[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7766-7770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01382]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 6, 7, 14, 64, and 67
[CG Docket No. 16-145 and GN Docket No. 15-178; FCC 16-169]
Transition From TTY to Real-Time Text Technology
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on further
actions the Commission could undertake to continue the transition from
outdated text telephony (TTY) technology to a reliable and
interoperable means of providing real-time text (RTT) communication
over Internet Protocol (IP) enabled networks and services for people
who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or have a speech disability.
DATES: Comments are due February 22, 2017. Reply Comments are due March
24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 16-145
and GN Docket No. 15-178, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on
the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing
the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S.
Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket No. 16-145 and GN Docket
No. 15-178.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Scott, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-1264 or email
[email protected], or Suzy Rosen Singleton, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 510-9446 or email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested
parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates
indicated in the DATES section. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's ECFS. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
[[Page 7767]]
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
This is a summary of the Commission's document FCC 16-169,
Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, adopted December 15, 2016, and released December
16, 2016, in CG Docket No. 16-145 and GN Docket No. 15-178. The Report
and Order, FCC 16-169, adopted on December 15, 2016, and released on
December 16, 2016, is published elsewhere in this issue. The full text
of document FCC 16-169 will be available for public inspection and
copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. This proceeding shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by 47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Document FCC 16-169 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that
may result in modified information collection requirements. If the
Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the
Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting
the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the
Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. Public Law 107-198; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
1. Real-time text is a mode of communication that permits text to
be sent immediately as it is being created. The Commission's proposed
action seeks to further ensure that people who are deaf, hard of
hearing, deaf-blind, or have a speech disability can fully utilize and
benefit from twenty-first century communications technologies as the
United States migrates from legacy circuit-switched systems to IP-based
networks and services.
2. In document FCC 16-169, the Commission seeks further comment on:
Setting an appropriate timeline or trigger for the sunset
of service providers' obligation to ensure backward compatibility
between real-time text (RTT) and text telephone (TTY) technology, and a
proposed date of 2021 for this purpose;
Integrating RTT into the provision of telecommunications
relay services (TRS);
Addressing the RTT needs of people with cognitive
disabilities and people who are deaf-blind through the provision of
block mode and connectivity with refreshable Braille displays.
Establishing a Deadline To Sunset the Obligation To Ensure RTT Is
Backward Compatible With TTY Technology
3. In document FCC 16-169, the Commission concludes that it is
premature to establish a deadline to sunset the obligation to ensure
that services and equipment that support RTT is backward compatible
with TTY technology, until the Commission has gathered additional
information about the deployment and effectiveness of the transition
from TTY to RTT technology. The Commission believes that collecting
such information will be useful for a Commission determination as to
when TTY users have transitioned to RTT to a point that warrants
elimination of the backward compatibility requirement. To this end, the
Commission seeks comment on the type of data and metrics that can be
used to monitor the availability, adoption, and acceptance of RTT
services and devices. For example, would it be useful to gather data on
the total number of end user devices supporting RTT that are made
available for sale? Would it also be helpful to track the adoption of
RTT on services and devices used by public safety answering points
(PSAPs), government entities, and businesses? To assess the impact of
RTT on PSAPs without IP connectivity, should the Commission track the
frequency of RTT-to-TTY 911 calls, and how should the Commission
address contingencies if there is an adverse impact? To what extent can
service providers also gather data on RTT usage by consumers? Next, the
Commission seeks input on when and how such data should be reported.
The Commission currently requires wireless service providers who have
been granted waivers of the TTY obligations to report to the Commission
semi-annually on the progress of their RTT implementation efforts.
Should the Commission require similar reports of wireless and wireline
service providers and manufacturers? Should certain actions, such as
the grant of a waiver, trigger a reporting requirement? Alternatively,
should any reporting requirement be postponed until after the
requirements for the wireline transition have been adopted? Are there
other reports collected by the Commission through which it should
collect this or similar information on RTT?
4. The Commission notes that by 2021, Tier I wireless service
providers will have had the opportunity to support RTT on their IP-
based networks for three years, manufacturers will have been producing
RTT-compliant
[[Page 7768]]
equipment for two years, and smaller wireless service providers will
have supported RTT on their network for at least 18 months. For these
reasons, and because by such date, the Commission expects to have data
sufficient to assess adoption of RTT technology, the Commission
proposes to set a sunset date for RTT-TTY backward compatibility of
2021 unless the Commission finds a reason to extend this deadline. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal, and whether there is a
different point in time when it would be appropriate for the Commission
to reassess the need for covered entities to continue supporting TTY
technology via backward compatibility on their IP-based voice service
networks. For example, should the Commission's reassessment be tied in
any way to the implementation of the deployment of RTT technology over
wireline networks, or should this reassessment take place after the
sunset of the public switched telecommunications network (PSTN) and the
transition of all consumers to IP-based wireless and wireline networks?
Requirements for TRS Providers
5. In document FCC 16-169, the Commission allows wireless service
providers to support TRS access through RTT technology, including via
711 abbreviated dialing access, in lieu of supporting TRS through TTY
technology. The Commission further clarifies that wireless service
providers transmitting such calls may comply with these RTT support
requirements by ensuring that such communications are backward
compatible with the TTY technology currently used in such call centers.
This approach is designed to ensure that RTT users can place and
receive TRS calls through state TRS program call centers even when such
centers are not equipped to receive RTT calls.
6. Some forms of TRS are provided over the PSTN, while others are
made available via IP networks. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), published at 81 FR 33170, May 25, 2016, preceding document FCC
16-169, the Commission sought comment on whether and how it should
amend the Commission's TRS rules to authorize or require other forms of
TRS to incorporate RTT capabilities into platforms and terminal
equipment used with these services.
7. Comments in the record express a variety of views as to the
manner in which RTT should be integrated into TRS operations. The
record in this proceeding also contains extensive information about the
benefits of RTT. It would appear, therefore, that integrating RTT into
TRS operations similarly would benefit text-reliant users, and would
fulfill a congressional directive to the Commission to ensure that TRS
regulations ``encourage . . . the use of existing technology and do not
discourage or impair the development of improved technology.'' In other
words, taking this action will ensure that TRS users are able to
benefit from evolving technologies in what will eventually be an all-IP
environment.
8. However, before adopting rules governing the provision of RTT as
an integrated component of TRS, the Commission seeks additional comment
on the costs, benefits, and technical feasibility of enabling this
feature for various forms of TRS, for both TRS providers and TRS users.
For example, what changes would be needed in TRS equipment (e.g.,
hardware, software, or applications) to support RTT between an IP-based
TRS user and the communications assistant (CA) or between the parties
to the call? Will adoption of an RTT mandate require TRS providers or
users to purchase new TRS equipment or updates to TRS equipment
software? To what extent will providers have to modify their call
routing and handling features?
9. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the
incorporation of RTT into the provision of TRS operations should be
mandated or only allowed. Along these lines, the Commission seeks
comment on the appropriate regulatory treatment for RTT in the TRS
context. Specifically, given that RTT is a text-based form of
communication--as is TTY-based TRS and IP Relay--should this feature be
subject to the same regulatory treatment that applies to TTY-based TRS,
or would it be more appropriate to consider this akin to IP Relay for
purposes of the Commission's TRS rules? For example, should the
Commission require RTT-based TRS providers to meet the same mandatory
minimum standards as currently applied to TTY-based TRS, such as call
release functionality? To what extent should such providers be required
to handle emergency calls, and should they adhere to the Commission's
rules for TTY-based TRS or IP Relay TRS for this purpose? Are there
certain mandatory minimum standards that should not be applicable to
RTT technology?
10. Given that TTY-based TRS is a mandated service for common
carriers, if the Commission requires the provision of RTT-TRS, at what
point in the future should providers be relieved of their obligations
to provide and support TTY-based TRS? Should wireline IP-based voice
service providers and equipment manufacturers be required to support
RTT before TRS providers are required to support RTT?
11. At the same time that the Commission recognizes that RTT has
the potential to improve TRS for certain RTT users who choose to
communicate directly in text with another party, the Commission agrees
with commenters that RTT should augment and complement rather than
supplant TRS, and seeks comment on this belief. Specifically, the
Commission acknowledges that some forms of TRS, such as video relay
service and speech-to-speech service, may fulfill the needs of people
with disabilities who are not text-reliant users. The Commission
therefore believes that the addition of RTT as a TRS option should not
diminish the ability of individuals who are reliant on these other
forms of TRS to continue having access to those services. The
Commission seeks comment on this assumption.
12. Finally, the Commission seeks input on the mechanisms that are
needed to ensure that the provision of RTT-TRS by IP-based providers
effectively meets the communication needs of TRS users. Should the
Commission require TRS providers to support RTT to enable text-based
communication between the CA and the text-reliant user; between the CA
and the other party to the call; or between both parties to the call?
Are there technical challenges associated with supporting RTT in
situations where the parties to the call are connected through an IP-
based TRS provider? Should the Commission require IP captioned
telephone service (IP CTS) providers to support RTT transmission in any
voice channels they provide and in any off-the-shelf equipment provided
to IP CTS users? Would the use of conversation windows help an IP CTS
user distinguish between a direct RTT communication received from the
other party and text generated by an IP CTS relay operator? Are there
technical standards the Commission should adopt for the provision of
RTT by IP-based TRS providers? The Commission seeks comment
specifically on the costs, benefits, and feasibility of requiring IP-
based TRS providers to incorporate RTT capability into the provision of
their services and on other related matters. Finally, the Commission
seeks comment on the appropriate timeline for adopting RTT requirements
for IP-based TRS providers.
13. Impact of RTT on TRS. In the NPRM, the Commission assumed that
[[Page 7769]]
because RTT will provide greater opportunities for direct, point-to-
point text communications and can enable text to be intermixed with
voice, it can reduce reliance on relay services to the extent RTT
capabilities in end user devices become ubiquitous as a universal text
solution. The Commission similarly noted that RTT could enhance the
ability of TRS to provide functionally equivalent telephone service for
those individuals who continue to rely on TRS as their communication
method. AT&T agrees that it is important to review the potential
impacts of RTT on TRS, and specifically to assess the need to adjust
the TRS Fund supporting these services as this impact becomes clearer.
The Commission seeks comment on the best methodology to determine the
extent to which RTT reduces reliance on TRS. Additionally, how can the
Commission best determine the extent to which the introduction of RTT
increases TRS use among some consumers because it enhances the ability
of TRS to provide functionally equivalent telephone service? Should any
data collected on the effect that RTT has on TRS wait until wireline
networks transition from TTY technology to RTT? What other information
should the Commission consider in determining whether the availability
and use of RTT necessitates changes to the TRS program or its funding?
Other RTT Features
14. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether it is
possible to identify certain RTT features or functional capabilities
that are necessary to meet the communication needs of individuals who
are deaf-blind, people with cognitive disabilities, or other specific
segments of the disability community. Some commenters suggest that
slowing down an RTT text display is necessary for refreshable Braille
displays. They also suggest enabling Braille display users to suspend
incoming text when the user is typing, because receiving text while
typing on a Braille keyboard could cause confusion. The Commission
seeks comment on whether these and similar features can enhance service
providers' and manufacturers' ability to meet performance objectives
under 47 CFR parts 6, 7, and 14 for individuals who use refreshable
Braille displays, including people who are deaf-blind. The Commission
also seeks further comment on the technical and practical challenges of
supporting compatibility with refreshable Braille displays and similar
assistive technologies. What current steps are being taken to examine
these issues? Is there a potential timeline for resolving concerns to
support the use of refreshable Braille displays with RTT?
15. Block mode allows the user to hold onto a text communication
while it is being composed, and then send it in its entirety, in a
manner akin to short message service (SMS) or text messaging. This
enables the user to edit individual characters and groups of words
before sending a message. Some commenters agree that block mode is a
desirable option that would enhance effective communication for certain
individuals and in certain situations. The Commission seeks further
comment on the extent to which offering a block mode option will
enhance service providers' and manufacturers' ability to meet part 6,
7, and 14 performance objectives for people with certain types of
disabilities.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
16. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed
in document FCC 16-169. Written public comments are requested on this
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines for comments specified in the DATES section. The
Commission will send a copy of document FCC 16-169, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
17. In document FCC 16-169, the Commission seeks comment on:
Setting an appropriate timeline or trigger for the sunset
of service providers' obligation to ensure backward compatibility
between RTT and TTY technology, and a proposal of a date of 2021 for
this purpose;
Integrating RTT into the provision of TRS; and
Addressing the RTT needs of people with cognitive
disabilities and people who are deaf-blind through the provision of
block mode transmission and through connectivity with refreshable
Braille displays.
Legal Basis
18. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 2, 4(i),
225, 251, 255, 303, 316, and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, section 6 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act
of 1999, and section 106 of the CVAA; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 225,
255, 303, 316, 615a-1, 615c, 617.
Listing of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
19. The majority of the proposals in document FCC 16-169 will
affect obligations on telecommunications carriers and providers, VoIP
service providers, wireline and wireless service providers, advanced
communications services (ACS) providers, and telecommunications
equipment and software manufacturers. Other entities, however, that
choose to object to the substitution of RTT for TTY technology under
the Commission's amended rules may be economically impacted by document
FCC 16-169.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers;
Local Exchange Carriers (LECs);
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs);
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers;
Interexchange Carriers;
Other Toll Carriers;
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite);
Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation);
All Other Telecommunications;
TRS Providers;
Electronic Computer Manufacturing;
Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing (wireline);
Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment
Manufacturing;
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing;
Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing; and
Software Publishers
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
20. In document FCC 16-169, the Commission seeks comment on
integrating RTT into the provision of TRS, requiring certain additional
features and capabilities of RTT, and the appropriate timeline to
sunset the requirement for backward compatibility of RTT with TTY
technology. With the following exception, these proposals do not
include new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements. Specifically, in document 16-169, the Commission seeks
comment on the type of data that should be
[[Page 7770]]
collected to help determine the extent to which RTT reduces reliance on
TRS or alternatively the extent to which the introduction of RTT
increases TRS use among some consumers because it has enhanced the
ability of TRS to provide functionally equivalent telephone service.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
21. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
22. In document FCC 16-169, the Commission seeks comment on the
type of data and metrics that can be used to monitor the availability,
adoption, and acceptance of RTT services and devices. This information
is intended to help the Commission determine when TTY users have
transitioned to RTT to a point that would warrant elimination of the
requirement for RTT to be backward compatible with TTY. While the
collection of data may initially burden small businesses, the eventual
sunset of the obligation to ensure that RTT is backward compatible with
TTY will in the long run reduce the burden for small entities and
emergency call centers to maintain TTY technology and backward
compatibility capability.
23. The Commission also seeks comments on the costs, benefits,
feasibility, and appropriate timeline for requiring IP-based TRS
providers to incorporate RTT capability into the provision of their
services. The information requested will inform the Commission of
concerns with the transition and appropriate timelines for all
entities, which will allow the Commission to consider rules and
implementation deadlines that minimize burdens and relieve possible
adverse economic impact on small entities. The Commission's gathering
of information to determine the effect of RTT on TRS services and the
TRS Fund will allow the Commission to consider changes to the rules
that may minimize burdens and relieve possible adverse economic impact
on small entities.
24. In document FCC 16-169, the Commission also seeks comment on
identifying certain RTT features or functional capabilities, such as
compatibility with refreshable braille displays and block mode
transmission, that are necessary to meet the communication needs of
individuals who are deaf-blind, people with cognitive disabilities, or
other specific segments of the disability community. In seeking
comments on feasibility, the Commission seeks to integrate flexibility
into the requirements to take into consideration the limitations of
small businesses. Because the Commission will require implementation of
these features only if achievable, the Commission anticipates that
there will be little to no impact on small entities that would claim
the requirement is not achievable.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Commission's Proposals
25. None.
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to sections 4(i), 225, 255, 301, 303(r), 316, 403, 715,
and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 106
of the CVAA, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 225, 255, 301, 303(r), 316, 403, 615c,
616, 617, document FCC 16-169 is adopted.
The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information
Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 16-169, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Howard,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01382 Filed 1-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P