[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1134-1136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28444]



[[Page 1134]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 19-90; FRS 16385]


Telecommunications Relay Service Modernization

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC 
or Commission) proposes to: Eliminate the outdated equal access and 
multiple billing options requirements from the TRS mandatory minimum 
standards and to streamline Commission processes by ceasing Federal 
Register publication of state requests for TRS program certification, 
while continuing to publish these certification applications in the 
Commission's electronic document management system and on the 
Commission's website.

DATES: Comments are due January 30, 2020. Reply comments are due 
February 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 03-123, 
by either of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     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 document FCC 19-90 at: 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-90A1.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Scott, Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-1264, or email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), document FCC 19-90, adopted on September 
18, 2019, released on September 20, 2019, in CG Docket No. 03-123. The 
Report and Order in document FCC 19-90 will be published elsewhere in 
the Federal Register. The full text of document FCC 19-90 is available 
for public inspection and copying via the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS), and during regular business hours at the 
FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room 
CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. 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) or 
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).
    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 rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 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.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The NPRM in document FCC 19-90 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. As required by section 225 of the Communications Act, as Amended 
(the Act), 47 U.S.C. 225, the Commission's rules prescribe mandatory 
minimum standards to ensure that TRS provides telephone service for 
people with hearing or speech disabilities that is functionally 
equivalent to voice communication service.
    2. Equal Access Requirement. The Commission proposes to repeal the 
equal access requirement, which provides that ``TRS users shall have 
access to their chosen interexchange carrier through the TRS, and to 
all other operator services to the same extent that such access is 
provided to voice users.'' The rule, which was adopted in 1991, 
reflects the prevailing telephone service practices at that time, when 
providers of telephone service generally assessed per-minute rates for 
long distance based on the distance and duration of the call, and long 
distance services were provided on an unbundled basis by competing 
interexchange carriers.
    3. Today, voice telephone subscribers typically pay a bundled or 
flat rate for telephone service, without time or distance differentials 
for long distance calls, and the Commission has ceased to apply an 
equal access requirement to voice telephone service. Because the rule 
only requires equal access ``to the same extent that such access is 
provided to voice users'' and because the Commission has eliminated the 
equal access rule for non-legacy voice users, there are few, and ever-
decreasing,

[[Page 1135]]

situations in which a TRS provider would actually be obligated to 
provide equal access under the current rule.
    4. In this changed environment, the Commission believes special 
mandates regarding long distance carriage are no longer necessary in 
order to have parity with voice telephone users when making long 
distance calls. Additionally, the Commission finds credible that 
implementing this requirement can be confusing for consumers and cause 
delays in call set-up, and that it hinders the providers' ability to 
transition their platforms to more efficient IP-based networks--in 
accordance with the Act's mandate for the TRS program to take advantage 
of evolving technologies. Given changes in how consumers now acquire 
and pay for long distance services, the costs and burdens associated 
with this rule now appear to outweigh any remaining benefits. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    5. The Commission also proposes to clarify that, when TRS providers 
allow consumers to make long distance calls without incurring per-
minute charges, such offerings do not constitute an impermissible 
financial incentive for TRS use. Although the Commission previously 
found that long distance discounts offered by TRS providers could 
constitute an impermissible financial incentive, that ruling was based 
on the premise that such discounts would cause the charges for long 
distance calls by TRS users to be lower than those for voice service 
users. In today's marketplace, the Commission believes the widespread 
bundling of long distance and local calling eliminates any risk that 
offering free long distance to TRS users would create an impermissible 
incentive to make long distance calls. The Commission seeks comment on 
this proposed clarification.
    6. Billing Options Requirement. The Commission proposes to repeal 
the billing options requirement, which directs TRS providers to offer 
``the same billing options (e.g., sent-paid long distance, operator-
assisted, collect, and third party billing) traditionally offered for 
wireline voice services.'' As is the case with the equal access 
requirement, this TRS feature, which was also adopted in 1991, has 
become a burden with no associated public interest benefit. Given the 
widespread bundling of local and long distance calling and the 
disappearance of per-minute long distance charges, the Commission 
believes the future likelihood of any TRS provider assessing per-minute 
charges for wireline calls (and thereby triggering a possible need for 
billing options) is de minimis. Accordingly, alternative billing 
options no longer appear necessary for TRS users to achieve 
functionally equivalent service. Eliminating this obligation should 
make the provision of TRS more efficient because it will relieve TRS 
providers from the need to maintain obsolete features of circuit-
switched networks at a time when they and others within the 
communications industry have been transitioning to IP-based platforms. 
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    7. Federal Register Notice of State Requests for Certification. The 
Commission proposes to cease Federal Register publication of the 
Commission's public notices of applications for certification of state 
TRS programs. The purpose of the Commission's certification process is 
to review the details of a state's TRS program to determine whether the 
state program makes intrastate TRS available in a manner that meets or 
exceeds the Commission's minimum standards, makes available adequate 
procedures and remedies for enforcing program requirements, and does 
not conflict with Federal law. In this certification process, the 
Commission does not make rules prescribing how state programs should 
operate; rather, it determines whether a state program meets the 
standards of the Commission's existing TRS rules. The Commission's 
review is ordinarily conducted based on the documentation submitted by 
a state, and no adjudicatory hearing is ordinarily needed to determine 
whether a state program merits certification.
    8. Federal Register publication of state TRS program certification 
applications is not required by the Administrative Procedure Act. 
Moreover, for comparable Commission authorization processes, such as 
determinations on internet-based TRS certification applications and 
common-carrier applications for certificates of ``public convenience 
and necessity,'' Federal Register publication is not required by the 
Commission's rules. Nor is publication necessary for consistency with 
Commission practice in other areas.
    9. In addition, while the Commission continues to believe that 
public input is important in assisting the Commission in its state 
certification determinations, providing electronic notice of such 
certification requests via public notice releases that are posted in 
the Commission's electronic documents system (EDOCS) and on the 
Commission's website should provide sufficient notice to enable 
interested members of the public to comment on an application, while at 
the same time preserving Commission resources associated with Federal 
Register publication. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. In 
particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether use of the 
Commission's own public notice process would be sufficient to enable an 
informed Commission decision on state program authorization given the 
Commission's longstanding reliance on this public notice process for 
comparable types of applications.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    10. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended, 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 19-90. Written public comments are requested 
on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and 
must be filed by the deadline for comments specified in the DATES 
section. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 19-90 to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    11. In document FCC 19-90, the Commission proposes to repeal the 
equal access requirement so that it is no longer applicable to any form 
of TRS. The Commission believes it is no longer necessary to provide 
TRS users with the ability to select their long distance carrier to get 
certain rates on their toll calls to achieve functional equivalency. 
The Commission also proposes to repeal the billing options requirement 
so that it is no longer applicable to any form of TRS. Given the 
increasing migration to telephone service bundles for local and long 
distance calls, the ability for TRS users to employ various billing 
options for toll calls no longer appears necessary to achieve 
functionally equivalent service. Eliminating this obligation will make 
the provision of TRS more efficient because it will relieve TRS 
providers of the need to maintain obsolete network features at a time 
when they and others within the communications industry are 
transitioning to IP-based platforms. In addition, the Commission 
proposes to eliminate the requirement for the Commission to publish in 
the Federal Register notice of applications for certification of state 
TRS programs and instead rely on the Commission's public notice release 
process.

[[Page 1136]]

Legal Basis

    12. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in 
sections 1, 2 and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 152, 225.

Small Entities Impacted

    13. The rule changes proposed in document FCC 19-90 will affect 
obligations of non-internet based TRS providers. These services can be 
included within the broad economic category of All Other 
Telecommunications.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    14. The Commission's proposals to delete the equal access and 
billing options requirements and to eliminate the requirement for the 
Commission to publish in the Federal Register notice of applications 
for certification of state TRS programs would not impose any additional 
reporting, record keeping, or other compliance requirements.

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

    15. The proposals to eliminate the equal access and billing options 
requirements will reduce the burden on small entities subject to the 
rule. Such entities would no longer need to provide TRS users with the 
ability to select their long distance carrier or offer billing options, 
and the providers would no longer be required to configure their 
networks for such functionalities. Other small entities would not be 
affected.
    16. The proposal to eliminate the requirement for the Commission to 
publish in the Federal Register notice of applications for 
certification of state TRS programs would have no impact on small 
entities because only the Commission is burdened by this obligation.
    17. The Commission seeks comment from all interested parties. Small 
entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any 
specific concerns they may have with the proposals outlined in document 
FCC 19-90. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on 
small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to document 
FCC 19-90, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this 
proceeding.

Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the 
Commission's Proposals

    18. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications, 
Telecommunications relay services.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 part 64 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, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 
226, 227, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 
620, and 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  64.604 by revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii) and by removing 
and reserving paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.604  Mandatory Minimum Standards.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Relay services shall be capable of handling any type of call 
normally provided by telecommunications carriers unless the Commission 
determines that it is not technologically feasible to do so. Relay 
service providers have the burden of proving the infeasibility of 
handling any type of call.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) [Remove and Reserve]
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  64.606 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.606  Internet-based TRS provider and TRS program 
certification.

    (a) Documentation--(1) Certified state program. Any state, through 
its office of the governor or other delegated executive office 
empowered to provide TRS, desiring to establish a state program under 
this section shall submit, not later than October 1, 1992, 
documentation to the Commission addressed to the Federal Communications 
Commission, Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, TRS 
Certification Program, Washington, DC 20554, and captioned ``TRS State 
Certification Application.'' All documentation shall be submitted in 
narrative form, shall clearly describe the state program for 
implementing intrastate TRS, and the procedures and remedies for 
enforcing any requirements imposed by the state program. The Commission 
shall give public notice of states filing for certification.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-28444 Filed 1-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P