section 225, which instructs the Commission to prescribe regulations 
governing the provision of ``telecommunications relay services,'' and 
specifically authorizes the recovery of costs ``caused by * * * 
telecommunications relay services.'' Direct point-to-point calling is 
not a ``telecommunications relay service'' under section 225. In 
addition, the assignment of telephone numbers to voice telephone users 
for the purpose of point-to-point calls raises cost recovery issues. 
The Commission must ensure that costs specific to facilitating such 
calls are excluded from those costs for which providers may seek 
compensation from the Fund (and also are not included in those costs 
that determine the compensation rate). For example, costs associated 
with assigning a telephone number to a hearing person to facilitate 
direct calls, including costs related to obtaining the number, record-
keeping, and technical support activities, would not be compensable 
from the Fund. The Commission therefore finds that further evaluation 
is needed of the specific costs that would be associated with both 
assigning numbers to voice telephone users for the purpose of making 
point-to-point calls, and with the processing of such calls, in order 
to establish safeguards to ensure that such costs would not be borne by 
the Fund. Finally, the Commission's paramount concern at this time is 
to ensure that it facilitates calls to Internet-based TRS users with 
hearing or speech disabilities and provide these users with automatic 
911 access consistent with the functional equivalency mandate. For 
these reasons, the Commission concludes that only individuals with a 
hearing or speech disability will be eligible to obtain ten-digit 
telephone numbers under the numbering system adopted by the Commission 
at this time.
    38. Eligibility and Verification Procedures. The Commission also 
sought comment on what safeguards should apply, such as eligibility 
requirements and/or verifications, when a user registers with a default 
provider and is assigned a ten-digit telephone number. In addition, the 
Commission sought comment on how providers might verify the accuracy of 
initial registration information in order to curb IP Relay fraud. 
Commenters generally support registration verification as a means of 
ensuring that registration information provided by users is accurate 
and preventing the improper use of Internet-based TRS, particularly IP 
Relay. At the same time, commenters emphasize that registration 
verification procedures should not unduly burden Internet-based TRS 
users in the process of obtaining ten-digit numbers.
    39. To verify the accuracy of initial registration information and 
to help ensure that VRS and IP Relay are used only for their intended 
purpose, Internet-based TRS providers must institute procedures to 
verify the accuracy of registration information, including the 
consumer's name and mailing address, before issuing the consumer a ten-
digit telephone number. In addition, to ensure that registered users 
are aware of the eligibility limitations set forth above, the 
verification procedures must include a self certification component 
requiring consumers to verify that they have a medically recognized 
hearing or speech disability necessitating their use of TRS.
    40. In taking these actions, the Commission does not mandate the 
use of any particular verification procedures. Instead, the Commission 
requires only that Internet-based TRS providers implement a reasonable 
means of verifying registration and eligibility information that is not 
unduly burdensome. Such means may include, for example: (1) Sending a 
postcard to the mailing address provided by the consumer, for return to 
the default Internet-based TRS provider; (2) in-person or on camera ID 
checks during registration; or (3) other verification processes similar 
to those performed by voice telephone providers and other institutions 
(such as banks and credit card companies). Such registration should be 
accompanied by consumer education and outreach efforts designed to 
inform Internet-based TRS consumers of the importance of providing 
accurate registration information. The Commission expects that these 
measures will reduce the misuse of Internet-based TRS by those who may 
take advantage of the anonymity currently afforded users, particularly 
IP Relay users, without unduly burdening legitimate Internet-based TRS 
consumers seeking to obtain ten-digit telephone numbers. The consumer 
education and outreach materials also should make clear that: (1) The 
consumer may obtain a telephone number from, and register with, his or 
her provider of choice (notwithstanding any prior relationship the 
consumer may have had with another provider); (2) the consumer may 
change default providers at any time and, in doing so, retain his or 
her telephone number by porting the number to the new default provider; 
(3) the consumer may make calls through, and receive calls from, any 
provider (and the consumer is not limited to making or receiving calls 
through his or her default provider); and (4) the provider cannot 
condition the ongoing use or possession of equipment, or the receipt of 
different or upgraded equipment, on the consumer continuing to use the 
provider as its default provider.
    41. As stated above, these requirements will apply to those users 
who have registered and obtained a ten-digit number beginning December 
31, 2008, except for the information collection requirements contained 
in section 64.605 that have not been approved by OMB and, as such, the 
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing 
the effective date for the information collection requirements 
contained in this section. Such requirements subject to OMB approval 
include the outreach and education obligations set forth in the above 
paragraph, as well as the verification and self-certification 
requirements. Because these requirements are subject to OMB approval, 
the Commission does not require providers to implement these provisions 
until they have received such approval and are in effect. Once the 
verification and self-certification requirements become effective,

[[Page 79690]]

however, providers will be required to verify the accuracy of any 
registration information that was obtained prior to the effective date, 
as well as obtain self-certifications from users who acquired ten-digit 
numbers, in compliance with these requirements.

E. Assignment of Telephone Numbers

    42. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the 
Consumer Groups' claim that functional equivalency requires that deaf 
and hard-of-hearing users have one ten-digit, NANP number for multiple 
devices. The Commission also sought comment on whether, if such a 
system were in place, the cost of the additional functionalities should 
be passed on to the Internet-based TRS user. In their comments in 
response to the Further NPRM, the Consumer Groups clarified their 
position and stated that functional equivalency does not require that a 
user must have the option of using the same telephone number with 
multiple types of TRS services, but rather, that some type of call 
forwarding would be sufficient. With respect to the cost of the call 
forwarding service, the Consumer Groups urge the Commission to consider 
their opinion that the functionality of call forwarding is commonly 
included in services provided to telephone users at no charge and that 
the additional administrative costs to assess and collect such a fee, 
which they believe will be nominal, will exceed the cost of providing 
the functionality.
    43. AT&T believes that the Commission should not mandate a single 
telephone number for multiple services. AT&T believes that Internet-
based TRS providers can implement call forwarding and other services to 
offer a one-number solution to users who have registered with that 
provider as their default provider. CSDVRS recommends that providers be 
allowed, but not required, to offer such a functionality as it is an 
enhanced functionality rather than a functionally equivalent feature. 
GoAmerica shares the same view as CSDVRS, but argues that it may be 
problematic to have the same number assigned for different services 
that have different technologies, platforms and endpoints. Sorenson 
recommends deferring the issue to focus resources on the immediate 
challenges of implementing the new numbering system. Similarly, NeuStar 
argues that, ``[a]s technology evolves, it may be possible for a single 
[telephone number] to be associated with multiple services in an IP 
environment, but that time is not here yet.''
    44. Assignment of numbers for multiple types of service. The 
Commission agrees that functional equivalency does not require that an 
Internet-based TRS user be assigned a single ten-digit, NANP number for 
multiple types of services. Given the short timeframe to implement our 
numbering system and the importance of public safety, the Commission 
determines that a ten-digit, geographically appropriate number will be 
associated with the URI of one user, for one type of service, e.g., IP 
Relay or VRS. Nothing in this Order is intended to restrict an 
Internet-based TRS provider from offering a feature that would 
automatically forward an incoming call for the user at one service 
(e.g., VRS) to the user at another service (e.g., IP Relay) in those 
cases where the user has obtained numbers for both services from the 
same provider if it does not result in additional costs to the Fund. 
However, a provider that is not a default provider may not be able to 
replicate the same feature based on the information available in the 
Numbering Directory. As the Commission garners experience with the 
numbering system, the Commission will be better able to analyze 
possible solutions to allow a single number to be associated with 
multiple types of services consistent with the emergency handling and 
interoperability rules.
    45. Assignment of telephone numbers for multiple URIs for the same 
type of service. The Commission does not place limits at this time on 
the quantity of telephone numbers that an Internet-based TRS user may 
obtain from Internet-based TRS providers. For example, a VRS user may 
obtain different numbers for VRS devices at different locations such as 
home and office. This meets basic functional equivalency and provides 
more reliable E911 location information. Nothing in this Order is 
intended to restrict an Internet-based TRS provider that has 
provisioned a user with multiple numbers for the same service from 
offering call-forwarding-type features that automatically forward an 
incoming call for the user at a URI associated with one telephone 
number to the user at a URI associated with another telephone number if 
it does not result in additional costs to the Fund. The Commission 
notes, however, that an Internet-based TRS provider that is not the 
default provider of these numbers may not be able to replicate the same 
feature based on the information in the Numbering Directory. Consistent 
with the Commission's rules, each provider of Internet-based TRS is 
required to obtain from each registered Internet-based TRS user the 
physical location at which the service will be first utilized for each 
number and to provide the user one or more methods for updating the 
physical location for each number.
    46. Assignment of telephone numbers for multiple URIs at the same 
location. Because the Commission does not place limits at this time on 
the quantity of telephone numbers that an Internet-based TRS user may 
obtain from Internet-based TRS providers, a user may also obtain 
numbers for different devices on the same premises, such as multiple 
VRS devices in the home. Although the central Numbering Directory does 
not permit a single telephone number to be shared by multiple devices 
at the same location, nothing in this Order restricts an Internet-based 
TRS provider or an independent equipment supplier from developing and 
implementing a solution that provides a ``multiple extensions'' feature 
if it does not result in additional costs to the Fund. As the 
Commission garners experience with our numbering system, the Commission 
will be better able to analyze possible solutions to allow a single 
number to be associated with multiple devices consistent with emergency 
handling and interoperability rules.
    47. Assignment of telephone numbers for a single URI. Given the 
short timeframe to implement our numbering system and the importance of 
public safety, the Commission finds that if multiple ten-digit, 
geographically appropriate telephone numbers are associated with a 
single URI, they must all be provided by a single Internet-based TRS 
provider. Thus, only one Internet-based TRS provider is responsible for 
managing the Registered Location information associated with that URI. 
This requirement will reduce the likelihood of conflicting Registered 
Location information for the same URI.
    48. Recapturing unused numbers. Because the Commission anticipates 
that providers will not encourage consumers to obtain more telephone 
numbers than they actually intend to use, the Commission declines to 
put into effect a means to recapture unused numbers at this time, but 
will monitor the situation and reserve the right to do so at a later 
date.

F. Numbering Costs

    49. In the Internet-based TRS Order, the Commission concluded that 
Internet-based TRS providers may seek compensation from the Fund for 
their reasonable actual costs of complying with the requirements 
adopted in that order. The Order further concluded that

[[Page 79691]]

costs recoverable from the Fund may include those directly related to: 
(1) Ensuring that database information is properly and timely updated 
and maintained; (2) processing and transmitting calls made to ten-digit 
numbers assigned pursuant to the Internet-based TRS Order; (3) routing 
emergency calls to an appropriate PSAP; (4) other implementation tasks 
directly related to facilitating ten-digit numbering and emergency call 
handling; and (5) consumer outreach and education related to the 
requirements and services adopted in the Internet-based TRS Order.
    50. At the same time, the Commission stated that those numbering 
costs compensable from the Fund did not include ``those costs directly 
related to consumers' acquiring a ten-digit number or to the costs 
associated with number portability.'' Noting that voice telephone users 
generally bear these costs, the Commission sought comment on ``whether 
Internet-based TRS users acquiring ten-digit numbers should also bear 
these costs. In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether 
other specific costs associated with numbering should, consistent with 
costs paid by voice telephone users, be passed on to consumers, 
``including, for example, E911 charges.'' As explained more fully 
below, the Commission concludes that certain costs, which typically are 
borne by consumers of voice communication services, are not compensable 
from the Fund and, at the election of each provider and subject to 
Commission approval (as explained below), may be passed on to Internet-
based TRS users who are registered with that provider. These costs 
include: (1) Costs associated with an Internet-based TRS consumer's 
acquisition of a ten-digit geographic telephone number, (2) costs 
associated with an Internet-based TRS consumer's acquisition and usage 
of a toll free telephone number; and (3) any E911 charges that may be 
imposed on Interstate TRS providers under a state or local E911 funding 
mechanism. The Commission also addresses below number portability 
costs.
    51. Costs Relating to the Acquisition of a Ten-Digit Geographic 
Number. Section 225 states that the Commission's regulations shall 
``require that users of [TRS] pay rates no greater than the rates paid 
for functionally equivalent voice communication services with respect 
to such factors as the duration of the call, the time of day, and the 
distance from point of origination to point of termination.'' As noted 
in the Further Notice, Congress therefore contemplated that TRS 
consumers would pay certain costs associated with making a call, just 
not the additional costs that are attributable to the use of a relay 
service to facilitate the call. Because number acquisition costs are 
not attributable to the use of relay to facilitate a call, and because 
the record reflects that these costs generally are borne by users of 
voice communication services, the Commission finds, consistent with 
section 225 and the functional equivalency mandate, that number 
acquisition costs are not compensable from the Fund. Therefore, a 
provider that assigns a telephone number to a consumer may pass the 
costs on to that consumer. However, to ensure that only these customer-
specific, actually incurred costs are passed on, the Commission 
requires that any Internet-based TRS provider wishing to pass on 
numbering-related costs to its users first obtain Commission approval. 
The Commission delegates to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau the authority to rule on such requests.
    52. Commenters' arguments that costs of obtaining ten-digit 
telephone numbers should not be borne by consumers are insufficient to 
justify treating Internet-based TRS users differently than users of 
voice communication services with respect to passing through number 
assignment costs to end users. First, some commenters contend that 
number assignment costs are ``generally small'' and, as such, do not 
justify the administrative expense that would be involved in recovering 
them from consumers. The Commission disagrees. Internet-based TRS 
providers reasonably may take into consideration the administrative 
cost of billing consumers in determining whether to pass certain 
numbering costs on to consumers and, if so, how much to charge. The 
fact that providers may incur administrative expenses, however, does 
not justify treating Internet-based TRS users differently from users of 
voice communication services.
    53. Second, the Commission disagrees with the contention that it 
should allow costs associated with acquiring numbers to be reimbursed 
by the Fund to the extent that anticipated ``cost savings'' resulting 
from the Internet-based TRS Order (associated with a possible future 
reduction in IP relay fraud) can be expected to ``outweigh'' the cost 
of acquiring numbers. Potential ``cost savings'' to the Fund resulting 
from a reduction in IP Relay fraud similarly does not provide a basis 
for treating Internet-based TRS users differently in this context, 
given that the approach the Commission adopts here is consistent with 
the language and functional equivalency objective of section 225.
    54. Finally, GoAmerica asserts that it is ``discriminatory'' to 
charge deaf and hard of hearing persons for telephone numbers because 
Internet-based TRS users already ``pay more for the ability to 
communicate than hearing persons.'' In particular, GoAmerica suggests 
that Internet-based TRS users must incur the cost of high speed 
Internet access, in addition to the cost of a regular telephone line, 
in order to have both TTY access and access to VRS. The record, 
however, does not support this claim. The record reflects that hearing 
consumers who use interconnected VoIP services may pay as much, if not 
more, than Internet-based TRS users for service costs that may include 
number assignment charges, other associated fees, and broadband 
Internet access. The Commission therefore finds that Internet-based TRS 
consumers' costs to obtain ten-digit telephone numbers are not 
compensable from the Interstate TRS Fund and, at the election of each 
provider and subject to Commission approval (as explained above), may 
be passed on to the consumer.
    55. Costs Relating to the Acquisition and Use of a Toll Free 
Number. The Commission also sought comment on allowing the continued 
use of toll free numbers by Internet-based TRS users. In addition, the 
Commission sought comment on whether Internet-based TRS users should be 
subject to a fee for the use of toll free numbers, as are voice 
telephone users.
    56. Although the Commission permits the continued use of toll free 
numbers by Internet-based TRS users to the extent provided in this 
Order, the Commission agrees with commenters who assert that the costs 
associated with obtaining and using a toll free number should not be 
compensable from the Fund. As AT&T asserts, for example, users who 
elect to retain their toll free number ``should be required to pay for 
the use of that number'' and doing so ``would make Internet-based TRS 
more functionally equivalent.'' The Commission therefore finds that 
Internet-based TRS providers may not seek compensation from the Fund 
for the cost of assigning a toll free number that has been assigned to 
an Internet-based TRS consumer after December 31, 2008. Internet-based 
TRS providers similarly may not seek compensation from the Fund for 
usage charges associated with any toll free number held by an Internet-
based TRS user after June 30, 2009 (marking the end of the registration 
period). Moreover, any toll free number held by an Internet-based TRS 
user should, on or before June 30,

[[Page 79692]]

2009, point to the user's assigned ten-digit, geographically 
appropriate number. After June 30, 2009, Internet-based TRS providers 
may not route calls to users' telephone numbers other than their ten-
digit, geographically appropriate numbers that have been associated 
with the users in the numbering database. To be clear, costs associated 
with users' toll free numbers will not be compensable and in no event 
will an Internet-based TRS provider be compensated twice for the same 
call, such as when an inbound call to a user's toll free number is then 
routed to that user's ten-digit, geographically appropriate number.
    57. The TDI Coalition asserts that the Fund should compensate 
providers for the acquisition costs of a toll free number and the toll 
charges in connection with the use of such numbers by Internet-based 
TRS users. They note that the Fund currently compensates providers for 
toll charges associated with a toll free call to a relay provider to 
initiate a relay call, and contend that requiring Internet-based TRS 
users to pay toll charges associated with calls to their personal toll 
free number would discourage the use of such numbers for making relay 
calls. Nothing in the record, however, supports this assertion. In any 
event, it is reasonable to compensate providers for the cost of toll 
free calls to their centers by persons initiating a relay call, but not 
to compensate consumers for the toll costs of personal toll free 
numbers consumers may choose to use instead of a geographically 
appropriate ten-digit number. Toll free access to an Internet-based TRS 
provider's call center offers the equivalent of dial-tone service to 
voice telephone users who wish to call an Internet-based TRS user who 
lives in the same local calling area as the caller but who has not yet 
obtained a ten-digit geographic telephone number. In addition, such 
toll free access allows an Internet-based TRS user who does have a ten-
digit number to place or receive a call via an Internet-based TRS 
provider other than the user's default provider as a ``dial-around'' 
call. Therefore, providing compensation from the Fund to providers for 
toll free calls in these situations is consistent with the functional 
equivalency mandate. Providing compensation from the Fund for the use 
of an individual toll free number is not because there is a cost 
associated with an individual's use of a toll free number, whether the 
person is a voice telephone user or an Internet-based TRS user.
    58. E911 Charges Imposed Under State or Local E911 Funding 
Mechanisms. In the Internet-based TRS Order, the Commission concluded 
that Internet-based TRS providers may seek compensation from the Fund 
for their actual reasonable costs of complying with the requirements 
adopted in that order including, among other things, costs directly 
related to routing emergency calls to an appropriate PSAP and other 
implementation tasks directly related to emergency call handling. The 
Further NPRM sought comment on whether any specific costs that result 
from the requirements adopted in the Internet-based TRS Order should, 
consistent with the costs paid by voice telephone users, be passed on 
to consumers, including, for example, E911 charges.
    59. Although the Commission concludes that Internet-based TRS 
providers may continue to seek compensation from the Fund for their 
actual reasonable costs of complying with the emergency call handling 
requirements adopted in the Internet-based TRS Order, the Commission 
concludes that any E911 charges imposed under a state or local E911 
funding mechanism are not compensable from the Fund. These charges are 
generally passed on to voice telephone users, as well as to traditional 
PSTN-based TRS users, in the form of a small recurring charge on their 
local telephone bills. As such, to the extent that Internet-based TRS 
providers incur charges in connection with a state or local E911 
funding mechanism, each default Internet-based TRS provider may choose 
to pass these E911 charges on to registered users of that provider.
    60. Number Portability Costs. Section 251(e)(2) of the Act provides 
that ``[t]he cost of establishing telecommunications numbering 
administration arrangements and number portability shall be borne by 
all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as 
determined by the Commission.'' Through its rules and orders, the 
Commission has established a cost recovery mechanism for shared local 
number portability (LNP) costs under section 251(e)(2), and has 
determined that telecommunications carriers and interconnected VoIP 
providers should bear such costs on a competitively neutral basis. 
Under this cost recovery mechanism, shared LNP costs are allocated to 
carriers and interconnected VoIP providers in proportion to each of 
those entity's end-user revenues. Interconnected VoIP providers and 
telecommunications carriers, other than incumbent LECs, are permitted 
to recover the amount of shared LNP costs allocated to that carrier or 
provider ``in any manner consistent with applicable state and federal 
laws and regulations.''
    61. In the Internet-based TRS Order, the Commission imposed number 
portability obligations on Internet-based TRS providers and their 
numbering partners in connection with the numbering plan adopted in 
that order. At that time, the Commission specifically declined to 
require Internet-based TRS providers to contribute to shared LNP costs. 
In doing so, the Commission noted that Internet-based TRS providers 
would have been unable to recover their costs from end users because, 
at least at that time, end users were not required to register with an 
Internet-based TRS provider. Notwithstanding this determination, in the 
Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether, and to what 
extent, the costs associated with number portability should be passed 
on to Internet-based TRS users, and not paid for by the Fund, because 
these costs ``generally are borne by voice telephone users.'' The 
Further NPRM noted that because Internet-based TRS users will now have 
a default provider--e.g., the provider from which they obtained their 
number or a provider to which they ported their number--that provider 
can pass number portability costs to the user.
    62. The Commission declines to extend to Internet-based TRS 
providers the obligation to contribute to shared LNP costs at this 
time. As noted above, the shared costs of number portability are 
allocated to interstate telecommunications carriers and interconnected 
VoIP providers in proportion to each of those entity's end-user 
revenues (contributors file their revenue information on the FCC Form 
499-A, the ``Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet''). Unlike those 
entities, however, Internet-based TRS providers do not have ``end-user 
revenues'' and, instead, their costs of providing Internet-based TRS 
are reimbursed by the Interstate TRS Fund. Therefore, although the 
Commission believes that Internet-based TRS users should be required to 
bear number portability costs to the same degree as voice telephone 
users, the Commission must first determine how to calculate Internet-
based TRS providers' share of LNP costs given that these providers have 
no end-user revenues. Until the Commission can further evaluate how 
best to allocate shared LNP costs to Internet-based TRS providers, the 
Commission will not extend to these providers the obligation to make 
payments toward shared LNP costs. The Commission may elect to revisit 
this issue in a future order.

[[Page 79693]]

G. Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification Regarding 
Interoperability and Default Provider Changes

    63. CSDVRS, GoAmerica, Viable and Snap Petition for Reconsideration 
and Clarification. As stated above, on August 15, 2008, CSDVRS, 
GoAmerica, Viable and Snap filed a Petition for Reconsideration with 
respect to the obligations of default and former default providers to 
route information from an Internet-based TRS user who has CPE of one 
provider, but is using a different provider as his or her default 
provider (i.e., the user has ported his or her number). The petitioners 
contend that there is tension between the rule prohibiting a provider 
that gave out the CPE, but is no longer the default provider, from 
acquiring routing information from the user, and the rule requiring a 
provider that has issued CPE to ensure that the CPE delivers the 
routing information to the user's new default provider. The petitioners 
claim that once a user ports his or her number to a new default 
provider, who is not the provider that furnished the CPE, that new 
provider does not have the ability to collect the routing information 
from that CPE, cannot update the central numbering directory without 
the assistance of the provider of the CPE, and certain features and 
functionalities of the CPE may not work. Accordingly, the petitioners 
recommend that the Commission revise its rules to give the consumers 
who have received a video device from a VRS provider the option of 
either: (1) Continuing to use the video device once they have ported 
their number with the understanding that their routing information will 
continue to be provisioned by the original provider that supplied the 
device (and with the understanding that the device may not retain all 
the features and functionalities); or (2) acquiring a new device from 
the new default provider.
    64. The TDI Coalition filed comments in response to the Petition 
for Reconsideration seeking full interoperability and urging Internet-
based TRS providers to work to ensure that routing information is 
directed to the user's default provider. The TDI Coalition also notes 
that the issues raised in the Petition for Reconsideration regarding 
number porting will also arise when a user applies for a new NANP 
number from an Internet-based TRS provider that is not the provider who 
provided the videophone. The TDI Coalition advocates for extensive 
consumer outreach to help the deaf and hard-of-hearing community 
understand how their CPE may be affected if they switch default 
providers. Hamilton Relay agrees with the petitioners that when a user 
changes his or her default provider, the new provider does not have the 
ability to collect the routing information from the user's device. 
Hamilton Relay does not oppose the recommendations of the petitioners, 
but also recommends that the Commission clarify that IP-based relay 
providers that do not distribute their own end-user equipment may use 
software or commercially available third-party router equipment to 
route and update IP address information to the central numbering 
directory provider or similar solutions.
    65. Sorenson filed an opposition to the Petition for 
Reconsideration, stating that the Commission's rules correctly place 
the responsibility for updating and maintaining routing information on 
the default provider and limit the information that may be acquired by 
the former default provider. Sorenson states that ``[i]mplementation of 
the new rules will require development of an industry standard to 
ensure that each provider can accept routing information delivered by 
devices distributed by another provider.'' In response to Sorenson's 
opposition, CSDVRS and GoAmerica argue, among other things, that 
Sorenson has not provided any guidance on the development or timeline 
of its proposed industry standard to allow any provider to accept 
routing information delivered by devices distributed by another 
provider. Sorenson has committed, for one, to move forward to create an 
industry standard that will ``enable each provider to accept routing 
information delivered by devices distributed by another provider.''
    66. The Commission denies the Petition for Reconsideration. The 
Commission reiterates our conclusion in the Internet-based TRS Order 
that an Internet-based TRS user's CPE should directly provide necessary 
routing information to the Internet-based TRS user's default provider. 
The Commission further clarifies that rule 64.611(e) means that an 
Internet-based TRS provider's CPE that is being used with a default 
provider other than the one that issued the CPE must automatically 
connect with the new default provider just as it did with the previous 
default provider that provided the CPE. In this situation, the user 
should not have to manually dial the default provider first, and then 
dial the called party. Moreover, the CPE must be capable of delivering 
routing information to the new default provider just as it did to the 
previous default provider that provided the CPE once the porting 
process is complete. In addition, at a minimum, an Internet-based TRS 
provider's CPE that is being used with a new default provider must be 
capable of: (1) Accepting a URI or IP address that the new provider 
uses for call setup purposes; and (2) allowing a user to dial a number 
that the CPE automatically forwards to the new default provider. 
However, at this time based on the record before the Commission, the 
Commission disagrees with GoAmerica's request that a default provider 
that furnishes CPE to a consumer must ensure that the CPE's enhanced 
features (e.g., missed call list, speed dial list) can be used by the 
consumer if the consumer ports his or her number to a new default 
provider and uses the CPE with the new default provider. Providers may 
offer such features on a competitive basis, which will encourage 
innovation and competition.
    67. Point-to-point calling. The Commission also clarifies a few 
aspects of providers' responsibilities with regard to point-to-point 
calling between VRS users. GoAmerica asserts that Sorenson has recently 
tendered a proposed industry standard that ``supports its effort to 
disable functionality and further restrict consumer choice,'' in part 
because the Sorenson proposal allegedly would not enable a device to 
continue to originate point-to-point calling after the user's ten-digit 
number has been ported and the device has been paired with a new 
default provider. Sorenson replies that the proposed standard that it 
put forward had been designed under extreme time pressure and had been 
developed in a way that contemplated how the specification would be 
enhanced in the future to allow for point-to-point calling. Sorenson 
states that it is now preparing the additional specifications required 
to allow users to make point-to-point calls using ten-digit numbers, 
and will add those to the proposed standard.
    68. While point-to-point calls between VRS users are not relay 
calls, and thus are not compensable from the Fund, they do constitute 
an important form of communication for many VRS users, and any loss of 
such basic functionality is simply not acceptable. First, the 
Commission clarifies that all default providers must support the 
ability of VRS users to make point-to-point calls without the 
intervention of an interpreter. Second, the Commission clarifies that 
all providers must ensure that their devices are capable of making 
calls after a change in default provider, including point-to-point 
calls to other VRS users. Thus, all providers who provision equipment 
must make

[[Page 79694]]

available to other VRS providers enough information about that 
equipment to enable any VRS provider to perform all its functions as a 
default provider, including enabling point-to-point communications 
between VRS users, whether those users have the same or different 
default providers. For example, as noted above, Sorenson has stated 
that it is preparing the additional specifications required to allow 
users to make point-to-point calls using ten-digit numbers, and will 
add those to the proposed standard. The Commission expects that 
Sorenson will do so expeditiously, and the Commission will be 
monitoring events closely to ensure that this happens. As a corollary 
to the former default provider's obligations, no provider may begin 
providing service as a new default provider for a customer until the 
provider is capable of performing the functions described above and in 
this paragraph with respect to any device that was being used with the 
former default provider's service. Finally, the Commission requires 
that all providers check the Numbering Directory for routing 
information for ten-digit numbers, other than those of their own users 
before setting up a relay call or routing the call to the public 
switched telephone network (PSTN). Checking the Numbering Directory to 
see whether the user is dialing another registered VRS user--that is, 
requesting a point-to-point communication--will ensure that providers 
do not establish a relay call when it is unnecessary and inappropriate 
to do so.
    69. The Commission recognizes that point-to-point communication 
between registered VRS users is not ``telecommunications relay 
service'' as defined in section 225 because it occurs between persons 
with hearing or speech disabilities, not between a person with such a 
disability and a hearing person. Nonetheless, the Commission has ample 
authority to regulate the provision of point-to-point calls between 
Internet-based TRS subscribers. First, the Commission has authority 
pursuant to its ancillary jurisdiction. Ancillary jurisdiction may be 
employed, in the Commission's discretion, when Title I of the Act gives 
the Commission subject matter jurisdiction over the service to be 
regulated and the assertion of jurisdiction is ``reasonably ancillary 
to the effective performance of [its] various responsibilities.'' As 
the Commission concluded in the Internet-based TRS Order, the 
Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over Internet-based TRS 
services, a form of ``interstate communication by wire or radio.'' And 
requiring that providers facilitate point-to-point communications 
between persons with hearing or speech disabilities is reasonably 
ancillary to the Commission's responsibilities in several parts of the 
Act--sections 225, 255, and 1.
    70. First, facilitating point-to-point calls furthers the purposes 
of section 225 itself. Section 225(b)(1) directs the Commission to 
ensure that relay services are available ``[i]n order to carry out the 
purposes established under section 1, to make available to all 
individuals in the United States a rapid, efficient nationwide 
communication service, and to increase the utility of the telephone 
system of the Nation.'' While that section refers to relay services, 
point-to-point services even more directly support the named purposes: 
They are more rapid in that they involve direct, rather than 
interpreted, communication; they are more efficient in that they do not 
trigger the costs involved with interpretation or unnecessary routing; 
and they increase the utility of the Nation's telephone system in that 
they provide direct communication--including all visual cues that are 
so important to persons with hearing and speech disabilities. Second, 
section 255--entitled ``Access by Persons with Disabilities''--requires 
that manufacturers of telecommunications equipment or customer premises 
equipment ensure that ``the equipment is designed, developed, and 
fabricated to be accessible and usable by individuals with 
disabilities, if readily achievable,'' and goes on to require providers 
of telecommunications services to ensure that their services are 
similarly usable. These sections both contain clear statements from 
Congress that it intended persons with disabilities to have the fullest 
possible access to the Nation's communications system. Requiring point-
to-point communications capabilities serves these goals. Third, section 
1 itself charges the Commission with making available ``so far as 
possible, to all the people of the United States * * * a rapid, 
efficient, Nation-wide * * * wire and radio communications service.'' 
Facilitating direct communication--without an unnecessary third-party 
interpreter--between citizens with hearing or speech disabilities 
furthers our mandate to make communications available to ``all the 
people.''
    71. The Commission encourages Internet-based TRS providers to work 
together to develop systems and standards that will facilitate 
compliance with the Commission's rules. To the extent, however, a 
default provider is unable to meet any mandatory minimum standards 
under the Commission's rules or prior orders for a new registered user 
who is using CPE from a former default provider because that new 
default provider does not have access to the technical information 
about that user's CPE that would be necessary to provide service in 
compliance with those rules and orders, the Commission waives those 
rules for a period of one year (unless the Commission indicates 
otherwise). This waiver is limited in that it has no effect on the 
requirements of providers of Internet-based TRS services in general to 
meet their mandatory minimum standards unless and until they become a 
default provider for a user who already has CPE from a former default 
provider, and the new provider lacks sufficient information to provide 
certain features to that user, such as speed dialing. A temporary, 
limited waiver is necessary in the public interest so that Internet-
based TRS providers may focus on ensuring that ten-digit numbering and 
E911 services function smoothly at this time of transition to the new 
ten-digit dialing system. This limited waiver also has no effect on the 
requirements for all providers to share information about their CPE as 
required by this Order and to be prepared to provide service to 
customers who port their numbers in from other providers as required by 
this Order. The Commission also reiterates the Commission's enforcement 
authority to resolve any customer complaints that arise from switching 
default providers. The Commission will act expeditiously to ensure that 
consumers have the option to switch providers. Finally, the Commission 
finds that with the clarifications discussed in this section, the 
Commission does not need to modify any existing rules and therefore, 
denies the Petition for Reconsideration.
    72. CSDVRS Petition for Clarification. CSDVRS also filed a Petition 
for Clarification requesting clarification that the Commission's rule 
64.611(a)(2), which lays out a default provider's call routing 
obligations, does not negate the requirement that VRS providers provide 
fully interoperable relay service. CSDVRS claims that the role of the 
default provider, as set forth in the Internet-based TRS Order, may 
give default providers the impression that they may make it difficult 
for consumers to access alternative providers by dialing around, by 
means such as pop-up screens or warning messages, or degradation of the 
TRS call, video quality, or video interpreter capabilities. GoAmerica 
also expresses concern with

[[Page 79695]]

the interplay of the Commission's default provider rule and the 
interoperability rule.
    73. There is opposition to CSDVRS's Petition for Clarification on 
the record, arguing that the default provider registration requirement 
does nothing to undermine the Commission's interoperability rules and 
regulations, and that prohibiting a specific list of practices is 
unwarranted. To reiterate and clarify to the extent necessary, under 
the new numbering system, Internet-based TRS users must be able to dial 
around to competing providers just as they do today. The Commission 
agrees with CSDVRS that default providers that distribute equipment may 
not configure that equipment in a manner that would increase the 
difficulty of dialing alternative providers beyond what consumers need 
to do to reach these providers today. The Commission's rule 
64.611(a)(2)--which requires that a default provider ``route and 
deliver'' a user's inbound and outbound calls, unless the user chooses 
to place a call with, or receives a call from, an alternate provider--
does not inhibit or hinder dial around calling by Internet-based TRS 
users. Furthermore, a provider may not penalize or retaliate against a 
consumer who exercises his right to dial around his default provider. 
The Commission also reiterates the Commission's enforcement authority 
should consumers be unable to dial around to competing Internet-based 
TRS providers once the new numbering system is implemented. While 
CSDVRS's basic point is correct--that consumers need to be able to dial 
around to any provider without delays, warnings, distractions, or other 
obstacles that might impede or discourage such calls--the Commission 
declines at this time to address specific practices without the benefit 
of a more developed record. Therefore, CSDVRS's Petition for 
Clarification is granted only to the extent provided herein, and 
otherwise is denied.

H. Consumer Protection Issues

    74. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether 
to establish rules to protect relay users from unauthorized default 
provider changes (i.e., ``slamming'') and to ensure the privacy and 
security of relay users' personal information. In response, commenters 
generally favor the implementation of consumer protection measures to 
ensure that relay users' default providers are not changed without 
their consent, and to guard against the unauthorized disclosure of 
consumer information. For example, TDI Coalition states that, just as a 
voice telephone user reasonably expects that his or her preferred 
service provider will not be changed and his personal information will 
not be disclosed without the user's authorization, an Internet-based 
TRS user should be entitled to the same expectation. The Commission 
shares this view and, for this reason, emphasizes that the unauthorized 
change of an Internet-based TRS user's default provider and the 
unauthorized disclosure of an Internet-based TRS user's personal 
information are both prohibited. The Commission anticipates adopting 
rules more specifically addressing these prohibitions in a future 
order.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    75. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 
requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for 
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule 
will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' The RFA generally defines 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
    76. In this Order, the Commission addresses several issues relating 
to the assignment and administration of ten-digit numbers for VRS and 
IP Relay users. Specifically, the Commission addresses 911 
implementation issues, registration, use of toll free numbers for 
Internet-based TRS service, eligibility for numbers for Internet-based 
TRS service, assignment of telephone numbers, and cost recovery issues. 
The Commission also addresses a petition for reconsideration filed by 
CSDVRS, GoAmerica, Viable, and Snap, and a petition for clarification 
filed by CSDVRS regarding interoperability concerns related to default 
provider changes, dial-around capabilities, and VRS CPE. The 
Commission's conclusions in this Order are necessary to ensure that 
users of Internet-based TRS receive functionally equivalent telephone 
service, as mandated by Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act. The Commission's conclusions are not expected to have a 
substantial economic impact upon providers, including small businesses, 
because each small business will receive financial compensation for 
reasonable costs incurred rather than absorb an uncompensated financial 
loss or hardship.
    77. With regard to whether a substantial number of small entities 
will be affected by the requirements set forth in this Order, the 
Commission notes that, of the fourteen providers affected by the Order, 
only four meet the definition of a small entity. The SBA has developed 
a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, 
which consists of all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Currently, fourteen providers receive compensation from the Interstate 
TRS Fund for providing any form of TRS: Ameritech, AT&T Corp.; CSDVRS; 
CAC; GoAmerica; Hamilton Relay, Inc.; Hands On; Healinc; Kansas Relay 
Service, Inc.; Nordia Inc.; Snap Telecommunications, Inc; Sorenson; 
Sprint; and State of Michigan. Because only four of the providers 
affected by this Order are deemed to be small entities under the SBA's 
small business size standard, the Commission concludes that the number 
of small entities affected is not substantial. Moreover, given that all 
providers affected by the Order, including the four that are deemed to 
be small entities under the SBA's standard, are entitled to receive 
prompt reimbursement for their reasonable costs of compliance, the 
Commission concludes that the Order will not have a significant 
economic impact on these small entities.
    78. Therefore, the Commission certifies that requirements set forth 
in the Order will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    79. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including a copy 
of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. This initial certification will also 
be published in the Federal Register.

Ordering Clauses

    80. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 4(j), 225, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 251, 303(r), this 
Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration is adopted.
    81. It is further ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
4(j), 225, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 251, 303(r), the 
Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification filed by CSDVRS, LLC, 
GoAmerica, Inc., Viable, Inc., and Snap

[[Page 79696]]

Telecommunications, Inc. on August 15, 2008 in CG Docket No. 03-123, WC 
Docket No. 05-196 is denied.
    82. It is further ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
4(j), 225, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 251, 303(r), the 
Petition for Clarification filed by CSDVRS, LLC, on August 15, 2008 in 
CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-196 is granted only to the 
extent provided herein, and otherwise denied.
    83. It is further ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
4(j), 225, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 251, 303(r), the 
Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification filed by Sorenson 
Communications, Inc., on August 18, 2008 in CG Docket No. 03-123, WC 
Docket No. 05-196 is granted to the extent described herein.
    84. It is further ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
4(j), 225, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 251, 303(r), the 
Petition for Limited Waiver filed by Sorenson Communications, Inc., on 
September 30, 2008 in CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-196 is 
denied.
    85. It is further ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
4(j), 225, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 251, 303(r), the 
Request for Expedited Clarification of Section 64.604(a)(2) of the 
Rules filed by NENA and APCO on October 24, 2008 in CC Docket No. 98-
67, CG Docket No. 03-123, and WC Docket No. 05-196, is granted to the 
extent described herein.
    86. It is further ordered that, pursuant to rule 1.427(b) of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.427(b), this Second Report and Order and 
Order on Reconsideration shall become effective on December 31, 2008, 
except for the information collections, which require approval by OMB 
under the PRA and which shall become effective after the Commission 
publishes a document in the Federal Register announcing such approval 
and the relevant effective date(s). As described above, the Commission 
mandated in the June 24, 2008 Internet-based TRS Order that the new 
numbering system and emergency call handling requirements be 
implemented by December 31, 2008. In general, the issues addressed in 
this Order clarify aspects of the implementation of the new system and 
affirm prior determinations and are critical to ensuring a smooth 
transition to the new system. The Commission does not believe that the 
shortened implementation period will be a significant burden on any 
affected parties, who are already working to implement the new system 
described in the June 24, 2008 Internet-based TRS Order. In any event, 
any burden to the affected parties is outweighed by the need to ensure 
a smooth transition to the new, more functionally equivalent numbering 
system for the community of users, including a smooth transition to the 
new emergency call handling rules.
    87. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.

Final Rules

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 to read as follows:

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 
Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 
218, 222, 225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Section 64.605 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  64.605  Emergency calling requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) As of December 31, 2008, the requirements of paragraphs 
(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(iv) of this section shall not apply to providers 
of VRS and IP Relay to which Sec.  64.605(b) applies.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Scope. The following requirements are only applicable to 
providers of VRS or IP Relay. Further, the following requirements apply 
only to 911 calls placed by registered users whose Registered Location 
is in a geographic area served by a Wireline E911 Network and is 
available to the provider handling the call.
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-30999 Filed 12-23-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P