Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, 67070-67073 [2011-28135]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67070
*
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
*
§ 52.822
*
*
*
[Amended]
3. Section 52.822 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (b).
■
[FR Doc. 2011–27991 Filed 10–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 25 and 27
[FR Doc. 2011–27454 Filed 10–28–11; 8:45 am]
[WT Docket No. 07–293; IB Docket No. 95–
91; GEN Docket No. 90–357; RM–8610; FCC
10–82]
Operation of Wireless
Communications Services in the 2.3
GHz Band; Establishment of Rules and
Policies for the Digital Audio Radio
Satellite Service in the 2310–2360 MHz
Frequency Band
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; announcement of
effective date.
AGENCY:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
16:38 Oct 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 10–51; FCC 11–155]
Structure and Practices of the Video
Relay Service Program
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; clarification.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission announces that certain
rules adopted in the Operation of
Wireless Communications Services in
the 2.3 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 07–
293; Establishment of Rules and Policies
for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite
Service in the 2310–2360 MHz
Frequency Band (WCS and SDARS)
proceeding, to the extent it contained
information collection requirements that
required approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) was
approved, September 26, 2011.
DATES: Sections 27.14(p)(7), 27.72(b),
27.72(c), 27.73(a), and 27.73(b) of the
Commission’s rules published at 75 FR
45058, August 2, 2010, are effective
October 31, 2011.
Sections 25.202(h)(3), 25.214(d)(2),
and 27.53(a)(10) will be enforced
beginning October 31, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Linda Chang, Federal Communications
Commission, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12th
St. SW., Washington, DC 20554 at (202)
418–1339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. On May 20, 2010, the Commission
published in the Federal Register, the
summary of a Report and Order and
Second Report and Order, which stated
that upon OMB approval, it would
publish in the Federal Register a
document announcing the effective
date. On September 26, 2011 the OMB
approved, for a period of three years, the
information collection requirements
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
contained in sections 25.202(h)(3),
25.214(d)(2), 27.14(p)(7), 27.53(a)(10),
27.72(b), 27.72(c), 27.73(a), and 27.73(b)
of the Commission’s rules.1
2. On September 26, 2011, OMB
approved the public information
collection associated with these rule
changes under OMB Control No. 3060–
1159.
In this document, the
Commission addresses three petitions
for clarification or reconsideration of a
previous order, and amends and
clarifies the Commission’s rules
regarding Internet-based
Telecommunications Relay Services
(iTRS) applicants for certification.
DATES: Effective October 31, 2011,
except for 47 CFR 64.606(a)(2)(ii)(A)(4)
through (8) and (a)(2)(ii)(E) contains
new or modified information collection
requirements that require approval by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The Federal Communications
Commission will publish a document in
the Federal Register announcing the
effective date.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory Hlibok, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability
Rights Office at (202) 559–5158 (VP) or
email at Gregory.Hlibok@fcc.gov. For
additional information concerning the
information collection requirements
contained in this document, contact
Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918.
SUMMARY:
1 The summary of the Report and Order and
Second Report and Order, published August 2,
2010, did not list 47 CFR 25.202(h)(3), 47 CFR
25.214(d)(2), and 47 CFR 27.53(a)(10) among the
rules requiring OMB approval. However, because 47
CFR 25.202(h)(3), 25.214(d)(2), and 27.53(a)(10)
contain information collection requirements that
can not be enforced without OMB approval, the
Commission sought OMB clearance for these rules.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Structure
and Practices of the Video Relay Service
Program, Memorandum and Opinion
and Order (MO&O) and Order (Order),
document FCC 11–155, adopted October
17, 2011, and released October 17, 2011
in CG Docket number 10–51.
The full text of document FCC 11–155
and copies of any subsequently filed
documents in this matter will be
available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours
at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
Document FCC 11–155 and copies of
subsequently filed documents in this
matter may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
BCPI, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC
20554. Customers may contact BCPI,
Inc. via its Web site https://
www.bcpiweb.com or by calling (202)
488–5300. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an
e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or
(202) 418–0432 (TTY). Document FCC
11–155 can also be downloaded in
Word or Portable Document Format
(PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/
trs.html#orders.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Synopsis
In the MO&O in document FCC 11–
155, the Commission addresses three
petitions:
A. Sprint Nextel Corporation, Expedited
Petition for Clarification, CG Docket No.
10–51 (Filed September 6, 2011) (Sprint
Petition)
1. Definition of Employees
Sprint requests that the Commission
clarify that communications assistants
(CAs) who are trained by the provider,
who are stationed at the facilities of the
provider and who are directly under the
provider’s supervision should be
deemed to be employees of the provider,
in satisfaction of the requirement that
video relay service (VRS) providers
employ their own CAs, regardless of
whether or not they are hired directly by
the provider. The Commission denies
Sprint’s requested clarification. The
Commission has consistently
distinguished ‘‘employees’’ from
‘‘subcontractors’’ and ‘‘contractors’’ in
adopting rules and requirements
governing the provision of VRS, and the
Commission finds that Sprint’s
proposed clarification would render
E:\FR\FM\31OCR1.SGM
31OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
those recognized distinctions
meaningless. An entity seeking
certification or already certified by the
Commission must ensure that each of its
VRS CAs who relays calls for which the
entity will seek reimbursement from the
Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) is a full or
part-time employee of that entity. A CA
cannot be an independent contractor or
a temporary worker assigned by an
agency, on a non-employment basis, to
handle VRS calls. The Commission also
clarifies that this restriction should not
preclude a provider from hiring a CA to
handle VRS calls on a temporary or
part-time basis so long as the CA is an
actual, demonstrable employee, not a
contractor or other temporary, nonemployed worker, of the provider.
2. Roll-Over VRS Traffic
Sprint further requests that the
Commission clarify that certified VRS
providers will be able to send traffic to
other certified VRS providers ‘‘when
they are unable to immediately handle
that traffic due to factors outside of their
control, e.g., a sudden surge in traffic
due to an earthquake,’’ and still be able
to bill and receive compensation from
the Fund for such traffic under
§ 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F)(1–4) of the
Commission’s rules.
The Commission grants Sprint’s
request for clarification that certified
VRS providers may roll-over VRS traffic
to another eligible provider when
unable to handle an unexpected and
temporary surge in call traffic, and finds
this request generally to be consistent
with the goals and policies of the
Commission’s VRS rules. The
Commission clarifies that a certified
provider may seek reimbursement from
the Fund for minutes of use that it
routes to another certified VRS provider
where exigent circumstances warrant
such routing to handle an unexpected
and temporary increase in the certified
provider’s incoming traffic. Exigent
circumstances do not include events
that result in increases in traffic that, in
the ordinary course of business, could
reasonably have been anticipated, such
as a surge in traffic occurring during a
holiday period.
The Commission also reiterates that
§ 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(iii) of its rules
only allows an eligible provider to
subcontract for CA services or call
center functions with, or otherwise
authorize the provision of such services
or functions from, another eligible
provider. The Commission therefore
clarifies that this rule does not apply to
non-certified applicants for certification;
as such, non-certified applicants for
certification may not rely on the ability
to subcontract for or otherwise authorize
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Oct 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
the provision of CA services or call
center functions on their behalf after
they are certified, to demonstrate their
eligibility for certification.
3. ACD Platform Leasing From ThirdParty Non-Provider
Sprint’s final request is that the
Commission clarify that a VRS provider
leasing an automatic call distribution
(ACD) platform from a vendor not
affiliated with any VRS provider need
not locate such ACD on its premises or
use its own employees to manage such
platform. The Commission grants
Sprint’s request insofar as it confirms
that a VRS provider leasing an ACD
platform from a vendor not affiliated
with any VRS provider need not locate
such ACD on its premises or use its own
employees to manage such a platform.
However, regardless of the location of
the ACD, each provider is responsible
for the oversight of all the core
operations associated with such ACD
platform, and shall be held accountable
for compliance with all pertinent
Commission rules and policies.
B. Sorenson Communications, Inc.,
Petition for Reconsideration of Two
Aspects of the Certification Order, CG
Docket No. 10–51 (Filed September 6,
2011) (Sorenson Petition)
In its petition for reconsideration,
Sorenson maintains that the
Commission did not adequately justify
the burdensomeness of requirements
that VRS providers submit, as part of
their certification applications and, as
applicable, in annual reports regarding
their compliance with the TRS rules:
(1) ‘‘Proofs of purchase or license
agreements for all equipment and/or
technologies, including hardware and
software, used for the applicant’s VRS
call center functions’’; and (2) all
written sponsorship agreements relating
to iTRS. The Commission grants
Sorenson’s petition to the extent
discussed below.
The Commission modifies the
documentation requirements for proofs
of purchase, leases, or license
agreements for technology and
equipment used to support call center
functions, to apply only to the
technologies and equipment for a
representative sampling of five of a
provider’s domestic call centers, where
the provider has more than five such
centers. However, the Commission
requires applicants to retain proofs of
purchase for all technology and
equipment used to support call center
functions for all of their call centers,
and to furnish such documentation to
the Commission upon the Commission’s
request. In addition, the Commission
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67071
continues to require providers to submit
documentation for all technology and
equipment used to support call center
functions for VRS providers that
maintain five or fewer domestic call
centers, and for all international call
centers regardless of the provider’s size.
Furthermore, the Commission continues
to require all VRS applicants, regardless
of size, to describe in their submissions
the technology and equipment used to
support their call center functions—
including, but not limited to, ACD,
routing, call setup, mapping, call
features, billing for compensation from
the TRS Fund, and registration.
However, in response to Sorenson’s
stated concerns, the Commission
modifies the requirement that the
applicant state whether the technology
and equipment for each call center
function is owned or leased to pertain
only to the maximum of five call centers
for which, as described above, the
applicant must provide proofs of
purchase, license agreements, or leases.
Finally, in light of the particular
documentation requirements applicable
to leased ACD platforms, the
Commission will continue to require
that VRS applicants provide a complete
copy of all ACD leases or license
agreements. The Commission also
clarifies that applicants need only to
submit a list of all sponsorship
arrangements, and to describe on that
list any associated written agreements
relating to iTRS—applicants need not
furnish the actual copies of the
arrangements and associated
agreements, but must retain copies of all
such arrangements and agreements for a
period of three years from the date of
the application and submit them to the
Commission upon request.
C. AT&T Services, Inc., Petition for
Reconsideration of AT&T, CG Docket
No. 10–51 (Filed September 6, 2011)
(AT&T Petition)
In its petition for reconsideration,
AT&T generally seeks reconsideration of
the requirements that applicants for
certification operate their own call
centers and employ their own CAs. In
addition, AT&T seeks reconsideration of
the prohibition against VRS providers
subcontracting these core VRS functions
to another certified VRS provider. The
Commission denies the AT&T Petition,
and finds that there is ample evidence
in the record that allowing VRS
providers that operate without their
own facilities to seek reimbursement
from the Fund has contributed to the
serious fraud that has plagued the VRS
program.
E:\FR\FM\31OCR1.SGM
31OCR1
67072
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
D. Sua Sponte Order
In the Order, the Commission
clarifies, on its own motion, its policies
and rules regarding on-site visits to the
premises of iTRS certification
applicants and certified iTRS providers.
The Commission clarifies that such
visits to both applicants for certification
and certified providers may be
announced or unannounced. Applicants
for certification and certified providers
must comply with a request by an
authorized representative of the
Commission to conduct either
announced or unannounced on-site
visits. In the case of applicants, the
failure to allow complete access to
inspect areas of the premises and
documents related to the provision of
iTRS, and to observe live iTRS calls, at
the time of an authorized on-site visit
will be cause for application denial. In
the case of certified providers subject to
an on-site visit to ensure continued
compliance with the Commission’s
rules and requirements, such failure
will result in the suspension of
payments from the Fund until such
access to iTRS-related areas, documents
and activities is allowed. In addition, a
certified provider’s failure to cooperate
with an announced or unannounced onsite visit will be deemed a violation of
the Commission’s rules governing
provider audits and thus, may also lead
to a Commission proceeding imposing
appropriate sanctions, including the
suspension or revocation of the
provider’s certification or forfeiture
proceedings.
Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis of
1995
This document contains new and
modified information collection
requirements. The Commission notes
that pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, 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
present document, the Commission has
assessed the effects of the modified
rules for certification by the
Commission of eligibility for payments
from the Fund and finds that the
modified information collection
requirements will not have a significant
impact on small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees. The
Commission received comments on the
information collection requirements
contained in the iTRS Certification
Order, under OMB Control No. 3060–
1150. See, Structure and Practices of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Oct 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
Video Relay Service Program, CG
Docket No. 10–51, Second Report and
Order, published at 76 FR 47469,
August 5, 2011 (iTRS Certification
Order). See also, Paperwork Reduction
Act Comments of Sorenson
Communications, Inc. (filed September
6, 2011). By the MO&O, the Commission
addresses OMB’s and Sorenson’s
concerns by revising the language in the
rules to require that providers that
operate five or more domestic call
centers only submit copies of proofs of
purchase, leases or license agreements
for technology and equipment used to
support their call center functions for a
representative sampling of five call
centers, rather than requiring copies for
all call centers. Further, the Commission
clarifies that the rule requiring
submission of a list of all sponsorship
arrangements relating to iTRS only
requires that a certification applicant
describe on the list associated written
agreements relating to iTRS, and does
not require the applicant to provide
copies of all written agreements. The
Commission believes that these two rule
modifications significantly alleviate the
burdens associated with the subject
information collections requirements,
and address the concerns Sorenson
raised in its PRA comments filed with
OMB. Both the Administrative
Procedures Act and the Commission’s
rules require notice of substantive rules
issued by the Commission, with limited
exceptions, to be made not less than 30
days before such rules goes into effect,
absent good cause shown and published
with the rule. In this case, the
Commission finds good cause to make
these rule modifications effective upon
publication in the Federal Register of
notice of the approval of the modified
rule by OMB under the PRA.
Final Regulatory Flexibility
Certification
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.’’
See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 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
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA). In the MO&O, in
response to a VRS provider’s petition,
the Commission amends its rules to
modify the documentation requirements
for eligible iTRS providers for proofs of
purchase, leases, or license agreements
for technology and equipment used to
support call center functions, to apply
only to the technologies and equipment
for a representative sampling of five of
a provider’s domestic call centers,
where the provider has more than five
such centers. In addition, the
Commission amends its rules to clarify
that applicants need only to submit a
list of all sponsorship arrangements, and
to describe on that list any associated
written agreements relating to iTRS—
applicants need not furnish the actual
copies of the arrangements and
associated agreements. The Commission
will revise § 64.606(a)(2)(ii)(E) of its
rules accordingly.
These amendments result in a
significant reduction in costs and other
burdens on any iTRS provider, large or
small, to comply with these rules. Thus,
the discussion of whether there is a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities is
moot.
Therefore, the Commission certifies
that the requirements of the MO&O will
not have a significant adverse economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities, because there will be no
adverse impact on any entities, large or
small.
The Commission will send a copy of
the MO&O, including the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration, and in
a report to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act.
Congressional Review Act
The Commission will send a copy of
document FCC 11–155 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).
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1, 4(i), (j) and (o), 225, and
303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
(j) and (o), 225, and 303(r), and § 1.429
of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.429, document FCC 11–155 is
adopted.
Sprint’s Expedited Petition for
Clarification is granted in part and
denied in part, to the extent provided in
FCC 11–155.
E:\FR\FM\31OCR1.SGM
31OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Sorenson’s Petition for
Reconsideration is granted, to the extent
provided in FCC 11–155. AT&T’s
Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Part 64 of the Commission’s rules is
amended.
The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of document FCC 11–155,
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.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as
follows:
PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES
RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for part 64 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k), 227; secs.
403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104–104, 100 Stat.
56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222,
225, 226, 207, 228, 254(k), 616, and 620,
unless otherwise noted.
Subpart F—Telecommunications Relay
Services and Related Customer
Premises Equipment for Persons With
Disabilities
2. The authority citation for subpart F
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–154; 225, 255,
303(r), 616 and 620.
3. Section 64.606 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A)(4) and
(5), by adding paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A)(6)
through (8), and by revising paragraph
(a)(2)(ii)(E) to read as follows:
■
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 64.606 Internet-based TRS provider and
TRS program certification.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(4) A description of the technology
and equipment used to support their
call center functions—including, but not
limited to, automatic call distribution,
routing, call setup, mapping, call
features, billing for compensation from
the TRS Fund, and registration—and for
each core function of each call center for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Oct 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
which the applicant must provide a
copy of technology and equipment
proofs of purchase, leases or license
agreements in accordance with
paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A)(5) through (7) of
this section, a statement whether such
technology and equipment is owned,
leased or licensed (and from whom if
leased or licensed);
(5) Operating five or fewer call centers
within the United States, a copy of each
proof of purchase, lease or license
agreement for all technology and
equipment used to support their call
center functions for each call center
operated by the applicant within the
United States;
(6) Operating more than five call
centers within the United States, a copy
of each proof of purchase, lease or
license agreement for technology and
equipment used to support their call
center functions for a representative
sampling (taking into account size (by
number of communications assistants)
and location) of five call centers
operated by the applicant within the
United States; a copy of each proof of
purchase, lease or license agreement for
technology and equipment used to
support their call center functions for all
call centers operated by the applicant
within the United States must be
retained by the applicant for three years
from the date of the application, and
submitted to the Commission upon
request;
(7) Operating call centers outside of
the United States, a copy of each proof
of purchase, lease or license agreement
for all technology and equipment used
to support their call center functions for
each call center operated by the
applicant outside of the United States;
and
(8) A complete copy of each lease or
license agreement for automatic call
distribution.
*
*
*
*
*
(E) For all applicants, a list of all
sponsorship arrangements relating to
Internet-based TRS, including on that
list a description of any associated
written agreements; copies of all such
arrangements and agreements must be
retained by the applicant for three years
from the date of the application, and
submitted to the Commission upon
request;
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–28135 Filed 10–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 228
[Docket No. FRA–2009–0042, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130–AC13
Safety and Health Requirements
Related to Camp Cars
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
To carry out a 2008
Congressional rulemaking mandate,
FRA is creating regulations prescribing
minimum safety and health
requirements for camp cars that a
railroad provides as sleeping quarters to
any of its train employees, signal
employees, and dispatching service
employees (covered-service employees)
and individuals employed to maintain
its right of way.
Under separate but related statutory
authority, FRA is also amending its
regulations regarding construction of
employee sleeping quarters. In
particular, FRA’s existing guidelines
with respect to the location, in relation
to switching or humping of hazardous
material, of a camp car that is occupied
exclusively by individuals employed to
maintain a railroad’s right of way are
being replaced with regulatory
amendments prohibiting a railroad from
positioning such a camp car in the
immediate vicinity of the switching or
humping of hazardous material.
Finally, FRA is making miscellaneous
changes clarifying its provision on
applicability, removing an existing
provision on the preemptive effect of
the regulations as unnecessary, and
moving, without changing, an existing
provision on penalties for violation.
DATES: This final rule is effective
December 30, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alan Misiaszek, Certified Industrial
Hygienist, Staff Director, Industrial
Hygiene Division, Office of Safety
Assurance and Compliance, Office of
Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington,
DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493–6002),
alan.misiaszek@dot.gov or Ann M.
Landis, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief
Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC
20590 (telephone: (202) 493–6064),
ann.landis@dot.gov.
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67073
E:\FR\FM\31OCR1.SGM
31OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 210 (Monday, October 31, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67070-67073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28135]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 10-51; FCC 11-155]
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; clarification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission addresses three petitions for
clarification or reconsideration of a previous order, and amends and
clarifies the Commission's rules regarding Internet-based
Telecommunications Relay Services (iTRS) applicants for certification.
DATES: Effective October 31, 2011, except for 47 CFR
64.606(a)(2)(ii)(A)(4) through (8) and (a)(2)(ii)(E) contains new or
modified information collection requirements that require approval by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Federal Communications
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing
the effective date.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Hlibok, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at (202) 559-5158
(VP) or email at Gregory.Hlibok@fcc.gov. For additional information
concerning the information collection requirements contained in this
document, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Memorandum
and Opinion and Order (MO&O) and Order (Order), document FCC 11-155,
adopted October 17, 2011, and released October 17, 2011 in CG Docket
number 10-51.
The full text of document FCC 11-155 and copies of any subsequently
filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection
and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. Document FCC 11-155 and copies of subsequently
filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, BCPI, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact
BCPI, Inc. via its Web site https://www.bcpiweb.com or by calling (202)
488-5300. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Document FCC 11-155 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document
Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html#orders.
Synopsis
In the MO&O in document FCC 11-155, the Commission addresses three
petitions:
A. Sprint Nextel Corporation, Expedited Petition for Clarification, CG
Docket No. 10-51 (Filed September 6, 2011) (Sprint Petition)
1. Definition of Employees
Sprint requests that the Commission clarify that communications
assistants (CAs) who are trained by the provider, who are stationed at
the facilities of the provider and who are directly under the
provider's supervision should be deemed to be employees of the
provider, in satisfaction of the requirement that video relay service
(VRS) providers employ their own CAs, regardless of whether or not they
are hired directly by the provider. The Commission denies Sprint's
requested clarification. The Commission has consistently distinguished
``employees'' from ``subcontractors'' and ``contractors'' in adopting
rules and requirements governing the provision of VRS, and the
Commission finds that Sprint's proposed clarification would render
[[Page 67071]]
those recognized distinctions meaningless. An entity seeking
certification or already certified by the Commission must ensure that
each of its VRS CAs who relays calls for which the entity will seek
reimbursement from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) is a full or part-
time employee of that entity. A CA cannot be an independent contractor
or a temporary worker assigned by an agency, on a non-employment basis,
to handle VRS calls. The Commission also clarifies that this
restriction should not preclude a provider from hiring a CA to handle
VRS calls on a temporary or part-time basis so long as the CA is an
actual, demonstrable employee, not a contractor or other temporary,
non-employed worker, of the provider.
2. Roll-Over VRS Traffic
Sprint further requests that the Commission clarify that certified
VRS providers will be able to send traffic to other certified VRS
providers ``when they are unable to immediately handle that traffic due
to factors outside of their control, e.g., a sudden surge in traffic
due to an earthquake,'' and still be able to bill and receive
compensation from the Fund for such traffic under Sec.
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F)(1-4) of the Commission's rules.
The Commission grants Sprint's request for clarification that
certified VRS providers may roll-over VRS traffic to another eligible
provider when unable to handle an unexpected and temporary surge in
call traffic, and finds this request generally to be consistent with
the goals and policies of the Commission's VRS rules. The Commission
clarifies that a certified provider may seek reimbursement from the
Fund for minutes of use that it routes to another certified VRS
provider where exigent circumstances warrant such routing to handle an
unexpected and temporary increase in the certified provider's incoming
traffic. Exigent circumstances do not include events that result in
increases in traffic that, in the ordinary course of business, could
reasonably have been anticipated, such as a surge in traffic occurring
during a holiday period.
The Commission also reiterates that Sec.
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(iii) of its rules only allows an eligible
provider to subcontract for CA services or call center functions with,
or otherwise authorize the provision of such services or functions
from, another eligible provider. The Commission therefore clarifies
that this rule does not apply to non-certified applicants for
certification; as such, non-certified applicants for certification may
not rely on the ability to subcontract for or otherwise authorize the
provision of CA services or call center functions on their behalf after
they are certified, to demonstrate their eligibility for certification.
3. ACD Platform Leasing From Third-Party Non-Provider
Sprint's final request is that the Commission clarify that a VRS
provider leasing an automatic call distribution (ACD) platform from a
vendor not affiliated with any VRS provider need not locate such ACD on
its premises or use its own employees to manage such platform. The
Commission grants Sprint's request insofar as it confirms that a VRS
provider leasing an ACD platform from a vendor not affiliated with any
VRS provider need not locate such ACD on its premises or use its own
employees to manage such a platform. However, regardless of the
location of the ACD, each provider is responsible for the oversight of
all the core operations associated with such ACD platform, and shall be
held accountable for compliance with all pertinent Commission rules and
policies.
B. Sorenson Communications, Inc., Petition for Reconsideration of Two
Aspects of the Certification Order, CG Docket No. 10-51 (Filed
September 6, 2011) (Sorenson Petition)
In its petition for reconsideration, Sorenson maintains that the
Commission did not adequately justify the burdensomeness of
requirements that VRS providers submit, as part of their certification
applications and, as applicable, in annual reports regarding their
compliance with the TRS rules: (1) ``Proofs of purchase or license
agreements for all equipment and/or technologies, including hardware
and software, used for the applicant's VRS call center functions''; and
(2) all written sponsorship agreements relating to iTRS. The Commission
grants Sorenson's petition to the extent discussed below.
The Commission modifies the documentation requirements for proofs
of purchase, leases, or license agreements for technology and equipment
used to support call center functions, to apply only to the
technologies and equipment for a representative sampling of five of a
provider's domestic call centers, where the provider has more than five
such centers. However, the Commission requires applicants to retain
proofs of purchase for all technology and equipment used to support
call center functions for all of their call centers, and to furnish
such documentation to the Commission upon the Commission's request. In
addition, the Commission continues to require providers to submit
documentation for all technology and equipment used to support call
center functions for VRS providers that maintain five or fewer domestic
call centers, and for all international call centers regardless of the
provider's size. Furthermore, the Commission continues to require all
VRS applicants, regardless of size, to describe in their submissions
the technology and equipment used to support their call center
functions--including, but not limited to, ACD, routing, call setup,
mapping, call features, billing for compensation from the TRS Fund, and
registration. However, in response to Sorenson's stated concerns, the
Commission modifies the requirement that the applicant state whether
the technology and equipment for each call center function is owned or
leased to pertain only to the maximum of five call centers for which,
as described above, the applicant must provide proofs of purchase,
license agreements, or leases. Finally, in light of the particular
documentation requirements applicable to leased ACD platforms, the
Commission will continue to require that VRS applicants provide a
complete copy of all ACD leases or license agreements. The Commission
also clarifies that applicants need only to submit a list of all
sponsorship arrangements, and to describe on that list any associated
written agreements relating to iTRS--applicants need not furnish the
actual copies of the arrangements and associated agreements, but must
retain copies of all such arrangements and agreements for a period of
three years from the date of the application and submit them to the
Commission upon request.
C. AT&T Services, Inc., Petition for Reconsideration of AT&T, CG Docket
No. 10-51 (Filed September 6, 2011) (AT&T Petition)
In its petition for reconsideration, AT&T generally seeks
reconsideration of the requirements that applicants for certification
operate their own call centers and employ their own CAs. In addition,
AT&T seeks reconsideration of the prohibition against VRS providers
subcontracting these core VRS functions to another certified VRS
provider. The Commission denies the AT&T Petition, and finds that there
is ample evidence in the record that allowing VRS providers that
operate without their own facilities to seek reimbursement from the
Fund has contributed to the serious fraud that has plagued the VRS
program.
[[Page 67072]]
D. Sua Sponte Order
In the Order, the Commission clarifies, on its own motion, its
policies and rules regarding on-site visits to the premises of iTRS
certification applicants and certified iTRS providers. The Commission
clarifies that such visits to both applicants for certification and
certified providers may be announced or unannounced. Applicants for
certification and certified providers must comply with a request by an
authorized representative of the Commission to conduct either announced
or unannounced on-site visits. In the case of applicants, the failure
to allow complete access to inspect areas of the premises and documents
related to the provision of iTRS, and to observe live iTRS calls, at
the time of an authorized on-site visit will be cause for application
denial. In the case of certified providers subject to an on-site visit
to ensure continued compliance with the Commission's rules and
requirements, such failure will result in the suspension of payments
from the Fund until such access to iTRS-related areas, documents and
activities is allowed. In addition, a certified provider's failure to
cooperate with an announced or unannounced on-site visit will be deemed
a violation of the Commission's rules governing provider audits and
thus, may also lead to a Commission proceeding imposing appropriate
sanctions, including the suspension or revocation of the provider's
certification or forfeiture proceedings.
Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis of 1995
This document contains new and modified information collection
requirements. The Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 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 present document, the
Commission has assessed the effects of the modified rules for
certification by the Commission of eligibility for payments from the
Fund and finds that the modified information collection requirements
will not have a significant impact on small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees. The Commission received comments on the
information collection requirements contained in the iTRS Certification
Order, under OMB Control No. 3060-1150. See, Structure and Practices of
the Video Relay Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, Second Report and
Order, published at 76 FR 47469, August 5, 2011 (iTRS Certification
Order). See also, Paperwork Reduction Act Comments of Sorenson
Communications, Inc. (filed September 6, 2011). By the MO&O, the
Commission addresses OMB's and Sorenson's concerns by revising the
language in the rules to require that providers that operate five or
more domestic call centers only submit copies of proofs of purchase,
leases or license agreements for technology and equipment used to
support their call center functions for a representative sampling of
five call centers, rather than requiring copies for all call centers.
Further, the Commission clarifies that the rule requiring submission of
a list of all sponsorship arrangements relating to iTRS only requires
that a certification applicant describe on the list associated written
agreements relating to iTRS, and does not require the applicant to
provide copies of all written agreements. The Commission believes that
these two rule modifications significantly alleviate the burdens
associated with the subject information collections requirements, and
address the concerns Sorenson raised in its PRA comments filed with
OMB. Both the Administrative Procedures Act and the Commission's rules
require notice of substantive rules issued by the Commission, with
limited exceptions, to be made not less than 30 days before such rules
goes into effect, absent good cause shown and published with the rule.
In this case, the Commission finds good cause to make these rule
modifications effective upon publication in the Federal Register of
notice of the approval of the modified rule by OMB under the PRA.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification
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.'' See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 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). In the MO&O, in response to a VRS provider's
petition, the Commission amends its rules to modify the documentation
requirements for eligible iTRS providers for proofs of purchase,
leases, or license agreements for technology and equipment used to
support call center functions, to apply only to the technologies and
equipment for a representative sampling of five of a provider's
domestic call centers, where the provider has more than five such
centers. In addition, the Commission amends its rules to clarify that
applicants need only to submit a list of all sponsorship arrangements,
and to describe on that list any associated written agreements relating
to iTRS--applicants need not furnish the actual copies of the
arrangements and associated agreements. The Commission will revise
Sec. 64.606(a)(2)(ii)(E) of its rules accordingly.
These amendments result in a significant reduction in costs and
other burdens on any iTRS provider, large or small, to comply with
these rules. Thus, the discussion of whether there is a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities is moot.
Therefore, the Commission certifies that the requirements of the
MO&O will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, because there will be no adverse
impact on any entities, large or small.
The Commission will send a copy of the MO&O, including the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration, and in a report to Congress
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
Congressional Review Act
The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 11-155 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).
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), (j) and
(o), 225, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 154(i), (j) and (o), 225, and 303(r), and Sec. 1.429 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, document FCC 11-155 is adopted.
Sprint's Expedited Petition for Clarification is granted in part
and denied in part, to the extent provided in FCC 11-155.
[[Page 67073]]
Sorenson's Petition for Reconsideration is granted, to the extent
provided in FCC 11-155. AT&T's Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Part 64 of the Commission's rules is amended.
The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of document FCC 11-155,
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.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 64 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k), 227; secs. 403(b)(2)(B), (c),
Pub. L. 104-104, 100 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201,
218, 222, 225, 226, 207, 228, 254(k), 616, and 620, unless otherwise
noted.
Subpart F--Telecommunications Relay Services and Related Customer
Premises Equipment for Persons With Disabilities
0
2. The authority citation for subpart F is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-154; 225, 255, 303(r), 616 and 620.
0
3. Section 64.606 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A)(4)
and (5), by adding paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A)(6) through (8), and by
revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(E) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.606 Internet-based TRS provider and TRS program
certification.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(4) A description of the technology and equipment used to support
their call center functions--including, but not limited to, automatic
call distribution, routing, call setup, mapping, call features, billing
for compensation from the TRS Fund, and registration--and for each core
function of each call center for which the applicant must provide a
copy of technology and equipment proofs of purchase, leases or license
agreements in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A)(5) through (7)
of this section, a statement whether such technology and equipment is
owned, leased or licensed (and from whom if leased or licensed);
(5) Operating five or fewer call centers within the United States,
a copy of each proof of purchase, lease or license agreement for all
technology and equipment used to support their call center functions
for each call center operated by the applicant within the United
States;
(6) Operating more than five call centers within the United States,
a copy of each proof of purchase, lease or license agreement for
technology and equipment used to support their call center functions
for a representative sampling (taking into account size (by number of
communications assistants) and location) of five call centers operated
by the applicant within the United States; a copy of each proof of
purchase, lease or license agreement for technology and equipment used
to support their call center functions for all call centers operated by
the applicant within the United States must be retained by the
applicant for three years from the date of the application, and
submitted to the Commission upon request;
(7) Operating call centers outside of the United States, a copy of
each proof of purchase, lease or license agreement for all technology
and equipment used to support their call center functions for each call
center operated by the applicant outside of the United States; and
(8) A complete copy of each lease or license agreement for
automatic call distribution.
* * * * *
(E) For all applicants, a list of all sponsorship arrangements
relating to Internet-based TRS, including on that list a description of
any associated written agreements; copies of all such arrangements and
agreements must be retained by the applicant for three years from the
date of the application, and submitted to the Commission upon request;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-28135 Filed 10-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
