Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities, 40407-40421 [2013-15925]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the date provided at the beginning of
this notice. After the close of the
comment period, DOE will review the
comments received and determine
whether portable ACs are a covered
product under EPCA.
Comments, data, and information
submitted to DOE’s email address for
this proposed determination should be
provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft
Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format.
Submissions should avoid the use of
special characters or any form of
encryption, and wherever possible
comments should include the electronic
signature of the author. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
According to 10 CFR Part 1004.11,
any person submitting information that
he or she believes to be confidential and
exempt by law from public disclosure
should submit two copies: one copy of
the document should have all the
information believed to be confidential
deleted. DOE will make its own
determination as to the confidential
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include (1) a
description of the items; (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known or available from
public sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligations
concerning its confidentiality; (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting persons which would
result from public disclosure; (6) a date
after which such information might no
longer be considered confidential; and
(7) why disclosure of the information
would be contrary to the public interest.
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comments
DOE welcomes comments on all
aspects of this proposed determination.
DOE is particularly interested in
receiving comments from interested
parties on the following issues related to
the proposed determination for portable
ACs:
• Definition(s) of portable ACs;
• Whether classifying portable ACs as
a covered product is necessary or
appropriate to carry out the purposes of
EPCA;
• Calculations and values for average
household energy consumption; and
• Availability or lack of availability of
technologies for improving energy
efficiency of portable ACs.
The Department is interested in
receiving views concerning other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
relevant issues that participants believe
would affect DOE’s ability to establish
test procedures and energy conservation
standards for portable ACs. The
Department invites all interested parties
to submit in writing by August 5, 2013,
comments and information on matters
addressed in this notice and on other
matters relevant to consideration of a
determination for portable ACs.
After the expiration of the period for
submitting written statements, the
Department will consider all comments
and additional information that is
obtained from interested parties or
through further analyses, and it will
prepare a final determination. If DOE
determines that portable ACs qualify as
a covered product, DOE will consider a
test procedure and energy conservation
standards for portable ACs. Members of
the public will be given an opportunity
to submit written and oral comments on
any proposed test procedure and
standards.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 27,
2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2013–15977 Filed 7–3–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 10–51 and 03–123; FCC
13–82]
Structure and Practices of the Video
Relay Service Program:
Telecommunications Relay Services
and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals With Hearing and Speech
Disabilities
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission issues a further notice of
proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) seeking
comment on options and proposals to
ensure that the entire
telecommunications relay services
(TRS) program continues to offer
functional equivalence to all eligible
users and is as immune as possible from
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40407
any additional waste, fraud, and abuse.
These proposals involve a transition
plan to a market-based compensation
methodology for VRS, funding
mechanism for research and
development, TRS Fund contribution
calculations and reporting method,
allowing hearing persons to purchase
access to video point to point service,
replacement of the current TRS
Advisory Council, disaggregation of
emergency calls to 911 and additional
issues relating to restructure of the VRS
program. The Commission continues to
solicit input on ways to strengthen VRS
to ensure its efficiency and that this
service is being offered in a functionally
equivalent manner.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
August 19, 2013, and reply comments
on or before September 18, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by CG Docket Nos. 10–51 and
03–123, 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 https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 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 Nos.
10–51 and 03–123.
• Paper filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. Filings can be
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
Service mail (although the Commission
continues to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
• Commercial Mail sent by 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 should be
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40408
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
D In addition, parties must serve one
copy of each pleading with the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, or via email to
fcc@bcpiweb.com.
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: Eliot
Greenwald, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability
Rights Office, at (202) 418–2235 or
email Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Structure
and Practices of the Video Relay Service
Program; Telecommunications Relay
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FNPRM), document FCC
13–82, adopted on June 7, 2013 and
released on June 10, 2013, in CG Docket
Nos. 10–51 and 03–123. In document
FCC 13–82, the Commission adopted an
accompanying Report and Order (Report
and Order), which is summarized in a
separate Federal Register Publication.
The full text of document FCC 13–82
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. It also may be
purchased from the Commission’s
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC
20554, telephone: (800) 378–3160, fax:
(202) 488–5563, or Internet:
www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 13–
82 can also be downloaded in Word or
Portable Document Format (PDF) at
https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/
trs.html#orders. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an
email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
1. In March 2000, the Commission
recognized VRS as a reimbursable relay
service. See Telecommunications Relay
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98–67,
Report and Order and Further Notice of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
Proposed Rulemaking; published at 65
FR 38432, June 21, 2000, and at 65 FR
38490, June 21, 2000.
2. In this document, the Commission
takes further action to achieve VRS
compensation rates that better
approximate the actual cost of providing
VRS while ensuring that VRS is
provided in accordance with the Act.
See Telecommunications Relay Services
and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Order, (2010 TRS Rate
Order), CG Docket No. 03–123,
published at 75 FR 49491, August 13,
2010. Ratemaking based on calculations
of allowable costs is inherently a
contentious, complicated, and imprecise
process, particularly in the VRS context.
Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, (2011 VRS Reform
FNPRM), CG Docket Nos. 10–51 and 03–
123, published at 77 FR 4948, February
1, 2012. First, unlike most regulated
telecommunications services, VRS is
generally provided at no charge to users.
There is no pressure from users on VRS
suppliers to restrain the amount they
charge because the users share none of
the costs. Second, a number of questions
have arisen over the past several years
concerning the methodology used for
determining VRS costs as well as the
appropriateness of certain costs. Third,
the VRS compensation rate has
fluctuated significantly over time, with
frequent recalculation of rates as cost or
demand levels change or as new
evidence about cost and demand levels
come to light. Finally, the absence of
retail prices has encouraged perverse
provider behavior and contributed to
fraud and abuse—e.g., by resulting in
providers artificially generating minutes
of use in order to collect more TRS
Fund revenues. Therefore, the
Commission proposes to transition to a
new ratemaking approach that makes
use of competitively established pricing,
i.e., contract prices set through a
competitive bidding process, where
feasible.
3. There are several elements in this
new approach. First, the outreach and
registration verification components of
VRS will not be handled by VRS
providers but that they will be handled
by neutral entities pursuant to contracts.
Therefore, as these transfers to neutral
entities are implemented, the costs
associated with these components of
VRS will be removed from
compensation rates for all VRS
providers.
4. Second, the Commission will also
contract with a neutral entity to offer the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
video communication service
components of VRS, disaggregated from
VRS CA service, without charge, to
those VRS providers that choose to
make use of such a common video
communication service platform. The
costs associated with the disaggregated
components of VRS will also be
removed from the cost basis for the
compensation rates applicable to such
standalone VRS CA service providers.
5. Third, the Commission proposes
that the contract price that the
Commission pays to the neutral video
communication service provider for the
disaggregated video communication
service component of VRS will serve as
a benchmark for setting appropriate
compensation applicable to any VRS
provider that chooses to continue
offering a fully integrated service.
6. Fourth, the Commission proposes
to establish a compensation rate for the
provision of VRS CA service by
auctioning a portion of VRS traffic.
Using the Cost of the Neutral Video
Communication Service Provider
Contract as a Benchmark
7. The Commission tentatively
concluded that the contract price that it
pays to the neutral video
communication service provider for the
disaggregated video communication
service component of VRS will serve as
a benchmark for setting appropriate
compensation applicable to any VRS
provider that chooses to continue
offering a fully integrated service. Such
result is appropriate, given that the
neutral video communication service
provider will be serving many of the
same functions as an integrated
provider—i.e., user registration and
validation, authentication,
authorization, ACD platform functions,
routing (including emergency call
routing), call setup, mapping, call
features (such as call forwarding and
video mail), and such other features and
functions not directly related to the
provision of VRS CA services. This
would also be consistent with its rules
requiring providers only to be
compensated for the reasonable costs of
providing service. See 47 CFR
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) of the Commission’s
rules. Would such an approach ensure
an appropriate level of compensation for
integrated providers? Specifically, how
should the contract price be used to
determine the appropriate additional
compensation for fully integrated
service? Are there overhead or other
costs that an integrated VRS provider
might incur that a neutral video
communication service provider would
not, or vice versa? Are there other
factors the Commission should consider
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
when setting compensation for the
video communication service
component of an integrated VRS
provider’s service offering? The winning
neutral video communication service
provider may be compensated on a
usage insensitive basis or a usage
sensitive basis. Does the compensation
structure for the neutral video
communication service provider affect
this analysis?
Using Auctions To Establish a Per
Minute Rate for CA Service
8. Data from the TRS numbering
directory indicates that a sizeable
percentage of compensable VRS calls
are placed to a relatively small number
of telephone numbers that terminate to
an even smaller number of companies
and government agencies.
9. Given this pattern of calling, the
Commission proposes that an auction of
the right to provide VRS CA service for
all calls terminated to an appropriately
selected set of telephone numbers
representing a sufficient number of
minutes of use could be used to
establish a market rate for all minutes of
use of VRS CA service—including VRS
CA service delivered by integrated VRS
providers. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal. Is it
appropriate to use an auction
determined price as a benchmark for
regulating other prices?
10. What Is To Be Auctioned? If the
Commission were to auction the right to
provide VRS CA service to a set of
telephone numbers, how should those
telephone numbers be selected? The top
100 numbers called? All calls to
government agencies, entities regulated
by the Commission, and/or general
business call centers? Some other
selection criteria? How can the
Commission ensure that the telephone
numbers selected account for sufficient
minutes of use to ensure that the
winning bid represents a market rate for
VRS CA service?
11. VRS minutes of use arguably
could be categorized, by, for example,
time of day or the nature of the called
party (e.g., a government agency as
opposed to a corporate technical
support line). For the purposes of an
auction, should the Commission
establish and auction more than one
category of minutes, where minutes
within each category can be considered
homogenous and minutes across
categories are sufficiently different? If
so, what would be appropriate
categories? If more than one category is
established should the different
categories be auctioned simultaneously,
as in spectrum auctions with different
categories of interrelated licenses, or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
auctioned sequentially? A simultaneous
dynamic (e.g., descending clock)
auction has the advantage that it allows
bidders to easily switch bids among
categories of licenses as relative prices
change.
12. Number of Winners. Should there
be one or multiple auction winners?
One approach for a single winner
auction would be to select the bidder
with the lowest price per minute willing
to serve all demand for VRS CA service
to the specified telephone numbers. One
option is a single-round sealed bid
auction in which bidders submit their
price offer. Alternatively, the
Commission could use a descending
clock auction in which bid prices are
reduced until only a single bidder
remains. A descending clock auction
may be simpler for bidders because
optimal bidding does not require
strategic calculations about what others
may bid as in a single-round auction
and bidders need not determine an
exact bid at the beginning of the
auction. How can the Commission
ensure before the auction that there are
multiple qualified bidders capable of
providing quality VRS CA service for all
auctioned minutes of use? Are there
other ways a single winner auction
could be structured to accomplish the
Commission’s goals?
13. Another option would be to
design an auction that allows for
multiple winners. One possibility is a
descending clock auction, in which the
auctioneer calls out a price and winners
indicate the percentage of total demand
to the eligible numbers they are willing
to serve at that price. The auctioneer
would continue to reduce the price until
the sum of provider bids equals 100%.
Given that the Commission has
historical data on calling patterns,
would such a structure provide
flexibility to accommodate the actual
number of minutes without creating a
high degree of uncertainty as to the
number of minutes each auction winner
would be expected to service? Are there
other ways a multiple winner auction
could be structured to accomplish the
Commission’s goals?
14. In the case of a multiple winner
auction, how should specific minutes be
assigned to winners? If minutes are truly
homogenous, should they be randomly
assigned? If minutes, while sufficiently
alike to be classified in a single
category, are nonetheless somewhat
differentiated should the Commission
use another procedure? For example,
bidders could be randomly assigned
priorities and then pick preferences for
types of minutes within a given category
(e.g., minutes to be terminated to a
particular entity). An alternative
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40409
approach would allow winners of
minutes within a given category to bid
for the order in which they pick
preferences.
15. Form of Bids. What form should
bids take? The Commission
contemplates that bids would take the
form of an offer to provide VRS CA
service at a price per minute for all
demand or a percentage of the demand
to certain telephone numbers. Is that the
appropriate bid structure? Should
bidders be required to specify a fixed
quantity of minutes of use they are
willing to provide? If bids are for a fixed
number of minutes, what should the
Commission do if the total minutes of
use for which bids are received are
insufficient to cover demand? Would
additional demand be routed through a
user’s default provider?
16. Bidder Qualifications. What
qualifications should the Commission
set for bidders? Should the Commission
allow entities to bid only after they have
been certified by the Commission, or
would it be sufficient to condition final
auction reward on a bidder’s ability to
achieve certification? Are there
additional criteria that should be
established for entities that wish to bid
in an auction?
17. Frequency of Auctions. How often
should auctions be conducted (i.e., for
what period of time would bidders win
the right to provide exclusive VRS CA
service)?
18. Reserve Price. Should the
Commission set a reserve price and, if
so, how? Is the cost data submitted by
providers sufficient to allow the
Commission to set a reserve price based
on historical provider costs? What other
mechanism might be used to establish a
reserve price?
19. Ensuring Quality of Service. How
can the Commission ensure that auction
winners provide an appropriate level of
quality of service? Should it require that
auction winners be bonded (i.e., obtain
a financial guarantee of performance)?
Are the Commission’s existing rules on
quality of service sufficient to guarantee
an appropriate level of performance?
Should additional performance metrics
with penalties for failure to achieve
those metrics be implemented by
contract? In the event of a failure to
perform, should the party lose all the
rights it won in the auction, or should
it lose a portion of its rights
commensurate with its degree of
performance failure until performance
improves? If all rights are terminated
should it be immediate or phased out
over a period of time and, if so, over
what period?
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
40410
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Other Issues
Cost Recovery
20. How can the Commission ensure
that there are sufficient bidders for a
competitive auction? If it is willing to
select only one winner, are any of the
suppliers other than the largest
incumbent able to serve all the demand?
How is competitive behavior affected by
the fact that the winning bids will be
used as a benchmark for setting prices
for non-participants? Would any large
incumbent be willing to participate
since driving down the price in the
auction would reduce its prices on the
rest of its business? Would any such
disincentive for large incumbents to
participate tend to encourage
participation by small incumbents and
new entrants?
21. Compensation for Integrated
Providers. The neutral video
communication service provider and
any winners of an auction of VRS CA
service minutes will account for
overhead and other costs they incur in
setting their bid prices. Is it therefore
reasonable to assume that the sum of a
benchmark rate for video
communication service and a market
rate for VRS CA service established by
auction would be sufficient to
compensate integrated VRS providers
for the services they deliver? If not,
what other factors should be considered
when setting market based
compensation rates?
22. Providers of Multiple Forms of
iTRS. A number of VRS providers also
provide other forms of iTRS and VRI, an
interpreting service that allows a
provider to pre-schedule, for a fee,
remote interpreting sessions between
ASL users and other individuals who
are located in the same room, or in
different locations. Several VRS
providers also provide VRI. How do
such providers allocate costs that may
be shared across services? For example,
how are costs for facilities and indirect
costs such as financial/accounting,
legal/regulatory, and human resources
allocated between services when
submitting cost data for multiple
services? How can the Commission and
the TRS Fund administrator ensure that
entities that provide more than one
iTRS service and/or VRI are not being
overcompensated for shared resources?
23. Using Auctions for Other Forms of
iTRS. Would it be appropriate to
establish the compensation rate for
other forms of iTRS by conducting
similar types of auctions? What changes,
if any, would the Commission need to
consider if setting rates by auction for IP
Relay and/or IP CTS?
24. Section 225 of the Act creates a
cost recovery regime whereby TRS
providers are compensated for their
reasonable costs of providing service in
compliance with the TRS regulations.
See 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(3); 47 CFR
64.604(c)(5) of the Commission’s rules.
To be reasonable, the costs of providing
service must relate to the provision of
service in compliance with the
applicable mandatory minimum
standards.
25. As noted in Report and Order, the
Commission does not believe that the
providers’ additional costs necessary to
implement the requirements adopted
today will be substantial, but it
recognizes that, in its First InternetBased TRS Numbering Order, it
provided a mechanism whereby
providers could seek to recover their
actual reasonable costs of complying
with certain of the new requirements
adopted in that Report and Order.
Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-To-Speech Services For
Individuals With Hearing and Speech
Disabilities; E911 Requirements For IPEnabled Services Providers, CG Docket
No. 03–123 and WC Docket No. 05–196,
Report and Order; published at 73 FR
41286, July 18, 2008. The Commission
seeks comment on whether it should
adopt such a mechanism in connection
with any comparable requirements
adopted today. What costs, if any,
would it be appropriate to consider for
additional recovery? How long would
providers be entitled to seek recovery of
such costs? By what standard should the
Commission and the Fund administrator
review any submitted costs to ensure
that the costs are both allowable and
reasonable?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
Research and Development
26. The Commission seeks comment
on the appropriate budget and funding
mechanism for research conducted
pursuant to the arrangement with the
National Science Foundation it directs
be entered into in the Report and Order.
The Commission proposes to set the
initial budget for research under this
arrangement at $3 million dollars,
which is approximately 40 percent of
the expenditures reported by VRS
providers for Fund year 2012 on
compensable research and development,
and seeks comment on this proposal.
The Commission further seeks comment
on the mechanism by which research
and development should be funded
under this arrangement. For example,
what review criteria should be applied
to identify appropriate research? What
types of awards would be appropriate?
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
TRS Fund Contribution Calculations
and Reporting
27. The Commission proposes to
amend § § 64.604(c)(iii)(B) and (H) of the
Commission’s rules to match the
periodicity of filing requirements from
the TRS Fund administrator proposing
contribution factors to the Commission
for the TRS Fund to those of the
Universal Service Fund (currently
quarterly). Under this revision and the
clarification above of the Office of the
Managing Director’s (OMD) duties in
relation to the TRS Fund, the Fund
administrator would request TRS
providers to revise their projected
minutes of use, and OMD would put the
contribution factor proposals on public
notice, and adopt a new contribution
factor each quarter based on the TRS
Fund administrator’s proposal under
OMD’s delegated authority. This would
allow for greater flexibility in
addressing increases or decreases in
requests for reimbursement and
projections of service requirements from
TRS providers. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal and asks
commenters to address the costs and
benefits of the proposal.
Allowing Hearing Individuals To
Purchase Access to the Neutral Video
Communication Service Provider for
Point-to-Point Calls
28. The Consumer Groups have urged
the Commission to adopt rules that
would permit hearing individuals to
obtain ten-digit numbers that would
allow them to make point-to-point calls
with VRS users, and note that if all
registration is done through a central
database, it presumably would be easier
to flag a hearing person’s ten-digit
number in the system so that it is not
eligible for VRS reimbursement while
still allowing them to use the system to
make direct calls to their deaf or hard
of hearing contacts. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal. Should
the neutral video communication
service provider and/or integrated VRS
providers be permitted to sell point-topoint service to hearing individuals?
Should hearing individuals that
purchase such service be registered in
the TRS User Registration Database
(TRS–URD) but flagged as ‘‘hearing’’ or
‘‘non-compensable?’’ How can the
Commission ensure that TRS Funds are
not used to subsidize such a service? Is
it sufficient to require that the charge for
such a service be sufficient to cover the
costs of providing that service? What
other factors must be considered if such
a service is implemented?
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TRS Fund Advisory Council
29. The Commission proposes to
revise the nature, composition, and
functions of the advisory body that
focuses on TRS issues. It proposes to
replace the existing Interstate TRS Fund
Advisory Council (TRS Fund Council),
which advises the TRS Fund
administrator on TRS cost recovery
matters, with a new advisory council
that will provide advice and
recommendations in four areas: (1)
Technology; (2) efficiency; (3) outreach;
and (4) user experience. Stakeholders
and experts on the new Council will
provide advice on ways that iTRS can
adapt to the evolving and advancing
nature of technology in communication
technologies that affect the iTRS service,
and ensure that iTRS users obtain a
functionally equivalent service. The
unique insight, institutional knowledge,
and expertise that consumer and
industry representatives can offer would
help ensure that iTRS technologies and
services are developed and deployed in
a timely manner in response to the
evolving needs of iTRS users.
30. The Commission believes that the
role and structure of the TRS Fund
Council should be redefined to reflect
the changing needs of the TRS program.
The Commission notes that at various
times, the existing TRS Fund Council
itself has asked for additional
responsibilities, including matters
concerning TRS quality. The
Commission proposes to dissolve the
existing TRS Fund Council. Given that
rate methodology decisions currently
are made by the Commission, not the
TRS Fund administrator, and that it is
moving to a regime in which
compensation rates for most VRS
functions will be set by a contractual
competitive bidding process, there will
be less need for the Council under its
current mission.
31. In place of the existing TRS Fund
Council, the Commission proposes to
direct the TRS Fund administrator to
establish a new advisory committee to
provide advice on specified matters
related to the TRS program. With
respect to VRS, it is intended that the
advisory committee provide input to
TRS program administrators, including
the TRS Fund administrator, the iTRS
Outreach Coordinator(s), the VRS access
technology reference platform
administrator, the TRS–URD
administrator, and/or the neutral video
communication service provider in the
implementation of their responsibilities
under this restructuring. The
Commission seeks comment on which
of the following areas should be
included within the new advisory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
committee’s focus: (1) Technology; (2)
efficiency; (3) outreach; (4) user
experience (reference functional
equivalency requirement); (5) eligibility,
registration, and verification; and (6)
porting and slamming. In addition,
comments are solicited on which
specific matters within these general
areas require input from an advisory
committee.
32. Composition of Proposed
Committee’s Membership. The
Commission invites input on the
appropriate composition of the new
advisory committee to ensure that all
interested parties are fairly represented.
It is believed that the committee should
be comprised of consumers who stand
to benefit from VRS, researchers, and
entities paying into the fund—rather
than providers that receive
compensation for services. State
administrators should also be included
if this includes PSTN-based TRS. While
it is expected that providers will have
an opportunity to make their views
known to the committee through open
sessions held by the advisory
committee, the Commission is
concerned that with the change in the
council’s focus, provider membership in
the committee would create a potential
conflict of interest when the committee
is making decisions regarding
recommended technologies, outreach
initiatives, quality of service
improvements and the like. In addition,
provider membership may lead to
distracting discussions regarding the
relative merits of competing provider
services and technologies.
33. The Commission proposes that the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau releases a PN seeking
nominations for the new committee.
Comments are sought on ways in which
the proposed advisory committee may
play a productive role in connection
with the four proposed areas.
Consistent Regulations of All Forms of
iTRS
34. With certain exceptions such as
the treatment of iTRS access technology,
this proceeding has focused on the
structure and practices of the VRS
program. There are, however, significant
commonalities among VRS, IP Relay,
and other forms of iTRS. Indeed, VRS
and IP Relay already are subject to the
same user registration requirements,
both utilize the TRS numbering
directory, and VRS and IP CTS now
have comparable requirements for
certification of eligibility. Indeed, many
of the actions taken in the Report and
Order to improve the efficiency and
availability of the VRS program could be
equally beneficial if applied to other
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40411
forms of iTRS, and such application
would further simplify the
administration of the TRS program. The
Commission therefore seeks comment
on extending the structural reforms
adopted in the Report and Order to all
forms of Internet-based TRS.
35. Registration and the TRS–URD.
The Commission has taken significant
steps to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse
in the IP Relay and IP CTS programs in
the last year. As is the case with VRS,
however, the Commission lacks a
definitive count of the number of
unique, active users of each service,
hindering the ability of the Commission
and the TRS Fund administrator to
conduct audits and determine
compliance with the Commission’s
rules. The Commission therefore
proposes to require each iTRS provider
to provide users with the capability to
register with that iTRS provider as a
‘‘default provider,’’ to populate the
TRS–URD with the necessary
information for each registered user, and
to query the database to ensure each
user’s eligibility for each call. Given that
deaf and hard of hearing Americans may
use multiple forms of iTRS, what
modifications to the TRS–URD, if any,
are necessary to accommodate IP Relay
and IP CTS data in the TRS–URD?
Should the Commission modify or
waive its registration requirements as
they pertain to NANP numbers in light
of the distinct technical and regulatory
issues posed by IP CTS?
36. Certification and Verification
Requirements. The Commission has
adopted detailed eligibility certification
and verification requirements for IP CTS
and VRS to ensure that the use of those
services is limited to those who have a
hearing or speech disability. e.g. Misuse
of Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned
Telephone Service;
Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 13–24 and
03–123, (IP CTS Report and Order);
published at 78 FR 8030, March 7, 2013.
Comment is sought on extending these
certification and verification
requirements to IP Relay. What criteria
should be established when determining
a user’s eligibility for IP Relay? The
Commission previously has required IP
Relay providers to take reasonable
measures to verify the registration
information of new IP Relay registrants.
Misuse Of Internet Protocol (IP) Relay
Service; Telecommunications Relay
Services And Speech-To-Speech
Services For Individuals With Hearing
And Speech Disabilities, CG Docket
Nos. 12–38 and 03–123, Order, (2012 IP
Relay Misuse Order); published at 77 FR
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
40412
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43538, July 25, 2012. Is the information
currently required for IP CTS or VRS
eligibility certification sufficient for IP
Relay, given the history of fraud in this
program, or should additional
information be required?
37. Neutral Platform. The
Commission seeks comment on
extending the capabilities of the neutral
video communication service provider
to other forms of iTRS. Would IP Relay
and IP CTS benefit from the
introduction of ‘‘standalone’’ providers
of the CA service components of those
services? To what extent might new
providers of those services be induced
to enter the market given the potential
reduction of barriers to entry? Would it
be appropriate to require provider
certification consistent with its VRS
rules? Would the availability of single
communication service provider allow
for or encourage the development of
iTRS access technologies capable of
delivering multiple forms of iTRS?
38. Outreach. The Report and Order
initiates a national pilot program to
conduct TRS outreach, and no longer
allows IP Relay and VRS providers to
include the cost of outreach in their
yearly cost submissions. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
similar action is appropriate with regard
to IP CTS. To what extent do IP CTS
providers currently engage in outreach?
Would it be more effective, as is the case
with IP Relay and VRS, to conduct IP
CTS outreach through a national
outreach coordinator?
39. Other Rules and Obligations. To
what extent should the Commission
make applicable to all iTRS providers
other VRS-specific rules and obligations
adopted herein? Specifically, the
general prohibitions on VRS provider
practices causing discrimination, waste,
fraud, and abuse would appear to be
appropriate for application to IP Relay
and IP CTS providers. Similarly, the
rule on VRS provider compliance plans
appears to be appropriate for
application to IP Relay and IP CTS
providers, and the rules on prevention
of slamming appear to be appropriate
for application to IP CTS providers.
Comment is sought on whether to make
these provisions of its rules applicable
to all iTRS providers.
Disaggregation of Emergency Calls to
911
40. In the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM,
the Commission sought comment on
whether the proposed changes to a peruser rate methodology and the
elimination of the dial-around feature
necessitate modifications to VRS
emergency calling requirements. These
requirements direct VRS providers to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
transmit all calls to 911, along with the
automatic number identification, the
caller’s registered location, the VRS
provider’s name, and the CA
identification number for each call, to
the appropriate PSAP, designated
statewide default answering point, or
appropriate local emergency authority
serving the caller’s registered location.
47 CFR 64.605(b)(2)(ii). Because the
Report and Order does not adopt the
proposed per-user compensation model,
the Commission no longer needs to
consider the impact that a change in rate
methodology would have on its
mandates for emergency calling.
Nevertheless, in an effort to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of
emergency call handling for VRS users,
the Commission invites comment on
other ways to ensure that VRS users
have access to 911 services that is
functionally equivalent to 911 access
available to the general population.
41. In particular, in line with the
Commission’s decision to disaggregate
and contract for the provision of the
video communication service
components of VRS, as well as its
proposal to partially include certain CA
service components in a competitive
bidding process, feedback is sought on
whether the Commission should
similarly transfer the VRS emergency
call handling obligation to a single VRS
contractor through a competitive
bidding process. Given the urgent and
specialized nature of such calls, the
Commission asks for comment on the
benefits to be gained by routing VRS 911
calls to pre-identified CAs who, under
contract, would be specially trained to
handle the safety and medical issues
that typically characterize emergency
calls. To what extent should CAs who
handle emergency calls be integrated
into general purpose VRS centers or
separated out into centralized or
regional call centers? In the event of a
widespread emergency, should the
Commission prescribe a means for
addressing call handling if these
specialized centers reach capacity?
42. It would also help the
Commission to receive public comment
on the average number of 911 calls that
are made through VRS each month. To
that end, commenters—both providers
and consumers—are asked to indicate
the average length of time that it takes
to connect a 911 call made through VRS
to the appropriate PSAP or emergency
authority, as well as how this compares
with making calls directly via voice or
TTY. Should the Commission require
that VRS calls to 911 be connected
within a certain time frame, and, if so,
what should that time frame be?
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43. Under the Commission’s rules, all
CAs must be qualified interpreters, i.e.,
capable of interpreting ‘‘effectively,
accurately, and impartially, both
receptively and expressively, using any
necessary specialized vocabulary.’’ 47
CFR 604(a)(1)(iv) of the Commission’s
rules. Should CAs who handle
emergency calls be required to take
additional training to better equip them
to address the specialized needs of
consumers who make these calls? If so,
what should the nature of this training
be? Commenters are asked to describe
the extent to which such training
already is provided for the purpose of
handling emergency VRS calls.
44. Finally, in March 2013, the
Commission’s Emergency Access
Advisory Committee (EAAC),
established under the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA),
released a report containing
recommendations to facilitate effective
communication for relay users who
need to access 911. According to the
EAAC, because current VRS providers
have frequently improperly delivered or
mishandled emergency calls it would be
best to create nationally certified
‘‘Media Communications Line Service,’’
(MCLS) centers, that would provide
‘‘translation service for people with
disabilities and telecommunicators
using video, voice, text and data during
NG [next generation] 911 calls.’’ The
Commission seeks further information
about the nature of these proposed
centers and in particular, how their
services would interface with VRS and
other forms of TRS, whether their
services should be provided by a single
national entity or through regional
centers, and whether funding for such
centers would be expected to come from
the Fund or another source, such as
local and state governmental programs
supporting emergency 911 services. The
EAAC Report also proposed regulatory
changes for national and uniform
standards for relay service providers in
processing 911 calls, training protocols
and performance criteria to achieve and
maintain highly skilled CAs capable of
handling crisis calls, the provision of
stress management services for CAs, the
availability of caller profiles, and
compatibility between emergency call
handling procedures by VRS providers
and specifications established by the
National Emergency Number
Association (NENA). The Commission
invites comment on each of these
recommendations, the appropriateness
of integrating any or all of the EAAC’s
proposals into the Commission’s VRS
program, and information on the costs
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
and benefits of adopting each of the
EAAC’s proposals.
Speed of Answer
45. In the Report and Order, the
Commission establishes new
benchmarks for the VRS speed of
answer requirements. Specifically, as
measured on a daily basis: (1) By
January 1, 2014, VRS providers must
answer 85 percent of all VRS calls
within 60 seconds; and (2) by July 1,
2014, VRS providers must answer 85
percent of all VRS calls within 30
seconds. In document FCC 13–82
FNPRM, comment is sought on how the
Commission should measure
compliance with the new threshold.
Specifically, the Commission proposes
and seeks comment on the following
formula to measure VRS speed-ofanswer compliance: (Calls unanswered
in 30 seconds or less + calls answered
in 30 seconds or less)/(all calls
(unanswered and answered)).
46. Alternatively, the Commission
proposes and seeks comment on the
following formula, which removes
unanswered calls for which the caller
ended the call prior to the threshold
time. Under this formula, the provider’s
measured speed-of-answer performance
would be unaffected by callers that do
not give the CA enough time to answer
the call within the threshold time
period: (Calls answered in 30 seconds or
less)/(All calls answered by a CA + Calls
abandoned after more than 30 seconds).
47. As noted in the Report and Order,
compliance will be determined on a
daily basis. Calls will be considered as
part of the measurement for the date
when the call was handed off to the
provider’s system for purposes of
establishing compliance with the VRS
speed-of-answer requirements.
48. To enable the TRS Fund
administrator to confirm the correct
calculation of speed-of-answer
performance, the Commission proposes
that providers be required to submit to
the TRS Fund administrator certain call
detail record information. First,
providers would submit an identifier for
each inbound call that is unique and
used only once and not reused in
subsequent periods. Second,
submissions would include, for each
call, the date and time that each call
arrives at the provider’s network. Third,
for each answered call, the submission
would include the time when the first
assigned CA answered the incoming
call, to the nearest second. Fourth, for
each call (including abandoned calls),
the provider would submit the time, to
the nearest second, that the incoming
call ends. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposed methodology
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
for calculating and verifying speed-ofanswer compliance for video relay
service.
49. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether to further reduce
the permissible wait time for VRS calls
by requiring calls to be answered 85
percent of the time within 10 seconds.
Making this change would fully
harmonize the permissible wait time for
VRS with the permissible wait time for
other forms of TRS. The Commission
further proposes that, if adopted,
compliance with this measurement
continue to be determined on a daily
basis. Feedback is requested on the
benefits and the costs of adopting these
proposals. Specifically, commenters are
asked to address whether the proposed
further reduction in the speed of answer
would require VRS providers to hire
additional CAs, and if so, what effect, if
any, there would be on the per minute
costs incurred by providers. Finally,
commenters are asked to address
whether adopting a phase-in period to
implement this further reduction would
facilitate any necessary hiring of
additional interpreters and whether
such a phase-in would help mitigate the
effects of any additional costs that may
be incurred to implement the change.
Administrative, Oversight, and
Certification Rules
50. In the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM,
the Commission sought comment on
whether, if it should choose to adopt
any of the options set forth therein,
there should be changes in its rules
relating to the TRS Fund, including (1)
Modifying the rules on data that must
submitted to or that may be collected by
the TRS Fund administrator, (2)
modifying the rules governing payments
to TRS providers, eligibility for
payments from the TRS Fund, and
notice of participation in the TRS Fund,
(3) modifying the rules governing the
obligations of the TRS Fund
administrator, Commission review of
the TRS Fund administrator’s
performance, and treatment of TRS
customer information, (4) modifications
to TRS rules to ensure that they are
enforceable, and (5) modifying or
enhancing the TRS Fund administrator’s
authority to conduct audits. See 47 CFR
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D) through (K), (7). The
Commission has adopted some changes
to these rules, as described above. The
Commission seeks additional comment
on whether further changes to these
rules are necessary and appropriate to
effectively implement those reforms.
51. Additionally, comment is invited
on the following specific issues. Is the
existing general grant of authority to the
TRS Fund administrator to request
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40413
information reasonably ‘‘necessary to
determine TRS Fund revenue
requirements and payments’’ sufficient?
Should the Commission explicitly
require providers to submit additional
detailed information, such as
information regarding their financial
status?
52. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether there should be
changes in its rules relating to the
certification of VRS providers and/or
other iTRS providers, in order to
effectively implement the reforms
adopted in the accompanying order. For
example, Section V.E of the Report and
Order creates a new category of VRS
providers—standalone VRS CA service
providers, which will not be required to
own their own platforms for automatic
call distribution and routing. Because
the Commission’s existing VRS rules do
require the ownership or lease of such
technology, they consequently require
applicants for certification to provide
both a description of the equipment
used for this purpose, as well as the
proofs of purchase, leases or license
agreements of 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. The
Commission proposes to modify its VRS
certification rules to eliminate such
requirements and seek comment on this
proposal. In addition, it seeks comment
on whether and how to modify its VRS
certification rules to ensure that
standalone VRS CA service providers
meet high standards of service and to
eliminate incentives and opportunities
for waste, fraud, and abuse by such
providers. For example, should such
providers be required to have certain
levels of expertise or experience in the
provision of interpreting services, and if
so what should these levels be—for
example, should such applicants be
required to have provided interpreter
services for a certain number of years,
and if so, for how long? Should such
providers be required to have prior
experience in the provision of TRS or
VRS? Should the Commission adopt
specific requirements to ensure the
financial stability of such applicants? To
what extent should the Commission
consider the impact that certifying a
standalone provider may have on the
availability of community interpreting
services in the areas served by that
provider? To what extent should the
Commission consider the existence of
non-competitive measures, such as noncompete contractual clauses for CAs
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
40414
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
equivalency mandate as the Consumer
Groups appear to suggest? Would they
otherwise be consistent with the Act
and with the First Amendment? What
are the relative costs and benefits of
such requirements? Are there other
rules governing TRS providers’ use of
customer information that the
Commission should consider?
Restructuring Section 64.604
53. In the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM,
observing that § 64.604 of the
Commission’s rules has become
somewhat unwieldy since it was
adopted in 2000, the Commission
sought comment on whether, the
provisions in that section should be
reorganized. 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM.
The Commission also sought comment
on whether it should separate § 64.604
of the Commission’s rules into servicespecific rules (e.g., VRS, speech-tospeech, captioned telephone relay
service), transmission-specific rules
(i.e., PSTN-based TRS vs. iTRS), or
adopt some other structure. The
Commission now proposes to revise the
structure of its rules so that they are
service-specific and transmissionspecific, where appropriate, and seeks
additional comment on this proposed
structural approach and related issues.
For example, it would be preferable,
from the perspective of clarity and
convenience of access, for all rules
applicable to each service to be placed
in a single section dedicated to that
service? Alternatively, would it be more
desirable for the rules to be segregated
by category—e.g. operational standards,
emergency calling, registration, etc.—
with each service addressed in a
subsection of the rule for a particular
category?
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
who provide sign language functions, in
determining certification for either
standalone VRS CA service providers or
integrated VRS providers? The
Commission welcomes other comments
on considerations that the Commission
should take into consideration when
certifying such standalone entities or
integrated providers.
Unjust and Unreasonable Practices
55. In the Report and Order, the
Commission adopts a rule modeled on
section 202(a) of the Act designed to
address impermissible discrimination
by VRS providers, as well as a rule
intended to prevent practices that cause
or encourage unauthorized or
unnecessary use of relay services.
Building on those steps, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
to adopt a rule implementing section
225 of the Act that would prohibit
unjust and unreasonable practices for or
in connection with TRS services. Like
the rule modeled on section 202(a) of
the Act, this rule would be modeled on
section 201(b) of the Act, and the
interpretation of that rule could be
informed by the Commission’s common
carrier precedent under section 201(b)
of the Act. Comment is sought on the
need for such a rule, as well as the
Commission’s authority to adopt such a
requirement. Would such a requirement
advance the statutory mandate for
functional equivalency, consistent with
the Commission’s section 225(d)(1)(A)
of the Act, authority to ‘‘prescribe
regulations to implement this section,
including regulations that—(A) establish
functional requirements, guidelines, and
operations procedures for
telecommunications relay
services. . .’’? 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(1)(A).
Would such a rule be consistent with
prior Commission decisions interpreting
section 225(d)(1)(E) of the Act and its
legislative history? Is there other
authority that would provide a basis for
the Commission to adopt such a rule?
Are there alternative rules that the
Commission should consider in this
regard, and if so, how should they
operate?
Use of Consumer Information
54. The Commission is adopting a
number of privacy protections for users
of TRS services. The Consumer Groups
proposed that the Commission prohibit
a relay provider from using CPNI to
contact a relay user for political and
regulatory advocacy purposes, unless
the user opts in to such contacts. The
Consumer Groups argue that just as
voice telephone users do not receive
political and regulatory advocacy
messages when using the telephone, the
Commission should emphasize that TRS
providers, while permitted to advocate
such issues on their Web sites, may not
advocate these issues or promote or
advertise anything, on Web pages that
must be navigated to make a relay call.
The Commission seeks comment on the
Consumer Groups’ proposal in this
regard. Would the proposed restrictions
advance section 225’s functional
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
Temporary Registration
56. When the Commission directed
VRS and IP Relay providers in the
Second Internet-Based TRS Numbering
Order to implement a reasonable means
of verifying registration and eligibility
information, the Commission added
that, ‘‘to the extent technically feasible,
Internet-based TRS providers must
allow newly registered users to place
calls immediately,’’ even before
completing the verification of such
individuals. Telecommunications Relay
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Services, Speech-to-Speech Services,
E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled
Service Providers, CG Docket No. 03–
123, (Second Internet-Based TRS
Numbering Order); 73 FR 79683,
published December 30, 2008, at 79687.
In permitting such temporary use of
VRS and IP Relay by new registrants,
the Commission responded to
comments by a coalition of consumer
groups, who were concerned that
legitimate VRS and IP Relay users
would be cut off from service during the
transition to the new ten-digit
numbering and registration system. In
order to enable users to make calls
under this ‘‘guest user’’ procedure, some
providers have been giving users
temporary ten-digit numbers and
provisioning these numbers to the iTRS
Directory. These numbers were allowed
to remain valid for the purpose of
making VRS and IP Relay calls until
such time that the users’ identifying
information was authenticated or
rejected.
Access to Video Mail
57. In 2012, in an effort to address
concerns of rampant use of IP Relay by
people who did not have hearing or
speech disabilities, the Commission
prohibited IP Relay providers from
handling non-emergency calls made by
new IP Relay registrants prior to taking
reasonable measures to verify their
registration information. Misuse of
Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service;
Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing And Speech
Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 12–38 and
03–123, (2012 IP Relay Misuse Order);
published at 77 FR 43538, July 25, 2012.
The Commission found that although
there may have been some value in
allowing unverified users to make calls
for a short period of time during the
Commission’s transition to the IP Relay
registration system, the Commission
was concerned that reliance on the guest
user procedure had resulted in abuse of
the IP Relay program by unauthorized IP
Relay users. In addition, the
Commission was concerned that
unverified users had remained in the
iTRS numbering directory—and made
repeated IP Relay calls—for extended
periods of time, despite the obligation of
IP Relay providers to institute
procedures to verify the accuracy of
registration information.
58. In view of the fact that it is now
approximately three and a half years
since the transition period to ten-digit
numbering has ended, the Commission
questions whether there is still any
reason to continue the guest user
procedure for VRS. The Commission
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
therefore proposes to prohibit VRS
providers from handling non-emergency
calls made by new VRS registrants prior
to verification of their registration
information and seek comment on its
proposal. In particular, commenters are
asked to weigh the costs and benefits of
continuing the guest user procedure for
VRS against the costs and benefits of
eliminating the procedure.
Access to Video Mail
59. The Commission proposes to
amend its rules to explicitly require
that, if a VRS provider offers a video
mail feature to its customers, the
provider must ensure that video mail
messages can be left by point-to-point
callers who are customers of other VRS
providers and are using access
technology provided by such other
providers. As the Commission has
previously noted, point to point calls,
while not relay calls, do constitute an
important form of communication for
many VRS users, and any loss of basic
functionality for these calls is not
acceptable. Therefore, the Commission
has ruled that all default providers must
support the ability of VRS users to make
point-to-point calls without the
intervention of an interpreter. Such
interoperability is intended to ensure
that VRS users can make point-to-point
calls to all other VRS users, irrespective
of the default provider of the calling and
called party. See 47 CFR 64.611(e) of the
Commission’s rules. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether the
Commission’s authority extends to this
type of rule
60. The Commission believes that a
VRS provider’s failure to allow other
providers’ customers to leave video mail
messages causes significant degradation
in the value of point-to-point video
communication capabilities for all VRS
users. It seeks comment on this point,
on the percentage of VRS customers
who currently have video mail boxes,
and on the extent to which customers
currently encounter difficulties in
attempting to leave messages in video
mail boxes of customers registered with
other providers. In addition, comment is
sought on the extent to which the failure
of a provider to allow such messages to
be left could endanger a consumer’s
safety or health, and on whether such
failure may unfairly discourage a
consumer from switching from one
default VRS provider to another.
61. Finally, the Commission seeks
comment on the extent to which any
new or changed technical standards are
necessary to ensure that video mail
messages can be left in another
provider’s mail box, beyond the
standards necessary to ensure
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
interoperability of point-to-point calling
generally. To the extent that any new or
changed standards are needed, comment
is also sought on the appropriate forum
for developing such standards and on
the content of such standards.
Non-Competition Agreements in VRS
CA Employment Contracts
62. In 2007, a coalition of five VRS
providers petitioned the Commission for
a declaratory ruling to prohibit VRS
providers from using non-competition
agreements in VRS CA employment
contracts that limit the ability of VRS
CAs to work for competing VRS
providers after the VRS CAs terminate
their employment with their current
employer. Petitioners argued that noncompetition agreements are overly
broad, harm the VRS market, and are
contrary to the public interest. The
Commission placed the petition on
public notice, and received five
comments and two reply comments
from organizations and providers. In
addition, 109 individual consumers and
interpreters submitted comments. Since
then, several additional ex parte
communications on this issue have been
filed with the Commission. All
commenters except Sorenson and one
individual have supported the Coalition
Petition. In a recent ex parte
communication, Purple maintains that
such non-competition agreements are
contrary to the public interest because
they artificially remove VRS CAs from
the labor pool, resulting in higher
interpreter costs and limiting the ability
of VRS companies to compete in the
market place, thereby depriving
consumers of the full benefits of
competition. However, Sorenson, which
makes use of such agreements,
maintains that they increase the pool of
available VRS CAs because they
encourage Sorenson to invest in training
new VRS CAs, knowing that
competitors will not hire away
Sorenson’s newly-trained CAs.
63. The Commission seeks comment
on the extent to which these noncompetition agreements have an adverse
effect on the provision of VRS, and to
the extent that they do, whether the
Commission should prohibit these
agreements in VRS CA employment
contracts. What are the benefits or
disadvantages of allowing or prohibiting
these agreements? The Commission is
especially interested in understanding
any harm that these agreements may
cause for VRS providers or consumers.
Do non-competition agreements limit
the pool of VRS CAs that are available
to VRS providers? If so, does any such
limitation affect the ability of VRS
providers to effectively compete in the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40415
marketplace? To what extent do these
agreements have an impact on the level
of compensation paid to VRS CAs, and
consequently, the cost of providing
VRS? Do the agreements affect speed of
answer, accuracy or other quality of
service metrics for VRS users? As an
alternative to an outright prohibition on
non-competition agreements, should the
Commission limit the scope of such
agreements? If so, how? Commenters are
asked to address the costs and benefits
of prohibiting or limiting such
agreements and how such costs and
benefits would affect the TRS Fund.
Commenters should support their
positions with data to the extent
possible. The Commission also asks
commenters to address possible sources
of authority for the Commission to
regulate or prohibit VRS Relay CA noncompetition agreements, and seeks
feedback on any other matter that might
assist the Commission in determining
whether and how to regulate these
agreements.
CAs Working from Home Environments
During Overnight Hours
64. In the VRS Call Practices R&O the
Commission found that allowing VRS
CAs to work from home poses more
risks than benefits, and consequently
adopted a rule prohibiting VRS CAs
from handling relay calls from a
location used primarily as their home.
Structure and Practices of the Video
Relay Service Program, CG Docket No.
10–51, (VRS Call Practices R&O);
published at 76 FR 24393, May 2, 2011,
at 24395. The Commission was
particularly concerned that the
unsupervised home environment is
more conducive to fraud than a
supervised call center with on-site
management. The Commission also
concluded that compliance with its
mandatory minimum requirements,
including the expectation of user
privacy, and its technical standards,
including requirements for redundancy
features, uninterruptible power for
emergency use, and the ability to handle
9–1–1 calls, might be compromised in
the home environment. Lastly, the
Commission was concerned that CAs
working in the home environment might
not be able to meet service quality
standards. Notwithstanding these
concerns, the Commission explained
that it remained open to revisiting the
issue of at-home VRS call handling if, in
the future, the Commission determines
that ‘‘home-based VRS can be provided
in a manner that meets all of the
Commission’s requirements.’’ Id. at
24395.
65. In August 2011, CSDVRS filed a
petition for partial waiver of the above
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
40416
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
prohibition for a maximum of 10
percent of its active VRS CAs on duty
and a maximum of 10 percent of
CSDVRS’s VRS call volume to address
its concern for the safety of CAs who
work during overnight hours. According
to CSDVRS, its remote interpreting
program ensures the safety of VRS
interpreters, strictly adheres to
mandatory minimum TRS standards,
utilizes failsafe monitoring to prevent
fraud, and ensures that CSDVRS’ service
to consumers is not interrupted or
otherwise degraded by an inability to
provide adequate support. CSDVRS
further alleges that its at-home
interpreting service provides sufficient
safeguards against fraud; security for
CAs working at home during off-hours
because the CAs do not need to report
to an office building; and more
opportunities to recruit CAs. Finally,
CSDVRS argues that it has taken steps
to ensure confidentiality, redundancy,
the handling of emergency calls, and
service quality.
66. The Commission seeks comment
on whether it should permit VRS CAs
to work from home during the overnight
hours when the safety and security of
CAs may be endangered from travelling
to or from VRS call centers. It asks
commenters to address these safety
concerns and to propose specific hours
when CAs may be permitted to work
from home. It also asks commenters to
identify rules needed to ensure
appropriate safeguards against fraud and
to ensure that all of the Commission’s
mandatory minimum standards and
technical standards are met. In
particular, commenters are asked to
address the concerns expressed by the
Commission in the VRS Call Practices
R&O with regard to privacy,
redundancy, uninterruptable power,
emergency calling, and service quality,
and what measures need to be taken to
ensure that functional equivalency is
achieved if CAs were to be permitted to
work from home during overnight
hours. The Commission also asks
commenters to address the costs and
benefits of permitting CAs to work from
home on this limited basis.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Certification
67. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission
has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in document FCC 13–82
FNPRM. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
comments in document FCC 13–82. The
Commission will send a copy of
document FCC 13–82, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).
68. Under Title IV of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), the
Commission must ensure that relay
services ‘‘are available, to the extent
possible and in the most efficient
manner’’ to persons in the United States
with hearing or speech disabilities.
Section 225 of the Act defines TRS as
a service provided in a manner that is
‘‘functionally equivalent’’ to voice
telephone services and directs the
Commission to establish functional
requirements, minimum standards, and
other regulations to carry out the
statutory mandate. In addition, the
Commission’s regulations must
encourage the use of existing technology
and must not discourage the
development of new technology.
Finally, the Commission must ensure
that TRS users ‘‘pay rates no greater
than the rates paid for functionally
equivalent voice communication
services.’’ To this end, the costs of
providing TRS on a call are supported
by shared funding mechanisms at the
state and federal levels. The federal
fund supporting TRS is the interstate
Telecommunications Relay Services
Fund (TRS Fund or Fund), which is
managed by the TRS Fund
administrator, subject to the oversight of
the Commission. Video relay service
(VRS) is a form of TRS that allows
persons with hearing or speech
disabilities to use sign language to
communicate in near real time through
a communications assistant (CA), via
video over a broadband Internet
connection.
69. In the Report Order, as an
important first step in its reforms, the
Commission has identified certain
discrete areas in which it can explore a
new approach of relying on the efforts
of one or more non-VRS provider third
parties, either in whole or in part, to
carry out the Commission’s VRS
policies. Specifically, the Commission
establishes mechanisms:
• To enable research designed to
further the Commission’s multiple goals
of ensuring that TRS is functionally
equivalent to voice telephone services
and improving the efficiency and
availability of TRS;
• For a two-to three year pilot
Internet-based TRS (iTRS) National
Outreach Program (iTRS–NOP) and to
select one or more independent iTRS
Outreach Coordinators;
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• For the development and
deployment of a VRS access technology
reference platform;
• To contract for a central TRS–URD
which incorporates a centralized
eligibility verification requirement to
ensure accurate registration and
verification of users, to achieve more
effective fraud and abuse prevention,
and to allow the Commission to know,
for the first time, the number of
individuals that actually use VRS; and
• To contract for a neutral party to
build, operate, and maintain a neutral
video communication service platform,
which will allow eligible relay
interpretation service providers to
compete as VRS providers.
70. The Commission also includes in
document FCC 13–82 Report and Order
incremental measures to improve the
efficiency of the program, help protect
against waste, fraud, and abuse, improve
its administration of the program, and to
generally ensure that VRS users’
experiences reflect the policies and
goals of section 225 of the Act.
Specifically, the Commission:
• Adopts a general prohibition on
practices resulting in waste, fraud, and
abuse;
• Requires providers to adopt
regulatory compliance plans subject to
Commission review;
• Amends the VRS speed of answer
rules by reducing the permissible wait
time for a VRS call to be answered
within 30 seconds, 85 percent of the
time, to be measured on a daily basis;
• Adopts rules to protect relay
consumers against unauthorized default
provider changes, also known as
‘‘slamming,’’ by VRS and Internet
Protocol (IP) Relay providers;
• Adopts rules to protect the privacy
of customer information relating to all
relay services authorized under section
225 of the Act and to point-to-point
video services offered by VRS providers;
• Adopts permanent rules requiring
that providers certify, under penalty of
perjury, that their certification
applications and annual compliance
filings required under § 64.606(g) of the
Commission’s rules are truthful,
accurate, and complete; and
• Adjusts a volume-based three-tier
rate structure by modifying the tier
boundaries and calling for a series of
incremental rate reductions, every six
months, over a four-year period.
71. In the FNPRM, the Commission
seeks comment on a series of proposals
to further improve the structure and
efficiency of the VRS program, to ensure
that it is available to all eligible users
and offers functional equivalence—
particularly given advances in
commercially-available technology—
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
and is as immune as possible from the
waste, fraud, and abuse that threaten the
long-term viability of the program as it
currently operates.
72. In the FNPRM, the Commission
proposes to replace cost-of-service
ratemaking with a more market-based
approach by establishing a
compensation rate for the provision of
VRS communications assistant (CA)
service through an auction process.
Specifically, the Commission proposes
to auction contracts to VRS providers to
provide service to those governmental
agencies and businesses that receive a
substantial volume of VRS calls. The
proposal, if adopted would provide for
the winners of these auctions to receive
the contracts to provide VRS to those
agencies and businesses, and the rates
for all other VRS traffic would be based
on the rates of these competitively bid
contracts.
73. In the FNPRM, the Commission
also seeks comment on whether there
should be changes to the Commission’s
rules relating to certification of VRS
providers and/or other iTRS providers,
including whether to modify the rules to
ensure that standalone VRS CA service
providers meet high standards of service
and to eliminate incentives and
opportunities for waste, fraud, and
abuse. To this end the Commission asks
whether there should be requirements
for certain levels of expertise or
experience in the provision of
interpreting services; requirements of
prior experience in the provision of TRS
or VRS; and requirements to ensure
financial stability. The FNPRM asks
whether the Commission should
consider the impact of certifying the
standalone provider on the availability
of community interpreting services. In
addition, the FNPRM asks whether the
certification application should ask for
information regarding whether
interpreter employment contracts for
both standalone CA service providers
and integrated VRS providers include
non-compete clauses.
74. The Commission also seeks
comment in the FNPRM on whether to
extend the structural reforms and other
rules adopted in the Report and Order
with regard to VRS to other forms of
Internet-based TRS (iTRS). These would
include:
• Extending use of the TRS–URD to
IP Relay and Internet Protocol captioned
telephone service (IP CTS);
• Extending user certification and
verification requirements to IP Relay;
• Extending the capabilities of the
neutral video communication service
provider to IP Relay and IP CTS;
• Conducting IP CTS outreach
through a national outreach coordinator;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
• Extending the general prohibitions
on discrimination, waste, fraud, and
abuse to IP Relay and IP CTS;
• Extending the rules on compliance
plans to IP Relay and IP CTS;
• Extending the prohibitions on
slamming to IP CTS; and
• The extent to which other VRSspecific rules should be extended to
other forms of iTRS.
75. In the FNPRM, the Commission
also seeks comment on a number of
other issues as follows:
• Whether to adopt a mechanism
whereby providers could seek to recover
the actual reasonable costs of complying
with certain of the new requirements
adopted in the Report and Order;
• The appropriate budget and funding
mechanism for research contracting to
improve the efficiency and availability
of TRS;
• Whether to match the periodicity of
filing requirements from the TRS Fund
administrator proposing contribution
factors to the Commission for the TRS
Fund to those of the Universal Service
Fund (currently quarterly) rather than
annually;
• Whether to permit hearing
individuals to obtain ten-digit phone
numbers that would allow them to make
point-to-point video calls to VRS users,
so long as TRS Funds are not used to
subsidize such service;
• Whether to replace the current TRS
Fund Advisory Council, which advises
the TRS Fund administrator on TRS cost
recovery matters, with a new advisory
council that would provide advice and
recommendations to the iTRS database
administrator on technology, efficiency,
outreach, and user experience;
• Whether to transfer the VRS
emergency call handling obligation to a
single VRS contractor through a
competitive bidding process;
• The methodology for measuring
compliance with the new VRS speed of
answer requirements and whether to
further reduce the permitted speed of
answer time for VRS to 10 seconds for
85 percent of the calls;
• Whether the existing grant of
authority to the TRS Fund administrator
to request information reasonably
‘‘necessary to determine TRS Fund
revenue requirements and payments’’ is
sufficient, or whether the Commission
should explicitly require TRS providers
to submit additional detailed
information, such as information
regarding their financial status (e.g.,
cash flow to debt ratio);
• Whether to separate § 64.604 of the
Commission’s rules into service-specific
rules or transmission-specific rules or to
adopt some other structure;
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40417
• Whether to prohibit TRS providers
from using Customer Proprietary
Network Information (CPNI) for the
purpose of contacting TRS users for
political and advocacy purposes, unless
the user affirmatively agrees to such
contacts through an opt-in procedure;
• Whether to adopt a rule
implementing section 225 of the Act
that would prohibit unjust and
unreasonable practices on the part of
TRS providers and would be modeled
after section 201(b) of the Act, which
prohibits unjust and unreasonable
practices on the part of common
carriers;
• Whether to terminate the ‘‘guest
user’’ procedure for VRS, which
requires VRS providers to provide
temporary service to users while
verification of the user’s eligibility is
pending;
• Whether to explicitly require that, if
a VRS provider offers a video mail
feature to its customers, the provider
must ensure that video mail messages
can be left by point-to-point video
callers who are customers of other VRS
providers and are using access
technology provided by such other
providers;
• Whether to prohibit noncompetition agreements in VRS CA
employment contracts;
• Whether to permit VRS CAs to work
from home during the overnight hours.
76. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the rules. The RFA generally defines the
term ‘‘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
SBA.
77. The Commission believes that the
entities that may be affected by the
proposed rules are VRS providers and
other TRS providers that are eligible to
receive compensation from the TRS
Fund. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a definition of
‘‘small entity’’ specifically directed
toward TRS providers. The closest
applicable size standard under the SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, for which the small business
size standard is all such firms having
1,500 or fewer employees. Currently,
there are ten TRS providers that are
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40418
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
authorized by the Commission to
receive compensation from the Fund.
Six of these entities may be small
businesses under the SBA size standard.
78. If the Commission were to adopt
a mechanism whereby providers could
seek to recover the actual reasonable
costs of complying with certain of the
new requirements adopted in the Report
and Order, providers, including small
entities, would be subject to the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with such cost
recovery.
79. If the Commission were to adopt
an auction process to award contracts to
provide service to part of the VRS
market, VRS providers, including small
entities, may wish to participate. Such
participation would entail compliance
with the various filing, reporting,
recordkeeping and bidding
requirements associated with the action
process.
80. If the Commission were to adopt
additional certification requirements for
VRS providers and/or other iTRS
providers, small entities would be
subject to the qualification, reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance
obligations. Additional qualification
and/or reporting requirements might
include certain levels of expertise or
experience in the provision of
interpreting services, prior experience
in the provision of TRS or VRS,
assurances of financial stability,
including the provision of financial
information, the anticipated impact on
the availability of community
interpreting services, and whether
interpreter employment contracts
include non-compete clauses.
81. If the Commission were to extend
the use of the TRS–URD to IP Relay and
IP CTS, providers of those services,
including small entities would be
required to collect certain information
from consumers and enter that
information in the TRS–URD. However,
the TRS–URD would actually reduce the
regulatory burden on IP Relay and IP
CTS providers, including small entities,
because (1) the providers would no
longer be required to verify user
information, which would be
accomplished centrally by a single
entity contracted by the Commission,
and (2) the providers would have
reduced burdens when collecting
information from users who switch
providers, because the user information
of those consumers would already be in
the database.
82. If the Commission were to extend
user certification and verification
requirements to IP Relay, there would
be no additional compliance obligations
imposed on IP Relay providers,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
including small businesses, because the
user certification and verification would
be managed centrally by a Commissioncontracted entity.
83. If the Commission were to extend
to IP Relay and IP CTS providers,
including small entities, the option to
use the platform of the neutral video
communication service provider for
network operations, such providers
would be able to operate more
efficiently because they would be
relieved of the obligation to provide
their own communication service
platform. Although providers, including
small entities, who elect to continue to
operate their own communication
service platform, would be required to
ensure that such platform is
interoperable with the platform of the
neutral communication service
provider, the interoperability
requirement would benefit small
entities because the interoperability
requirement would facilitate their
ability to compete with larger providers.
84. If the Commission were to extend
to IP Relay and IP CTS providers,
including small entities, the general
prohibition on practices resulting in
waste, fraud, and abuse, this would in
effect be a codification and clarification
of the already existing prohibition on
such practices. Therefore, no new
regulatory compliance obligations
would be imposed.
85. If the Commission were to extend
to IP Relay and IP CTS providers,
including small entities, the
requirement to adopt regulatory
compliance plans, submit such plans to
the Commission and certify that they are
in compliance, these additional
requirements would result in new
reporting, recordkeeping, and
compliance requirements for such
providers.
86. If the Commission were to extend
to IP CTS providers, including small
entities, the rules to protect consumers
against unauthorized default provider
changes, also known as ‘‘slamming,’’
such requirements would result in
additional regulatory compliance
requirements for such providers.
87. If the Commission were to require
the TRS Fund administrator to propose
changes to the Fund contribution factor
with the same periodicity as is done
with the Universal Service Fund
(currently quarterly) rather than
annually, such requirement may impose
on TRS providers receiving
compensation form the Fund, including
small entities, a requirement to submit
to the Commission their usage
projections quarterly rather than
annually.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
88. If the Commission were to permit
hearing individuals to obtain ten-digit
phone numbers that would allow them
to make point-to-point video calls to
VRS users, VRS providers, including
small entities, would be obligated to
register and provide service to hearing
users. Since it would be prohibited to
use TRS Funds to subsidize such
service, VRS providers, including small
entities, either would absorb the cost of
providing such service or would collect
payments for service from the hearing
users. Thus, such change in regulations
would impose additional compliance
obligations on VRS providers, including
small entities.
89. If the Commission were to transfer
the VRS emergency call handling
obligation to a single VRS contractor
through a competitive bidding process,
VRS providers, including small entities,
that desire to provide emergency call
handling would have the additional
regulatory obligation of participating in
a competitive bidding process.
However, those VRS providers,
including small entities, that do not
desire to provide emergency call
handling, would be relieved of such
obligations.
90. If the Commission were to adopt
new regulations regarding the
methodology for measuring compliance
with the new VRS speed of answer
requirements or if the Commission were
to further reduce the permitted speed of
answer time for VRS to 10 seconds for
85 percent of the calls, VRS providers,
including small entities, would be
obligated to comply with such
regulations.
91. If the Commission were to
explicitly require TRS providers,
including small entities, to submit
additional detailed information to the
Commission, such as information
regarding their financial status (e.g.,
cash flow to debt ratio), the Commission
would be imposing additional reporting
requirements on such providers.
92. If the Commission were to
restructure § 64.604 of its rules, such
restructuring would not impose
additional regulatory obligations on TRS
providers, including small entities.
93. If the Commission were to
prohibit TRS providers, including small
entities, from using CPNI for the
purpose of contacting TRS users for
political and advocacy purposes, unless
the user affirmatively agrees to such
contacts through an opt-in procedure,
this would impose additional regulatory
compliance obligations on TRS
providers, including small entities.
94. If the Commission were to adopt
a rule that would prohibit unjust and
unreasonable practices on the part of
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TRS providers, it would impose
additional regulatory compliance
obligations on TRS providers, including
small entities.
95. If the Commission were to
terminate the ‘‘guest user’’ procedure for
VRS, which requires VRS providers to
provide temporary service to users
while verification of the user’s
eligibility is pending, the change in
rules would not impose new
compliance requirements on VRS
providers, including small entities,
because VRS providers are already
required to refuse service to unqualified
individuals. The new requirements
would simply expand the circumstances
under which individuals would be
denied service.
96. If the Commission were to
explicitly require that, if a VRS provider
offers a video mail feature to its
customers, the provider must ensure
that video mail messages can be left by
point-to-point video callers who are
customers of other VRS providers and
are using access technology provided by
such other providers, VRS providers,
including small entities, would be
obligated to comply with such
regulations.
97. If the Commission were to
prohibit non-competition agreements in
VRS CA employment contracts, VRS
providers, including small entities,
would be obligated to comply with such
regulations and would be subject to
additional recordkeeping and reporting
requirements if the Commission were to
require that such information be
included with certification applications
and/or annual reports.
98. If the Commission were to permit
VRS CAs to work from home during the
overnight hours, it would reduce the
regulatory burdens on VRS providers,
including small entities, because VRS
providers, including small entities,
would be afforded more flexibility with
VRS CA staffing.
99. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives,
specific to small entities, that it has
considered in developing its 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 and
reporting requirements under the rule
for such 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 such small entities.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
100. In general, alternatives to
proposed rules are discussed only when
those rules pose a significant adverse
economic impact on small entities. In
this context, however, the proposed
rules generally confer benefits as
explained below.
101. If the Commission were to adopt
a mechanism whereby providers could
seek to recover the actual reasonable
costs of complying with certain of the
new requirements adopted in the Report
and Order, providers, including small
entities, would be subject to the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with such cost
recovery. However, because compliance
with such requirements would result in
cost recovery by providers, including
small entities, small entities would
benefit from such recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
102. If the Commission were to adopt
an auction process to award contracts to
provide service to part of the VRS
market, VRS providers, including small
entities, may wish to participate. Such
participation would entail compliance
with the various filing, reporting,
recordkeeping and bidding
requirements associated with the action
process. However, those providers,
including small entities, who were not
interested in serving the market
segments subject to the auction process
would not be participating in the
auction.
103. If the Commission were to adopt
additional certification requirements for
VRS providers and/or other iTRS
providers, small entities would be
subject to the qualification, reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance
obligations. Additional qualification
and/or reporting requirements might
include certain levels of expertise or
experience in the provision of
interpreting services, prior experience
in the provision of TRS or VRS,
assurances of financial stability,
including the provision of financial
information, the anticipated impact on
the availability of community
interpreting services, and whether
interpreter employment contracts
include non-compete clauses. If the
Commission were to adopt any such
certification requirements, it would
weigh the public interest benefits of the
new requirements against the impact on
VRS and other iTRS providers,
including small entities, and would
consider how to minimize the impact on
small entities. For example, since the
neutral video communication service
provider would relieve small providers
who elect to utilize the common
platform of the qualification, reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40419
obligations associated with providing
video communication service, those
small entities could potentially have
fewer regulatory burdens than larger
entities utilizing their own video
communication service platforms.
104. If the Commission were to extend
the use of the TRS–URD to IP Relay and
IP CTS, providers of those services,
including small entities would be
required to collect certain information
from consumers and enter that
information in the TRS–URD. However,
the TRS–URD would actually reduce the
regulatory burden on IP Relay and IP
CTS providers, including small entities,
because (1) the providers would no
longer be required to verify user
information, which would be
accomplished centrally by a single
entity contracted by the Commission,
and (2) the providers would have
reduced burdens when collecting
information from users who switch
providers, because the user information
of those consumers would already be in
the database.
105. If the Commission were to extend
user certification and verification
requirements to IP Relay, there would
be no additional compliance obligations
imposed on IP Relay providers,
including small businesses, because the
user certification and verification would
be managed centrally by a Commissioncontracted entity.
106. If the Commission were to extend
to IP Relay and IP CTS providers,
including small entities, the option to
use the platform of the neutral video
communication service provider for
network operations, such providers
would be able to operate more
efficiently because they would be
relieved of the obligation to provide
their own communication service
platform. Although providers, including
small entities, who elect to continue to
operate their own communication
service platform, would be required to
ensure that such platform is
interoperable with the platform of the
neutral communication service
provider, the interoperability
requirement would benefit small
entities because the interoperability
requirement would facilitate their
ability to compete with larger providers.
107. If the Commission were to extend
to IP Relay and IP CTS providers,
including small entities, the general
prohibition on practices resulting in
waste, fraud, and abuse, this would in
effect be a codification and clarification
of the already existing prohibition on
such practices. Therefore, no new
regulatory compliance obligations
would be imposed.
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40420
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
108. If the Commission were to extend
to IP Relay and IP CTS providers,
including small entities, the
requirement to adopt regulatory
compliance plans, submit such plans to
the Commission and certify that they are
in compliance, these additional
requirements would result in new
reporting, recordkeeping, and
compliance requirements for such
providers. In determining whether to
enact any such requirements, the
Commission would weigh the public
interest benefits of the new
requirements in curbing waste, fraud,
and abuse and the need to control the
expenditure of public funds against the
impact on VRS and other iTRS
providers, including small entities, and
would consider how to minimize the
impact on small entities. For example,
since the neutral video communication
service provider would relieve small
providers who elect to utilize the
common platform of the compliance
plan obligations associated with
providing video communication service,
those small entities could potentially
have fewer regulatory burdens than
larger entities utilizing their own video
communication service platforms.
109. If the Commission were to extend
to IP CTS providers, including small
entities, the rules to protect consumers
against unauthorized default provider
changes, also known as ‘‘slamming,’’
such requirements would result in
additional regulatory compliance
requirements for such providers.
However, in addition to protecting
consumers, these requirements would
also protect IP CTS providers, including
small entities, from unauthorized
provider changes, thereby enhancing the
ability of such entities to compete.
110. If the Commission were to
require the TRS Fund administrator to
propose changes to the Fund
contribution factor with the same
periodicity as is done with the
Universal Service Fund (currently
quarterly) rather than annually, such
requirement may impose on TRS
providers receiving compensation from
the Fund, including small entities, a
requirement to revise their usage
projections more often than the current
annual requirement. Although this
change would impose an additional
obligation on TRS providers, including
small entities, the change would also
benefit such providers due to the fact
that more frequent revisions to the Fund
contribution factor will help ensure that
there are sufficient monies in the Fund
to compensate providers. In determining
whether to require TRS providers to
revise their usage projections more
often, the Commission will consider
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
how to minimize the impact on small
entities, such as considering whether to
exempt small providers from providing
quarterly more often and requiring only
annual estimates from such small
providers.
111. If the Commission were to permit
hearing individuals to obtain ten-digit
phone numbers that would allow them
to make point-to-point video calls to
VRS users, VRS providers, including
small entities, would be obligated to
register and provide service to hearing
users. Since it would be prohibited to
use TRS Funds to subsidize such
service, VRS providers, including small
entities, either would absorb the cost of
providing such service or would collect
payments for service from the hearing
users. In determining whether to adopt
these proposed regulatory changes, the
Commission would weigh the benefits
of facilitating communication between
individuals with hearing and speech
disabilities and individuals without
such disabilities against the additional
compliance obligations on VRS
providers, including small entities.
112. If the Commission were to
transfer the VRS emergency call
handling obligation to a single VRS
contractor through a competitive
bidding process, VRS providers,
including small entities, that desire to
provide emergency call handling would
have the additional regulatory
obligation of participating in a
competitive bidding process. However,
those VRS providers, including small
entities, that do not desire to provide
emergency call handling, would be
relieved of such obligations.
113. If the Commission were to adopt
new regulations regarding the
methodology for measuring compliance
with the new VRS speed of answer
requirements, VRS providers, including
small entities, would be obligated to
comply with such regulations. Such
regulations would be in the public
interest and would benefit VRS
providers, including small entities,
because they would provide additional
certainty to VRS providers, including
small entities, on how to comply with
and report compliance with the VRS
speed of answer requirements. If the
Commission were to further reduce the
permitted speed of answer time to 10
seconds for 85 percent of the calls, VRS
providers, including small entities,
would be required to comply with such
regulations. Adopting such a
requirement would be in the public
interest because it would result in
service to VRS consumers that would be
comparable to the permitted speed of
answer wait time for other forms of TRS
and would be more functionally
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
equivalent than a permitted wait time of
30 seconds for 85 percent of the calls.
Nevertheless, in determining whether to
further reduce the permitted speed of
answer time, the Commission will
consider how to minimize the impact on
small entities, such as considering
whether to phase-in a further reduction
in permitted speed of answer time.
114. If the Commission were to
explicitly require TRS providers,
including small entities, to submit
additional detailed information to the
Commission, such as information
regarding their financial status (e.g.,
cash flow to debt ratio), the Commission
would be imposing additional reporting
requirements on such providers. In
determining whether to enact such
requirements, the Commission would
weigh the public interest benefits of
how these requirements would help
combat waste, fraud, and abuse and
help preserve the integrity of the TRS
Fund against the impact of imposing
such requirements on TRS providers,
including small entities. In determining
whether to require TRS providers to
provide such information, the
Commission will consider how to
minimize the impact on small entities,
such as considering the level of detail
that would be required of small
providers.
115. If the Commission were to
restructure § 64.604 of its rules, such
restructuring would not impose
additional regulatory obligations on TRS
providers, including small entities.
116. If the Commission were to
prohibit TRS providers, including small
entities, from using CPNI for the
purpose of contacting TRS users for
political and advocacy purposes, unless
the user affirmatively agrees to such
contacts through an opt-in procedure,
this would impose additional regulatory
compliance obligations on TRS
providers, including small entities. In
deciding whether to enact such
requirements, the Commission would
weigh the public interest benefits in
protecting consumers from misuse of
CPNI against the impact on TRS
providers, including small entities, and
would examine whether any such
requirements would infringe on the
First Amendment rights of TRS
providers. For example, the Commission
would consider whether there would be
a difference in terms of the First
Amendment between utilizing CPNI to
help develop a contact list for political
and advocacy purposes as compared to
developing a contact list for political
and advocacy purposes without the use
of CPNI.
117. If the Commission were to adopt
an explicit rule that would prohibit
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
unjust and unreasonable practices on
the part of TRS providers, it would not
likely impose additional regulatory
compliance obligations on TRS
providers, including small entities,
because a prohibition on unjust and
unreasonable practices is implicit in the
current TRS requirements.
118. If the Commission were to
terminate the ‘‘guest user’’ procedure for
VRS, which requires VRS providers to
provide temporary service to users
while verification of the user’s
eligibility is pending, the change in
rules would not impose new
compliance requirements on VRS
providers, including small entities,
because VRS providers are already
required to refuse service to unqualified
individuals. The new requirements
would simply expand the circumstances
under which individuals would be
denied service.
119. If the Commission were to
explicitly require that, if a VRS provider
offers a video mail feature to its
customers, the provider must ensure
that video mail messages can be left by
video point-to-point callers who are
customers of other VRS providers and
are using access technology provided by
such other providers, VRS providers,
including small entities, would be
obligated to comply with such
regulations. However, such regulations
would benefit small entities because the
regulations would enhance the ability of
small entities to compete by ensuring
that point-to-point callers using the
services of all VRS providers, including
small entities, would be able to leave
video mail messages with consumers
using any VRS provider.
120. If the Commission were to
prohibit non-competition agreements in
VRS CA employment contracts, VRS
providers, including small entities,
would be obligated to comply with such
regulations and would be subject to
additional recordkeeping and reporting
requirements if the Commission were to
require that such information be
included with certification applications
and/or annual reports. However, such
regulations would benefit small entities
because the regulations would enhance
the ability of small entities to compete
by ensuring that all VRS providers,
including small entities, would be able
to hire VRS CAs without the pool of
available VRS CAs being limited by
non-competition agreements.
121. If the Commission were to permit
VRS CAs to work from home during the
overnight hours, it would reduce the
regulatory burdens on VRS providers,
including small entities, because VRS
providers, including small entities,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jul 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
would be afforded more flexibility with
VRS CA staffing.
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), (j), 225,
251 254 and 303(r), of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), (j) and
(o), 225, 251, 254 and 303(r), document
FCC 13–82 is adopted.
The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
document FCC 13–82 including the
Initial 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, Office of the Secretary, Office of
Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2013–15925 Filed 7–2–13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 79
[MB Docket No. 11–43; DA 13–1438]
Inquiry Regarding Video Description in
Video Programming Distributed on
Television and on the Internet
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; solicitation of
comments.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) solicits public comment
on issues related to video description in
video programming that is delivered via
both television and the Internet. The
comments received in response to these
inquiries will inform a report to
Congress required by the CVAA on the
status, benefits, and costs of video
description on television and Internetprovided video programming, which
must be completed no later than July 1,
2014.
DATES: Comments may be filed on or
before September 4, 2013, and reply
comments may be filed on or before
October 2, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No. 11–43, by
any of the following methods:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40421
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: 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.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
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:
Maria Mullarkey,
Maria.Mullarkey@fcc.gov, of the Policy
Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418–
2120.
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Public
Notice in MB Docket No. 11–43, DA 13–
1438, released on June 25, 2013. The
full text of this document is available for
public inspection and copying during
regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. This document
will also be available via ECFS at
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents
will be available electronically in ASCII,
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
The complete text may be purchased
from the Commission’s copy contractor,
445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554. Alternative
formats are available for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), by
sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
calling the Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Summary
1. By the Public Notice, the Media
Bureau seeks comment on video
description of video programming that
is delivered via both television and the
Internet. Pursuant to the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010 (‘‘CVAA’’), the
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40407-40421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15925]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123; FCC 13-82]
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program:
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission issues a further notice of
proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) seeking comment on options and proposals to
ensure that the entire telecommunications relay services (TRS) program
continues to offer functional equivalence to all eligible users and is
as immune as possible from any additional waste, fraud, and abuse.
These proposals involve a transition plan to a market-based
compensation methodology for VRS, funding mechanism for research and
development, TRS Fund contribution calculations and reporting method,
allowing hearing persons to purchase access to video point to point
service, replacement of the current TRS Advisory Council,
disaggregation of emergency calls to 911 and additional issues relating
to restructure of the VRS program. The Commission continues to solicit
input on ways to strengthen VRS to ensure its efficiency and that this
service is being offered in a functionally equivalent manner.
DATES: Comments are due on or before August 19, 2013, and reply
comments on or before September 18, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 10-51
and 03-123, 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 https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 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 Nos. 10-51 and 03-123.
Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the
Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal
Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial Mail sent by 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 should be
[[Page 40408]]
addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
[ssquf] In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading
with the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing,
Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via
email to fcc@bcpiweb.com.
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: Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418-
2235 or email Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program;
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), document FCC 13-82, adopted on June 7,
2013 and released on June 10, 2013, in CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123.
In document FCC 13-82, the Commission adopted an accompanying Report
and Order (Report and Order), which is summarized in a separate Federal
Register Publication. The full text of document FCC 13-82 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. It also
may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (800) 378-3160, fax: (202) 488-5563,
or Internet: www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 13-82 can also be downloaded
in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html#orders. To request materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
(TTY).
Synopsis
1. In March 2000, the Commission recognized VRS as a reimbursable
relay service. See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-
Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,
CC Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking; published at 65 FR 38432, June 21, 2000, and at 65 FR
38490, June 21, 2000.
2. In this document, the Commission takes further action to achieve
VRS compensation rates that better approximate the actual cost of
providing VRS while ensuring that VRS is provided in accordance with
the Act. See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Order,
(2010 TRS Rate Order), CG Docket No. 03-123, published at 75 FR 49491,
August 13, 2010. Ratemaking based on calculations of allowable costs is
inherently a contentious, complicated, and imprecise process,
particularly in the VRS context. Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (2011 VRS Reform
FNPRM), CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123, published at 77 FR 4948,
February 1, 2012. First, unlike most regulated telecommunications
services, VRS is generally provided at no charge to users. There is no
pressure from users on VRS suppliers to restrain the amount they charge
because the users share none of the costs. Second, a number of
questions have arisen over the past several years concerning the
methodology used for determining VRS costs as well as the
appropriateness of certain costs. Third, the VRS compensation rate has
fluctuated significantly over time, with frequent recalculation of
rates as cost or demand levels change or as new evidence about cost and
demand levels come to light. Finally, the absence of retail prices has
encouraged perverse provider behavior and contributed to fraud and
abuse--e.g., by resulting in providers artificially generating minutes
of use in order to collect more TRS Fund revenues. Therefore, the
Commission proposes to transition to a new ratemaking approach that
makes use of competitively established pricing, i.e., contract prices
set through a competitive bidding process, where feasible.
3. There are several elements in this new approach. First, the
outreach and registration verification components of VRS will not be
handled by VRS providers but that they will be handled by neutral
entities pursuant to contracts. Therefore, as these transfers to
neutral entities are implemented, the costs associated with these
components of VRS will be removed from compensation rates for all VRS
providers.
4. Second, the Commission will also contract with a neutral entity
to offer the video communication service components of VRS,
disaggregated from VRS CA service, without charge, to those VRS
providers that choose to make use of such a common video communication
service platform. The costs associated with the disaggregated
components of VRS will also be removed from the cost basis for the
compensation rates applicable to such standalone VRS CA service
providers.
5. Third, the Commission proposes that the contract price that the
Commission pays to the neutral video communication service provider for
the disaggregated video communication service component of VRS will
serve as a benchmark for setting appropriate compensation applicable to
any VRS provider that chooses to continue offering a fully integrated
service.
6. Fourth, the Commission proposes to establish a compensation rate
for the provision of VRS CA service by auctioning a portion of VRS
traffic.
Using the Cost of the Neutral Video Communication Service Provider
Contract as a Benchmark
7. The Commission tentatively concluded that the contract price
that it pays to the neutral video communication service provider for
the disaggregated video communication service component of VRS will
serve as a benchmark for setting appropriate compensation applicable to
any VRS provider that chooses to continue offering a fully integrated
service. Such result is appropriate, given that the neutral video
communication service provider will be serving many of the same
functions as an integrated provider--i.e., user registration and
validation, authentication, authorization, ACD platform functions,
routing (including emergency call routing), call setup, mapping, call
features (such as call forwarding and video mail), and such other
features and functions not directly related to the provision of VRS CA
services. This would also be consistent with its rules requiring
providers only to be compensated for the reasonable costs of providing
service. See 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) of the Commission's rules.
Would such an approach ensure an appropriate level of compensation for
integrated providers? Specifically, how should the contract price be
used to determine the appropriate additional compensation for fully
integrated service? Are there overhead or other costs that an
integrated VRS provider might incur that a neutral video communication
service provider would not, or vice versa? Are there other factors the
Commission should consider
[[Page 40409]]
when setting compensation for the video communication service component
of an integrated VRS provider's service offering? The winning neutral
video communication service provider may be compensated on a usage
insensitive basis or a usage sensitive basis. Does the compensation
structure for the neutral video communication service provider affect
this analysis?
Using Auctions To Establish a Per Minute Rate for CA Service
8. Data from the TRS numbering directory indicates that a sizeable
percentage of compensable VRS calls are placed to a relatively small
number of telephone numbers that terminate to an even smaller number of
companies and government agencies.
9. Given this pattern of calling, the Commission proposes that an
auction of the right to provide VRS CA service for all calls terminated
to an appropriately selected set of telephone numbers representing a
sufficient number of minutes of use could be used to establish a market
rate for all minutes of use of VRS CA service--including VRS CA service
delivered by integrated VRS providers. The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal. Is it appropriate to use an auction determined price as
a benchmark for regulating other prices?
10. What Is To Be Auctioned? If the Commission were to auction the
right to provide VRS CA service to a set of telephone numbers, how
should those telephone numbers be selected? The top 100 numbers called?
All calls to government agencies, entities regulated by the Commission,
and/or general business call centers? Some other selection criteria?
How can the Commission ensure that the telephone numbers selected
account for sufficient minutes of use to ensure that the winning bid
represents a market rate for VRS CA service?
11. VRS minutes of use arguably could be categorized, by, for
example, time of day or the nature of the called party (e.g., a
government agency as opposed to a corporate technical support line).
For the purposes of an auction, should the Commission establish and
auction more than one category of minutes, where minutes within each
category can be considered homogenous and minutes across categories are
sufficiently different? If so, what would be appropriate categories? If
more than one category is established should the different categories
be auctioned simultaneously, as in spectrum auctions with different
categories of interrelated licenses, or auctioned sequentially? A
simultaneous dynamic (e.g., descending clock) auction has the advantage
that it allows bidders to easily switch bids among categories of
licenses as relative prices change.
12. Number of Winners. Should there be one or multiple auction
winners? One approach for a single winner auction would be to select
the bidder with the lowest price per minute willing to serve all demand
for VRS CA service to the specified telephone numbers. One option is a
single-round sealed bid auction in which bidders submit their price
offer. Alternatively, the Commission could use a descending clock
auction in which bid prices are reduced until only a single bidder
remains. A descending clock auction may be simpler for bidders because
optimal bidding does not require strategic calculations about what
others may bid as in a single-round auction and bidders need not
determine an exact bid at the beginning of the auction. How can the
Commission ensure before the auction that there are multiple qualified
bidders capable of providing quality VRS CA service for all auctioned
minutes of use? Are there other ways a single winner auction could be
structured to accomplish the Commission's goals?
13. Another option would be to design an auction that allows for
multiple winners. One possibility is a descending clock auction, in
which the auctioneer calls out a price and winners indicate the
percentage of total demand to the eligible numbers they are willing to
serve at that price. The auctioneer would continue to reduce the price
until the sum of provider bids equals 100%. Given that the Commission
has historical data on calling patterns, would such a structure provide
flexibility to accommodate the actual number of minutes without
creating a high degree of uncertainty as to the number of minutes each
auction winner would be expected to service? Are there other ways a
multiple winner auction could be structured to accomplish the
Commission's goals?
14. In the case of a multiple winner auction, how should specific
minutes be assigned to winners? If minutes are truly homogenous, should
they be randomly assigned? If minutes, while sufficiently alike to be
classified in a single category, are nonetheless somewhat
differentiated should the Commission use another procedure? For
example, bidders could be randomly assigned priorities and then pick
preferences for types of minutes within a given category (e.g., minutes
to be terminated to a particular entity). An alternative approach would
allow winners of minutes within a given category to bid for the order
in which they pick preferences.
15. Form of Bids. What form should bids take? The Commission
contemplates that bids would take the form of an offer to provide VRS
CA service at a price per minute for all demand or a percentage of the
demand to certain telephone numbers. Is that the appropriate bid
structure? Should bidders be required to specify a fixed quantity of
minutes of use they are willing to provide? If bids are for a fixed
number of minutes, what should the Commission do if the total minutes
of use for which bids are received are insufficient to cover demand?
Would additional demand be routed through a user's default provider?
16. Bidder Qualifications. What qualifications should the
Commission set for bidders? Should the Commission allow entities to bid
only after they have been certified by the Commission, or would it be
sufficient to condition final auction reward on a bidder's ability to
achieve certification? Are there additional criteria that should be
established for entities that wish to bid in an auction?
17. Frequency of Auctions. How often should auctions be conducted
(i.e., for what period of time would bidders win the right to provide
exclusive VRS CA service)?
18. Reserve Price. Should the Commission set a reserve price and,
if so, how? Is the cost data submitted by providers sufficient to allow
the Commission to set a reserve price based on historical provider
costs? What other mechanism might be used to establish a reserve price?
19. Ensuring Quality of Service. How can the Commission ensure that
auction winners provide an appropriate level of quality of service?
Should it require that auction winners be bonded (i.e., obtain a
financial guarantee of performance)? Are the Commission's existing
rules on quality of service sufficient to guarantee an appropriate
level of performance? Should additional performance metrics with
penalties for failure to achieve those metrics be implemented by
contract? In the event of a failure to perform, should the party lose
all the rights it won in the auction, or should it lose a portion of
its rights commensurate with its degree of performance failure until
performance improves? If all rights are terminated should it be
immediate or phased out over a period of time and, if so, over what
period?
[[Page 40410]]
Other Issues
20. How can the Commission ensure that there are sufficient bidders
for a competitive auction? If it is willing to select only one winner,
are any of the suppliers other than the largest incumbent able to serve
all the demand? How is competitive behavior affected by the fact that
the winning bids will be used as a benchmark for setting prices for
non-participants? Would any large incumbent be willing to participate
since driving down the price in the auction would reduce its prices on
the rest of its business? Would any such disincentive for large
incumbents to participate tend to encourage participation by small
incumbents and new entrants?
21. Compensation for Integrated Providers. The neutral video
communication service provider and any winners of an auction of VRS CA
service minutes will account for overhead and other costs they incur in
setting their bid prices. Is it therefore reasonable to assume that the
sum of a benchmark rate for video communication service and a market
rate for VRS CA service established by auction would be sufficient to
compensate integrated VRS providers for the services they deliver? If
not, what other factors should be considered when setting market based
compensation rates?
22. Providers of Multiple Forms of iTRS. A number of VRS providers
also provide other forms of iTRS and VRI, an interpreting service that
allows a provider to pre-schedule, for a fee, remote interpreting
sessions between ASL users and other individuals who are located in the
same room, or in different locations. Several VRS providers also
provide VRI. How do such providers allocate costs that may be shared
across services? For example, how are costs for facilities and indirect
costs such as financial/accounting, legal/regulatory, and human
resources allocated between services when submitting cost data for
multiple services? How can the Commission and the TRS Fund
administrator ensure that entities that provide more than one iTRS
service and/or VRI are not being overcompensated for shared resources?
23. Using Auctions for Other Forms of iTRS. Would it be appropriate
to establish the compensation rate for other forms of iTRS by
conducting similar types of auctions? What changes, if any, would the
Commission need to consider if setting rates by auction for IP Relay
and/or IP CTS?
Cost Recovery
24. Section 225 of the Act creates a cost recovery regime whereby
TRS providers are compensated for their reasonable costs of providing
service in compliance with the TRS regulations. See 47 U.S.C.
225(d)(3); 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5) of the Commission's rules. To be
reasonable, the costs of providing service must relate to the provision
of service in compliance with the applicable mandatory minimum
standards.
25. As noted in Report and Order, the Commission does not believe
that the providers' additional costs necessary to implement the
requirements adopted today will be substantial, but it recognizes that,
in its First Internet-Based TRS Numbering Order, it provided a
mechanism whereby providers could seek to recover their actual
reasonable costs of complying with certain of the new requirements
adopted in that Report and Order. Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-To-Speech Services For Individuals With Hearing and Speech
Disabilities; E911 Requirements For IP-Enabled Services Providers, CG
Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196, Report and Order; published
at 73 FR 41286, July 18, 2008. The Commission seeks comment on whether
it should adopt such a mechanism in connection with any comparable
requirements adopted today. What costs, if any, would it be appropriate
to consider for additional recovery? How long would providers be
entitled to seek recovery of such costs? By what standard should the
Commission and the Fund administrator review any submitted costs to
ensure that the costs are both allowable and reasonable?
Research and Development
26. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate budget and
funding mechanism for research conducted pursuant to the arrangement
with the National Science Foundation it directs be entered into in the
Report and Order. The Commission proposes to set the initial budget for
research under this arrangement at $3 million dollars, which is
approximately 40 percent of the expenditures reported by VRS providers
for Fund year 2012 on compensable research and development, and seeks
comment on this proposal. The Commission further seeks comment on the
mechanism by which research and development should be funded under this
arrangement. For example, what review criteria should be applied to
identify appropriate research? What types of awards would be
appropriate?
TRS Fund Contribution Calculations and Reporting
27. The Commission proposes to amend Sec. Sec. 64.604(c)(iii)(B)
and (H) of the Commission's rules to match the periodicity of filing
requirements from the TRS Fund administrator proposing contribution
factors to the Commission for the TRS Fund to those of the Universal
Service Fund (currently quarterly). Under this revision and the
clarification above of the Office of the Managing Director's (OMD)
duties in relation to the TRS Fund, the Fund administrator would
request TRS providers to revise their projected minutes of use, and OMD
would put the contribution factor proposals on public notice, and adopt
a new contribution factor each quarter based on the TRS Fund
administrator's proposal under OMD's delegated authority. This would
allow for greater flexibility in addressing increases or decreases in
requests for reimbursement and projections of service requirements from
TRS providers. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and asks
commenters to address the costs and benefits of the proposal.
Allowing Hearing Individuals To Purchase Access to the Neutral Video
Communication Service Provider for Point-to-Point Calls
28. The Consumer Groups have urged the Commission to adopt rules
that would permit hearing individuals to obtain ten-digit numbers that
would allow them to make point-to-point calls with VRS users, and note
that if all registration is done through a central database, it
presumably would be easier to flag a hearing person's ten-digit number
in the system so that it is not eligible for VRS reimbursement while
still allowing them to use the system to make direct calls to their
deaf or hard of hearing contacts. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal. Should the neutral video communication service provider and/
or integrated VRS providers be permitted to sell point-to-point service
to hearing individuals? Should hearing individuals that purchase such
service be registered in the TRS User Registration Database (TRS-URD)
but flagged as ``hearing'' or ``non-compensable?'' How can the
Commission ensure that TRS Funds are not used to subsidize such a
service? Is it sufficient to require that the charge for such a service
be sufficient to cover the costs of providing that service? What other
factors must be considered if such a service is implemented?
[[Page 40411]]
TRS Fund Advisory Council
29. The Commission proposes to revise the nature, composition, and
functions of the advisory body that focuses on TRS issues. It proposes
to replace the existing Interstate TRS Fund Advisory Council (TRS Fund
Council), which advises the TRS Fund administrator on TRS cost recovery
matters, with a new advisory council that will provide advice and
recommendations in four areas: (1) Technology; (2) efficiency; (3)
outreach; and (4) user experience. Stakeholders and experts on the new
Council will provide advice on ways that iTRS can adapt to the evolving
and advancing nature of technology in communication technologies that
affect the iTRS service, and ensure that iTRS users obtain a
functionally equivalent service. The unique insight, institutional
knowledge, and expertise that consumer and industry representatives can
offer would help ensure that iTRS technologies and services are
developed and deployed in a timely manner in response to the evolving
needs of iTRS users.
30. The Commission believes that the role and structure of the TRS
Fund Council should be redefined to reflect the changing needs of the
TRS program. The Commission notes that at various times, the existing
TRS Fund Council itself has asked for additional responsibilities,
including matters concerning TRS quality. The Commission proposes to
dissolve the existing TRS Fund Council. Given that rate methodology
decisions currently are made by the Commission, not the TRS Fund
administrator, and that it is moving to a regime in which compensation
rates for most VRS functions will be set by a contractual competitive
bidding process, there will be less need for the Council under its
current mission.
31. In place of the existing TRS Fund Council, the Commission
proposes to direct the TRS Fund administrator to establish a new
advisory committee to provide advice on specified matters related to
the TRS program. With respect to VRS, it is intended that the advisory
committee provide input to TRS program administrators, including the
TRS Fund administrator, the iTRS Outreach Coordinator(s), the VRS
access technology reference platform administrator, the TRS-URD
administrator, and/or the neutral video communication service provider
in the implementation of their responsibilities under this
restructuring. The Commission seeks comment on which of the following
areas should be included within the new advisory committee's focus: (1)
Technology; (2) efficiency; (3) outreach; (4) user experience
(reference functional equivalency requirement); (5) eligibility,
registration, and verification; and (6) porting and slamming. In
addition, comments are solicited on which specific matters within these
general areas require input from an advisory committee.
32. Composition of Proposed Committee's Membership. The Commission
invites input on the appropriate composition of the new advisory
committee to ensure that all interested parties are fairly represented.
It is believed that the committee should be comprised of consumers who
stand to benefit from VRS, researchers, and entities paying into the
fund--rather than providers that receive compensation for services.
State administrators should also be included if this includes PSTN-
based TRS. While it is expected that providers will have an opportunity
to make their views known to the committee through open sessions held
by the advisory committee, the Commission is concerned that with the
change in the council's focus, provider membership in the committee
would create a potential conflict of interest when the committee is
making decisions regarding recommended technologies, outreach
initiatives, quality of service improvements and the like. In addition,
provider membership may lead to distracting discussions regarding the
relative merits of competing provider services and technologies.
33. The Commission proposes that the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau releases a PN seeking nominations for the new committee.
Comments are sought on ways in which the proposed advisory committee
may play a productive role in connection with the four proposed areas.
Consistent Regulations of All Forms of iTRS
34. With certain exceptions such as the treatment of iTRS access
technology, this proceeding has focused on the structure and practices
of the VRS program. There are, however, significant commonalities among
VRS, IP Relay, and other forms of iTRS. Indeed, VRS and IP Relay
already are subject to the same user registration requirements, both
utilize the TRS numbering directory, and VRS and IP CTS now have
comparable requirements for certification of eligibility. Indeed, many
of the actions taken in the Report and Order to improve the efficiency
and availability of the VRS program could be equally beneficial if
applied to other forms of iTRS, and such application would further
simplify the administration of the TRS program. The Commission
therefore seeks comment on extending the structural reforms adopted in
the Report and Order to all forms of Internet-based TRS.
35. Registration and the TRS-URD. The Commission has taken
significant steps to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the IP Relay and
IP CTS programs in the last year. As is the case with VRS, however, the
Commission lacks a definitive count of the number of unique, active
users of each service, hindering the ability of the Commission and the
TRS Fund administrator to conduct audits and determine compliance with
the Commission's rules. The Commission therefore proposes to require
each iTRS provider to provide users with the capability to register
with that iTRS provider as a ``default provider,'' to populate the TRS-
URD with the necessary information for each registered user, and to
query the database to ensure each user's eligibility for each call.
Given that deaf and hard of hearing Americans may use multiple forms of
iTRS, what modifications to the TRS-URD, if any, are necessary to
accommodate IP Relay and IP CTS data in the TRS-URD? Should the
Commission modify or waive its registration requirements as they
pertain to NANP numbers in light of the distinct technical and
regulatory issues posed by IP CTS?
36. Certification and Verification Requirements. The Commission has
adopted detailed eligibility certification and verification
requirements for IP CTS and VRS to ensure that the use of those
services is limited to those who have a hearing or speech disability.
e.g. Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned Telephone Service;
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 13-24
and 03-123, (IP CTS Report and Order); published at 78 FR 8030, March
7, 2013. Comment is sought on extending these certification and
verification requirements to IP Relay. What criteria should be
established when determining a user's eligibility for IP Relay? The
Commission previously has required IP Relay providers to take
reasonable measures to verify the registration information of new IP
Relay registrants. Misuse Of Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service;
Telecommunications Relay Services And Speech-To-Speech Services For
Individuals With Hearing And Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 12-38
and 03-123, Order, (2012 IP Relay Misuse Order); published at 77 FR
[[Page 40412]]
43538, July 25, 2012. Is the information currently required for IP CTS
or VRS eligibility certification sufficient for IP Relay, given the
history of fraud in this program, or should additional information be
required?
37. Neutral Platform. The Commission seeks comment on extending the
capabilities of the neutral video communication service provider to
other forms of iTRS. Would IP Relay and IP CTS benefit from the
introduction of ``standalone'' providers of the CA service components
of those services? To what extent might new providers of those services
be induced to enter the market given the potential reduction of
barriers to entry? Would it be appropriate to require provider
certification consistent with its VRS rules? Would the availability of
single communication service provider allow for or encourage the
development of iTRS access technologies capable of delivering multiple
forms of iTRS?
38. Outreach. The Report and Order initiates a national pilot
program to conduct TRS outreach, and no longer allows IP Relay and VRS
providers to include the cost of outreach in their yearly cost
submissions. The Commission seeks comment on whether similar action is
appropriate with regard to IP CTS. To what extent do IP CTS providers
currently engage in outreach? Would it be more effective, as is the
case with IP Relay and VRS, to conduct IP CTS outreach through a
national outreach coordinator?
39. Other Rules and Obligations. To what extent should the
Commission make applicable to all iTRS providers other VRS-specific
rules and obligations adopted herein? Specifically, the general
prohibitions on VRS provider practices causing discrimination, waste,
fraud, and abuse would appear to be appropriate for application to IP
Relay and IP CTS providers. Similarly, the rule on VRS provider
compliance plans appears to be appropriate for application to IP Relay
and IP CTS providers, and the rules on prevention of slamming appear to
be appropriate for application to IP CTS providers. Comment is sought
on whether to make these provisions of its rules applicable to all iTRS
providers.
Disaggregation of Emergency Calls to 911
40. In the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on
whether the proposed changes to a per-user rate methodology and the
elimination of the dial-around feature necessitate modifications to VRS
emergency calling requirements. These requirements direct VRS providers
to transmit all calls to 911, along with the automatic number
identification, the caller's registered location, the VRS provider's
name, and the CA identification number for each call, to the
appropriate PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or
appropriate local emergency authority serving the caller's registered
location. 47 CFR 64.605(b)(2)(ii). Because the Report and Order does
not adopt the proposed per-user compensation model, the Commission no
longer needs to consider the impact that a change in rate methodology
would have on its mandates for emergency calling. Nevertheless, in an
effort to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of emergency call
handling for VRS users, the Commission invites comment on other ways to
ensure that VRS users have access to 911 services that is functionally
equivalent to 911 access available to the general population.
41. In particular, in line with the Commission's decision to
disaggregate and contract for the provision of the video communication
service components of VRS, as well as its proposal to partially include
certain CA service components in a competitive bidding process,
feedback is sought on whether the Commission should similarly transfer
the VRS emergency call handling obligation to a single VRS contractor
through a competitive bidding process. Given the urgent and specialized
nature of such calls, the Commission asks for comment on the benefits
to be gained by routing VRS 911 calls to pre-identified CAs who, under
contract, would be specially trained to handle the safety and medical
issues that typically characterize emergency calls. To what extent
should CAs who handle emergency calls be integrated into general
purpose VRS centers or separated out into centralized or regional call
centers? In the event of a widespread emergency, should the Commission
prescribe a means for addressing call handling if these specialized
centers reach capacity?
42. It would also help the Commission to receive public comment on
the average number of 911 calls that are made through VRS each month.
To that end, commenters--both providers and consumers--are asked to
indicate the average length of time that it takes to connect a 911 call
made through VRS to the appropriate PSAP or emergency authority, as
well as how this compares with making calls directly via voice or TTY.
Should the Commission require that VRS calls to 911 be connected within
a certain time frame, and, if so, what should that time frame be?
43. Under the Commission's rules, all CAs must be qualified
interpreters, i.e., capable of interpreting ``effectively, accurately,
and impartially, both receptively and expressively, using any necessary
specialized vocabulary.'' 47 CFR 604(a)(1)(iv) of the Commission's
rules. Should CAs who handle emergency calls be required to take
additional training to better equip them to address the specialized
needs of consumers who make these calls? If so, what should the nature
of this training be? Commenters are asked to describe the extent to
which such training already is provided for the purpose of handling
emergency VRS calls.
44. Finally, in March 2013, the Commission's Emergency Access
Advisory Committee (EAAC), established under the Twenty-First Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), released a
report containing recommendations to facilitate effective communication
for relay users who need to access 911. According to the EAAC, because
current VRS providers have frequently improperly delivered or
mishandled emergency calls it would be best to create nationally
certified ``Media Communications Line Service,'' (MCLS) centers, that
would provide ``translation service for people with disabilities and
telecommunicators using video, voice, text and data during NG [next
generation] 911 calls.'' The Commission seeks further information about
the nature of these proposed centers and in particular, how their
services would interface with VRS and other forms of TRS, whether their
services should be provided by a single national entity or through
regional centers, and whether funding for such centers would be
expected to come from the Fund or another source, such as local and
state governmental programs supporting emergency 911 services. The EAAC
Report also proposed regulatory changes for national and uniform
standards for relay service providers in processing 911 calls, training
protocols and performance criteria to achieve and maintain highly
skilled CAs capable of handling crisis calls, the provision of stress
management services for CAs, the availability of caller profiles, and
compatibility between emergency call handling procedures by VRS
providers and specifications established by the National Emergency
Number Association (NENA). The Commission invites comment on each of
these recommendations, the appropriateness of integrating any or all of
the EAAC's proposals into the Commission's VRS program, and information
on the costs
[[Page 40413]]
and benefits of adopting each of the EAAC's proposals.
Speed of Answer
45. In the Report and Order, the Commission establishes new
benchmarks for the VRS speed of answer requirements. Specifically, as
measured on a daily basis: (1) By January 1, 2014, VRS providers must
answer 85 percent of all VRS calls within 60 seconds; and (2) by July
1, 2014, VRS providers must answer 85 percent of all VRS calls within
30 seconds. In document FCC 13-82 FNPRM, comment is sought on how the
Commission should measure compliance with the new threshold.
Specifically, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on the
following formula to measure VRS speed-of-answer compliance: (Calls
unanswered in 30 seconds or less + calls answered in 30 seconds or
less)/(all calls (unanswered and answered)).
46. Alternatively, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on the
following formula, which removes unanswered calls for which the caller
ended the call prior to the threshold time. Under this formula, the
provider's measured speed-of-answer performance would be unaffected by
callers that do not give the CA enough time to answer the call within
the threshold time period: (Calls answered in 30 seconds or less)/(All
calls answered by a CA + Calls abandoned after more than 30 seconds).
47. As noted in the Report and Order, compliance will be determined
on a daily basis. Calls will be considered as part of the measurement
for the date when the call was handed off to the provider's system for
purposes of establishing compliance with the VRS speed-of-answer
requirements.
48. To enable the TRS Fund administrator to confirm the correct
calculation of speed-of-answer performance, the Commission proposes
that providers be required to submit to the TRS Fund administrator
certain call detail record information. First, providers would submit
an identifier for each inbound call that is unique and used only once
and not reused in subsequent periods. Second, submissions would
include, for each call, the date and time that each call arrives at the
provider's network. Third, for each answered call, the submission would
include the time when the first assigned CA answered the incoming call,
to the nearest second. Fourth, for each call (including abandoned
calls), the provider would submit the time, to the nearest second, that
the incoming call ends. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed
methodology for calculating and verifying speed-of-answer compliance
for video relay service.
49. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to further reduce
the permissible wait time for VRS calls by requiring calls to be
answered 85 percent of the time within 10 seconds. Making this change
would fully harmonize the permissible wait time for VRS with the
permissible wait time for other forms of TRS. The Commission further
proposes that, if adopted, compliance with this measurement continue to
be determined on a daily basis. Feedback is requested on the benefits
and the costs of adopting these proposals. Specifically, commenters are
asked to address whether the proposed further reduction in the speed of
answer would require VRS providers to hire additional CAs, and if so,
what effect, if any, there would be on the per minute costs incurred by
providers. Finally, commenters are asked to address whether adopting a
phase-in period to implement this further reduction would facilitate
any necessary hiring of additional interpreters and whether such a
phase-in would help mitigate the effects of any additional costs that
may be incurred to implement the change.
Administrative, Oversight, and Certification Rules
50. In the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on
whether, if it should choose to adopt any of the options set forth
therein, there should be changes in its rules relating to the TRS Fund,
including (1) Modifying the rules on data that must submitted to or
that may be collected by the TRS Fund administrator, (2) modifying the
rules governing payments to TRS providers, eligibility for payments
from the TRS Fund, and notice of participation in the TRS Fund, (3)
modifying the rules governing the obligations of the TRS Fund
administrator, Commission review of the TRS Fund administrator's
performance, and treatment of TRS customer information, (4)
modifications to TRS rules to ensure that they are enforceable, and (5)
modifying or enhancing the TRS Fund administrator's authority to
conduct audits. See 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D) through (K), (7). The
Commission has adopted some changes to these rules, as described above.
The Commission seeks additional comment on whether further changes to
these rules are necessary and appropriate to effectively implement
those reforms.
51. Additionally, comment is invited on the following specific
issues. Is the existing general grant of authority to the TRS Fund
administrator to request information reasonably ``necessary to
determine TRS Fund revenue requirements and payments'' sufficient?
Should the Commission explicitly require providers to submit additional
detailed information, such as information regarding their financial
status?
52. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there should be
changes in its rules relating to the certification of VRS providers
and/or other iTRS providers, in order to effectively implement the
reforms adopted in the accompanying order. For example, Section V.E of
the Report and Order creates a new category of VRS providers--
standalone VRS CA service providers, which will not be required to own
their own platforms for automatic call distribution and routing.
Because the Commission's existing VRS rules do require the ownership or
lease of such technology, they consequently require applicants for
certification to provide both a description of the equipment used for
this purpose, as well as the proofs of purchase, leases or license
agreements of 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. The Commission
proposes to modify its VRS certification rules to eliminate such
requirements and seek comment on this proposal. In addition, it seeks
comment on whether and how to modify its VRS certification rules to
ensure that standalone VRS CA service providers meet high standards of
service and to eliminate incentives and opportunities for waste, fraud,
and abuse by such providers. For example, should such providers be
required to have certain levels of expertise or experience in the
provision of interpreting services, and if so what should these levels
be--for example, should such applicants be required to have provided
interpreter services for a certain number of years, and if so, for how
long? Should such providers be required to have prior experience in the
provision of TRS or VRS? Should the Commission adopt specific
requirements to ensure the financial stability of such applicants? To
what extent should the Commission consider the impact that certifying a
standalone provider may have on the availability of community
interpreting services in the areas served by that provider? To what
extent should the Commission consider the existence of non-competitive
measures, such as non-compete contractual clauses for CAs
[[Page 40414]]
who provide sign language functions, in determining certification for
either standalone VRS CA service providers or integrated VRS providers?
The Commission welcomes other comments on considerations that the
Commission should take into consideration when certifying such
standalone entities or integrated providers.
Restructuring Section 64.604
53. In the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM, observing that Sec. 64.604 of
the Commission's rules has become somewhat unwieldy since it was
adopted in 2000, the Commission sought comment on whether, the
provisions in that section should be reorganized. 2011 VRS Reform
FNPRM. The Commission also sought comment on whether it should separate
Sec. 64.604 of the Commission's rules into service-specific rules
(e.g., VRS, speech-to-speech, captioned telephone relay service),
transmission-specific rules (i.e., PSTN-based TRS vs. iTRS), or adopt
some other structure. The Commission now proposes to revise the
structure of its rules so that they are service-specific and
transmission-specific, where appropriate, and seeks additional comment
on this proposed structural approach and related issues. For example,
it would be preferable, from the perspective of clarity and convenience
of access, for all rules applicable to each service to be placed in a
single section dedicated to that service? Alternatively, would it be
more desirable for the rules to be segregated by category--e.g.
operational standards, emergency calling, registration, etc.--with each
service addressed in a subsection of the rule for a particular
category?
Use of Consumer Information
54. The Commission is adopting a number of privacy protections for
users of TRS services. The Consumer Groups proposed that the Commission
prohibit a relay provider from using CPNI to contact a relay user for
political and regulatory advocacy purposes, unless the user opts in to
such contacts. The Consumer Groups argue that just as voice telephone
users do not receive political and regulatory advocacy messages when
using the telephone, the Commission should emphasize that TRS
providers, while permitted to advocate such issues on their Web sites,
may not advocate these issues or promote or advertise anything, on Web
pages that must be navigated to make a relay call. The Commission seeks
comment on the Consumer Groups' proposal in this regard. Would the
proposed restrictions advance section 225's functional equivalency
mandate as the Consumer Groups appear to suggest? Would they otherwise
be consistent with the Act and with the First Amendment? What are the
relative costs and benefits of such requirements? Are there other rules
governing TRS providers' use of customer information that the
Commission should consider?
Unjust and Unreasonable Practices
55. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts a rule modeled
on section 202(a) of the Act designed to address impermissible
discrimination by VRS providers, as well as a rule intended to prevent
practices that cause or encourage unauthorized or unnecessary use of
relay services. Building on those steps, the Commission seeks comment
on whether to adopt a rule implementing section 225 of the Act that
would prohibit unjust and unreasonable practices for or in connection
with TRS services. Like the rule modeled on section 202(a) of the Act,
this rule would be modeled on section 201(b) of the Act, and the
interpretation of that rule could be informed by the Commission's
common carrier precedent under section 201(b) of the Act. Comment is
sought on the need for such a rule, as well as the Commission's
authority to adopt such a requirement. Would such a requirement advance
the statutory mandate for functional equivalency, consistent with the
Commission's section 225(d)(1)(A) of the Act, authority to ``prescribe
regulations to implement this section, including regulations that--(A)
establish functional requirements, guidelines, and operations
procedures for telecommunications relay services. . .''? 47 U.S.C.
225(d)(1)(A). Would such a rule be consistent with prior Commission
decisions interpreting section 225(d)(1)(E) of the Act and its
legislative history? Is there other authority that would provide a
basis for the Commission to adopt such a rule? Are there alternative
rules that the Commission should consider in this regard, and if so,
how should they operate?
Temporary Registration
56. When the Commission directed VRS and IP Relay providers in the
Second Internet-Based TRS Numbering Order to implement a reasonable
means of verifying registration and eligibility information, the
Commission added that, ``to the extent technically feasible, Internet-
based TRS providers must allow newly registered users to place calls
immediately,'' even before completing the verification of such
individuals. Telecommunications Relay Services, Speech-to-Speech
Services, E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, CG Docket
No. 03-123, (Second Internet-Based TRS Numbering Order); 73 FR 79683,
published December 30, 2008, at 79687. In permitting such temporary use
of VRS and IP Relay by new registrants, the Commission responded to
comments by a coalition of consumer groups, who were concerned that
legitimate VRS and IP Relay users would be cut off from service during
the transition to the new ten-digit numbering and registration system.
In order to enable users to make calls under this ``guest user''
procedure, some providers have been giving users temporary ten-digit
numbers and provisioning these numbers to the iTRS Directory. These
numbers were allowed to remain valid for the purpose of making VRS and
IP Relay calls until such time that the users' identifying information
was authenticated or rejected.
Access to Video Mail
57. In 2012, in an effort to address concerns of rampant use of IP
Relay by people who did not have hearing or speech disabilities, the
Commission prohibited IP Relay providers from handling non-emergency
calls made by new IP Relay registrants prior to taking reasonable
measures to verify their registration information. Misuse of Internet
Protocol (IP) Relay Service; Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing And Speech
Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 12-38 and 03-123, (2012 IP Relay Misuse
Order); published at 77 FR 43538, July 25, 2012. The Commission found
that although there may have been some value in allowing unverified
users to make calls for a short period of time during the Commission's
transition to the IP Relay registration system, the Commission was
concerned that reliance on the guest user procedure had resulted in
abuse of the IP Relay program by unauthorized IP Relay users. In
addition, the Commission was concerned that unverified users had
remained in the iTRS numbering directory--and made repeated IP Relay
calls--for extended periods of time, despite the obligation of IP Relay
providers to institute procedures to verify the accuracy of
registration information.
58. In view of the fact that it is now approximately three and a
half years since the transition period to ten-digit numbering has
ended, the Commission questions whether there is still any reason to
continue the guest user procedure for VRS. The Commission
[[Page 40415]]
therefore proposes to prohibit VRS providers from handling non-
emergency calls made by new VRS registrants prior to verification of
their registration information and seek comment on its proposal. In
particular, commenters are asked to weigh the costs and benefits of
continuing the guest user procedure for VRS against the costs and
benefits of eliminating the procedure.
Access to Video Mail
59. The Commission proposes to amend its rules to explicitly
require that, if a VRS provider offers a video mail feature to its
customers, the provider must ensure that video mail messages can be
left by point-to-point callers who are customers of other VRS providers
and are using access technology provided by such other providers. As
the Commission has previously noted, point to point calls, while not
relay calls, do constitute an important form of communication for many
VRS users, and any loss of basic functionality for these calls is not
acceptable. Therefore, the Commission has ruled that all default
providers must support the ability of VRS users to make point-to-point
calls without the intervention of an interpreter. Such interoperability
is intended to ensure that VRS users can make point-to-point calls to
all other VRS users, irrespective of the default provider of the
calling and called party. See 47 CFR 64.611(e) of the Commission's
rules. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission's
authority extends to this type of rule
60. The Commission believes that a VRS provider's failure to allow
other providers' customers to leave video mail messages causes
significant degradation in the value of point-to-point video
communication capabilities for all VRS users. It seeks comment on this
point, on the percentage of VRS customers who currently have video mail
boxes, and on the extent to which customers currently encounter
difficulties in attempting to leave messages in video mail boxes of
customers registered with other providers. In addition, comment is
sought on the extent to which the failure of a provider to allow such
messages to be left could endanger a consumer's safety or health, and
on whether such failure may unfairly discourage a consumer from
switching from one default VRS provider to another.
61. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which
any new or changed technical standards are necessary to ensure that
video mail messages can be left in another provider's mail box, beyond
the standards necessary to ensure interoperability of point-to-point
calling generally. To the extent that any new or changed standards are
needed, comment is also sought on the appropriate forum for developing
such standards and on the content of such standards.
Non-Competition Agreements in VRS CA Employment Contracts
62. In 2007, a coalition of five VRS providers petitioned the
Commission for a declaratory ruling to prohibit VRS providers from
using non-competition agreements in VRS CA employment contracts that
limit the ability of VRS CAs to work for competing VRS providers after
the VRS CAs terminate their employment with their current employer.
Petitioners argued that non-competition agreements are overly broad,
harm the VRS market, and are contrary to the public interest. The
Commission placed the petition on public notice, and received five
comments and two reply comments from organizations and providers. In
addition, 109 individual consumers and interpreters submitted comments.
Since then, several additional ex parte communications on this issue
have been filed with the Commission. All commenters except Sorenson and
one individual have supported the Coalition Petition. In a recent ex
parte communication, Purple maintains that such non-competition
agreements are contrary to the public interest because they
artificially remove VRS CAs from the labor pool, resulting in higher
interpreter costs and limiting the ability of VRS companies to compete
in the market place, thereby depriving consumers of the full benefits
of competition. However, Sorenson, which makes use of such agreements,
maintains that they increase the pool of available VRS CAs because they
encourage Sorenson to invest in training new VRS CAs, knowing that
competitors will not hire away Sorenson's newly-trained CAs.
63. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which these non-
competition agreements have an adverse effect on the provision of VRS,
and to the extent that they do, whether the Commission should prohibit
these agreements in VRS CA employment contracts. What are the benefits
or disadvantages of allowing or prohibiting these agreements? The
Commission is especially interested in understanding any harm that
these agreements may cause for VRS providers or consumers. Do non-
competition agreements limit the pool of VRS CAs that are available to
VRS providers? If so, does any such limitation affect the ability of
VRS providers to effectively compete in the marketplace? To what extent
do these agreements have an impact on the level of compensation paid to
VRS CAs, and consequently, the cost of providing VRS? Do the agreements
affect speed of answer, accuracy or other quality of service metrics
for VRS users? As an alternative to an outright prohibition on non-
competition agreements, should the Commission limit the scope of such
agreements? If so, how? Commenters are asked to address the costs and
benefits of prohibiting or limiting such agreements and how such costs
and benefits would affect the TRS Fund. Commenters should support their
positions with data to the extent possible. The Commission also asks
commenters to address possible sources of authority for the Commission
to regulate or prohibit VRS Relay CA non-competition agreements, and
seeks feedback on any other matter that might assist the Commission in
determining whether and how to regulate these agreements.
CAs Working from Home Environments During Overnight Hours
64. In the VRS Call Practices R&O the Commission found that
allowing VRS CAs to work from home poses more risks than benefits, and
consequently adopted a rule prohibiting VRS CAs from handling relay
calls from a location used primarily as their home. Structure and
Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, (VRS
Call Practices R&O); published at 76 FR 24393, May 2, 2011, at 24395.
The Commission was particularly concerned that the unsupervised home
environment is more conducive to fraud than a supervised call center
with on-site management. The Commission also concluded that compliance
with its mandatory minimum requirements, including the expectation of
user privacy, and its technical standards, including requirements for
redundancy features, uninterruptible power for emergency use, and the
ability to handle 9-1-1 calls, might be compromised in the home
environment. Lastly, the Commission was concerned that CAs working in
the home environment might not be able to meet service quality
standards. Notwithstanding these concerns, the Commission explained
that it remained open to revisiting the issue of at-home VRS call
handling if, in the future, the Commission determines that ``home-based
VRS can be provided in a manner that meets all of the Commission's
requirements.'' Id. at 24395.
65. In August 2011, CSDVRS filed a petition for partial waiver of
the above
[[Page 40416]]
prohibition for a maximum of 10 percent of its active VRS CAs on duty
and a maximum of 10 percent of CSDVRS's VRS call volume to address its
concern for the safety of CAs who work during overnight hours.
According to CSDVRS, its remote interpreting program ensures the safety
of VRS interpreters, strictly adheres to mandatory minimum TRS
standards, utilizes failsafe monitoring to prevent fraud, and ensures
that CSDVRS' service to consumers is not interrupted or otherwise
degraded by an inability to provide adequate support. CSDVRS further
alleges that its at-home interpreting service provides sufficient
safeguards against fraud; security for CAs working at home during off-
hours because the CAs do not need to report to an office building; and
more opportunities to recruit CAs. Finally, CSDVRS argues that it has
taken steps to ensure confidentiality, redundancy, the handling of
emergency calls, and service quality.
66. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should permit VRS
CAs to work from home during the overnight hours when the safety and
security of CAs may be endangered from travelling to or from VRS call
centers. It asks commenters to address these safety concerns and to
propose specific hours when CAs may be permitted to work from home. It
also asks commenters to identify rules needed to ensure appropriate
safeguards against fraud and to ensure that all of the Commission's
mandatory minimum standards and technical standards are met. In
particular, commenters are asked to address the concerns expressed by
the Commission in the VRS Call Practices R&O with regard to privacy,
redundancy, uninterruptable power, emergency calling, and service
quality, and what measures need to be taken to ensure that functional
equivalency is achieved if CAs were to be permitted to work from home
during overnight hours. The Commission also asks commenters to address
the costs and benefits of permitting CAs to work from home on this
limited basis.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification
67. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in document FCC 13-82 FNPRM. 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 in document FCC 13-82. The Commission will send a copy of
document FCC 13-82, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
68. Under Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
the Commission must ensure that relay services ``are available, to the
extent possible and in the most efficient manner'' to persons in the
United States with hearing or speech disabilities. Section 225 of the
Act defines TRS as a service provided in a manner that is
``functionally equivalent'' to voice telephone services and directs the
Commission to establish functional requirements, minimum standards, and
other regulations to carry out the statutory mandate. In addition, the
Commission's regulations must encourage the use of existing technology
and must not discourage the development of new technology. Finally, the
Commission must ensure that TRS users ``pay rates no greater than the
rates paid for functionally equivalent voice communication services.''
To this end, the costs of providing TRS on a call are supported by
shared funding mechanisms at the state and federal levels. The federal
fund supporting TRS is the interstate Telecommunications Relay Services
Fund (TRS Fund or Fund), which is managed by the TRS Fund
administrator, subject to the oversight of the Commission. Video relay
service (VRS) is a form of TRS that allows persons with hearing or
speech disabilities to use sign language to communicate in near real
time through a communications assistant (CA), via video over a
broadband Internet connection.
69. In the Report Order, as an important first step in its reforms,
the Commission has identified certain discrete areas in which it can
explore a new approach of relying on the efforts of one or more non-VRS
provider third parties, either in whole or in part, to carry out the
Commission's VRS policies. Specifically, the Commission establishes
mechanisms:
To enable research designed to further the Commission's
multiple goals of ensuring that TRS is functionally equivalent to voice
telephone services and improving the efficiency and availability of
TRS;
For a two-to three year pilot Internet-based TRS (iTRS)
National Outreach Program (iTRS-NOP) and to select one or more
independent iTRS Outreach Coordinators;
For the development and deployment of a VRS access
technology reference platform;
To contract for a central TRS-URD which incorporates a
centralized eligibility verification requirement to ensure accurate
registration and verification of users, to achieve more effective fraud
and abuse prevention, and to allow the Commission to know, for the
first time, the number of individuals that actually use VRS; and
To contract for a neutral party to build, operate, and
maintain a neutral video communication service platform, which will
allow eligible relay interpretation service providers to compete as VRS
providers.
70. The Commission also includes in document FCC 13-82 Report and
Order incremental measures to improve the efficiency of the program,
help protect against waste, fraud, and abuse, improve its
administration of the program, and to generally ensure that VRS users'
experiences reflect the policies and goals of section 225 of the Act.
Specifically, the Commission:
Adopts a general prohibition on practices resulting in
waste, fraud, and abuse;
Requires providers to adopt regulatory compliance plans
subject to Commission review;
Amends the VRS speed of answer rules by reducing the
permissible wait time for a VRS call to be answered within 30 seconds,
85 percent of the time, to be measured on a daily basis;
Adopts rules to protect relay consumers against
unauthorized default provider changes, also known as ``slamming,'' by
VRS and Internet Protocol (IP) Relay providers;
Adopts rules to protect the privacy of customer
information relating to all relay services authorized under section 225
of the Act and to point-to-point video services offered by VRS
providers;
Adopts permanent rules requiring that providers certify,
under penalty of perjury, that their certification applications and
annual compliance filings required under Sec. 64.606(g) of the
Commission's rules are truthful, accurate, and complete; and
Adjusts a volume-based three-tier rate structure by
modifying the tier boundaries and calling for a series of incremental
rate reductions, every six months, over a four-year period.
71. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on a series of
proposals to further improve the structure and efficiency of the VRS
program, to ensure that it is available to all eligible users and
offers functional equivalence--particularly given advances in
commercially-available technology--
[[Page 40417]]
and is as immune as possible from the waste, fraud, and abuse that
threaten the long-term viability of the program as it currently
operates.
72. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposes to replace cost-of-
service ratemaking with a more market-based approach by establishing a
compensation rate for the provision of VRS communications assistant
(CA) service through an auction process. Specifically, the Commission
proposes to auction contracts to VRS providers to provide service to
those governmental agencies and businesses that receive a substantial
volume of VRS calls. The proposal, if adopted would provide for the
winners of these auctions to receive the contracts to provide VRS to
those agencies and businesses, and the rates for all other VRS traffic
would be based on the rates of these competitively bid contracts.
73. In the FNPRM, the Commission also seeks comment on whether
there should be changes to the Commission's rules relating to
certification of VRS providers and/or other iTRS providers, including
whether to modify the rules to ensure that standalone VRS CA service
providers meet high standards of service and to eliminate incentives
and opportunities for waste, fraud, and abuse. To this end the
Commission asks whether there should be requirements for certain levels
of expertise or experience in the provision of interpreting services;
requirements of prior experience in the provision of TRS or VRS; and
requirements to ensure financial stability. The FNPRM asks whether the
Commission should consider the impact of certifying the standalone
provider on the availability of community interpreting services. In
addition, the FNPRM asks whether the certification application should
ask for information regarding whether interpreter employment contracts
for both standalone CA service providers and integrated VRS providers
include non-compete clauses.
74. The Commission also seeks comment in the FNPRM on whether to
extend the structural reforms and other rules adopted in the Report and
Order with regard to VRS to other forms of Internet-based TRS (iTRS).
These would include:
Extending use of the TRS-URD to IP Relay and Internet
Protocol captioned telephone service (IP CTS);
Extending user certification and verification requirements
to IP Relay;
Extending the capabilities of the neutral video
communication service provider to IP Relay and IP CTS;
Conducting IP CTS outreach through a national outreach
coordinator;
Extending the general prohibitions on discrimination,
waste, fraud, and abuse to IP Relay and IP CTS;
Extending the rules on compliance plans to IP Relay and IP
CTS;
Extending the prohibitions on slamming to IP CTS; and
The extent to which other VRS-specific rules should be
extended to other forms of iTRS.
75. In the FNPRM, the Commission also seeks comment on a number of
other issues as follows:
Whether to adopt a mechanism whereby providers could seek
to recover the actual reasonable costs of complying with certain of the
new requirements adopted in the Report and Order;
The appropriate budget and funding mechanism for research
contracting to improve the efficiency and availability of TRS;
Whether to match the periodicity of filing requirements
from the TRS Fund administrator proposing contribution factors to the
Commission for the TRS Fund to those of the Universal Service Fund
(currently quarterly) rather than annually;
Whether to permit hearing individuals to obtain ten-digit
phone numbers that would allow them to make point-to-point video calls
to VRS users, so long as TRS Funds are not used to subsidize such
service;
Whether to replace the current TRS Fund Advisory Council,
which advises the TRS Fund administrator on TRS cost recovery matters,
with a new advisory council that would provide advice and
recommendations to the iTRS database administrator on technology,
efficiency, outreach, and user experience;
Whether to transfer the VRS emergency call handling
obligation to a single VRS contractor through a competitive bidding
process;
The methodology for measuring compliance with the new VRS
speed of answer requirements and whether to further reduce the
permitted speed of answer time for VRS to 10 seconds for 85 percent of
the calls;
Whether the existing grant of authority to the TRS Fund
administrator to request information reasonably ``necessary to
determine TRS Fund revenue requirements and payments'' is sufficient,
or whether the Commission should explicitly require TRS providers to
submit additional detailed information, such as information regarding
their financial status (e.g., cash flow to debt ratio);
Whether to separate Sec. 64.604 of the Commission's rules
into service-specific rules or transmission-specific rules or to adopt
some other structure;
Whether to prohibit TRS providers from using Customer
Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) for the purpose of contacting
TRS users for political and advocacy purposes, unless the user
affirmatively agrees to such contacts through an opt-in procedure;
Whether to adopt a rule implementing section 225 of the
Act that would prohibit unjust and unreasonable practices on the part
of TRS providers and would be modeled after section 201(b) of the Act,
which prohibits unjust and unreasonable practices on the part of common
carriers;
Whether to terminate the ``guest user'' procedure for VRS,
which requires VRS providers to provide temporary service to users
while verification of the user's eligibility is pending;
Whether to explicitly require that, if a VRS provider
offers a video mail feature to its customers, the provider must ensure
that video mail messages can be left by point-to-point video callers
who are customers of other VRS providers and are using access
technology provided by such other providers;
Whether to prohibit non-competition agreements in VRS CA
employment contracts;
Whether to permit VRS CAs to work from home during the
overnight hours.
76. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules. The RFA generally defines the term ``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 SBA.
77. The Commission believes that the entities that may be affected
by the proposed rules are VRS providers and other TRS providers that
are eligible to receive compensation from the TRS Fund. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of ``small entity''
specifically directed toward TRS providers. The closest applicable size
standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers,
for which the small business size standard is all such firms having
1,500 or fewer employees. Currently, there are ten TRS providers that
are
[[Page 40418]]
authorized by the Commission to receive compensation from the Fund. Six
of these entities may be small businesses under the SBA size standard.
78. If the Commission were to adopt a mechanism whereby providers
could seek to recover the actual reasonable costs of complying with
certain of the new requirements adopted in the Report and Order,
providers, including small entities, would be subject to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with such cost
recovery.
79. If the Commission were to adopt an auction process to award
contracts to provide service to part of the VRS market, VRS providers,
including small entities, may wish to participate. Such participation
would entail compliance with the various filing, reporting,
recordkeeping and bidding requirements associated with the action
process.
80. If the Commission were to adopt additional certification
requirements for VRS providers and/or other iTRS providers, small
entities would be subject to the qualification, reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance obligations. Additional
qualification and/or reporting requirements might include certain
levels of expertise or experience in the provision of interpreting
services, prior experience in the provision of TRS or VRS, assurances
of financial stability, including the provision of financial
information, the anticipated impact on the availability of community
interpreting services, and whether interpreter employment contracts
include non-compete clauses.
81. If the Commission were to extend the use of the TRS-URD to IP
Relay and IP CTS, providers of those services, including small entities
would be required to collect certain information from consumers and
enter that information in the TRS-URD. However, the TRS-URD would
actually reduce the regulatory burden on IP Relay and IP CTS providers,
including small entities, because (1) the providers would no longer be
required to verify user information, which would be accomplished
centrally by a single entity contracted by the Commission, and (2) the
providers would have reduced burdens when collecting information from
users who switch providers, because the user information of those
consumers would already be in the database.
82. If the Commission were to extend user certification and
verification requirements to IP Relay, there would be no additional
compliance obligations imposed on IP Relay providers, including small
businesses, because the user certification and verification would be
managed centrally by a Commission-contracted entity.
83. If the Commission were to extend to IP Relay and IP CTS
providers, including small entities, the option to use the platform of
the neutral video communication service provider for network
operations, such providers would be able to operate more efficiently
because they would be relieved of the obligation to provide their own
communication service platform. Although providers, including small
entities, who elect to continue to operate their own communication
service platform, would be required to ensure that such platform is
interoperable with the platform of the neutral communication service
provider, the interoperability requirement would benefit small entities
because the interoperability requirement would facilitate their ability
to compete with larger providers.
84. If the Commission were to extend to IP Relay and IP CTS
providers, including small entities, the general prohibition on
practices resulting in waste, fraud, and abuse, this would in effect be
a codification and clarification of the already existing prohibition on
such practices. Therefore, no new regulatory compliance obligations
would be imposed.
85. If the Commission were to extend to IP Relay and IP CTS
providers, including small entities, the requirement to adopt
regulatory compliance plans, submit such plans to the Commission and
certify that they are in compliance, these additional requirements
would result in new reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance
requirements for such providers.
86. If the Commission were to extend to IP CTS providers, including
small entities, the rules to protect consumers against unauthorized
default provider changes, also known as ``slamming,'' such requirements
would result in additional regulatory compliance requirements for such
providers.
87. If the Commission were to require the TRS Fund administrator to
propose changes to the Fund contribution factor with the same
periodicity as is done with the Universal Service Fund (currently
quarterly) rather than annually, such requirement may impose on TRS
providers receiving compensation form the Fund, including small
entities, a requirement to submit to the Commission their usage
projections quarterly rather than annually.
88. If the Commission were to permit hearing individuals to obtain
ten-digit phone numbers that would allow them to make point-to-point
video calls to VRS users, VRS providers, including small entities,
would be obligated to register and provide service to hearing users.
Since it would be prohibited to use TRS Funds to subsidize such
service, VRS providers, including small entities, either would absorb
the cost of providing such service or would collect payments for
service from the hearing users. Thus, such change in regulations would
impose additional compliance obligations on VRS providers, including
small entities.
89. If the Commission were to transfer the VRS emergency call
handling obligation to a single VRS contractor through a competitive
bidding process, VRS providers, including small entities, that desire
to provide emergency call handling would have the additional regulatory
obligation of participating in a competitive bidding process. However,
those VRS providers, including small entities, that do not desire to
provide emergency call handling, would be relieved of such obligations.
90. If the Commission were to adopt new regulations regarding the
methodology for measuring compliance with the new VRS speed of answer
requirements or if the Commission were to further reduce the permitted
speed of answer time for VRS to 10 seconds for 85 percent of the calls,
VRS providers, including small entities, would be obligated to comply
with such regulations.
91. If the Commission were to explicitly require TRS providers,
including small entities, to submit additional detailed information to
the Commission, such as information regarding their financial status
(e.g., cash flow to debt ratio), the Commission would be imposing
additional reporting requirements on such providers.
92. If the Commission were to restructure Sec. 64.604 of its
rules, such restructuring would not impose additional regulatory
obligations on TRS providers, including small entities.
93. If the Commission were to prohibit TRS providers, including
small entities, from using CPNI for the purpose of contacting TRS users
for political and advocacy purposes, unless the user affirmatively
agrees to such contacts through an opt-in procedure, this would impose
additional regulatory compliance obligations on TRS providers,
including small entities.
94. If the Commission were to adopt a rule that would prohibit
unjust and unreasonable practices on the part of
[[Page 40419]]
TRS providers, it would impose additional regulatory compliance
obligations on TRS providers, including small entities.
95. If the Commission were to terminate the ``guest user''
procedure for VRS, which requires VRS providers to provide temporary
service to users while verification of the user's eligibility is
pending, the change in rules would not impose new compliance
requirements on VRS providers, including small entities, because VRS
providers are already required to refuse service to unqualified
individuals. The new requirements would simply expand the circumstances
under which individuals would be denied service.
96. If the Commission were to explicitly require that, if a VRS
provider offers a video mail feature to its customers, the provider
must ensure that video mail messages can be left by point-to-point
video callers who are customers of other VRS providers and are using
access technology provided by such other providers, VRS providers,
including small entities, would be obligated to comply with such
regulations.
97. If the Commission were to prohibit non-competition agreements
in VRS CA employment contracts, VRS providers, including small
entities, would be obligated to comply with such regulations and would
be subject to additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements if
the Commission were to require that such information be included with
certification applications and/or annual reports.
98. If the Commission were to permit VRS CAs to work from home
during the overnight hours, it would reduce the regulatory burdens on
VRS providers, including small entities, because VRS providers,
including small entities, would be afforded more flexibility with VRS
CA staffing.
99. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives, specific to small entities, that it has considered in
developing its 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 and
reporting requirements under the rule for such 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 such small
entities.''
100. In general, alternatives to proposed rules are discussed only
when those rules pose a significant adverse economic impact on small
entities. In this context, however, the proposed rules generally confer
benefits as explained below.
101. If the Commission were to adopt a mechanism whereby providers
could seek to recover the actual reasonable costs of complying with
certain of the new requirements adopted in the Report and Order,
providers, including small entities, would be subject to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with such cost
recovery. However, because compliance with such requirements would
result in cost recovery by providers, including small entities, small
entities would benefit from such recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
102. If the Commission were to adopt an auction process to award
contracts to provide service to part of the VRS market, VRS providers,
including small entities, may wish to participate. Such participation
would entail compliance with the various filing, reporting,
recordkeeping and bidding requirements associated with the action
process. However, those providers, including small entities, who were
not interested in serving the market segments subject to the auction
process would not be participating in the auction.
103. If the Commission were to adopt additional certification
requirements for VRS providers and/or other iTRS providers, small
entities would be subject to the qualification, reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance obligations. Additional
qualification and/or reporting requirements might include certain
levels of expertise or experience in the provision of interpreting
services, prior experience in the provision of TRS or VRS, assurances
of financial stability, including the provision of financial
information, the anticipated impact on the availability of community
interpreting services, and whether interpreter employment contracts
include non-compete clauses. If the Commission were to adopt any such
certification requirements, it would weigh the public interest benefits
of the new requirements against the impact on VRS and other iTRS
providers, including small entities, and would consider how to minimize
the impact on small entities. For example, since the neutral video
communication service provider would relieve small providers who elect
to utilize the common platform of the qualification, reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance obligations associated with
providing video communication service, those small entities could
potentially have fewer regulatory burdens than larger entities
utilizing their own video communication service platforms.
104. If the Commission were to extend the use of the TRS-URD to IP
Relay and IP CTS, providers of those services, including small entities
would be required to collect certain information from consumers and
enter that information in the TRS-URD. However, the TRS-URD would
actually reduce the regulatory burden on IP Relay and IP CTS providers,
including small entities, because (1) the providers would no longer be
required to verify user information, which would be accomplished
centrally by a single entity contracted by the Commission, and (2) the
providers would have reduced burdens when collecting information from
users who switch providers, because the user information of those
consumers would already be in the database.
105. If the Commission were to extend user certification and
verification requirements to IP Relay, there would be no additional
compliance obligations imposed on IP Relay providers, including small
businesses, because the user certification and verification would be
managed centrally by a Commission-contracted entity.
106. If the Commission were to extend to IP Relay and IP CTS
providers, including small entities, the option to use the platform of
the neutral video communication service provider for network
operations, such providers would be able to operate more efficiently
because they would be relieved of the obligation to provide their own
communication service platform. Although providers, including small
entities, who elect to continue to operate their own communication
service platform, would be required to ensure that such platform is
interoperable with the platform of the neutral communication service
provider, the interoperability requirement would benefit small entities
because the interoperability requirement would facilitate their ability
to compete with larger providers.
107. If the Commission were to extend to IP Relay and IP CTS
providers, including small entities, the general prohibition on
practices resulting in waste, fraud, and abuse, this would in effect be
a codification and clarification of the already existing prohibition on
such practices. Therefore, no new regulatory compliance obligations
would be imposed.
[[Page 40420]]
108. If the Commission were to extend to IP Relay and IP CTS
providers, including small entities, the requirement to adopt
regulatory compliance plans, submit such plans to the Commission and
certify that they are in compliance, these additional requirements
would result in new reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance
requirements for such providers. In determining whether to enact any
such requirements, the Commission would weigh the public interest
benefits of the new requirements in curbing waste, fraud, and abuse and
the need to control the expenditure of public funds against the impact
on VRS and other iTRS providers, including small entities, and would
consider how to minimize the impact on small entities. For example,
since the neutral video communication service provider would relieve
small providers who elect to utilize the common platform of the
compliance plan obligations associated with providing video
communication service, those small entities could potentially have
fewer regulatory burdens than larger entities utilizing their own video
communication service platforms.
109. If the Commission were to extend to IP CTS providers,
including small entities, the rules to protect consumers against
unauthorized default provider changes, also known as ``slamming,'' such
requirements would result in additional regulatory compliance
requirements for such providers. However, in addition to protecting
consumers, these requirements would also protect IP CTS providers,
including small entities, from unauthorized provider changes, thereby
enhancing the ability of such entities to compete.
110. If the Commission were to require the TRS Fund administrator
to propose changes to the Fund contribution factor with the same
periodicity as is done with the Universal Service Fund (currently
quarterly) rather than annually, such requirement may impose on TRS
providers receiving compensation from the Fund, including small
entities, a requirement to revise their usage projections more often
than the current annual requirement. Although this change would impose
an additional obligation on TRS providers, including small entities,
the change would also benefit such providers due to the fact that more
frequent revisions to the Fund contribution factor will help ensure
that there are sufficient monies in the Fund to compensate providers.
In determining whether to require TRS providers to revise their usage
projections more often, the Commission will consider how to minimize
the impact on small entities, such as considering whether to exempt
small providers from providing quarterly more often and requiring only
annual estimates from such small providers.
111. If the Commission were to permit hearing individuals to obtain
ten-digit phone numbers that would allow them to make point-to-point
video calls to VRS users, VRS providers, including small entities,
would be obligated to register and provide service to hearing users.
Since it would be prohibited to use TRS Funds to subsidize such
service, VRS providers, including small entities, either would absorb
the cost of providing such service or would collect payments for
service from the hearing users. In determining whether to adopt these
proposed regulatory changes, the Commission would weigh the benefits of
facilitating communication between individuals with hearing and speech
disabilities and individuals without such disabilities against the
additional compliance obligations on VRS providers, including small
entities.
112. If the Commission were to transfer the VRS emergency call
handling obligation to a single VRS contractor through a competitive
bidding process, VRS providers, including small entities, that desire
to provide emergency call handling would have the additional regulatory
obligation of participating in a competitive bidding process. However,
those VRS providers, including small entities, that do not desire to
provide emergency call handling, would be relieved of such obligations.
113. If the Commission were to adopt new regulations regarding the
methodology for measuring compliance with the new VRS speed of answer
requirements, VRS providers, including small entities, would be
obligated to comply with such regulations. Such regulations would be in
the public interest and would benefit VRS providers, including small
entities, because they would provide additional certainty to VRS
providers, including small entities, on how to comply with and report
compliance with the VRS speed of answer requirements. If the Commission
were to further reduce the permitted speed of answer time to 10 seconds
for 85 percent of the calls, VRS providers, including small entities,
would be required to comply with such regulations. Adopting such a
requirement would be in the public interest because it would result in
service to VRS consumers that would be comparable to the permitted
speed of answer wait time for other forms of TRS and would be more
functionally equivalent than a permitted wait time of 30 seconds for 85
percent of the calls. Nevertheless, in determining whether to further
reduce the permitted speed of answer time, the Commission will consider
how to minimize the impact on small entities, such as considering
whether to phase-in a further reduction in permitted speed of answer
time.
114. If the Commission were to explicitly require TRS providers,
including small entities, to submit additional detailed information to
the Commission, such as information regarding their financial status
(e.g., cash flow to debt ratio), the Commission would be imposing
additional reporting requirements on such providers. In determining
whether to enact such requirements, the Commission would weigh the
public interest benefits of how these requirements would help combat
waste, fraud, and abuse and help preserve the integrity of the TRS Fund
against the impact of imposing such requirements on TRS providers,
including small entities. In determining whether to require TRS
providers to provide such information, the Commission will consider how
to minimize the impact on small entities, such as considering the level
of detail that would be required of small providers.
115. If the Commission were to restructure Sec. 64.604 of its
rules, such restructuring would not impose additional regulatory
obligations on TRS providers, including small entities.
116. If the Commission were to prohibit TRS providers, including
small entities, from using CPNI for the purpose of contacting TRS users
for political and advocacy purposes, unless the user affirmatively
agrees to such contacts through an opt-in procedure, this would impose
additional regulatory compliance obligations on TRS providers,
including small entities. In deciding whether to enact such
requirements, the Commission would weigh the public interest benefits
in protecting consumers from misuse of CPNI against the impact on TRS
providers, including small entities, and would examine whether any such
requirements would infringe on the First Amendment rights of TRS
providers. For example, the Commission would consider whether there
would be a difference in terms of the First Amendment between utilizing
CPNI to help develop a contact list for political and advocacy purposes
as compared to developing a contact list for political and advocacy
purposes without the use of CPNI.
117. If the Commission were to adopt an explicit rule that would
prohibit
[[Page 40421]]
unjust and unreasonable practices on the part of TRS providers, it
would not likely impose additional regulatory compliance obligations on
TRS providers, including small entities, because a prohibition on
unjust and unreasonable practices is implicit in the current TRS
requirements.
118. If the Commission were to terminate the ``guest user''
procedure for VRS, which requires VRS providers to provide temporary
service to users while verification of the user's eligibility is
pending, the change in rules would not impose new compliance
requirements on VRS providers, including small entities, because VRS
providers are already required to refuse service to unqualified
individuals. The new requirements would simply expand the circumstances
under which individuals would be denied service.
119. If the Commission were to explicitly require that, if a VRS
provider offers a video mail feature to its customers, the provider
must ensure that video mail messages can be left by video point-to-
point callers who are customers of other VRS providers and are using
access technology provided by such other providers, VRS providers,
including small entities, would be obligated to comply with such
regulations. However, such regulations would benefit small entities
because the regulations would enhance the ability of small entities to
compete by ensuring that point-to-point callers using the services of
all VRS providers, including small entities, would be able to leave
video mail messages with consumers using any VRS provider.
120. If the Commission were to prohibit non-competition agreements
in VRS CA employment contracts, VRS providers, including small
entities, would be obligated to comply with such regulations and would
be subject to additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements if
the Commission were to require that such information be included with
certification applications and/or annual reports. However, such
regulations would benefit small entities because the regulations would
enhance the ability of small entities to compete by ensuring that all
VRS providers, including small entities, would be able to hire VRS CAs
without the pool of available VRS CAs being limited by non-competition
agreements.
121. If the Commission were to permit VRS CAs to work from home
during the overnight hours, it would reduce the regulatory burdens on
VRS providers, including small entities, because VRS providers,
including small entities, would be afforded more flexibility with VRS
CA staffing.
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), (j), 225, 251 254 and 303(r), of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), (j)
and (o), 225, 251, 254 and 303(r), document FCC 13-82 is adopted.
The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 13-82
including the Initial 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, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2013-15925 Filed 7-2-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P