Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities, 40581-40617 [2013-15926]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40581-40617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15926]



[[Page 40581]]

Vol. 78

Friday,

No. 129

July 5, 2013

Part III





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Part 64





Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2013 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 40582]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts further measures to 
improve the structure, efficiency, and quality of the video relay 
service (VRS) program, reducing the inefficiencies in the program, as 
well as reducing the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse, and ensuring that 
the program makes full use of advances in commercially-available 
technology. These measures involve a fundamental restructuring of the 
program to support innovation and competition, drive down ratepayer and 
provider costs, eliminate incentives for waste that have burdened the 
Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund in the past, and further 
protect consumers. The Commission adopts several measures in order to: 
ensure that VRS users can easily select their provider of choice by 
promoting the development of interoperability and portability 
standards; enable consumers to use off-the-shelf devices and deploying 
a VRS application to work with these devices; create a centralized TRS 
User Registration Database to ensure VRS user eligibility; encourage 
competition and innovation in VRS call handling services; spur research 
and development on VRS services by entering into a Memorandum of 
Understanding with the National Science Foundation; and pilot a 
National Outreach Program to educate the general public about relay 
services. In this document, the Commission also adopts new VRS 
compensation rates that move these rates toward actual costs over the 
next four years which will better approximate the actual, reasonable 
costs of providing VRS, and will reduce the costs of operating the 
program. The Commission takes these steps to ensure the integrity of 
the TRS Fund while providing stability and certainty to providers.

DATES: Effective August 5, 2013, except amendments to 47 CFR 
64.604(c)(13); 64.606(a)(4), (g)(3), and (g)(4); 64.611(a)(3) and (4); 
64.615(a); 64.631(a) through (d), (f); 64.634(b); 64.5105(c)(4) and 
(c)(5); 64.5107; 64.5108; 64.5109; 64.5110; 64.5111, of the 
Commission's rules which contain new information collection 
requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a separate document in 
the Federal Register announcing the effective date.

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, Report and Order 
(Order), 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 also seeks comment in an accompanying Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), 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/encyclopedia/telecommunications-relay-services-trs. 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).

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 13-82 contains new information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public to comment on 
the information collection requirements contained in document FCC 13-82 
as required by the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13 in a separate notice 
that will be published in the Federal Register.

Synopsis

    1. In the Report and Order, which is part of document FCC 13-82, 
the Commission adopts measures to improve the structure, efficiency, 
and quality of the VRS program, reduce the noted inefficiencies in the 
program, as well as reduce the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse, and 
ensure that the program makes full use of advances in commercially-
available technology.
    2. Under Title IV of the ADA, the Commission must ensure that 
telecommunications relay services (TRS) are available, to the extent 
possible and in the most efficient manner to persons in the United 
States with hearing or speech disabilities. 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.
    3. In March 2000, the Commission recognized VRS as a reimbursable 
relay service. See, e.g., 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 (2000 TRS Order). VRS allows persons with 
hearing or speech disabilities to use American Sign Language (ASL) to 
communicate in near real time through a Communication Assistant (CA), 
via video over a broadband Internet connection. VRS communications 
require the interaction of three separate yet interlinked components: 
VRS access technologies, video communication service, and relay service 
provided by ASL-fluent CAs. To initiate a VRS call, a consumer uses a 
VRS access technology to connect to an ASL-fluent CA over the Internet 
via a broadband video communication service. The CA, in turn, places an 
outbound telephone call to the called. Party. During the call, the CA 
relays the communications between the two parties, signing what the 
hearing person says to the ASL user and conveying the ASL user's 
responses in voice to the hearing person. In this manner, a 
conversation between an ALS user and a hearing person can flow in near 
real-time. The Commission remains

[[Page 40583]]

committed to fulfilling the intent of Congress to ensure the provision 
of VRS that is functionally equivalent to conventional voice telephone 
services.
    4. On December 15, 2011, the Commission released the 2011 VRS 
Reform FNPRM, seeking comment on wide-ranging proposals to improve the 
structure and efficiency of the VRS program, to ensure that the program 
is as immune as possible from the waste, fraud, and abuse that threaten 
its long-term viability, and to revisit the rate methodology used for 
compensating VRS providers. See Structure and Practices of the Video 
Relay Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking; published at 77 FR 4948, February 1, 2012 (2011 VRS Reform 
FNPRM). The Commission's implementation of section 225 of the Act 
relied heavily on competition in order to allow VRS users to choose 
among providers. However, there are shortcomings to this approach. 
First, multiple providers offer substantially similar services with no 
opportunity for price competition, as end users receive the service at 
no cost. The result is that the rates paid for VRS will be efficient 
solely insofar as the Commission can itself determine and mandate 
appropriate rates. Further, the Commission's existing rate-setting 
process inefficiently supports providers that have failed to achieve 
economies of scale. In addition, rates are based on cost information 
supplied by providers, and the FCC has not had a meaningful opportunity 
to measure the claims against facts or cost information from neutral or 
independent sources. Second, providers' self-interest in maximizing 
their compensation from the Fund may make them less effective at 
carrying out the Commission's TRS policies. The vulnerability of the 
program to waste, fraud, and abuse by providers has been well 
established. See, e.g., Structure and Practices of the Video Relay 
Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, Declaratory Ruling, Order and 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; published at 75 FR 25255, May 7, 2010 
(VRS Call Practices NPRM). Also, despite encouragement for VRS 
providers to work together to develop systems and standards that will 
facilitate compliance with the Commission's rules, the VRS industry has 
not fully achieved the standardization needed for full interoperability 
and portability.
    5. The 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM and the subsequent VRS Structure and 
Rates PN sought comment on a range of possible solutions to these 
problems. See Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service 
Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG 
Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51, Public Notice; published at 77 FR 65526, 
October 29, 2012.
    6. In the Report and Order, the Commission:
     Directs the Managing Director, in consultation with the 
Chief Technology Officer (CTO), the Chief of the Office of Engineering 
and Technology (OET), and the Chief of the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau (CGB), to determine how best to structure, fund, and 
enter into an arrangement with the National Science Foundation (NSF) 
(or cause the TRS Fund administrator to enter into such an arrangement) 
to enable research designed to ensure that TRS is functionally 
equivalent to voice telephone services and improve the efficiency and 
availability of TRS;
     Directs the Managing Director, in consultation with the 
Chief of CGB, to establish a two-to-three year pilot iTRS National 
Outreach Program (iTRS-NOP) and to select one or more independent iTRS 
Outreach Coordinators to conduct and coordinate IP Relay and VRS 
outreach nationwide under the Commission's (or the TRS Fund 
administrator's) supervision;
     Promotes the development and adoption of voluntary, 
consensus interoperability and portability standards, and to facilitate 
compliance with those standards by directing the Managing Director to 
contract for the development and deployment of a VRS access technology 
reference platform;
     Directs the Managing Director to contract for a central 
TRS user registration database (TRS-URD) 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
     Directs the Managing Director 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 without having to build their own video 
communication service platforms.
    7. In addition, the Commission accompanies these actions with more 
targeted, incremental measures to improve the efficiency of the 
program, help protect against waste, fraud and abuse, improve the 
Commission's administration of the program, and generally ensure that 
VRS users' experiences reflect the policies and goals of section 225 of 
the Act. Specifically, the Commission:
     Clarifies responsibility for disability access policy and 
TRS program administration within 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;
     More closely harmonizes the VRS speed of answers rules 
with those applicable to other forms of TRS by reducing the permissible 
wait time for a VRS call to be answered to 30 seconds, 85 percent of 
the time, and by requiring measurement of compliance on a daily basis;
     Adopts rules to protect relay consumers against 
unauthorized default provider changes, also known as ``slamming,'' by 
VRS and Internet Protocol Relay Service (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 permanently the interim rules adopted in the 2011 
iTRS Certification Order requiring that providers certify, under 
penalty of perjury, that their certification applications and annual 
compliance filings required under Sec.  64.606 of the Commission's 
rules are truthful, accurate, and complete; Structure and Practices of 
the Video Relay Service Program, Second Report and Order and Order, CG 
Docket No. 10-51; published at 76 FR 47469, August 5, 2011, and at 76 
FR 47476, August 5, 2011 (2011 iTRS Certification Order); and
     Initiates a step-by-step transition from existing, tiered 
TRS Fund compensation rates for VRS providers toward a unitary, market-
based compensation rate.

Legal Authority

    8. Section 225 of the Act defines TRS as a service that allows 
persons with hearing or speech disabilities to communicate in a manner 
that is functionally equivalent to voice telephone service. 47 U.S.C. 
225(a)(3) of the Act. Section 225 of the Act requires the Commission to 
ensure that TRS is available, to the extent possible and in the most 
efficient manner to persons with hearing or speech disabilities in the 
United States. 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1). The statute requires that the 
Commission's regulations encourage the use of existing technology and 
not discourage the development of new technology. 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(2). 
Section 225 of the Act further requires that the Commission prescribe 
regulations that,

[[Page 40584]]

among other things, establish functional requirements, guidelines, and 
operations procedures for TRS and establish minimum standards that 
shall be met in carrying out the provision of TRS. 47 U.S.C. 
225(d)(1)(A).
    9. Functional Equivalence. TRS is required by statute to provide 
telecommunication services which are functionally equivalent to voice 
services to the extent possible. Functional equivalence is, by nature, 
a continuing goal that requires periodic reassessment. The ever-
increasing availability of new services and the development of new 
technologies continually challenge the Commission to determine what 
specific services and performance standards are necessary to ensure 
that TRS is functionally equivalent to voice telephone service. See 
2000 TRS Order at paragraph 4; see also Telecommunications Relay 
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and 
Speech Disabilities, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, 
and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket Nos. 98-67 and 03-123; 
published at 68 FR 50093, August 25, 2003, and at 68 FR 50973, August 
25, 2003 (2003 TRS Order). The establishment of well-defined 
interoperability and portability standards and the deployment of the 
VRS access technology reference platform will ensure that VRS users 
actually experience the functional equivalency upon which the 
Commission' interoperability rules were predicated. Harmonizing the VRS 
speed of answers rules with those applicable to other forms of TRS and 
adopting anti-slamming and CPNI rules all will make the VRS user's 
experience more functionally equivalent to voice telephone service.
    10. ``Availability'' and ``Efficiency.'' Research will be conducted 
more efficiently under an arrangement with the NSF than it would be if 
conducted by individual providers with disparate incentives. The 
Commission's changes to the outreach program will improve the 
efficiency of the Commission's outreach efforts while simultaneously 
improving the availability of TRS through education of TRS users and 
the hearing population alike. The establishment of well-defined 
interoperability and portability standards and the deployment of the 
VRS access technology reference platform are consistent with the 
Commission's obligation to establish minimum standards for provider 
performance, and will promote efficiency in VRS provider operations. 
Establishment of a neutral video communication service provider will 
promote the availability of VRS by allowing the entrance of new, 
eligible, standalone VRS CA service providers, and will promote 
efficiency through a reduction in duplicative expenditures on video 
communication service platforms and through provider compliance with 
the Commission's interoperability mandates. The TRS-URD and the 
eligibility certification and identity verification requirements the 
Commission adopt will help to reduce the potential for waste, fraud, 
and abuse, improving the efficiency of the program and the availability 
of TRS.
    11. Fund Expenditures. Congress determined that the Commission 
should ensure that compensation is provided for the costs caused by 
interstate TRS. 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(3)(B). The Commission adopted a cost 
recovery framework that entails collecting contributions from providers 
of interstate telecommunications services to create a fund from which 
eligible TRS providers are compensated for the costs of eligible TRS 
services. Contributions to the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) are based on 
the carrier's interstate and end-user revenues. All contributions are 
placed in the Fund, which is administered by the TRS Fund 
administrator. The Commission must often balance the interests of 
contributors to the Fund, who are ratepayers with the interests of 
users of TRS. The Commission's obligation to ensure that the goals of 
the statute are met in the most efficient manner necessitates adopting 
reasonable compensation rates that do not overcompensate entities that 
provide TRS. The Commission has had four years of data demonstrating 
that VRS providers were significantly overcompensated, evidenced by a 
comparison of the best available data concerning their actual costs per 
minute to the per minute compensation they have been receiving based on 
their projected costs per minute. Because the rates the Commission 
adopt herein are demonstrably sufficient to cover the costs caused by 
VRS as reflected in the VRS providers' reported average actual and 
projected costs, the Commission concludes that these are consistent 
with the requirements in section 225 of the Act, and are consistent 
with the Commission's commitment to further the goals of functional 
equivalency through strengthening and sustaining VRS.

Structural Reforms

    12. The Commission sets forth reforms which, for certain discrete 
areas, rely on the efforts of one or more non-provider third parties to 
carry out the Commission's policies. These reforms are designed to 
improve the Commission's administration of VRS and the TRS program as a 
whole, to ensure compliance with the Commission's interoperability and 
portability requirements, and to further minimize the potential for 
waste, fraud, and abuse.

Research and Development

    13. In the past, the Commission has disallowed expenses associated 
with research and development (R&D) except to the extent that such 
expense is necessary to meet the Commission's mandatory minimum 
standards. The Commission sought comment in the 2010 VRS NOI on how and 
whether to revise its rules regarding compensation for R&D, including 
how to ensure that the results of any R&D supported by the Fund are 
fairly shared so that all providers and ultimately all users are able 
to enjoy the results. Structure and Practices of the Video Relay 
Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, Notice of Inquiry; published at 
75 FR 41863, July 19, 2010 (2010 VRS NOI). The Commission asked in the 
2011 VRS Reform FNPRM what other steps the Commission could take to 
promote R&D in VRS and other forms of TRS. In order to ensure that R&D 
on TRS not directly related to provider compliance with the 
Commission's mandatory minimum standards is conducted in an efficient 
manner, and that the results of that research benefit the public, the 
Commission directs the Managing Director, in consultation with the CTO, 
the Chief of OET, and the Chief of CGB, to determine how best to 
structure and fund research designed to further the Commission's goals 
of ensuring that TRS is functionally equivalent to voice telephone 
services and improving the efficiency and availability of TRS. The 
Commission directs the Managing Director to enter into an arrangement 
(or contract with the TRS Fund administrator to enter into an 
arrangement, if appropriate) with the NSF to conduct the research. 
After the arrangement is in place, the CTO (or, in the absence of a 
CTO, the Chief of OET, or the OET Chief's designee), shall serve as the 
Commission's primary point of contact with the NSF.

TRS Broadband Pilot Program

    14. In the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM the Commission sought comment on a 
proposal to implement a TRS Broadband Pilot Program (TRSBPP) that would 
offer discounted broadband to potential VRS users who could not other 
afford the costs of Internet access service to the extent that the 
record shows that there is unaddressed

[[Page 40585]]

demand for VRS. There is insufficient data to produce an accurate 
estimate of the number of Americans with hearing or speech disabilities 
who are fluent enough in ASL to use VRS, or the subset of those 
individuals who do not subscribe to VRS due to the expense of a 
broadband connection. Without better data on whether or to what extent 
broadband affordability constrains the availability of VRS, and without 
relevant demographic data on the number of Americans fluent in ASL, it 
is difficult to determine the demand or need for a TRSBPP. The 
Commission therefore declines to implement a TRSBPP at this time.
    15. The Commission will continue to work to ensure the availability 
and affordability of broadband to individuals who are deaf, hard of 
hearing, deaf-blind, and speech disabled not only to enable access to 
VRS, but generally to facilitate integration into and participation in 
various aspects of society. In order to promote awareness of the 
Commission's existing, wider-reaching broadband adoption initiatives, 
the Commission directs CGB to include within its national outreach plan 
efforts to build such awareness. In addition, the decision to implement 
a TRS user registration database in this Order will allow the 
Commission to identify the actual number of current VRS users, thereby 
helping the Commission to properly assess the need for a standalone 
TRSBPP in the future.

National Outreach

    16. In 1991 the Commission adopted rules requiring all common 
carriers to provide the public with information to ensure that callers 
in their service areas are aware of the availability and use of all 
forms of TRS. See Telecommunications Services for Individuals with 
Hearing and Speech Disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, CC Docket No. 90-571, Report and Order and Request for Comments; 
published at 56 FR 36729, August 1, 1991 (TRS I). The Commission and 
various stakeholders repeatedly have raised concerns about the 
effectiveness of outreach efforts on the national level, and the extent 
to which providers have characterized as ``outreach'' actions that 
would better be described as ``branded marketing,'' both for TRS in 
general and for VRS in particular. The failure to effectively educate 
the general public about the nature of TRS calls has had a negative 
effect on consumers' ability to use these services, as TRS calls are 
often rejected, frequently because of mistaken assumptions about their 
purpose.
    17. In light of the Commission's continued concerns regarding the 
effectiveness of IP Relay and VRS providers' outreach efforts, the 
Commission concludes that an Internet-based TRS National Outreach 
(iTRS-NOP) that does not rely on the efforts of individual IP Relay and 
VRS providers is necessary and appropriate to achieve the purposes of 
section 225 of the Act; that is, to fulfill Congress's intent to make 
TRS available to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner. 
The Commission believes that section 225 of the Act's directive for the 
Commission to prescribe regulations that ensure relay services are 
available * * * in the most efficient manner both make it appropriate 
to take new steps to better educate the public about the purpose and 
functions of TRS, and provides the Commission with sufficient authority 
to direct that the iTRS-NOP be funded for this purpose from TRS 
contributions as a necessary cost caused by TRS. The iTRS-NOP will 
achieve the Commission's objectives by educating merchants and other 
business in a neutral fashion about the importance of accepting 
legitimate relay calls and by eliminating duplicative outreach efforts 
by multiple providers.
    18. The Commission believes that its first efforts to coordinate IP 
Relay and VRS outreach on a nationwide basis will be best carried out 
through a pilot program of limited duration and that the outreach 
directives under the National Deaf Blind Equipment Distribution Program 
(NDBEDP) provide a useful model for such efforts. Accordingly, for each 
of the next two Fund years, with an option to extend the program for 
one additional year, the Commission directs the TRS Fund administrator 
to set aside a portion of the TRS Fund to be available for VRS 
outreach. The Commission directs the Managing Director, in consultation 
with the Chief of CGB, to (i) select one or more iTRS Outreach 
Coordinators to conduct and coordinate IP Relay and VRS outreach 
nationwide and be compensated through the Fund or (ii) contract with 
the TRS Fund administrator to enter into such arrangements under 
objectives and factors determined by the Managing Director in 
consultation with the Chief of CGB. The iTRS Outreach Coordinators 
shall not be affiliated with any iTRS provider and shall disseminate 
non-branded information to potential new-to-category users and to the 
general public about IP Relay and VRS, their purposes and benefits, and 
how to access and use these services. The Commission directs CGB to 
oversee outreach activities, which may include, but are not limited to:
     Consulting with consumer groups, IP Relay and VRS 
providers, the TRS Fund administrator, other TRS stakeholders, and 
other iTRS Outreach Coordinators, if any;
     Establishing clear and concise messaging about the 
purposes, functions, and benefits of IP Relay and VRS;
     Educating the deaf, hard of hearing, and speech disability 
consumers about the broadband adoption programs available to low-income 
families without access to broadband and VRS;
     Determining media outlets and other appropriate avenues 
for providing the general public and potential new-to-category 
subscribers with information about IP Relay and VRS;
     Preparing for and arranging for publication, press 
releases, announcements, digital postcards, newsletters, and media 
spots about IP Relay and VRS that are directed to retailers and other 
businesses, including trade associations;
     Creating electronic and media tool kits that include 
samples of the materials listed in the previous bullet, and which may 
also include templates, all of which will be for the purpose of 
facilitating the preparation and distribution of such materials by 
consumer and industry associations, governmental entities, and other 
TRS stakeholders;
     Providing materials to local, state, and national 
governmental agencies on the purposes, functions, and benefits of IP 
Relay and VRS; and
     Exploring opportunities to partner and collaborate with 
other entities to disseminate information about IP Relay and VRS.
    19. The iTRS Outreach Coordinator(s) will be expected to submit 
periodic reports to the Managing Director and the Chief of CGB on the 
measures taken pursuant to the directive above. In addition, the iTRS 
Outreach Coordinator(s) will be expected to work with and assist the 
Chief of CGB and Managing Director, as appropriate, to measure and 
report on the effectiveness of the outreach efforts taken under the 
iTRS-NOP. The iTRS Outreach Coordinator(s) selected to conduct such 
outreach must have experience in conducting nationwide promotional and 
informational programs and experience with and expertise in working 
with the deaf, hard of hearing and speech disability communities. The 
Commission directs the Chief of CGB, in consultation with the Managing 
Director, to further define the selection criteria and the nature and 
scope of the

[[Page 40586]]

IP Relay and VRS outreach program. In addition, the Commission directs 
the Chief of CGB, in consultation with the Managing Director, to assess 
the reasonableness and appropriateness of individual outreach expenses 
proposed by the selected iTRS Outreach Coordinator(s).
    20. In the first year, a maximum expenditure of $2 million is 
reasonable and sufficient funding for the iTRS-NOP. Because of the 
novel nature of these national outreach efforts, the Commission 
establishes a two-year pilot program that may extend for up to an 
additional one year, for a total of three years. The Commission is 
hopeful that the experience gained during this pilot program will help 
inform future Commission action to establish a permanent national 
outreach program for IP Relay and VRS, and potentially other forms of 
iTRS. The Commission expects that this 24- to 36-month period will give 
the Commission sufficient time to conduct and analyze the effectiveness 
of the pilot program, and determine the next steps to make such program 
permanent, or take such other actions that are necessary to ensure 
effective education on IP Relay and VRS to the American public.
    21. The selection of iTRS Outreach Coordinators does not prohibit 
IP Relay or VRS providers from otherwise providing the public with 
information about their individual relay service features, but also 
that the cost of such efforts may no longer be included in their cost 
submissions used to determine per minute compensation for IP Relay and 
VRS as ``outreach'' costs. In addition, the Commission will consider 
using its Accessibility Clearinghouse, created pursuant to the CVAA, as 
a central repository for providers who wish to provide information 
about any such features designed to address specific communication 
needs.

Interoperability and Portability Requirements

    22. The Commission acts to improve the effectiveness of its 
interoperability and portability rules. These rules, first adopted in 
2006, are intended to (i) allow VRS users to make and receive calls 
through any VRS provider, and to choose a different default provider, 
without changing the VRS access technology they use to place calls, and 
(ii) 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. Providers also must ensure that videophone equipment that 
they distribute retains certain, but not all, features when a user 
ports her number to a new default provider. Despite encouragement for 
VRS providers to work together to develop systems and standards that 
will facilitate compliance with the Commission's rules, the VRS 
industry has not fully achieved the standardization needed for full 
interoperability and portability. Further, ineffective interoperability 
rules appeared to be hindering competition between VRS providers and 
frustrating VRS users' access to off-the-shelf VRS access technology. 
The Commission therefore sought comment in the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM on 
the effectiveness of the current interoperability and portability 
requirements, and the role that existing VRS access technology 
standards or the lack thereof may play in frustrating the effectiveness 
of those requirements.
    23. As an initial step, the Commission codifies the existing 
interoperability and portability requirements in new Sec.  64.621 of 
the Commission's rules. The Commission also (i) adopts the proposal 
from the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM to clarify the scope of providers' 
interoperability and portability obligations by eliminating use of the 
term ``CPE'' in the iTRS context in favor of ``iTRS access 
technology;'' (ii) takes steps to support the development of voluntary, 
consensus standards to facilitate interoperability and portability; and 
(iii) directs that a ``VRS access technology reference platform'' be 
developed to provide a benchmark for interoperability.
    24. The Commission adopted interoperability and portability 
requirements to ensure that TRS is provided in a functionally 
equivalent manner, and its actions to improve the effectiveness of 
those requirements are likewise grounded in section 225 of the Act. The 
Commission's actions also will improve the availability of VRS by 
ensuring that consumers have ready access to all VRS providers without 
the need to switch equipment. Further, the development of 
interoperability and portability standards and the availability of a 
VRS access technology reference platform will improve the efficiency of 
the program by making it far easier for providers to design VRS access 
technologies to the appropriate standard, and to test their compliance 
with those standards prior to deployment.

Defining iTRS Access Technologies

    25. The Commission adopts the proposal from the 2011 VRS Reform 
FNPRM to clarify the scope of providers' interoperability and 
portability obligations by eliminating use of the term ``CPE'' in the 
iTRS context in favor of ``iTRS access technology.'' The Commission in 
the Internet-based TRS Numbering Order used the defined term ``CPE'' to 
describe ``TRS customer premises equipment,'' or the technology used to 
access Internet-based TRS. See, e.g., Telecommunications Relay Services 
and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, CC 
Docket No. 08-151, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking; published at 73 FR 41286, July 18, 2008 and at 73 FR 41307, 
July 18, 2008 (First Internet-Based TRS Numbering Order). The 
Commission proposed in the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM to amend Sec. Sec.  
64.605 and 64.611 of the Commission rules by replacing the term ``CPE'' 
where it appears with the term ``iTRS access technology.'' The 
Commission further proposed to define ``iTRS access technology'' as 
``any equipment, software, or other technology issued, leased, or 
provided by an Internet-based TRS provider that can be used to make or 
receive an Internet-based TRS call.'' Under this definition, any 
software, hardware, or other technology issued, leased, or otherwise 
provided to VRS or IP Relay users by Internet-based TRS providers, 
including ``provider distributed equipment'' and ``provider based 
software,'' whether used alone or in conjunction with ``off-the-shelf 
software and hardware,'' would qualify as ``iTRS access technology.'' 
The Commission adopts the original proposal, with one modification. 
``iTRS access technology'' will be defined as ``any equipment, 
software, or other technology issued, leased, or otherwise provided by 
an Internet-based TRS provider that can be used to make and receive an 
Internet-based TRS call'' to make clear that iTRS access technologies 
must provide both inbound and outbound functionality. This modification 
is consistent with existing Commission policies which require that 
Internet-based TRS users have the ability to make and receive calls. 
Given the differential treatment of VRS and IP Relay, the Commission 
further adopts the proposal to refer separately to iTRS access 
technology as ``VRS access technology'' and ``IP Relay access 
technology'' where appropriate, but decline to further disaggregate 
iTRS access technology into further sub-categories of iTRS access 
technology at this time.

Promoting Standards To Improve Interoperability and Portability

    26. There is universal support in the record for the development of 
voluntary,

[[Page 40587]]

consensus standards to facilitate interoperability and portability. 
Progress is being made under the auspices of the SIP Forum, and the 
public interest is best served by allowing that process to continue. 
The Commission directs the CTO and the Chief of OET, in consultation 
with the Chief of CGB, to coordinate Commission support of and 
participation in that process in order to ensure the timely development 
of voluntary, consensus standards to facilitate interoperability and 
portability. The Commission also delegates to the Chief of CGB, after 
consultation with the CTO and the Chief of OET, the authority to 
conduct rulemaking proceedings to incorporate into the Commission's 
rules by reference any interoperability and portability standards 
developed under the auspices of the SIP Forum, now or in future, or 
such other voluntary, consensus standard organization as may be formed 
to address these issues. Recognizing that the scope of the SIP Forum 
VRS Task Group charter extends beyond the Commission's current 
mandatory minimum standards, the Commission also delegates to Chief of 
CGB, after consultation with the CTO and the Chief of OET, the 
authority to conduct rulemaking proceedings to incorporate into the 
Commission's rules by reference as new or updated mandatory minimum 
standards any standards or recommended standards developed by the SIP 
Forum (or such other voluntary, consensus standard organization as may 
be formed to address these issues) that the Chief of CGB finds will 
advance the statutory functional equivalency mandate or improve the 
availability of TRS, in the most efficient manner. In conducting such 
rulemakings, the Chief of CGB shall provide guidance on implementation, 
including the need for a transition period for existing VRS access 
technologies, complaint resolution, or other actions necessary to 
ensure full interoperability and portability.
    27. The Commission finds that VRS interoperability and portability 
standards should include the portability of address book and speed dial 
list features. The portability of such features is critical to 
effective competition and the provision of consumer choice in VRS. If 
the standards developed and incorporated into the Commission's rules do 
not require that VRS access technology and VRS providers support a 
standard data interchange format for exporting and importing user 
personal contacts lists and user speed dial lists between VRS access 
technologies and VRS providers, the Commission directs the Chief of 
CGB, after consultation with the CTO and Chief of OET, to conduct an 
accelerated rulemaking to adopt such standards.
    28. Pending action to incorporate interoperability and portability 
standards into the Commission's rules by reference by the Chief of CGB, 
the Commission will accept a demonstration that a provider is fully 
compliant with completed SIP Forum standards or recommended standards 
as prima facie evidence of compliance with the Commission's 
interoperability and portability requirements. Compliance with any 
standards incorporated into the Commission's rules by reference or 
otherwise shall be a prerequisite for compensation from the Fund. No 
VRS provider shall be compensated for minutes of use generated by non-
standards compliant VRS access technologies or otherwise generated in a 
manner inconsistent with the Commission's rules. If a provider cannot 
reliably separate minutes of use generated through standards compliant 
VRS access technologies from those generated through non-standards 
compliant VRS access technologies, the provider will not receive 
compensation for any of the minutes.
    29. The Commission has previously urged the industry to develop 
interoperability and portability standards, but such efforts have 
proven ineffective. The Commission strongly encourages the SIP Forum's 
VRS Task Group to adhere to its proposed schedule, and to take any 
further steps identified as necessary by the Task Group with alacrity. 
Given the critical importance of this issue, the Commission will take 
such steps as are necessary to ensure the development and promulgation 
of interoperability and portability standards--including the adoption 
of standards developed outside the context of the SIP Forum--if it 
becomes apparent that the current effort has bogged down or is unlikely 
to produce the desired results.

VRS Access Technology Reference Platform

    30. The Commission directs the Managing Director to contract for 
the development and deployment of a VRS access technology reference 
platform. The lack of clearly defined interoperability and portability 
standards has made it difficult for providers to determine whether VRS 
access technologies--theirs or a competitor's--are, in fact, compliant 
with the Commission's requirements, and what steps must be taken to 
resolve interoperability and portability issues. A reference platform 
compliant with the interoperability and portability standards will 
provide a concrete example of a standards specific VRS access 
technology implementation and will allow providers to ensure that any 
VRS access technology they develop or deploy is fully compliant with 
our interoperability and portability requirements by testing their own 
devices and apps to ensure that they meet the VRS interoperability 
standards.
    31. Further, the Commission directs the FCC's Managing Director, in 
consultation with the CTO and the Chief of OET, to select, consistent 
with the Commission's neutrality criteria, a neutral party (or have the 
TRS Fund administrator select a neutral party) to develop a VRS access 
technology reference platform under contract to the Commission (or the 
TRS Fund administrator) and compensated through the Fund.
    32. The VRS access technology reference platform shall be a 
software product that is compliant with the interoperability and 
portability standards, and useable on commonly available off the shelf 
equipment and operating systems. Because it will take time to develop 
these standards, the Commission directs the Managing Director to allow 
the neutral party chosen to develop the VRS access technology reference 
platform to release ``beta'' versions of this platform at appropriate 
points in the development process, so long as procedures are in place 
to update the application as standards are established. The neutral 
party chosen to develop the VRS access technology reference platform 
also shall be required to provide appropriate levels of technical 
support during the term of the contract to entities, including 
developers, that license the VRS access technology reference platform 
and to end users, including troubleshooting technical issues that may 
arise in the placing or processing of VRS or point-to-point calls.
    33. The VRS access technology reference platform will be fully 
functioning VRS access technology; that is, it will function as current 
provider-specific products function to provide the ability to place VRS 
and point-to-point calls, including dial-around functionality, the 
ability to update the users registered location, and such other 
capabilities as are required by the Commission's rules. In order to 
maximize the benefit of this investment from the TRS Fund, the VRS 
access technology reference platform shall be available for use by the 
public and by developers. Therefore, the Managing Director shall ensure 
that the VRS

[[Page 40588]]

access technology reference platform, in addition to being compliant 
with standards developed consistent with the development of voluntary, 
consensus standards to facilitate interoperability and portability, 
performs consistently with the Commission's rules, including allowing 
users to select any VRS provider as their default provider and 
providing dial around capability and such other rules as may be adopted 
in future.
    34. The Commission defers to the Managing Director to determine the 
terms under which the VRS access technology reference platform will be 
licensed, but direct that he or she consider ``open source'' licensing 
to ensure the widest possible distribution of and use of the VRS access 
technology reference platform and, to the extent possible, underlying 
developed code. The Commission also directs that the Managing Director 
consider licensing the VRS access technology reference platform 
consistent with the tiered approach, which would allow VRS providers 
and other developers to tailor the appearance and interface of the VRS 
access technology reference platform while ensuring that its core 
functionality remains fully standards compliant.
    35. The Commission declines at this time to designate an entity 
responsible for certifying interoperability among VRS providers' VRS 
access technologies. The availability of the VRS access technology 
reference platform should enable providers to test their own products 
prior to introducing them into the market or issuing upgrades. However, 
interoperability with the VRS access technology reference platform will 
be a minimum condition for a provider's VRS access technology to be in 
compliance with the Commission's rules and thus will be a minimum 
condition for receiving compensation from the Fund for calls using such 
technology. In other words, once the VRS access technology reference 
platform is available for use, and after completion of a reasonable 
testing period that will be announced in advance, no VRS provider shall 
be compensated for minutes of use generated by the provider's VRS 
access technologies that are found to be non-interoperable with the 
reference platform. To the extent the Commission receives complaints 
regarding a VRS provider or application developer's failure to comply 
with standards developed consistent with the development of voluntary, 
consensus standards to facilitate interoperability and portability, the 
Commission will rely on existing processes to determine whether 
compliance with our rules is being achieved, whether it is appropriate 
to withhold payments, initiate an enforcement proceeding, or take other 
appropriate actions.
    36. The Commission, in its role as custodian of the Fund and the 
enforcer of the Commission's interoperability rules, must ensure that 
the platform is developed and released in an expeditious manner, can be 
updated and/or modified at the Commission's direction as standards and 
regulations evolve, is licensed in an appropriate manner, and otherwise 
is developed and maintained in a manner consistent with the 
Commission's statutory obligations and the public interest. In the 
interest of avoiding the same conflicts and delays that have hindered 
the development of consensus industry standards to date, the best 
possible platform will be procured through the Commission's contracting 
process.
    37. The VRS access technology reference platform should set a 
baseline for interoperability and should in no way impede future 
innovation. The VRS access technology reference platform will help to 
ensure interoperability and portability as required by the Commission's 
mandatory minimum standards, but should be considered only a floor, not 
a ceiling on functionality. To the extent providers wish to provide 
additional features and functions beyond those required by the industry 
standards or by the Commission's rules, the VRS access technology 
reference platform should not serve as barrier.
    38. If a VRS provider's network and the VRS access technology 
reference platform do not interoperate properly, the problem may be 
with the provider's network architecture--if only at the edge where the 
provider's network and the reference platform interface. While the 
Commission does not dictate how providers are to comply with the 
Commission's interoperability and portability requirements, they are 
nevertheless obligated to meet them--and to achieve this, they may have 
to alter the operation of their networks to ensure compatibility with 
the VRS access technology reference platform and the standards-based 
features of other VRS access technologies.

TRS User Registration Database (TRS-URD) and Eligibility Verification

    39. The Commission acts to improve the mechanism used to register 
and verify the eligibility of VRS users through creation of a TRS-URD 
and implementation of centralized eligibility verification 
requirements. Ensuring that the VRS program is as immune as possible 
from the waste, fraud, and abuse that threatens the long-term viability 
of the program as it currently operates has been a core goal of this 
proceeding. When a VRS provider engages in fraudulent practices, the 
VRS system is made inefficient and the availability of VRS for 
legitimate users is limited, contrary to section 225 of the Act. 47 
U.S.C. 225(b)(1). VRS provider practices that result in waste, fraud, 
and abuse threaten the sustainability of the TRS Fund and are directly 
linked to the efficiency and effectiveness of the TRS Fund support 
mechanisms upon which VRS providers rely for compensation. Moreover, 
such practices unlawfully shift improper costs to consumers of other 
telecommunications services, including local and long distance voice 
subscribers, interconnected VoIP, and others.
    40. To help combat such fraud, the Commission (i) directs the 
development and implementation of a TRS user registration database and 
(ii) adopts a centralized eligibility verification requirement to 
ensure that registration for VRS is limited to those who have a hearing 
or speech disability. A user registration database will provide the 
Commission, for the first time, a definitive count of the number of 
unique, active VRS users, and a tool that will allow for more effective 
auditing and compliance procedures. A centralized eligibility 
verification system will also help to prevent the registration of 
fraudulent users and therefore ensure the compensability of VRS calls 
handled and increase the efficiency of the VRS program.
    41. Development and deployment of the TRS-URD, including the 
ability to conduct eligibility verification, will impose costs that are 
covered by the TRS Fund. The price for startup and implementation of 
the TRS numbering directory database and a one year base operating 
period was $1,541,000. The cost of the TRS-URD is likely to be 
comparable, if not significantly less. The resultant improvement in 
functional equivalence and VRS availability for consumers, ease of 
compliance by providers, and overall efficiency in the operation of the 
TRS program justifies imposition of these costs.
    42. The Commission directs the FCC's Managing Director, in 
consultation with the CTO, the Chief of OET, and Chief of CGB, to 
select (or have the TRS Fund administrator select under objectives and 
factors determined by the Managing Director in consultation with the 
CTO, the Chief of OET, and Chief of CGB), consistent with the 
Commission's neutrality criteria, a neutral party to build, operate, 
and maintain a user

[[Page 40589]]

registration database under contract to the Commission (or the TRS Fund 
administrator) and compensated through the Fund. Each VRS provider 
shall be required to register each of its users, populate the database 
with the necessary information for each of its users, and query the 
database to ensure a user's eligibility for each call.
    43. The TRS-URD must have certain capabilities to allow the TRS 
Fund administrator and the Commission to: (a) receive and process 
subscriber information provided by VRS providers sufficient to identify 
unique VRS users and ensure each has a single default provider; (b) 
assign each VRS user a unique identifier; (c) allow VRS providers and 
other authorized entities to query the database to determine if a 
prospective user already has a default provider; (d) allow VRS 
providers to indicate that a VRS user has used the service; and (e) 
maintain the confidentiality of proprietary data housed in the database 
by protecting it from theft, loss, or disclosure to unauthorized 
persons. The TRS-URD cannot serve its intended purpose unless VRS 
providers populate the database with the necessary information and 
query the database to ensure a user's eligibility for each call. The 
Commission therefore adopts a rule requiring each VRS provider to 
submit to the TRS-URD administrator the following information for each 
of the users for which it serves as the default provider:
     Full name, full residential address, ten-digit telephone 
number assigned in the TRS numbering directory, last four digits of the 
Social Security number, and date of birth;
     The user's registered location information for emergency 
calling purposes;
     VRS provider name and dates of service initiation and 
termination;
     A digital copy of the user's self-certification of 
eligibility for VRS and the date obtained by the provider;
     The date on which the user's identification was verified; 
and
     The date on which the user last placed a point-to-point or 
relay call.
    44. Furthermore, prior to providing subscriber information to the 
database, the VRS provider must obtain consent from the subscriber. In 
doing so, the VRS provider must describe to the subscriber in writing 
using clear and easily understandable language the specific information 
being provided, that the information is being provided to the TRS-URD 
to ensure the proper administration of the TRS program, and that 
failure to provide consent will result in the registered user being 
denied service. VRS providers must obtain and keep a record of 
affirmative acknowledgment by every registered user of such consent.
    45. All personally identifying information will only be accessible 
for access and modification via network connections using commercially 
reasonable encryption. VRS providers must submit this information for 
existing registered users to the TRS-URD within 60 days of notice from 
the Commission that the TRS-URD is ready to accept such information. 
Calls from existing registered users that have not had their 
information populated in the TRS-URD within 60 days of notice from the 
Commission that the TRS-URD is ready to accept such information shall 
not be compensable. VRS providers must submit this information (except 
for the date on which the user last placed a point-to-point or relay 
call, which is not required for newly registered users) for users 
registered after the TRS-URD is operational upon initiation of service. 
We require that the TRS-URD be capable of receiving and processing data 
provided by VRS providers both in real-time and via periodic batches. 
The Commission directs the Managing Director to ensure that the TRS-URD 
administrator specifies how VRS providers must submit data to the 
database subject to both real-time and batch processes.
    46. Per Call Validation. In order to ensure the compensability of 
each call, VRS providers shall validate the eligibility of a user by 
querying the TRS-URD on a per-call basis. Such validation shall occur 
during the call setup process, prior to the placement of the call. If a 
caller's eligibility cannot be validated using the TRS-URD, the call 
shall not be placed, and the VRS provider shall either terminate the 
call or, if appropriate, offer to register the user if they are able to 
demonstrate eligibility. Calls that are not completed because the 
user's eligibility cannot be validated shall not be included in speed 
of answer calculations. In order to ensure that emergency calls are 
processed as expeditiously as possible, the Commission excepts 
emergency calls from this requirement.
    47. Unique User Identifiers. The TRS-URD shall assign a unique 
identifier to each user in the TRS-URD. The Commission directs the TRS-
URD administrator to determine the form that this unique identifier 
should take, and the standards and practices associated with assigning 
and managing the unique identifier, in connection with the contracting 
process.
    48. Ensuring Data Integrity. In order to ensure the integrity of 
the data in the TRS-URD, it is important to periodically remove 
information for users who are no longer using VRS (e.g., due to death 
of the user). The Managing Director will ensure that the TRS-URD 
administrator removes users from the TRS-URD if they have neither 
placed nor received a VRS or point to point call in a one year period. 
Users that are removed from the TRS-URD may, of course, reregister at a 
later time. If a VRS provider is notified by one of its registered 
users that the user no longer wants use of a ten-digit number or the 
provider obtains information that the user is not eligible to use the 
service, the VRS provider must request that the TRS-URD administrator 
remove the user's information from the database and may not seek 
compensation for providing service to the ineligible user. The TRS-URD 
administrator shall honor such requests.
    49. Security. The data housed in the TRS-URD may include sensitive 
personal information. The TRS-URD must have sufficient safeguards to 
maintain the proprietary or personal nature of the information in the 
database by protecting it from theft or loss. An important component of 
maintaining the appropriate level of privacy and data security will be 
limiting access to the database to authorized entities and then only 
for authorized purposes. The TRS-URD is not to be used for purposes 
that do not further the efficient operation and administration of the 
VRS program, and the Commission authorizes use by providers only for 
the reasons specified herein, and to determine whether information with 
respect to its registered users already in the database is correct and 
complete. Moreover, the Commission specifically prohibits providers 
from conducting lookups in the TRS-URD to identify other VRS providers' 
customers for marketing purposes, including win-back efforts. The 
Managing Director shall ensure that the minimum number of entities has 
access to the TRS-URD, that such access is utilized only for authorized 
purposes, and that the data available to a provider in a given 
circumstance is limited to the minimum necessary.
    50. The exact form of the data elements in the database, the 
structure of the database, and other detailed implementation issues 
shall be specified during the contracting process. It may become 
necessary, over time, to modify the data that is to be stored in the 
database or otherwise make changes to the way the database is 
administered, structured, or interacted with so as to ensure the 
efficient administration of the program. To facilitate the ability to

[[Page 40590]]

respond to such necessary changes efficiently, the Commission delegates 
to the Managing Director (or the TRS Fund administrator, if appropriate 
with the approval of the Managing Director) the authority to modify the 
TRS-URD contract as necessary to implement changes that are necessary 
to ensure the efficient administration of the program.

Certification of Eligibility and Verification of Identity

    51. The Commission requires every VRS provider to obtain from each 
registered user a self-certification of eligibility and to implement a 
centralized identity verification requirement to ensure that 
registration for VRS is limited to those who have a hearing or speech 
disability. The Commission declines to relieve VRS providers of their 
obligation to register users for whom they are the default provider by 
centralizing that process. VRS providers identify and sign up users 
through their marketing efforts, and have staff that are trained in ASL 
and customer registration, and are therefore well equipped to gather 
from users and potential users the information necessary to register, 
certify, and verify the eligibility of registrants. It would be 
difficult, if not impossible, to find a third party with the incentive 
and ability to conduct those tasks effectively.

Certification of Eligibility

    52. In order to be eligible for compensation from the TRS Fund for 
providing service to their registered VRS users, each provider is 
required to obtain from each registered user and submit to the TRS-URD 
a written self-certification that the user has a hearing or speech 
disability that makes them eligible to use VRS to communicate in a 
manner that is functionally equivalent to communication by conventional 
voice telephone users.
    53. VRS providers shall require their CAs to terminate any call 
that does not involve an individual that uses ASL or that otherwise, 
pursuant to the provider's policies, procedures, and practices as 
described in its annual compliance plan, does not appear to be a 
legitimate VRS call, and VRS providers may not submit such calls for 
compensation from the Fund.
    54. VRS providers shall submit to the TRS-URD a properly executed 
certification of eligibility for each of their existing registered 
users within 60 days of a public notice from the Managing Director 
providing notice that the TRS-URD is ready to accept information. VRS 
providers shall submit a properly executed certification for ``new to 
category'' users at the time of registration. When registering a user 
that is transferring service from another VRS provider, VRS providers 
shall obtain and submit a properly executed certification if a query of 
the TRS-URD shows a properly executed certification has not been filed. 
The Commission also requires each VRS provider to maintain the 
confidentiality of such registration and certification information 
obtained by the provider, and to not disclose such registration and 
certification information, as well as the content of such information, 
except upon request of the FCC, the TRS Fund administrator, or the TRS-
URD administrator or as otherwise required by law.
    55. The user self-certification mandated by these rules must adhere 
to several requirements. In particular, a VRS provider must obtain from 
each user self-certification that: (1) the user has a hearing or speech 
disability that makes the user eligible to use VRS; and (2) the user 
understands that the cost of the VRS calls is paid for by contributions 
from other telecommunications users to the TRS Fund. In addition, this 
self-certification must be made on a form separate from any other user 
agreement, and requires a separate signature specific to the self-
certification.

Verification of Identity

    56. A centralized process by which the identity of users is 
verified would help to prevent the registration of fraudulent users and 
therefore ensure the compensability of VRS calls handled and increase 
the efficiency of the VRS program. VRS providers are in the best 
position to gather information necessary to verify user identity but 
conducting all verifications through a single, centralized process will 
ensure that all users meet the verification standards mandated by the 
Commission. Further, it is highly likely that requiring all VRS 
providers to conduct identity verification through a central process 
will result in cost savings. The Fund will almost certainly be able to 
negotiate a contract for verification services for all providers that 
is less expensive than the sum of the individual contracts that would 
need to be negotiated by each VRS provider.
    57. The Commission directs the Managing Director to ensure that the 
TRS-URD has the capability of performing an identification verification 
check when a VRS provider or other party submits a query to the 
database about an existing or potential user. The criteria for 
identification verification shall be established by the Managing 
Director in consultation with the CTO and the Chief of OET. VRS 
providers shall not register individuals that do not pass the 
identification verification check conducted through the TRS-URD, and 
shall not seek compensation for calls placed by such individuals.

Neutral Video Communication Service Provider

    58. VRS communications require the interaction of three separate 
yet interlinked components: VRS access technologies, video 
communication service, and relay service provided by ASL-fluent CAs. In 
the VRS Structure and Rates PN, the Commission sought comment on 
specific proposals to disaggregate these components, including a 
proposal by CSDVRS to require an industry structure in which all 
providers of VRS CA services would utilize an enhanced version of the 
TRS numbering directory to provide features such as user registration 
and validation, call routing, and usage accounting. Additional Comment 
Sought on Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service (VRS) 
Program and on Proposed VRS Compensation Rates, CC Docket Nos. 03-123 
and 10-51, Public Notice and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 
published at 77 FR 65526, October 29, 2012 (VRS Structure and Rates 
PN). In effect, the CSDVRS proposal would separate the video 
communication service component of VRS from the VRS CA service 
component by providing the functions of the former from an enhanced 
database (``enhanced iTRS database''). The Commission chooses not to 
require that all providers utilize a single video communication service 
provider at this time. In lieu of requiring all VRS providers to use a 
single video communication service platform, the Commission 
establishes, by contract, a neutral video communication service 
provider that will allow consumers to connect to the ``standalone'' VRS 
CA service provider of their choice. The neutral video communication 
service provider will provide 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.
    59. The creation of a neutral video communication service provider 
will have multiple beneficial effects, the most obvious being in the 
promotion of more efficient and effective VRS CA service competition. 
The availability of a neutral platform will eliminate a significant 
barrier to entry: the cost of

[[Page 40591]]

building and maintaining a video communication service platform. 
Standalone VRS CA service providers are likely to focus their efforts 
on distinguishing themselves through innovation in the provision of 
high-quality ASL interpretation and the hiring of interpreters who can 
meet a wide variety of VRS user communication needs. A neutral video 
communication service provider also will provide the Commission direct 
insight into the operation of the video communication service component 
of VRS. The Commission will be better able to assess the costs of 
operating a platform and to develop platform related performance 
metrics, potentially including metrics that go beyond simple ``speed of 
answer'' requirements. Further, a neutral video communication service 
provider will serve, at least in part, the same functions as the VRS 
access technology reference platform with respect to ensuring 
interoperability between providers. The neutral video communication 
service provider contract will mandate full compliance with industry 
established interoperability standards, thereby providing a neutral 
platform against which interoperability issues can be tested. The 
availability of this neutral video communication service provider also 
will allow the Commission to be better able to assess claims that 
independent products or services are not compliant with the 
Commission's interoperability rules. As with the VRS access technology 
reference platform, all providers' VRS access technologies and (in the 
case of vertically integrated providers) video communication service 
platforms must be interoperable with the neutral video communication 
service provider's service platform, including for point-to-point 
calls. After completion of a reasonable testing period that will be 
announced in advance, the neutral video communication service provider 
will begin providing service to standalone VRS CA service providers, 
and from that point on, no VRS provider shall be compensated for 
minutes of use involving VRS access technologies or video communication 
service platforms that are not interoperable with the neutral video 
communication service provider's platform.
    60. Aside from this interoperability obligation, existing, 
vertically integrated providers of VRS are in no way obligated to 
utilize the neutral video communication service provider, and may 
continue to deliver VRS over their existing platforms consistent with 
the Commission's rules. Given the complexity that would result from 
allowing vertically integrated providers to process calls both over 
their own video communication service platforms and the neutral video 
communication service platform the Commission adopts, only providers 
choosing to operate as standalone VRS CA service providers will be 
permitted to utilize the neutral video communication service platform 
to process VRS calls. Existing, vertically integrated VRS providers 
that wish to transition to operation as a standalone VRS CA service 
provider may do so upon 60 days notice to the Commission.

Neutral Video Communication Service Provider Performance Requirements

    61. The Commission directs the FCC's Managing Director, in 
consultation with the CTO, the Chief of OET, and the Chief of CGB, to 
select, consistent with the Commission's neutrality criteria, a neutral 
party to build, operate, and maintain a neutral video communication 
service platform under contract to the Commission and compensated 
through the Fund. The Commission further directs the Managing Director 
to take the following guidance into account when contracting for the 
neutral video communication service provider.
    62. Quality of service. The Managing Director, in consultation with 
the Chief of CGB, shall specify appropriate benchmarks for service 
quality, including benchmarks for availability, dropped calls, and call 
signaling delay, consistent with existing Commission requirements.
    63. Standards compliance. The neutral video communication service 
platform must conform to all standards incorporated into the 
Commission's rules by reference. By extension, the neutral video 
communication service platform must be interoperable with the VRS 
access technology platform and other standards compliant VRS access 
technologies. To the extent the neutral video communication service 
provider develops and releases iTRS access technology, that iTRS access 
technology must comply with the Commission's rules.
    64. Backwards compatibility. The neutral video communication 
service platform should provide a reasonable level of backwards 
compatibility with the installed base of existing VRS access 
technologies.
    65. Functionality. The Managing Director shall ensure that the 
neutral video communication service provider provides all of the 
operational, technical, and functional capabilities specified in the 
Commission's rules that are not otherwise fulfilled by VRS access 
technology or a standalone VRS CA service provider. Such requirements 
include, but are not limited to, routing and delivery of VRS calls to 
and from the PSTN with interpretation from the user's registered 
provider, routing of point-to-point calls, and delivery of calling 
party identifying information. The neutral video communication service 
platform shall be available 24 hours a day. The neutral video 
communication service platform shall ensure appropriate processing of 
emergency calls, using the user's registered standalone VRS CA service 
provider for interpretation services. Specifically, the technical 
requirements shall specify that the neutral video communication service 
provider provides each standalone VRS CA service provider with the 
functionality necessary to comply with Sec.  64.605(b) of the 
Commission's rules.
    66. The neutral video communication service provider also shall 
provide such functionality as is required to allow standalone VRS CA 
service providers to fulfill their registration obligations under Sec.  
64.611 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, the neutral video 
communication service provider will act on behalf of standalone VRS CA 
service providers to obtain and assign ten digit telephone numbers to 
consumers during the user registration process, route and deliver 
inbound and outbound calls, interface with the TRS Numbering Directory, 
interface with the TRS-URD, and facilitate any necessary actions as 
pertain to toll-free numbers.
    67. Additionally, the neutral video communication service provider 
shall provide standard interfaces and protocols through which 
standalone VRS CA service providers will provide interpretation 
services and send and receive such information as is necessary to 
ensure compliance with the Commission's rules. The neutral video 
communication service provider shall deliver to standalone VRS CA 
service providers such information as is necessary for the standalone 
VRS CA service provider to process the call and maintain such records 
as are necessary to allow them to seek compensation from the TRS Fund. 
The neutral video communication service platform also shall provide 
advanced capabilities as specified by CGB including video mail and 
address book capabilities.
    68. Scalability. The neutral video communication service platform 
will necessarily carry few minutes of use at the initiation of its 
operations, but is likely to attract additional minutes of use over 
time. The neutral video communication service platform

[[Page 40592]]

provider therefore must ensure that the platform, in addition to having 
the capacity to process initial levels of call volume, be scalable 
(i.e., be able to handle increasing amounts of traffic over time as 
demand warrants) on a reasonable timeline.
    69. Customer service. The neutral video communication service 
provider shall provide appropriate levels of customer service both to 
standalone VRS CA service providers and to end users, including 
troubleshooting technical issues that may arise in the placing or 
processing of VRS or point-to-point calls.

Stakeholder Concerns

    70. Given that no VRS provider will be required to utilize the 
neutral video communication service provider, the Commission need not 
address general concerns expressed by commenters regarding a ``command 
and control'' approach to VRS that would disrupt existing business 
models and putatively damage competition, innovation, and customer 
satisfaction. Nevertheless, to the extent that some of these concerns 
could be applicable to the approach the Commission adopts, the 
Commission addresses each in turn.
    71. Privacy and Security. While it is not clear how the neutral 
video communication service provider would pose any greater (or lesser) 
risk to consumer data than does an integrated provider, the neutral 
video communication service provider may possess or have access to 
sensitive personal information. The neutral video communication service 
provider must, therefore, have sufficient safeguards to maintain the 
proprietary or personal nature of the information in its possession by 
protecting it from theft or loss.
    72. Fraud. The availability of a centralized communication service 
platform may increase the risk that ``fly-by-night'' VRS CA service 
providers will seek to defraud the TRS Fund. However, standalone VRS CA 
service providers must go through a certification process like other 
VRS providers before they are eligible to seek compensation from the 
TRS Fund. This certification process, taken in combination with the 
Commission's improved ability to audit data on VRS calls processed by 
the neutral video communication service provider, will be sufficient to 
protect the Fund against this kind of waste, fraud, and abuse.
    73. Service quality. A centralized provider may not be incented to 
provide quality services, but the services of the neutral video 
communication service provider are essentially ``mechanical'' in nature 
and can be quantified using well-understood industry-standard metrics 
such as call signaling delay and availability. Appropriately developed 
service quality benchmarks specified by contract are sufficient to 
ensure that the neutral video communication service provider will 
provide an appropriate level of performance. Any neutral video 
communication service provider that hopes to win a renewal of its 
contract will be strongly incented to perform.
    74. Compensation. Changes to the structure of the VRS program will 
require changes to the existing compensation system. The Commission 
will modify the way that vertically integrated providers are 
compensated and set in place a reasonable glide path to market based 
rates--a process the Commission began years ago. The Commission 
proposes to transition to a ratemaking approach that makes use of 
competitively established pricing, i.e., contract prices set through a 
competitive bidding process, where feasible.
    75. Customer confusion. The provision of VRS through disaggregated 
service providers may result in customer confusion and poor customer 
service if consumers do not know who to contact to resolve technical 
difficulties and other problems.This Order ensures that consumers may 
choose to obtain service from an integrated provider or from a 
standalone VRS CA service provider utilizing the neutral video 
communication service platform. To the extent consumers are 
dissatisfied with their existing registered provider, they may choose a 
different one.

Standalone VRS CA Service Provider Standards

    76. The availability of a neutral video communication service 
platform will lower the barriers to entry in the provision of VRS CA 
service. This will promote more effective and efficient competition on 
the basis of service quality, including interpreter quality and the 
capabilities to handle the varied needs of VRS users. This can be 
accomplished consistently with maintaining strong certification 
criteria and service standards and without affording additional 
opportunities for fraud, abuse, or waste.
    77. General obligations. Standalone VRS CA service providers shall 
be providers of VRS and shall be obligated to comply fully with the 
Commission's TRS regulations, with one general exception: a standalone 
VRS CA service provider must utilize the neutral video communication 
service platform to fulfill those obligations not directly related to 
the provision of VRS CA service. The Commission therefore revises Sec.  
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(iii) of the Commission's rules to allow 
standalone VRS CA service providers to utilize the neutral video 
communication service platform for the provision of platform functions. 
Standalone VRS CA service providers shall be responsible for providing 
VRS CA service and ensuring that the neutral video communication 
service provider has the information it needs to fulfill these 
obligations on its behalf. The Commission will not, however, hold a 
standalone VRS CA service provider responsible for any action, or 
failure to act, by the neutral video communication service provider 
involving the non-CA service functions for which the neutral video 
communication service provider is responsible.
    78. Certification. The Commission has adopted rigorous rules 
governing iTRS provider practices and eligibility, certification, and 
oversight. Like any other iTRS provider, standalone VRS CA service 
providers must comply with these rules. In complying with the 
certification requirements set forth in Sec.  64.606 of the 
Commission's rules, standalone VRS CA service providers shall, in their 
description of the technology and equipment used to support their call 
center functions, describe (a) how they provide connectivity to the 
neutral video communication service provider, and (b) how they 
internally route calls to CAs and then back to the neutral video 
communication service provider. Standalone VRS CA service providers 
need not describe ACD functionality if it is not used for these 
purposes, as standalone VRS CA service providers will not operate their 
own video communication service platforms.
    79. Registration. A standalone VRS CA service provider shall 
fulfill its obligations under Sec.  64.611(a), (c), (d), and (e) of the 
Commission's rules through the Commission-contracted neutral video 
communication service provider. The standalone VRS CA service provider 
shall be responsible for providing interpretation service and gathering 
and delivering such information from its users to the neutral video 
communication service provider as is necessary to ensure the 
obligations set forth in Sec.  64.611 are fulfilled. For the sake of 
clarity, standalone VRS CA service providers also must comply with 
Sec.  64.611(f) and (g) of the Commission's rules.
    80. Speed of Answer. Standalone VRS CA service providers shall be 
responsible for meeting the Commission's speed of answer

[[Page 40593]]

requirements as measured from the time a VRS call reaches the signaling 
servers or user agents operated by the standalone VRS CA service 
provider.
    81. TRS Facilities. Standalone VRS CA service providers shall 
fulfill their obligations regarding TRS facilities, except that they 
are not required to provide a copy of a lease or licensing agreement 
for an ACD unless it is used in the provision of CA service.

Delineating Responsibility Between the Neutral Video Communication 
Service Provider and Standalone VRS CA Service Providers

    82. Absence evidence to the contrary, the Commission will generally 
delineate responsibility based on ownership or control of the network 
elements responsible for a failure. For example, a standalone VRS CA 
service provider will not be responsible for a service interruption 
pursuant to Sec.  64.606(h) of the Commission's rules if that 
interruption results from an outage of the neutral video communication 
service provider's network. Violations attributable to the neutral 
video communication service provider will be addressed through contract 
enforcement provisions. Violations attributable to the provision of CA 
service will be addressed through existing Commission procedures. A VRS 
CA service provider is also responsible for ensuring that the neutral 
video communication service provider has the information it needs to 
fulfill non-VRS CA service functions.

Implementation of Structural Reforms

Neutrality Requirements

    83. Building, maintaining, and/or operating the TRS-URD, the VRS 
access technology reference platform, and the neutral video 
communication service platform will best be done by one or more neutral 
third parties under contract to the Commission and compensated through 
the Fund. The neutral administrator of the TRS-URD, the neutral video 
communication service provider, and the neutral administrator of the 
VRS access technology reference platform each: (1) Must be a non-
governmental entity that is impartial and is not an affiliate of any 
Internet-based TRS provider; (2) may not themselves, or any affiliate, 
issue a majority of its debt to, nor derive a majority of its revenues 
from, any Internet-based TRS provider; and (3) notwithstanding the 
neutrality criteria set forth in (1) and (2) above, may be determined 
by the Commission to be or not to be subject to undue influence by 
parties with a vested interest in the outcome of TRS-related 
activities. See Sec.  52.12(a)(1)(iii) of the Commission's rules. Any 
subcontractor that performs functions of the neutral administrator of 
the TRS-URD, the neutral video communication service provider, and/or 
the neutral administrator of the VRS access technology reference 
platform each must also meet these neutrality criteria.

Cost Recovery

    84. 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. The 
Commission does not routinely grant extraordinary cost recovery for new 
regulations, and does not believe that the providers' additional costs 
necessary to implement the requirements adopted herein will be 
substantial. Thus, the Commission does not find it appropriate to grant 
additional extraordinary cost recovery in connection with this Order, 
particularly given that providers currently are compensated well above 
their actual costs.

Additional Reforms

Improving the Commission's Operations

    85. The Commission has delegated authority for disability access 
policy to CGB, stating that CGB ''advises and makes recommendations to 
the Commission, or acts for the Commission under delegated authority, 
in matters pertaining to persons with disabilities. 47 CFR 0.141(f) of 
the Commission's rules. However, in document FCC 13-82, the Commission 
delegates financial oversight of the TRS Fund to the Managing Director. 
Nonetheless, such financial oversight must be consistent with the TRS 
Orders, rules, and policies, and OMD should consult with CGB on issues 
that potentially could impact the availability, provision, and 
continuity of services to consumers. Enforcement regarding TRS will 
continue to be carried out under the existing authority delegated to 
CGB, OMD, and the Enforcement Bureau, as appropriate.
    86. CGB will retain authority over TRS policy matters. OMD will be 
responsible for management of all TRS related contracts and 
contractors, including the TRS Fund administration contract/TRS Fund 
administrator, and the TRS-URD contract adopted pursuant to this Order. 
In addition, OMD will be responsible for overseeing TRS Fund audits 
performed by the TRS Fund administrator, responding (jointly with CGB, 
if appropriate) to the FCC's Office of Inspector General audits of the 
TRS Fund, advising the TRS Fund administrator on payment withholding 
and other financial decisions, and reviewing TRS Fund contribution 
factor calculations.
    87. To meet this clarified responsibility, the Commission notes 
that the Managing Director has recently designated an FCC employee to 
serve as a TRS Fund Program Coordinator, which the Commission believes 
will help OMD to carry out its responsibilities with regard to the TRS 
Fund. The Commission directs that the Contracting Officer's 
Representatives (CORs) for all TRS related contracts shall provide 
support to the TRS Fund Program Coordinator. In addition, the TRS Fund 
Program Coordinator will coordinate with CGB, the Managing Director, 
and all other relevant Bureaus and Offices as needed to appropriately 
oversee the TRS Fund, and will establish and oversee appropriate 
processes for coordination of Commission staff with the CORs who 
oversee TRS contracted entities in accordance with their prescribed 
contractual duties. Issues that could expand the scope of the contract 
work, extend the length of the contract, or raise the price of 
performance must be coordinated with the Contracting Officer.

General Prohibitions on Practices Causing Unreasonable Discrimination 
and Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

    88. The 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM, proposed to adopt regulations that 
generally prohibit VRS provider practices that discriminate against 
particular users or classes of users or that otherwise result in waste, 
fraud, or abuse of the TRS Fund. The Commission concludes that the most 
appropriate course is to adopt a regulation that mirrors the 
prohibitions in Section 202(a) of the Act. Section 202(a) of the Act 
generally prohibits common carriers from engaging in unjust or 
unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, 
etc., or giving undue or unreasonable advantages or disadvantages to 
any customer or class of customers, in connection with communications 
service 42 U.S.C. 202(a). Such a requirement that furthers the 
``functional equivalence'' purpose of section 225 of the Act by 
providing safeguards against discrimination in the provision of relay 
services equivalent to those generally applicable to carriers in their 
provision of voice communication services. Accordingly, the Commission

[[Page 40594]]

amends Sec.  64.604 of the Commission's rule to provide that:
    ``(c)(12) A VRS provider shall not (1) directly or indirectly, by 
any means or device, engage in any unjust or unreasonable 
discrimination related to practices, facilities, or services for or in 
connection with like relay service, (2) engage in or give any undue or 
unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of 
persons, or locality, or (3) subject any particular person, class of 
persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or 
disadvantage.''
    89. The Commission intends that this rule be interpreted and 
applied in the same manner that section 202(a) of the Act is applied to 
common carriers, i.e., that this rule will prohibit VRS providers from 
discriminating in connection with ``like'' relay service to the same 
extent that section 202(a) of the Act prohibits common carriers from 
discriminating in connection with ``like'' communication service.
    90. The Commission also adopts a general prohibition on VRS 
providers engaging in fraudulent, abusive, and wasteful practices, 
i.e., practices that threaten to drain the TRS Fund by causing or 
encouraging (1) False TRS Fund compensation claims, (2) unauthorized 
use of VRS, (3) the making of VRS calls that would not otherwise be 
made, or (4) the use of VRS by consumers who do not need the service in 
order to communicate in a functionally equivalent manner.
    91. To prevent practices that cause or encourage unauthorized or 
unnecessary use of relay services, the Commission amends Sec.  64.604 
of the Commission's rules to provide that:
    ``(c)(13) A VRS provider shall not engage in any practice that 
causes or encourages, or that the provider knows or has reason to know 
will cause or encourage (1) false or unverified claims for TRS Fund 
compensation, (2) unauthorized use of VRS, (3) the making of VRS calls 
that would not otherwise be made, or (4) the use of VRS by persons who 
do not need the service in order to communicate in a functionally 
equivalent manner. A VRS provider shall not seek payment from the TRS 
Fund for any minutes of service it knows or has reason to know are 
resulting from such practices. Any VRS provider that becomes aware of 
such practices being or having been committed by any person shall as 
soon as practicable report such practices to the Commission or the TRS 
Fund administrator.''
    92. The Commission intends that this rule encompass, but not be 
limited by, the Commission's numerous prior declaratory rulings 
describing wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive practices that violate 
section 225 of the Act. For purposes of the amended rule, a practice is 
prohibited where, for example, it artificially stimulates TRS usage, 
enables or encourages participation by unauthorized users, or uses 
financial incentives to attract new TRS users or to increase usage. 
This list is provided by way of example only and is not intended to be 
exhaustive. Providers are in the best position to identify anomalies 
and tends based on analysis of their call traffic and abuses detected 
by CAs. The Commission expects each provider to be diligent in ensuring 
its practices do not result in waste, fraud, or abuse. All monies paid 
from the Fund to providers who are in violation of this rule shall be 
recoverable by the TRS Fund administrator.

Provider Compliance Plans

    93. Although the Commission's rules currently require VRS providers 
who have received Commission certification to submit annual reports 
providing evidence of ongoing compliance with our minimum standards, 
its rules do not specifically require the development of or submission 
to the Commission of an annual compliance plan addressing waste, fraud, 
and abuse, comparable to what is required of Lifeline-only carriers. To 
provide an improved mechanism for ensuring that providers have taken 
adequate steps and adopted sufficient measures to prevent waste, fraud, 
and abuse, the Commission amends Sec.  64.606(g) of the Commission's 
rules to add the following requirements:
    (g)(3) Each VRS provider shall include within its annual report a 
compliance plan describing the provider's policies, procedures, and 
practices for complying with the requirements of Sec.  64.604(c)(13) of 
the Commission's rules. Such compliance plan shall include, at a 
minimum: (i) identification of any officer(s) or managerial employee(s) 
responsible for ensuring compliance with Sec.  64.604(c)(13) of the 
Commission's rules, (ii) a description of any compliance training 
provided to the provider's officers, employees, and contractors, (iii) 
identification of any telephone numbers, Web site addresses, or other 
mechanisms available to employees for reporting abuses, (iv) a 
description of any internal audit processes used to ensure the accuracy 
and completeness of minutes submitted to the TRS Fund administrator, 
and (v) a description of all policies and practices that the provider 
is following to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund. A 
provider that fails to file a compliance plan as directed shall not be 
entitled to compensation for the provision of VRS during the period of 
noncompliance.
    (4) If, at any time, the Commission determines that a VRS 
provider's compliance plan currently on file is inadequate to prevent 
waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund, the Commission shall so notify 
the provider, shall explain the reasons the plan is inadequate, and 
shall direct the provider to correct the identified defects and submit 
an amended compliance plan reflecting such correction within a 
specified time period not to exceed 60 days. A provider that fails to 
comply with such directive shall not be entitled to compensation for 
the provision of VRS during the period of noncompliance. A submitted 
compliance plan shall not be prima facie evidence of the plan's 
adequacy; nor shall it be evidence that the provider has fulfilled its 
obligations under Sec.  64.604(c)(13) of the Commission's rules.

Speed of Answer

    94. The Commission sought comment in the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM on 
whether to update its VRS ``speed of answer'' rules, which require VRS 
providers to answer 80 percent of all VRS calls within 120 seconds, 
measured on a monthly basis. The record demonstrates that it is 
appropriate to take steps to more closely align the VRS speed of answer 
rules with those applicable to other forms of TRS by reducing the 
permissible wait time for a VRS call to be answered to 30 seconds, 85 
percent of the time, and to measure compliance on a daily basis.
    95. Wait time. VRS providers already achieve a speed of answer of 
30 seconds for the majority of VRS calls. The Commission therefore 
finds it reasonable to reduce the permissible wait time for VRS calls 
to 30 seconds. This 30 second requirement deviates from the 10 second 
speed of answer standard required for other forms of TRS, but given 
that VRS providers already are largely achieving this standard at 
current CA staffing levels, this action will set a new standard for VRS 
provider performance without additional cost to providers or the TRS 
Fund.
    96. Compliance threshold. Consistent with the Commission's rules 
for other forms of TRS, the Commission increases from 80 to 85 percent 
the number of calls that a provider must answer within the allowable 
wait time. The Commission previously has found that an 85 percent speed 
of answer compliance threshold allows providers sufficient leeway to 
compensate for

[[Page 40595]]

abandoned calls and fluctuations in call traffic.
    97. Measurement window. Consistent with the Commission's rules for 
other forms of TRS, the Commission requires a daily (rather than 
monthly) measurement of compliance with the Commission's VRS speed of 
answer standard. Given that providers now have more than a decade of 
experience managing CA staffing levels and already are largely meeting 
the 30 second wait time requirement the Commission adopts, deviating 
from the measurement window the Commission applies to other forms of 
TRS is no longer necessary.
    98. Calculating speed of answer. In the 2005 VRS Speed of Answer 
Order, the Commission concluded that ``the speed of answer measurement 
begins when the VRS provider's equipment accepts the call from the 
Internet.'' See e.g., Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-
Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, 
CC Docket Nos. 98-67 and 03-123; Report and Order; published at 70 FR 
51649, August 1, 2005 (2005 VRS Speed of Answer Order). Because VRS 
users can now dial the number they wish to call, and the connection of 
the call to the called party no longer requires the VRS provider to 
obtain telephone numbers and other information from VRS users, the 
Commission now clarifies that the speed of answer will be measured 
based on the elapsed time between the time at which the call (whether 
initiated by a hearing or ASL user) is first delivered to the 
provider's system (handoff time) until the call is either abandoned 
(call termination time) or answered by any method which results in the 
caller's call immediately being placed, not put in a queue or on hold 
(session start time). This clarification mirrors Sec.  64.604(b)(2)(ii) 
of the Commission's rules governing speed of answer for other forms of 
TRS, which requires that 85 percent of all calls ``be answered within 
10 seconds by any method which results in the caller's call immediately 
being placed, not put in a queue or on hold.'' 47 CFR 64.604(b)(2)(ii) 
of the Commission's rules. Calls that are not completed because the 
user's eligibility cannot be validated shall not be included in speed 
of answer calculations.
    99. Phase In. To allow providers to adjust their operations, as 
necessary, to meet the new speed of answer requirement, the Commission 
establishes a phase-in period. 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. The 
Commission will monitor VRS providers' compliance with these new 
standards, and re-visit this issue in the future if necessary.

Preventing Slamming

    100. In order to protect VRS and IP Relay users from unwanted 
changes in their default provider, the Commission adopts rules 
governing how these changes may take place. These rules, which are 
incorporated into part 64, subpart F of the Commission's rules (TRS 
regulations) and are modeled after part 64, subpart K of the 
Commission's rules, prescribe: the type(s) of user authorization that 
providers must obtain prior to switching a subscriber's default 
provider; how verification of any such authorization must be obtained 
and maintained by the receiving provider; whether and how providers may 
use information obtained when receiving notification of a user's 
service change to another provider, whether for marketing, win-back, or 
other purposes; and complaint procedures and remedies for violation of 
these rules. 47 CFR 64.1100 of the Commission's rules et. seq. The 
rules the Commission adopts are not identical to the slamming rules 
adopted for telecommunications carriers. Modifications have been made 
to reflect the differences between Internet-based TRS providers and 
telecommunications carriers, eliminate redundant provisions, and 
otherwise make the rules more explicit so as to improve enforcement and 
administration of the requirements that apply to Internet-based TRS 
providers.
    101. The rules the Commission adopts specifically require a 
provider to obtain individual user consent before a default provider 
change may occur. Such consent must be obtained in compliance with 
prescribed verification procedures, which require that a provider, 
prior to effecting a default provider change, either: (1) obtain the 
user's written or electronically signed authorization to change his or 
her default provider; or (2) utilize an independent third party to 
verify the subscriber's request. This will help prevent unauthorized 
default provider changes, thereby reducing the number of consumer 
complaints. Moreover, the rules the Commission adopts require that 
third-party verification be conducted in the same language as the 
underlying transaction. The third-party verifier must elicit: the date 
of the verification; identification of the user; confirmation that the 
person on the call is authorized to make the default provider change; 
confirmation that the person on the call wants to make the default 
provider change and understands what the change in default provider 
means, including that the customer may need to return any leased video 
equipment belonging to the default provider; confirmation that the 
person on the call understands that a default provider change, not an 
upgrade to existing service, or any other misleading description of the 
transaction is being authorized; the name of the new default provider; 
the telephone number of record to be transferred to the new default 
provider; and the type of relay service used with the telephone number 
being transferred. The rules also require that the third-party 
verification process be recorded, which in the case of a third-party 
verification conducted in ASL, means video-recorded.
    102. In the First Internet-Based TRS Numbering Order, the 
Commission found that iTRS providers and their numbering partners are 
subject to the same porting obligations as interconnected VoIP 
providers, with the sole exception of contributing to meet shared 
numbering administration costs and local number portability (LNP) 
costs. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services 
for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements 
for IP-Enabled Service Providers, CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 
05-196, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 
published at 73 FR 41286, July 18, 2008 and at 73 FR 41307, July 18, 
2008.
    103. Because the Commission already addressed the number 
portability obligations of iTRS providers the Commission will not, 
except as discussed herein, revisit the number portability obligations 
of iTRS providers at this time, and the Commission does not include in 
the iTRS slamming rules the provisions found in subpart K of part 64 
that already apply to the numbering partners of the iTRS providers. 
However, in response to reports alleging that there have been instances 
where VRS providers have, upon receiving a number porting request for 
one of their registered users, failed to process that user's calls 
pending completion of the port or have disabled or reduced the 
functionality of that user's VRS access technology during the pendency 
of the porting process, the Commission reminds iTRS providers and their 
numbering partners on both ends of the number porting process that they 
are responsible for coordinating the timing of the number porting to 
ensure that there is no interruption of service to the user. To

[[Page 40596]]

prevent improper degradation or interruption of service, the Commission 
adopts a rule prohibiting default providers from reducing the level or 
quality of service provided to their users, or the functionality of 
their users' iTRS access technology, during the porting process.
    104. The Commission adopts recordkeeping requirements applicable to 
iTRS providers that are five years in duration, as opposed to two years 
in the case of telecommunications carriers. This is consistent with 
other recordkeeping requirements applicable to iTRS providers and will 
ensure that the underlying records supporting verification of a default 
provider change are maintained and are available to the Commission for 
review. .
    105. In the telecommunications carrier context, subpart K of part 
64 of the Commission's rules requires that preferred carrier change 
orders be submitted within 60 days of obtaining a letter of agency. In 
the iTRS provider slamming rules adopted, the Commission likewise 
requires that all default provider change orders be implemented within 
60 days, whether verified by a letter of authorization or by a third 
party verification. The Commission finds that placing a limit on the 
amount of time between when the default provider change order is 
received and verified and when the change is implemented avoids 
situations where, for example, an iTRS provider may implement a stale 
default provider change order that the iTRS user may no longer desire.
    106. The Commission permits a provider to acquire by sale or 
transfer either part or all of another provider's user base, provided 
that the acquiring provider complies with the user notification 
procedures set forth in the new rule. Any such sale or transfer must be 
to a provider that is certified by the Commission pursuant to Sec.  
64.606(a)(2) of the Commission's rules to receive compensation from the 
Fund to provide the specific relay service for which the sale or 
transfer is occurring
    107. Under the telecommunications slamming rules, a ``preferred 
carrier freeze'' prevents a change in a subscriber's preferred carrier 
selection by placing a ``freeze'' on that subscriber's selection, 
unless the subscriber gives the carrier from whom the freeze was 
requested his or her express consent to change carriers. The Commission 
will prohibit default provider freezes. Allowing such freezes, 
especially in a market where anti-slamming procedures have not 
previously applied, could be detrimental for an industry where 
competition continues to evolve, and where consumers should be able to 
change their default providers with ease.
    108. The Commission extends to VRS and IP Relay the common carrier 
prohibition against using carrier proprietary information gained from a 
number porting request to initiate retention marketing while a number 
port is in progress. A VRS or IP Relay provider may not use the 
proprietary information obtained from a provider submitting a number 
porting request to try to retain its customer during the porting 
process. Once the port is complete, the carrier change information is 
no longer proprietary information protected from use by the former 
default provider, and therefore the former default provider may use 
such information to market to its former customer, consistent with TRS 
requirements.
    109. Enforcement. The telecommunications carrier slamming rules 
provide that any submitting provider that fails to comply with the 
slamming rules for a particular subscriber shall pay 150% of the 
payments from that subscriber to the authorized carrier, who in turn 
pays a refund to the subscriber of 50% of all such payments. The 
appropriate remedy is for the submitting provider to pay to the Fund 
100% of the amount that was paid by the Fund to the submitting 
provider. In other words, since the minutes submitted to the Fund for 
reimbursement by the submitting provider were not authorized, the 
provider will have to return its compensation for such minutes to the 
Fund. The Commission will not require the submitting provider to pay to 
the Fund an additional 50% because such additional payment would amount 
to a collection of funds in excess of the costs caused by TRS. However, 
the Commission reminds VRS and IP Relay providers that, in addition to 
the repayment remedy, violations could result in enforcement or other 
remedies available by law to address noncompliance, including but not 
limited to the Commission's forfeiture procedures.
    110. The Commission adopts complaint procedures for unauthorized 
changes of a default provider that are similar to the complaint 
procedures used for unauthorized changes of telecommunications 
carriers. The rules the Commission adopts provide for consumers to file 
informal complaints with the Commission in writing, including via the 
Commission's web-based complaint filing system via the option 
``Disability Access to Communications Services and Equipment.''
    111. Legal Authority. The Commission's statutory authority to apply 
anti-slamming safeguards to VRS and IP Relay derives from section 225 
of the Act, which directs the Commission to prescribe regulations to 
ensure that telecommunications relay services are available in the most 
efficient manner to enable communication in a manner functionally 
equivalent to voice telephone services. See 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3), 
(b)(1). Because voice telephone users enjoy the protections of the 
Commission's anti-slamming regulations, the Commission finds that 
applying these same protections to VRS and IP Relay users advances the 
Act's mandate of functional equivalency. Such protections will improve 
the efficiency of VRS and IP Relay by reducing wasteful ``churning'' of 
the customer base for those services. The Commission establishes 
slamming prohibitions for VRS and IP Relay pursuant to the specific 
mandate of section 225(d)(1)(A) of the Act to establish ``functional 
requirements, guidelines, and operations procedures'' for TRS. 47 
U.S.C. 225(d)(1)(A).

Consumer Privacy

    112. In this section, the Commission 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. The Commission sought comment on the 
adoption of such privacy rules for TRS in general in 2008 in the TRS 
Numbering FNPRM, and more recently for VRS with respect to certain 
issues in the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM.
    113. Commenters generally agree that the Commission should apply 
Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) protections to all 
forms of TRS, as well as to point-to-point video services provided over 
the VRS network, with minor modifications to account for the unique 
nature of TRS. The Commission now adopts rules that are modeled after 
part 64, subpart U of the Commission's rules, for the purpose of 
applying the protections of the CPNI rules to TRS and point-to-point 
video calls handled over the VRS network. For TRS to be functionally 
equivalent to voice telephone services, consumers with disabilities who 
use TRS are entitled to have the same assurances of privacy as do 
consumers without disabilities for voice telephone services. Further, 
because upwards of 80-90 percent of all calls made by ASL users on the 
VRS network are point-to-point, the Commission finds that it is just as

[[Page 40597]]

important, if not more important, to apply the CPNI protections to 
point-to-point video calls handled over the VRS network as it is to 
apply these safeguards to calls that are relayed.
    114. The rules the Commission adopts are not identical to the CPNI 
rules for telecommunications carriers in subpart U of part 64 of the 
Commission`s rules. Modifications have been made to reflect the 
differences between TRS providers and telecommunications carriers. For 
example, the use of sign language is contemplated by the rules. Other 
modifications have been made to make the rules more explicit so as to 
improve enforcement and administration of the rules. Although the 
Commission does not address herein every variance between the subpart U 
rules that apply to telecommunications carriers and the subpart EE 
rules that apply to TRS, the Commission describes the main differences 
below.
    115. As with telecommunications services, a TRS provider may access 
CPNI for the purpose of marketing services to its registered users 
within the same category of service (meaning same type of TRS) that its 
registered users already receive from that provider. However, just as a 
wireless carrier may not access CPNI for the purpose of marketing to a 
roaming service user (because the roaming service user is not a 
subscriber of the serving carrier), a TRS provider may not use CPNI for 
the purpose of marketing to a dial-around user. Similarly, just as a 
telecommunications carrier may not use CPNI to market services to a 
party on the other end of its subscriber's voice call because such 
party may not be a subscriber of that carrier, the Commission does not 
permit a TRS provider to use CPNI for the purpose of marketing services 
to a party on the other end of its registered user's point-to-point 
call.
    116. The Commission agrees with the Consumer Groups that due to 
certain inherent differences between voice telephone services and TRS, 
certain additional protections should apply to TRS. As the Commission 
has repeatedly emphasized, because the TRS Fund, and not the consumers, 
pay for TRS calls, TRS providers may not, with or without using CPNI, 
engage in marketing communications that offer improper financial 
incentives to existing or potential customers or that suggest, urge, or 
tell a TRS user to make more or longer TRS calls. To make clear that, 
in adopting CPNI rules to cover TRS providers, the Commission is not 
relieving TRS providers of their obligations under the Commission's 
prior rulings regarding prohibited marketing communications, the rules 
adopted explicitly provide that when CPNI is used for marketing 
purposes, it may only be used for lawful marketing activities. To the 
extent that the Consumer Groups advocate restrictions on political 
speech by TRS providers, the Commission believes that a more developed 
record is necessary to evaluate the potential merits of adopting new 
requirements in that regard, and consequently the Commission seeks 
comment on those issues in the document FCC 13-82 FNPRM.
    117. Because the administrator of the TRS Fund requires call data 
information and other CPNI to administer the Fund and to investigate 
and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of TRS, the Commission is adding 
provisions to the rules requiring TRS providers to use, disclose, or 
permit access to CPNI upon request by the administrator of the Fund. 
The Commission further notes that, because consumers generally are not 
billed for TRS, the concerns about access to customer financial 
information that underlie the subpart U provisions requiring password 
protection of CPNI to obtain access to call data information over the 
telephone are less applicable here, and this provision has been 
replaced with a simpler customer authentication provision in subpart 
EE.
    118. The rules adopted for TRS CPNI require records to be 
maintained for three years, compared with one year in subpart U, to 
ensure that the underlying records supporting a TRS provider's annual 
compliance certification are maintained and available to the Commission 
for review. For example, Sec.  64.5109 (e) of the Commission's rules 
requires an officer of a TRS provider to file with the Commission an 
annual CPNI compliance certification. A TRS provider must provide a 
statement explaining, among other things, how its operating procedures 
ensure compliance with the CPNI rules and include an explanation of any 
actions taken against data brokers, a summary of all consumer 
complaints over the reporting period that assert a breach of the 
consumer's CPNI rights, and report all instances of non-compliance. The 
three-year record retention will assist the Commission in any 
investigation it may undertake based on the annual compliance filing or 
in response to consumer complaints by ensuring that relevant documents 
are not destroyed in the ordinary course before the Commission has an 
opportunity to secure their retention through issuance of a letter of 
inquiry or subpoena.
    119. Legal Authority. The Commission's statutory authority to apply 
customer privacy requirements to TRS derives from section 225 of the 
Act, which directs the Commission to prescribe regulations to ensure 
that telecommunications relay services are available to enable 
communication in a manner that is functionally equivalent to voice 
telephone services. See 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3), 225(b)(1). Because voice 
telephone users enjoy the privacy protections of the Commission's CPNI 
regulations, the Commission finds that applying these same protections 
to TRS users advances the Act's mandate of functional equivalency. The 
Commission establishes customer privacy requirements for TRS pursuant 
to the specific mandate of section 225(d)(1)(A) of the Act to establish 
``functional requirements, guidelines, and operations procedures'' for 
TRS. 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(1)(A). In addition, extending the Commission's 
CPNI regulations to TRS users also is ancillary to the Commission's 
responsibilities under section 222 of the Act to telecommunications 
service subscribers that place calls to or receive calls from TRS 
users, because TRS call records include call detail information 
concerning all calling and called parties.
    120. The Commission also has ancillary authority to apply the CPNI 
requirements to point-to-point video services provided by VRS providers 
over the VRS network. First, the provision of point-to-point video 
services is ``communication by wire or radio'' within the general 
jurisdictional grant of section 2 of the Act. 47 U.S.C. 152. Second, 
the application of CPNI protection to point-to-point video services is 
ancillary to the Commission's responsibilities under sections 222 and 
225 of the Act. As discussed above, the Commission has direct authority 
under section 225 to adopt privacy requirements for VRS service. Point-
to-point services are provided by VRS providers to their VRS customers 
by virtue of the Commission's requirement that VRS providers facilitate 
such functionality. Consequently, VRS providers have access to CPNI 
regarding point-to-point services by virtue of their section 225 of the 
Act-regulated role as the VRS provider for the caller and/or recipient 
of a point-to-point call. In addition, the Commission concludes that 
there is a risk that consumers will not readily recognize or anticipate 
regulatory distinctions between VRS services and the point-to-point 
services at issue here, which rely on the same access technology and 
are routed and transmitted over the same network as the VRS services 
provided by that same provider. Consequently, to the extent that users' 
privacy is not adequately

[[Page 40598]]

protected with respect to point-to-point calls, this risks undermining 
their expectation of privacy as to VRS services, as well. Thus, the 
Commission finds that adopting privacy protections for point-to-point 
services is reasonably ancillary to the Commission's oversight of the 
VRS provider-user relationship in general, and the privacy protections 
adopted in that context in particular, regulated under the Commission's 
section 225 of the Act authority. Further, for a VRS user whose primary 
means of communication is ASL, a point-to-point video call is akin to a 
telephone call. Specifically, for such an individual, a point-to-point 
video call transmitted over the Internet is the primary means by which 
that person can communicate with another person whose primary means of 
communication is also ASL. In essence, then, from a privacy 
perspective, point-to-point video calls between ASL users are 
``virtually indistinguishable'' from VoIP calls between hearing 
persons, and thus users must have the same expectation of privacy. 
Thus, analogous to the Commission's exercise of ancillary authority to 
extend CPNI requirements to interconnected VoIP, the Commission 
concludes it is reasonably ancillary to the Commission's section 222 of 
the Act authority to extend privacy requirements to point-to-point 
services.

Certification Under Penalty of Perjury for Certification Application 
and Annual Reports

    121. In the 2011 iTRS Certification Order, the Commission found the 
interim certification to be ``a necessary and critical component of the 
Commission's efforts to curtail fraud and abuse.'' The Commission 
affirms this finding and concludes that this attestation is essential 
to the Commission's efforts to ensure that only qualified providers 
become and remain eligible for compensation from the Fund. Having 
received no comment opposing the interim certification, and because of 
its continued necessity, the Commission permanently adopts the 
following requirements:
    The chief executive officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), 
or other senior executive of an applicant for Internet-based TRS 
certification under this section with first hand knowledge of the 
accuracy and completeness of the information provided, when submitting 
an application for certification under paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, must certify as follows: I swear under penalty of perjury that 
I am -- (name and title), -- an officer of the above-named applicant, 
and that I have examined the foregoing submissions, and that all 
information required under the Commission's rules and orders has been 
provided and all statements of fact, as well as all documentation 
contained in this submission, are true, accurate, and complete.
    The chief executive officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), 
or other senior executive of an Internet-based TRS provider under this 
section with first hand knowledge of the accuracy and completeness of 
the information provided, when submitting an annual report under 
paragraph (g) of this section, must, with each such submission, certify 
as follows: I swear under penalty of perjury that I am -- (name and 
title), -- an officer of the above-named reporting entity, and that I 
have examined the foregoing submissions, and that all information 
required under the Commission's rules and orders has been provided and 
all statements of fact, as well as all documentation contained in this 
submission, are true, accurate, and complete.
    122. The Commission believes that this attestation requirement will 
provide an added deterrent against fraud and abuse of the Fund by 
making senior officers of providers more accountable for the 
information provided.

Other Issues

CA Qualifications

    123. The Commission's rules direct that VRS 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 64.601(a)(17) of the Commission's 
rules. The Commission sought comment in the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM on 
whether specific training requirements or qualifications for VRS CAs 
were needed beyond the general requirements set forth in Sec.  
64.604(a)(1) of the Commission's rules, as well as the effect that 
imposing such requirements would have on the current pool of CAs and on 
the ability of VRS providers to comply with the speed of answer 
requirement.
    124. There is no record in this proceeding to indicate a lack of 
high VRS CA quality, and Commission records indicate that few consumers 
have complaints regarding VRS CA quality in the last 12 months. 
Further, VRS providers compete for users primarily on the basis of 
quality of service, including the quality of their VRS CAs; a user 
dissatisfied with the quality of a given provider's VRS CAs can switch 
to another provider on a per call or permanent basis. VRS providers 
thus have developed their own internal methods designed to ensure 
compliance with the Commission's ``qualified interpreter'' requirement. 
For these reasons, the Commission sees no need to modify that 
requirement at this time.
    125. There is no doubt that high quality VRS CAs are critical to 
the provision of effective VRS, and the Commission will revisit this 
issue if it becomes apparent that the Commission's current rules are 
insufficient to ensure the availability of qualified VRS CAs. The 
Commission will continue to carefully monitor consumer complaints 
related to the quality of VRS CAs and will look for patterns of 
complaints regarding individual CAs or providers. The Commission 
encourages callers who encounter a VRS CA that they believe is unable 
to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively 
and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary, to make 
note of the CA's identification number, notify the VRS provider 
handling the call, and file a complaint with the Commission. Finally, 
the Commission reminds VRS providers that their annual complaint log 
summaries (submitted to the Commission) must include, among other 
things, a listing of complaints alleging a violation of any of the TRS 
mandatory minimum standards, including violations of the requirement 
for CAs to be qualified, as well as the manner in which such complaints 
were resolved.

Skill-Based Routing

    126. Commenters have asked that VRS providers be allowed, or 
required, to offer ``skill-based routing,'' which would allow a VRS 
caller to select preferred VRS CAs according to the CAs' skill sets--in 
particular their interpreting, transliteration, and signing styles, 
and/or areas of knowledge (e.g., medicine, law, or technology). The 
Commission is concerned that allowing skill-based routing would 
increase the incentive of VRS users to substitute VRS for in-person 
sign language interpreting services, including video remote 
interpreting (VRI)--a practice that is not permitted. Even if that 
critical issue were resolvable, skill-based routing poses a number of 
implementation issues. The Commission therefore declines to require or 
allow skill-based CA routing--or any type of routing to a particular 
interpreter or interpreter pool--at this time.

[[Page 40599]]

VRS Compensation Rate Structure and Rates

Per-User Compensation Mechanism

    127. The 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM sought comment on a proposal to 
transition VRS from the existing per-minute compensation mechanism to a 
per-user compensation mechanism in order to better align the 
compensation methodology with the providers' cost structure, increase 
efficiency and transparency in the rate setting process, and reduce 
incentives to conduct common and difficult-to-detect forms of fraud. 
The record reflects broad opposition to a per-user compensation 
mechanism.
    128. It is difficult to assess, on the basis of the existing 
record, the validity of commenters' objections to a per-user 
compensation mechanism or the ultimate impact a per-user mechanism 
would have on VRS providers and consumers; the reforms that are a 
predicate to implementation of a per-user mechanism would both alter 
the nature of the VRS program and provide data that will help determine 
the need for additional reforms. The Commission therefore declines to 
adopt a per-user compensation mechanism at this time.

Short-Term Rate Methodology Pending Implementation of Structural 
Reforms

    129. As discussed in the Further Notice, the Commission proposes 
that, once structural reforms are implemented, the Commission will set 
VRS compensation rates based largely if not entirely on competitively 
established pricing, i.e., prices set through a competitive bidding 
process. During the transition to structural reforms, however, in order 
to satisfy the Commission's ``obligation to protect the integrity of 
the Fund and to deter and detect waste,'' the Commission concludes to 
continue to move rates closer to actual cost using currently available 
ratemaking tools. While the interim rates set in 2010 began to close 
the gap between rates and costs, those rates have remained in effect 
for almost three years, during which average provider costs have 
declined significantly. Therefore, the Commission will reduce rates 
further to bring them closer to average provider costs, as calculated 
by the Fund administrator, beginning with the 2013-14 Fund year.
    130. The use of providers' actual, historical costs continues to 
provide a valuable point of reference for setting VRS compensation 
rates, pending implementation of the Commission's structural reforms. 
Historical costs are an especially useful reference point where, as 
here, prior submissions of projected costs have proven to be higher 
than actual costs subsequently determined for the Fund year.
    131. The Commission agrees that a multi-year plan, with built-in 
rate level adjustments, is an appropriate means to provide stability 
and predictability for the transition period pending implementation of 
structural reforms. However, the Commission declines to use the interim 
rates currently in effect as the starting point for a new multi-year 
rate plan. When the current interim rates were adopted, the Commission 
specifically determined that those rates were substantially in excess 
of actual costs. Balancing the need for cost-based rates with concerns 
about carrier stability in the short term, the Commission decided to 
allow providers to continue to collect VRS compensation from the TRS 
Fund at above-cost rates for a limited period, in order to spare 
providers from a precipitous rate drop and to allow them to continue 
providing high quality service pending the Commission's consideration 
of an appropriate rate methodology and other reforms. As a consequence, 
providers have benefitted for several additional years, at the expense 
of the TRS Fund and the general body of ratepayers who contribute to 
the Fund, from VRS compensation rates substantially in excess of costs. 
Moreover, given that, as noted above, provider costs are declining, the 
disparity between the existing interim rates and actual provider costs 
is even greater than it was when the rates were initially set. In 
effect, in the interests of preserving industry stability pending the 
adoption of structural reforms, VRS providers have already had the 
opportunity to provide VRS under a multi-year rate plan, lasting from 
July 2010 to the present, with above-cost interim rates as both the 
starting point and the end point. The Commission can no longer justify 
maintaining VRS rates at these interim levels.
    132. While the Commission recognizes that efficiency disincentives 
can be generated when rates are annually recalculated based on 
historical costs, in this instance the Commission utilizes RLSA's 
historical cost analysis for a different purpose, namely, as the 
reference point for establishing a multi-year rate plan. The Commission 
agrees with those commenters who urge that multi-year rate plans can 
offer salutary, efficiency-promoting and rate-predictability benefits 
and the Commission adopts such a plan below. Multi-year rate plans, 
however, must have a defensible cost-based reference point from which 
to proceed. The Commission finds that RLSA's cost analysis, which 
actually uses a combination of providers' projected costs and actual 
historical costs, provides an appropriate reference point in this 
instance for establishing a multi-year rate plan that enables the VRS 
industry to transition towards cost-based rates, which the Commission 
proposes to determine in the future using competitively established 
pricing. Thus, the Commission finds that the cost basis calculated by 
RLSA, based on a combination of historical and projected costs, is an 
appropriate reference point for the rates the Commission adopts, which 
are described in section IV.D below. In the remainder of this section, 
the Commission addresses several questions raised in the 2011 VRS 
Reform FNPRM regarding allowable categories of costs and the handling 
of rate tiers both during and after the transition to structural 
reforms.

Outreach

    133. The Commission has decided to establish a coordinated 
nationwide outreach program for VRS and IP Relay, handled by an 
independent entity. This change removes the need for VRS and IP Relay 
providers to incur expenses to conduct their own outreach activities. 
Therefore, in the future the Commission will preclude such providers 
from including outreach expenses in their annual cost submissions to 
the TRS Fund administrator. The elimination of this obligation for IP 
Relay providers will be taken into account in determining future IP 
Relay per minute rates. The Commission therefore directs the Fund 
Administrator to submit a revised rate recommendation that treats 
outreach as a non-compensable cost for IP Relay providers and direct 
the Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, to adopt or revise 
IP Relay rates for Fund year 2013-2014 as appropriate after 
consideration of that recommendation. To be clear, however, providers 
remain free to conduct outreach; the Commission decides here only that 
the Commission will not consider the expense of such activities in 
setting rates for these services.

User Equipment

    134. The Commission has consistently held that costs attributable 
to the user's relay hardware and software, including installation, 
maintenance, and testing, are not compensable from the Fund. The 
Commission has explained that expenses for which providers are 
compensated ``must be the providers' expenses in making the service 
available

[[Page 40600]]

and not the customer's costs of receiving the equipment. Compensable 
expenses, therefore, do not include expenses for customer premises 
equipment--whether for the equipment itself, equipment distribution, or 
installation of the equipment or necessary software.''
    135. The Commission declines to alter the Commission's policy 
against the use of monies from the TRS Fund to support VRS providers' 
distribution of user equipment or access technology, whether as part of 
generally applicable rates or through direct payments to VRS providers. 
A better approach is to fund the development of open source VRS access 
technology, and to contract for the development and deployment of a VRS 
access technology reference platform. After implementation of a VRS 
access technology reference platform and the other reforms adopted 
herein, there will be another opportunity to assess the extent to which 
additional measures are necessary and appropriate to promote the 
availability of iTRS access technology.

Capital Costs and Income Taxes

    136. In the 2010 VRS NOI and the VRS Structure and Rates PN, the 
Commission sought comment on the current process for allowing providers 
a rate-of-return on capital investment. With respect to the types of 
capital costs that are recoverable, the Commission finds it would be 
irresponsible and contrary to the Commission's mandate to ensure the 
efficient provision of TRS and to preserve the integrity of the TRS 
Fund, to simply reimburse VRS providers for all capital costs they have 
chosen to incur--such as high levels of debt--where there is no reason 
to believe that those costs are necessary to the provision of 
reimbursable services. The Commission's application of the 11.25% rate 
of return to TRS compensation rates is a longstanding practice that was 
affirmed by a federal court of appeals and the Commission declines to 
alter the Commission's current approach to Fund support for VRS 
providers' recovery of capital costs, except that the Commission 
accepts RLSA's recommended adjustment to account for corporate income 
taxes.

Rate Tiers

    137. No party has presented a valid reason why the TRS Fund should 
support indefinitely VRS operations that are substantially less 
efficient. Therefore, to encourage the provision of VRS in the most 
efficient manner, the gap between the highest and lowest tiered rates 
will be reduced over time, in accordance with the schedule set forth in 
Table 2 below.
    138. The Commission also believes that the Commission's structural 
reforms, once implemented, will eliminate any residual need for tiered 
rates. Prior to implementation of restructuring, however, there are 
good reasons to retain rate tiers and no compelling reasons to 
eliminate them. With only six providers currently providing VRS, 
eliminating the rate tiers immediately could force out some of the 
smallest remaining providers, unnecessarily constricting the service 
choices available to VRS consumers during the period prior to 
implementation of structural reforms. The Commission concludes that it 
is worth tolerating some degree of additional inefficiency in the short 
term, in order to maximize the opportunity for successful participation 
of multiple efficient providers in the future, in the more competition-
friendly environment that the Commission expects to result from the 
Commission's structural reforms. Therefore, the Commission will allow 
tiered rates to remain in effect during the transition to structural 
reforms, but with a gradually reduced gap between highest and lowest 
tiers, in order to allow smaller providers an opportunity to increase 
the efficiency of their operations so as to maximize their chances of 
success after structural reforms are implemented.
    139. The Commission also concludes that the tier boundaries should 
be adjusted during the transition, so as to ensure that smaller 
providers have a full opportunity to achieve efficient operations. As 
noted above, VRS rates are currently structured in three tiers: Tier I 
rates apply to a provider's first 50,000 VRS minutes each month; Tier 
II rates apply to a provider's monthly minutes between 50,001 and 
500,000; and Tier III rates apply to a provider's monthly minutes in 
excess of 500,000. As adjusted in this order, Tier I rates will apply 
to a provider's first 500,000 monthly VRS minutes; Tier II rates will 
apply to a provider's monthly minutes between 500,001 and 1 million; 
and Tier III rates will apply to a provider's monthly minutes in excess 
of 1 million.
    140. Regarding the configuration of tiers, the critical question 
concerns whether and how to adjust the boundary between Tier II, for 
which the rate is currently $6.23 per minute, and Tier III, for which 
the rate is currently $5.07 per minute. The Commission finds that, 
regardless of whether the existing cost differences between the largest 
provider and its smaller competitors--including providers currently 
handling call volume levels greater than 500,000 minutes per month --
are due to economies of scale or to other efficiency differences among 
the existing providers, their actual existence is undisputed and is 
supported by historical data.
    141. Further, given the Commission's decision to reduce the gap 
between the highest and lowest tiered rates and its expectation that 
tier classifications ultimately will be eliminated upon the 
implementation of structural reforms, the main question is not whether 
the Commission can pinpoint the exact level where the greatest 
economies of scale are achieved, but rather how it can best balance, 
during the transition to structural reforms, the competing concerns of 
(1) maintaining sufficient incentives for smaller providers to improve 
the efficiency of their operations, and (2) ensuring that smaller 
providers have a reasonable opportunity to compete effectively during 
the transition and to achieve or maintain the necessary scale to 
compete effectively after structural reforms are implemented. In this 
regard, the Commission finds that significant potential harm to 
competition could result if the Commission sets rate tier boundaries at 
levels that are too low to allow smaller competitors to remain in the 
market pending implementation of structural reforms. The Commission 
concludes that the harm to the public interest will be greater if the 
Commission set the rate tier boundary for the transition period lower 
than the optimum level, than if the Commission set it higher than the 
optimum level. Therefore, in setting the boundary between the highest 
and next-highest tiers, the Commission concludes that the Commission 
should err on the side of setting the boundary too high.
    142. In order to ensure that VRS competition is preserved pending 
the implementation of structural reforms, therefore, the Commission 
will redraw the Tier II/III boundary at 1 million monthly minutes. 
Setting the Tier II/III boundary at the 1 million minute level will 
serve to offset the potential competitive impact of lowering per minute 
reimbursement rates and thus will allow relatively well established but 
currently less efficient providers to operate within compensation rate 
categories that reflect their currently higher costs.
    143. In addition, the Commission adjusts the boundary between Tiers 
I and II, currently at 50,000 monthly minutes, up to 500,000 monthly 
minutes. The Commission agrees with the Fund administrator that the 
rates for all monthly minutes up to 500,000 should be merged, inasmuch 
as the rates applicable to these minutes are already virtually equal 
and the historical record

[[Page 40601]]

does not reflect significant cost differences between smaller and 
larger companies operating within these ranges.
    144. In summary, for purposes of setting rates applicable to the 
transition period prior to implementation of structural reforms, the 
Commission will merge existing Tiers I and II into a new Tier I, and 
carve out a new Tier II, applicable to the range of 500,001--1 million 
monthly minutes, from the lower portion of existing Tier III. The 
existing and new tiers are shown in Table 1 below.

          Table 1--Reconfigured Rate Tiers for VRS Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           New tier
                                    Existing tier       definition (The
                                   definition (The        range of a
                                      range of a         provider's a
          Tier numbers            provider's monthly      monthly VRS
                                    VRS minutes to     minutes to which
                                  which the Tier is       the Tier is
                                     applicable)          applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I..............................  0-50,000...........  0-500,000
II.............................  50,001-500,000.....  500,001-1 million
III............................  Over 500,000.......  Over 1 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    145. To minimize any unintended consequences from the adjustment of 
the Tier II/III boundary, the Commission will phase in the divergence 
of the rates applicable to Tier II and Tier III over time, as VRS 
compensation rates in general are being moved closer to actual costs. 
This is shown below in Table 2.

Determination of a Cost-Based Rate and a Transitional Rate Plan

    146. In the 2012 VRS Rate Filing, RLSA stated that VRS providers' 
weighted average actual per-minute costs were $3.5740 for 2010 and 
$3.1900 for 2011, and that VRS providers' weighted average projected 
per-minute costs were $3.4313 for 2012. RLSA proposed that rates be 
based on the average of these three numbers, or $3.396 per minute, with 
appropriate adjustments to reflect rate tiers. Implementing the 
proposed cost-based rate, however, would require per minute rate 
reductions of $2.844 ($6.24-$3.396) in the Tier I rate, $2.834 
($6.23[n<>dash]$3.396) in the Tier II rate, and $1.674 ($5.07-$3.396) 
in the Tier III rate. To avoid such dramatic immediate reductions, RLSA 
proposed that the $3.396 cost based rate be phased in over a multi-year 
time period, with the rates restructured in two tiers instead of the 
current three tiers. Based on equal yearly rate reductions over a 
three-year phase-in period, RLSA proposed that rates be set initially 
by reducing each tier by about one-third of the foregoing amounts, 
resulting in initial rates of $5.2877 per minute for Tiers I and II 
(applicable to a provider's first 500,000 minutes each month) and 
$4.5099 per minute for Tier III (applicable to a provider's monthly 
minutes in excess of 500,000).
    147. In its May 1, 2013 TRS compensation rate filing, RLSA updated 
the VRS cost information presented in the 2012 VRS Rate Filing. The 
administrator reported that the weighted averages of the actual per-
minute costs reported by providers are $3.2477 for 2011 and $3.0929 for 
2012, and that weighted averages of providers' per-minute projected 
costs are $3.3894 for 2013 and $3.7102 for 2014.
    148. As noted above, the Commission finds that RLSA's use, in this 
instance, of a combination of provider's projected costs and actual, 
historical costs is appropriate for the purpose of setting rates for 
the transition period. Although the Commission remains concerned about 
the accuracy of provider projections in general, in this instance the 
inclusion of projected costs does not appear to inject a significant 
bias. Indeed, had the Fund administrator excluded 2012 projected costs 
from the calculation, and simply taken an average of the two historical 
cost figures (from 2010 and 2011), the result would have been virtually 
the same. The Commission also approves RLSA's use of weighted averages 
in calculating actual and projected costs. The Commission finds 
reasonable RLSA's determination that a rate based on providers' 
reasonable costs, if adopted, would be $3.396 per minute, the average 
of three figures representing providers' historical costs for 2010, 
historical costs for 2011, and projected costs for 2012. RLSA's 
estimate is also within the range of provider cost figures presented in 
RLSA's most recent TRS rate filing.
    149. The Commission concurs with RLSA that taking a step-by-step 
transition from existing, tiered rates toward a unitary cost-based rate 
is appropriate. Immediate imposition of a unitary cost-based rate would 
represent a significant and sudden cut to providers' compensation with 
potentially negative consequences for consumers. Rather than RLSA's 
proposed three-year transition, however, the Commission concludes that 
a somewhat longer ``glide path'' towards a unitary cost-based rate 
strikes the correct balance. As discussed in the Further Notice, as the 
Commission implements structural reforms, the Commission proposes to 
transition to a new ratemaking approach that uses competitive bidding 
to establish market-based rates. The Commission's structural reform 
plan will take a period of years to implement fully. Accordingly, until 
then, the Commission adopts a multi-year ``glide path'' towards cost-
based rates. In addition, rather than RLSA's proposed yearly rate 
adjustments, the Commission finds that smaller six-month rate 
adjustments will provide a less disruptive ``glide path'' for 
providers. To improve the predictability of reimbursements and assist 
providers in planning efficiently for this transition, the Commission 
now determines the rates that will be in effect for the next four 
years, subject to exogenous cost adjustments, unless implementation of 
structural reforms and/or related changes in methodology supports 
revision of the rates prior to that time.
    150. The Commission finds it appropriate to ``jump-start'' the 
transition to cost-based rates by setting a uniform $0.25 rate 
reduction for the initial rate period. The effective date of the 
initial rates set herein will be the later of July 1, 2013, or August 
5, 2013. Those initial rates, which will remain in effect through 
December 31, 2013, will be $5.98 per minute for new Tier I (applicable 
to a provider's first 500,000 minutes each month), and $4.82 per minute 
for new Tier II (applicable to a provider's minutes between 500,001 and 
1 million each month) and new Tier III (applicable to a provider's 
monthly minutes in excess of 1 million). These rates are each about 
$0.25 lower than the existing rates applicable to the corresponding 
ranges of minutes.
    151. Subsequently, the Tier III rate will be reduced in $0.19 
increments every six months, so that at the end of four years (unless 
the rate has been adjusted by then to take account of implementation of 
structural reforms) it will reach $3.49, a level approaching RLSA's 
estimate of the weighted average of actual per-minute VRS costs. The

[[Page 40602]]

rates for the other tiers will be reduced at a slower pace relative to 
current levels, in order to ensure that smaller VRS providers have a 
reasonable opportunity to improve the efficiency of their operations 
and to reach the optimum scale to compete effectively after the 
implementation of structural reforms. Thus, after the initial $0.25 
drop, the Tier I rate will be reduced by $0.23 (a larger absolute 
reduction, but a smaller percentage reduction than for Tier III) every 
six months until January 1, 2016, when (unless the rate has been 
adjusted by then to take account of implementation of structural 
reforms) the reductions will begin to accelerate. As to Tier II, while 
the Commission has determined in section IV.C above that it is 
appropriate to carve out a new Tier II in order to allow smaller 
competitors a full opportunity to improve efficiencies and achieve 
scale, the Commission will not initially differentiate the rates for 
new Tiers II and III. Rather, the rates for new Tiers II and III are 
initially set equal to each other, at $4.82 per minute, to avoid any 
sudden, unintended consequences from the reconfiguration of tiers. In 
subsequent periods, as the rates for Tiers I and III are reduced 
further, the Tier II rate will remain stable for several periods at 
$4.82, so that it becomes differentiated from the Tier III rate and so 
that the gap between the rates for Tiers I and II will progressively 
diminish until the rates for those two tiers are equal. The Tier I and 
Tier II rates will then remain equal to each other while incrementally 
declining until the end of the transition. Despite these individual 
variations in the rate of change for the rates in each tier, all rates 
are progressively reduced over the four-year plan, and all rates reach 
levels approaching, but higher than, actual costs at the end of the 
four-year period.
    152. The progressive adjustment of rates for each tier is 
illustrated in Table 2 below, which shows: (1) The current interim 
compensation rates, (2) average provider costs as calculated by RLSA, 
(3) RLSA's proposed first-year rates, and (4) the rates the Commission 
adopts for Fund years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17.

Table 2--Average VRS Provider Costs, Current VRS Compensation Rates, RLSA's Proposed Rates, and the Rates Adopted for Fund Years 2013-14 Through 2016-17
                                                                   [Footnotes omitted]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Weighted                   RLSA's
 Tiers (as reconfigured by this     average     FY 2012-13    Proposed
             order)                 provider      Rates      first-year    FY 2013-14 Rates    FY 2014-15 Rates    FY 2015-16 Rates    FY 2016-17 Rates
                                     costs                     rates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier I (0-500,000 minutes/month)       $3.396  $6.24/$6.23      $5.2877  $5.98 (Jul.-Dec.     $5.52 (Jul.-Dec.    $5.06 (Jul.-Dec.    $4.44 (Jul.-Dec.
                                                                          2013).               2014).              2015).              2016)
                                                                         $5.75 (Jan.-June     $5.29 (Jan.-June    $4.82 (Jan.-June    $4.06 (Jan.-June
                                                                          2014).               2015).              2016).              2017).
Tier II (500,001-1 million             $3.396        $5.07      $4.5099  $4.82 (Jul.-Dec.     $4.82 (Jul.-Dec.    $4.82 (Jul.-Dec.    $4.44 (Jul.-Dec.
 minutes/month).                                                          2013).               2014).              2015).              2016)
                                                                         $4.82 (Jan.-June     $4.82 (Jan.-June    $4.82 (Jan.-June    $4.06 (Jan.-June
                                                                          2014).               2015).              2016).              2017).
Tier III (over 1 million minutes/      $3.396        $5.07      $4.5099  $4.82 (Jul.-Dec.     $4.44 (Jul.-Dec.    $4.06 (Jul.-Dec.    $3.68 (Jul.-Dec.
 month).                                                                  2013).               2014).              2015).              2016)
                                                                         $4.63 (Jan.-June     $4.25 (Jan.-June    $3.87 (Jan.-June    $3.49 (Jan.-June
                                                                          2014).               2015).              2016).              2017).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    153. The rates established in document FCC 13-82 will apply as 
scheduled to all VRS providers absent further action by the Commission. 
During the ``glide path'' period, however, the Commission may adjust 
the compensation rate to reflect exogenous cost changes, including the 
shedding of service responsibilities by VRS providers as VRS components 
begin to be provided by neutral entities. The Commission reserves the 
right to revisit the rates adopted in document FCC 13-82 if provider 
data shows that, notwithstanding the Commission's actions, the rates 
remain substantially in excess of actual provider costs.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    154. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 
2011 VRS Reform FNPRM in this proceeding. The Commission sought comment 
on the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM, including 
comment on the IRFA. No comments were received on the IRFA. This Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
    155. Under Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 
the Commission must ensure that telecommunications relay services (TRS) 
``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 Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(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 Telecommunications Relay Services Fund (TRS 
Fund or Fund), which is

[[Page 40603]]

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.
    156. In the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM and subsequent VRS Structure and 
Rates PN, the Commission sought comment on a series of proposals to 
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--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.
    157. In document FCC 13-82, 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:
     Directs the Commission's Managing Director, in 
consultation with the Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology 
(OET) and the Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 
(CGB), to determine how best to structure, fund, and enter into an 
arrangement with the National Science Foundation (NSF) (or cause the 
TRS Fund administrator to enter into such an arrangement) 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;
     Directs the Managing Director in consultation with the 
Chief of CGB to establish a two-to three year pilot Internet-based TRS 
(iTRS) National Outreach Program (iTRS-NOP) to select one or more 
independent iTRS Outreach Coordinators to conduct and coordinate IP 
Relay and VRS outreach nationwide under the Commission's (or the TRS 
Fund administrator's) supervision;
     Promotes the development and adoption of voluntary, 
consensus interoperability and portability standards, and facilitate 
compliance with those standards by directing the Managing Director to 
contract for the development and deployment of a VRS access technology 
reference platform;
     Directs the Managing Director to contract for a central 
TRS User Registration Database (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
     Directs the Managing Director 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 using the neutral video 
communication service platform without having to build their own video 
communication service platform.
    158. Because the Commission is not fully departing from its 
historical regulatory approach for VRS, in the Report and Order, the 
Commission accompanies the actions describe above with targeted, 
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;
     More closely harmonizes the VRS speed of answer rules with 
those applicable to other forms of TRS by reducing the permissible wait 
time for all VRS calls 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; and;
     Adopts permanently the interim rules adopted in the 2011 
iTRS Certification Order, 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.
    159. Consistent with the Commission's incremental approach to 
reform of the structure of this program, the Commission initiates in 
document FCC 13-82 a step-by-step transition from the existing tiered 
TRS Fund compensation rates for VRS providers toward a unitary, market-
based compensation rate. Specifically, document FCC 13-82 (1) adjusts a 
volume-based three-tier rate structure by modifying the tier boundaries 
and (2) calls for a series of incremental rate reductions, every six 
months, over a four-year period.
    160. No party filing comments in this proceeding responded to the 
IRFA, and no party filing comments in this proceeding otherwise argued 
that the policies and rules proposed in this proceeding would have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Commission has, nonetheless, considered any potential significant 
economic impact that the rule changes may have on the small entities 
which are impacted. On balance, the Commission believes that the 
economic impact on small entities will be positive rather than 
negative, and that the rule changes are needed to combat waste, fraud, 
and abuse in the TRS program.
    161. 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.
    162. 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 authorized by the Commission to receive compensation from the Fund. 
Six of these entities may be small businesses under the SBA size 
standard.
    163. Certain rule changes adopted in document FCC 13-82 modify 
rules or add requirements governing reporting,

[[Page 40604]]

recordkeeping and other compliance obligations.
    164. The development and deployment of a VRS access technology 
reference platform will require providers to offer access technology 
that is compatible with the reference platform. By ensuring 
interoperability of VRS and point-to-point video calling, these 
additional requirements will actually benefit small entities by 
facilitating their ability to compete with the larger providers.
    165. Although the development of a central TRS-URD will include the 
requirement for VRS providers to collect certain information from 
consumers and enter that information in the TRS-URD, the TRS-URD will 
actually reduce the regulatory burden on VRS providers because (1) the 
providers will no longer be required to verify user information, which 
will be accomplished centrally by a single entity contracted by the 
Commission, and (2) the providers will have reduced burdens when 
collecting information from users who switch providers, because the 
user information of those consumers is already in the database.
    166. The Commission has decided to establish a neutral video 
communication service provider to reduce barriers to entry, to promote 
efficient and effective VRS CA service competition, and to ensure 
interoperability between VRS providers. VRS providers, including small 
entities, who elect to use the platform of the neutral video 
communication service provider for network operations will be able to 
operate more efficiently because they will be relieved of the 
obligation to provide their own video communication service platform. 
Although providers, including small entities, who elect to continue to 
operate their own video communication service platform will be required 
to ensure that such platform is interoperable with the platform of the 
neutral video communication service provider, the interoperability 
requirement will benefit small entities because the interoperability 
requirement will facilitate their ability to compete with larger 
providers.
    167. The general prohibition on practices resulting in waste, 
fraud, and abuse adopted in the Report and Order codifies and clarifies 
the already existing prohibition on such practices. However, VRS 
providers will also be required to adopt regulatory compliance plans, 
submit such plans to the Commission and certify that they are in 
compliance. Although these additional requirements will result in new 
reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements for VRS 
providers, including small entities, given the history of waste, fraud, 
and abuse in the VRS industry, these requirements are therefore 
necessary to ensure that the providers are not engaging in practices 
resulting in waste, fraud, and abuse. The Commission finds it essential 
to enact such measures to ensure the efficiency of the TRS program as 
required by section 225(b)(1) of the Act and to control the expenditure 
of public funds. The costs incurred by providers associated with 
regulatory compliance, which in the Report and Order the Commission 
believes will not be substantial, will be far outweighed by the 
substantial savings to the Fund that result from curbing waste, fraud, 
and abuse.
    168. The adoption of more stringent VRS speed of answer 
requirements--calls answered within 30 seconds, 85 percent of the time, 
measured daily--will not cause an undue regulatory burden on VRS 
providers, including small entities, because record evidence 
demonstrates that the actual speed of answer currently practiced by 
providers would satisfy the new requirements, and all parties 
commenting on the issue supported a reduced speed of answer time. The 
more stringent speed of answer requirements are closer to the speed of 
answer requirements for other forms of TRS and are closer to achieving 
functionally equivalent service for VRS users. In addition, the new 
requirements are being phased in to help ease any regulatory burden 
that may exist.
    169. Although the adoption of rules to protect consumers against 
unauthorized default provider changes, also known as ``slamming,'' will 
result in additional regulatory compliance requirements for VRS and IP 
Relay providers, including small entities, in addition to protecting 
consumers, such requirements will also protect providers, including 
small entities, from unauthorized provider changes, thereby enhancing 
the ability of such entities to compete.
    170. Although the adoption of rules to protect consumer information 
relating to all relay services authorized under section 225 of the Act 
and to point-to-point video services offered by VRS providers will 
impose additional regulatory compliance requirements on all TRS 
providers, including small entities, such requirements are essential to 
ensure that users of TRS services enjoy the same privacy protections as 
users of telecommunications services.
    171. Under interim rules established by the Commission, TRS 
providers, including small entities, are already certifying under 
penalty of perjury that their certification applications and annual 
compliance filings are truthful, accurate and complete. Making the 
interim certification requirements permanent is necessary to curb 
waste, fraud, and abuse in the TRS program and does not increase the 
regulatory compliance obligations.
    172. The rate changes enacted in document FCC 13-82 do not impose 
any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
    173. 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.''
    174. 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. Therefore, we limit our discussion of an 
alternative to paragraphs 26-28 below.
    175. By ensuring interoperability of VRS and point-to-point video 
calling, the development and deployment of a VRS access technology 
reference platform will benefit small entities by facilitating their 
ability to compete with the larger providers.
    176. The development of a central TRS-URD will reduce the 
regulatory burden on small entities because (1) VRS providers will no 
longer be required to verify user information, which will be 
accomplished centrally by a single entity contracted by the Commission, 
and (2) the providers will have reduced burdens when collecting 
information from users who switch providers, because the user 
information of those consumers is already in the database.
    177. Small entities that elect to use the platform of the neutral 
video communication service provider for network operations will be 
able to operate more efficiently because they will be relieved of the 
obligation to provide their own video communication service platform. 
Although small entities that elect to continue to operate their own 
video communication service platform will be required to ensure that 
such platform is interoperable with the

[[Page 40605]]

platform of the neutral video communication service provider, the 
interoperability requirement will benefit these small entities because 
the interoperability requirement will facilitate their ability to 
compete with larger providers.
    178. The adoption of rules to protect consumers against 
unauthorized default provider changes, also known as ``slamming,'' will 
benefit small entities by protecting them from unauthorized provider 
changes, thereby enhancing their ability to compete.
    179. The general prohibition on practices resulting in waste, 
fraud, and abuse, the requirement for providers to adopt regulatory 
compliance plans, submit such plans to the Commission and certify that 
they are in compliance, and the requirement for providers to certify 
under penalty of perjury that their certification applications and 
annual compliance filings are truthful, accurate and complete are all 
necessary to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the VRS industry. The 
Commission therefore finds it essential to enact such measures to 
ensure the efficiency of the TRS program as required by section 
225(b)(1) of the Act and to control the expenditure of public funds. 
Because large and small providers alike have engaged in practices 
resulting in waste, fraud, and abuse in the VRS industry, exempting 
small providers from these requirements was considered and rejected. 
Therefore, it would be contrary to the public interest to in any way 
limit or exempt small entities from these requirements.
    180. The adoption of more stringent VRS speed of answer 
requirements is necessary to bring the VRS speed of answer requirements 
closer to the speed of answer requirements for other forms of TRS and 
to help achieve functionally equivalent service for TRS users as 
required by section 225(a)(3) of the Act. Slower speed of answer 
requirements for small providers were considered and rejected, because 
they would not provide consumers with functionally equivalent service. 
The Commission finds that these new requirements will not cause an 
undue regulatory burden on small providers, because record evidence 
demonstrates that the actual speed of answer currently practiced by 
providers would satisfy the new requirements, and all parties 
commenting on the issue supported a reduced speed of answer time. In 
addition, the new requirements are being phased in to help ease any 
regulatory burden that may exist.
    181. The adoption of rules to protect consumer information relating 
to all relay services authorized under section 225 of the Act and to 
point-to-point video services offered by VRS providers is essential to 
ensure that users of TRS services enjoy the same privacy protections as 
users of telecommunications services. Adopting regulations for small 
TRS providers that would not be as comprehensive as the regulations 
already in place for wireline, wireless and Voice over Internet 
Protocol (VoIP) providers to protect consumer information was 
considered and rejected because such lesser regulations would not 
provide TRS users with full protection of their privacy rights and such 
users would be denied functionally equivalent service as required by 
section 225(a)(3) of the Act. It would therefore be contrary to the 
public interest to enact any special exemptions for small providers.

Congressional Review Act

    182. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 13-82 in a 
report to be sent to Congress and the Governmental Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

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. 
Pursuant to section 1.427(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.427(a), document FCC 13-82 and the rules adopted herein shall be 
effective August 5, 2013, except, 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(13); 
64.606(a)(4); 64.606(g)(3) and (4); 64.611(a)(3) and (4); 64.615(a); 
64.631(a) through (d), (f); 64.634(b); 64.5105(c)(4) and (5); 64.5107; 
64.5108; 64.5109; 64.5110; 64.5111 which require approval by OMB under 
the PRA and which shall become effective after the Commission publishes 
a notice in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the 
relevant effective date.
    The Commission shall send a copy of document FCC 13-82 to Congress 
and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act.
    The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 13-82 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements; Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

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

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 
104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 
225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax 
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless 
otherwise noted.

Subpart F--Telecommunications Relay Services and Related Customer 
Premises Equipment for Persons With Disabilities

0
2. The authority citation for subpart F continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-154; 225, 255, 303(r), 616, and 620.


0
3. Amend Sec.  64.601 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (29) and 
adding paragraphs (a)(30) through (45) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.601  Definitions and provisions of general applicability.

    (a) * * *
    (2) ACD platform. The hardware and/or software that comprise the 
essential call center function of call distribution, and that are a 
necessary core component of Internet-based TRS.
    (3) American Sign Language (ASL). A visual language based on hand 
shape, position, movement, and orientation of the hands in relation to 
each other and the body.
    (4) ANI. For 911 systems, the Automatic Number Identification (ANI) 
identifies the calling party and may be used as the callback number.
    (5) ASCII. An acronym for American Standard Code for Information 
Interexchange which employs an eight bit code and can operate at any 
standard transmission baud rate including 300, 1200, 2400, and higher.
    (6) Authorized provider. An iTRS provider that becomes the iTRS 
user's new default provider, having obtained the user's authorization 
verified in accordance with the procedures specified in this part.

[[Page 40606]]

    (7) Baudot. A seven bit code, only five of which are information 
bits. Baudot is used by some text telephones to communicate with each 
other at a 45.5 baud rate.
    (8) Call release. A TRS feature that allows the CA to sign-off or 
be ``released'' from the telephone line after the CA has set up a 
telephone call between the originating TTY caller and a called TTY 
party, such as when a TTY user must go through a TRS facility to 
contact another TTY user because the called TTY party can only be 
reached through a voice-only interface, such as a switchboard.
    (9) Common carrier or carrier. Any common carrier engaged in 
interstate Communication by wire or radio as defined in section 3(h) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), and any common 
carrier engaged in intrastate communication by wire or radio, 
notwithstanding sections 2(b) and 221(b) of the Act.
    (10) Communications assistant (CA). A person who transliterates or 
interprets conversation between two or more end users of TRS. CA 
supersedes the term ``TDD operator.''
    (11) Default provider. The iTRS provider that registers and assigns 
a ten-digit telephone number to an iTRS user pursuant to Sec.  64.611.
    (12) Default provider change order. A request by an iTRS user to an 
iTRS provider to change the user's default provider.
    (13) Hearing carry over (HCO). A form of TRS where the person with 
the speech disability is able to listen to the other end user and, in 
reply, the CA speaks the text as typed by the person with the speech 
disability. The CA does not type any conversation. Two-line HCO is an 
HCO service that allows TRS users to use one telephone line for hearing 
and the other for sending TTY messages. HCO-to-TTY allows a relay 
conversation to take place between an HCO user and a TTY user. HCO-to-
HCO allows a relay conversation to take place between two HCO users.
    (14) Interconnected VoIP service. The term ``interconnected VoIP 
service'' has the meaning given such term under Sec.  9.3 of this 
chapter, as such section may be amended from time to time.
    (15) Internet-based TRS (iTRS). A telecommunications relay service 
(TRS) in which an individual with a hearing or a speech disability 
connects to a TRS communications assistant using an Internet Protocol-
enabled device via the Internet, rather than the public switched 
telephone network. Internet-based TRS does not include the use of a 
text telephone (TTY) over an interconnected voice over Internet 
Protocol service.
    (16) Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS). A 
telecommunications relay service that permits an individual who can 
speak but who has difficulty hearing over the telephone to use a 
telephone and an Internet Protocol-enabled device via the Internet to 
simultaneously listen to the other party and read captions of what the 
other party is saying. With IP CTS, the connection carrying the 
captions between the relay service provider and the relay service user 
is via the Internet, rather than the public switched telephone network.
    (17) Internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay). A 
telecommunications relay service that permits an individual with a 
hearing or a speech disability to communicate in text using an Internet 
Protocol-enabled device via the Internet, rather than using a text 
telephone (TTY) and the public switched telephone network.
    (18) IP Relay access technology. Any equipment, software, or other 
technology issued, leased, or provided by an Internet-based TRS 
provider that can be used to make and receive an IP Relay call.
    (19) iTRS access technology. Any equipment, software, or other 
technology issued, leased, or provided by an Internet-based TRS 
provider that can be used to make and receive an Internet-based TRS 
call.
    (20) Neutral Video Communication Service Platform. The service 
platform that allows a registered Internet-based VRS user to use VRS 
access technology to make and receive VRS and point-to-point calls 
through a VRS CA service provider. The functions provided by the 
Neutral Video Communication Service Platform include the provision of a 
video link, 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 
provided by the VRS CA service provider.
    (21) New default provider. An iTRS provider that, either directly 
or through its numbering partner, initiates or implements the process 
to become the iTRS user's default provider by replacing the iTRS user's 
original default provider.
    (22) Non-English language relay service. A telecommunications relay 
service that allows persons with hearing or speech disabilities who use 
languages other than English to communicate with voice telephone users 
in a shared language other than English, through a CA who is fluent in 
that language.
    (23) Non-interconnected VoIP service. The term ``non-interconnected 
VoIP service''--
    (i) Means a service that--
    (A) Enables real-time voice communications that originate from or 
terminate to the user's location using Internet protocol or any 
successor protocol; and
    (B) Requires Internet protocol compatible customer premises 
equipment; and
    (ii) Does not include any service that is an interconnected VoIP 
service.
    (24) Numbering partner. Any entity with which an Internet-based TRS 
provider has entered into a commercial arrangement to obtain North 
American Numbering Plan telephone numbers.
    (25) Original default provider. An iTRS provider that is the iTRS 
user's default provider immediately before that iTRS user's default 
provider is changed.
    (26) Qualified interpreter. An interpreter who is able to interpret 
effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and 
expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary.
    (27) Registered Internet-based TRS user. An individual that has 
registered with a VRS or IP Relay provider as described in Sec.  
64.611.
    (28) Registered Location. The most recent information obtained by a 
VRS or IP Relay provider that identifies the physical location of an 
end user.
    (29) Sign language. A language which uses manual communication and 
body language to convey meaning, including but not limited to American 
Sign Language.
    (30) Speech-to-speech relay service (STS). A telecommunications 
relay service that allows individuals with speech disabilities to 
communicate with voice telephone users through the use of specially 
trained CAs who understand the speech patterns of persons with speech 
disabilities and can repeat the words spoken by that person.
    (31) Speed dialing. A TRS feature that allows a TRS user to place a 
call using a stored number maintained by the TRS facility. In the 
context of TRS, speed dialing allows a TRS user to give the CA a short-
hand'' name or number for the user's most frequently called telephone 
numbers.
    (32) Telecommunications relay services (TRS). Telephone 
transmission services that provide the ability for an individual who 
has a hearing or speech disability to engage in communication by wire 
or radio with a hearing individual in a manner that is functionally 
equivalent to the ability of an individual who does not have a

[[Page 40607]]

hearing or speech disability to communicate using voice communication 
services by wire or radio. Such term includes services that enable two-
way communication between an individual who uses a text telephone or 
other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who does not use such 
a device, speech-to-speech services, video relay services and non-
English relay services. TRS supersedes the terms ``dual party relay 
system,'' ``message relay services,'' and ``TDD Relay.''
    (33) Text telephone (TTY). A machine that employs graphic 
communication in the transmission of coded signals through a wire or 
radio communication system. TTY supersedes the term ``TDD'' or 
``telecommunications device for the deaf,'' and TT.
    (34) Three-way calling feature. A TRS feature that allows more than 
two parties to be on the telephone line at the same time with the CA.
    (35) TRS Numbering Administrator. The neutral administrator of the 
TRS Numbering Directory selected based on a competitive bidding 
process.
    (36) TRS Numbering Directory. The database administered by the TRS 
Numbering Administrator, the purpose of which is to map each registered 
Internet-based TRS user's NANP telephone number to his or her end 
device.
    (37) TRS User Registration Database. A system of records containing 
TRS user identification data capable of:
    (i) Receiving and processing subscriber information sufficient to 
identify unique TRS users and to ensure that each has a single default 
provider;
    (ii) Assigning each VRS user a unique identifier;
    (iii) Allowing VRS providers and other authorized entities to query 
the TRS User Registration Database to determine if a prospective user 
already has a default provider;
    (iv) Allowing VRS providers to indicate that a VRS user has used 
the service; and
    (v) Maintaining the confidentiality of proprietary data housed in 
the database by protecting it from theft, loss or disclosure to 
unauthorized persons. The purpose of this database is to ensure 
accurate registration and verification of VRS users and improve the 
efficiency of the TRS program.
    (38) Unauthorized provider. An iTRS provider that becomes the iTRS 
user's new default provider without having obtained the user's 
authorization verified in accordance with the procedures specified in 
this part.
    (39) Unauthorized change. A change in an iTRS user's selection of a 
default provider that was made without authorization verified in 
accordance with the verification procedures specified in this part.
    (40) Video relay service (VRS). A telecommunications relay service 
that allows people with hearing or speech disabilities who use sign 
language to communicate with voice telephone users through video 
equipment. The video link allows the CA to view and interpret the 
party's signed conversation and relay the conversation back and forth 
with a voice caller.
    (41) Visual privacy screen. A screen or any other feature that is 
designed to prevent one party or both parties on the video leg of a VRS 
call from viewing the other party during a call.
    (42) Voice carry over (VCO). A form of TRS where the person with 
the hearing disability is able to speak directly to the other end user. 
The CA types the response back to the person with the hearing 
disability. The CA does not voice the conversation. Two-line VCO is a 
VCO service that allows TRS users to use one telephone line for voicing 
and the other for receiving TTY messages. A VCO-to-TTY TRS call allows 
a relay conversation to take place between a VCO user and a TTY user. 
VCO-to-VCO allows a relay conversation to take place between two VCO 
users.
    (43) VRS access technology. Any equipment, software, or other 
technology issued, leased, or provided by an Internet-based TRS 
provider that can be used to make and receive a VRS call.
    (44) VRS Access Technology Reference Platform. A software product 
procured by or on behalf of the Commission that provides VRS 
functionality, including the ability to make and receive VRS and point-
to-point calls, dial-around functionality, and the ability to update 
user registration location, and against which providers may test their 
own VRS access technology and platforms for compliance with the 
Commission's interoperability and portability rules.
    (45) VRS CA service provider. A VRS provider that uses the Neutral 
Video Communication Service Platform for the video communication 
service components of VRS.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  64.604 by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(iii), (b)(4)(iv) 
and (c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(iii), and add paragraphs (c)(11) through (13), 
and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.604  Mandatory minimum standards.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Speed of answer requirements for VRS providers. (A) Speed of 
answer requirements for VRS providers are phased-in as follows:
    (1) By January 1, 2007, VRS providers must answer 80% of all VRS 
calls within 120 seconds, measured on a monthly basis;
    (2) By January 1, 2014, VRS providers must answer 85% of all VRS 
calls within 60 seconds, measured on a daily basis; and
    (3) By July 1, 2014, VRS providers must answer 85% of all VRS calls 
within 30 seconds, measured on a daily basis. Abandoned calls shall be 
included in the VRS speed of answer calculation.
    (B) VRS CA service providers must meet the speed of answer 
requirements for VRS providers as measured from the time a VRS call 
reaches facilities operated by the VRS CA service provider.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iv) A VRS provider leasing or licensing an automatic call 
distribution (ACD) platform must have a written lease or license 
agreement. Such lease or license agreement may not include any revenue 
sharing agreement or compensation based upon minutes of use. In 
addition, if any such lease is between two eligible VRS providers, the 
lessee or licensee must locate the ACD platform on its own premises and 
must utilize its own employees to manage the ACD platform. VRS CA 
service providers are not required to have a written lease or licensing 
agreement for an ACD if they obtain that function from the Neutral 
Video Communication Service Platform.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (N) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) An eligible VRS provider may not contract with or otherwise 
authorize any third party to provide interpretation services or call 
center functions (including call distribution, call routing, call 
setup, mapping, call features, billing, and registration) on its 
behalf, unless that authorized third party also is an eligible 
provider, or the eligible VRS provider is a VRS CA service provider and 
the authorized third party is the provider of the Neutral Video 
Communication Service Platform, except that a VRS CA service provider 
may not contract with or otherwise authorize the provider of the 
Neutral

[[Page 40608]]

Video Communication Service Platform to perform billing on its behalf.
* * * * *
    (11) [Reserved]
    (12) Discrimination and preferences. A VRS provider shall not:
    (i) Directly or indirectly, by any means or device, engage in any 
unjust or unreasonable discrimination related to practices, facilities, 
or services for or in connection with like relay service,
    (ii) Engage in or give any undue or unreasonable preference or 
advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or
    (ii) Subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality 
to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
    (13) Unauthorized and unnecessary use of VRS. A VRS provider shall 
not engage in any practice that causes or encourages, or that the 
provider knows or has reason to know will cause or encourage:
    (i) False or unverified claims for TRS Fund compensation,
    (ii) Unauthorized use of VRS,
    (iii) The making of VRS calls that would not otherwise be made, or
    (iv) The use of VRS by persons who do not need the service in order 
to communicate in a functionally equivalent manner. A VRS provider 
shall not seek payment from the TRS Fund for any minutes of service it 
knows or has reason to know are resulting from such practices. Any VRS 
provider that becomes aware of such practices being or having been 
committed by any person shall as soon as practicable report such 
practices to the Commission or the TRS Fund administrator.
    (d) Other standards. The applicable requirements of Sec. Sec.  
64.605, 64.611, 64.615, 64.617, 64.621, 64.631, 64.632, 64.5105, 
64.5107, 64.5108, 64.5109, and 64.5110 of this part are to be 
considered mandatory minimum standards.

0
5. Amend Sec.  64.605 by revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  64.605  Emergency calling requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) If the VRS or IP Relay is capable of being used from more than 
one location, provide their registered Internet-based TRS users one or 
more methods of updating their Registered Location, including at least 
one option that requires use only of the iTRS access technology 
necessary to access the VRS or IP Relay. Any method utilized must allow 
a registered Internet-based TRS user to update the Registered Location 
at will and in a timely manner.

0
6. Amend Sec.  64.606 by adding paragraphs (a)(4) and (g)(3) and (4) to 
read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (4) For the purposes of paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A)(4) and 
(a)(2)(ii)(A)(6) of this section, VRS CA Service Providers shall, in 
their description of the technology and equipment used to support their 
call center functions, describe:
    (i) How they provide connectivity to the Neutral Video 
Communication Service Platform; and
    (ii) How they internally route calls to CAs and then back to the 
Neutral Video Communication Service Platform. VRS CA service providers 
need not describe ACD platform functionality if it is not used for 
these purposes.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) Each VRS provider shall include within its annual report a 
compliance plan describing the provider's policies, procedures, and 
practices for complying with the requirements of Sec.  64.604(c)(13) of 
this subpart. Such compliance plan shall include, at a minimum:
    (i) Identification of any officer(s) or managerial employee(s) 
responsible for ensuring compliance with Sec.  64.604(c)(13) of this 
subpart;
    (ii) A description of any compliance training provided to the 
provider's officers, employees, and contractors;
    (iii) Identification of any telephone numbers, Web site addresses, 
or other mechanisms available to employees for reporting abuses;
    (iv) A description of any internal audit processes used to ensure 
the accuracy and completeness of minutes submitted to the TRS Fund 
administrator; and
    (v) A description of all policies and practices that the provider 
is following to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund. A 
provider that fails to file a compliance plan shall not be entitled to 
compensation for the provision of VRS during the period of 
noncompliance.
    (4) If, at any time, the Commission determines that a VRS 
provider's compliance plan currently on file is inadequate to prevent 
waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund, the Commission shall so notify 
the provider, shall explain the reasons the plan is inadequate, and 
shall direct the provider to correct the identified defects and submit 
an amended compliance plan reflecting such correction within a 
specified time period not to exceed 60 days. A provider that fails to 
comply with such directive shall not be entitled to compensation for 
the provision of VRS during the period of noncompliance. A submitted 
compliance plan shall not be prima facie evidence of the plan's 
adequacy; nor shall it be evidence that the provider has fulfilled its 
obligations under Sec.  64.604(c)(13) of this subpart.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  64.611 by adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4), by revising 
paragraph (f), and by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.611  Internet-based TRS registration.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Certification of eligibility of VRS users. (i) A VRS provider 
seeking compensation from the TRS Fund for providing VRS to a 
particular user registered with that provider must first obtain a 
written certification from the user, attesting that the user is 
eligible to use VRS.
    (ii) The certification required by paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 
section must include the user's attestation that:
    (A) The user has a hearing or speech disability; and
    (B) The user understands that the cost of VRS calls is paid for by 
contributions from other telecommunications users to the TRS Fund.
    (iii) The certification required by paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 
section must be made on a form separate from any other agreement or 
form, and must include a separate user signature specific to the 
certification. For the purposes of this rule, an electronic signature, 
defined by the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce 
Act, as an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or 
logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or 
adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record, has the same 
legal effect as a written signature. For the purposes of this rule, an 
electronic record, defined by the Electronic Signatures in Global and 
National Commerce Act as a contract or other record created, generated, 
sent, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means, 
constitutes a record.
    (iv) Each VRS provider shall maintain the confidentiality of any 
registration and certification information obtained by the provider, 
and may not disclose such registration and certification information or 
the content of such registration and certification information except 
as required by law or regulation.
    (v) VRS providers must, for existing registered Internet-based TRS 
users, submit the certification required by

[[Page 40609]]

paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section to the TRS User Registration 
Database within 60 days of notice from the Managing Director that the 
TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept such information.
    (vi) When registering a user that is transferring service from 
another VRS provider, VRS providers shall obtain and submit a properly 
executed certification if a query of the TRS User Registration Database 
shows a properly executed certification has not been filed.
    (vii) VRS providers shall require their CAs to terminate any call 
which does not involve an individual eligible to use VRS due to a 
hearing or speech disability or, pursuant to the provider's policies, 
the call does not appear to be a legitimate VRS call, and VRS providers 
may not seek compensation for such calls from the TRS Fund.
    (4) TRS User Registration Database information. Each VRS provider 
shall collect and transmit to the TRS User Registration Database, in a 
format prescribed by the administrator of the TRS User Registration 
Database, the following information for each of its new and existing 
registered Internet-based TRS users: full name; full residential 
address; ten-digit telephone number assigned in the TRS numbering 
directory; last four digits of the social security number or Tribal 
Identification number, if the registered Internet-based TRS user is a 
member of a Tribal nation and does not have a social security number; 
date of birth; Registered Location; VRS provider name and dates of 
service initiation and termination; a digital copy of the user's self-
certification of eligibility for VRS and the date obtained by the 
provider; the date on which the user's identification was verified; and 
(for existing users only) the date on which the registered Internet-
based TRS user last placed a point-to-point or relay call.
    (i) Each VRS provider must obtain, from each new and existing 
registered Internet-based TRS user, consent to transmit the registered 
Internet-based TRS user's information to the TRS User Registration 
Database. Prior to obtaining consent, the VRS provider must describe to 
the registered Internet-based TRS user, using clear, easily understood 
language, the specific information being transmitted, that the 
information is being transmitted to the TRS User Registration Database 
to ensure proper administration of the TRS program, and that failure to 
provide consent will result in the registered Internet-based TRS user 
being denied service. VRS providers must obtain and keep a record of 
affirmative acknowledgment by every registered Internet-based TRS user 
of such consent.
    (ii) VRS providers must, for existing registered Internet-based TRS 
users, submit the information in paragraph (a)(3) of this section to 
the TRS User Registration Database within 60 days of notice from the 
Commission that the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept 
such information. Calls from or to existing registered Internet-based 
TRS users that have not had their information populated in the TRS User 
Registration Database within 60 days of notice from the Commission that 
the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept such information 
shall not be compensable.
    (iii) VRS providers must submit the information in paragraph (a)(4) 
of this section upon initiation of service for users registered after 
60 days of notice from the Commission that the TRS User Registration 
Database is ready to accept such information.
* * * * *
    (f) iTRS access technology. (1) Every VRS or IP Relay provider must 
ensure that all iTRS access technology they have issued, leased, or 
otherwise provided to VRS or IP Relay users delivers routing 
information or other information only to the user's default provider, 
except as is necessary to complete or receive ``dial around'' calls on 
a case-by-case basis.
    (2) All iTRS access technology issued, leased, or otherwise 
provided to VRS or IP Relay users by Internet-based TRS providers must 
be capable of facilitating the requirements of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) A VRS CA service provider shall fulfill its obligations under 
paragraphs (a), (c), (d), and (e) of this section using the Neutral 
Video Communication Service Platform.

0
8. Amend subpart F by adding Sec. Sec.  64.615, 64,617, 64.619, 64.621, 
64.623, 64.630, 64.631, 64.632, 64.633, 64.634, 64.635, and 64.636 to 
read as follows:

Subart F--Telecommunications Relay Services and Related Customer 
Premises Equipment for Persons With Disabilities

* * * * *
Sec.
64.615 TRS User Registration Database and administrator.
64.617 Neutral Video Communication Service Platform.
64.619 VRS Access Technology Reference Platform and administrator.
64.621 Interoperability and portability.
64.623 Administrator requirements.
64.630 Applicability of change of default TRS provider rules.
64.631 Verification of orders for change of default TRS providers.
64.632 Letter of authorization form and content.
64.633 Procedures for resolution of unauthorized changes in default 
provider.
64.634 Procedures where the Fund has not yet reimbursed the 
provider.
64.635 Procedures where the Fund has already reimbursed the 
provider.
64.636 Prohibition of default provider freezes.


Sec.  64.615  TRS User Registration Database and administrator.

    (a) TRS User Registration Database. (1) VRS providers shall 
validate the eligibility of the party on the video side of each call by 
querying the TRS User Registration Database on a per-call basis. 
Emergency 911 calls are excepted from this requirement.
    (i) Validation shall occur during the call setup process, prior to 
the placement of the call.
    (ii) If the eligibility of at least one party to the call is not 
validated using the TRS User Registration Database, the call shall not 
be completed, and the VRS provider shall either terminate the call or, 
if appropriate, offer to register the user if they are able to 
demonstrate eligibility.
    (iii) Calls that VRS providers are prohibited from completing 
because the user's eligibility cannot be validated shall not be 
included in speed of answer calculations and shall not be eligible for 
compensation from the TRS Fund.
    (2) The administrator of the TRS User Registration Database shall 
assign a unique identifier to each user in the TRS User Registration 
Database.
    (3) Data integrity. (i) Each VRS provider shall request that the 
administrator of the TRS User Registration Database remove from the TRS 
User Registration Database user information for any registered user:
    (A) Who informs its default provider that it no longer wants use of 
a ten-digit number for TRS services; or;
    (B) For whom the provider obtains information that the user is not 
eligible to use the service.
    (ii) The administrator of the TRS User Registration Database shall 
remove the data of:
    (A) Any user that has neither placed nor received a VRS or point to 
point call in a one year period; and
    (B) Any user for which a VRS provider makes a request under 
paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
    (4) VRS providers may query the TRS User Registration Database only 
for the purposes provided in this subpart, and to determine whether 
information with respect to its registered users already in the 
database is correct and complete.

[[Page 40610]]

    (5) User verification. (i) The TRS User Registration Database shall 
have the capability of performing an identification verification check 
when a VRS provider or other party submits a query to the database 
about an existing or potential user.
    (ii) VRS providers shall not register individuals that do not pass 
the identification verification check conducted through the TRS User 
Registration Database.
    (iii) VRS providers shall not seek compensation for calls placed by 
individuals that do not pass the identification verification check 
conducted through the TRS User Registration Database.
    (b) Administration--(1) Terms of administration. The administrator 
of the TRS User Registration Database shall administer the TRS User 
Registration Database pursuant to the terms of its contract.
    (2) Compensation. The TRS Fund, as defined by Sec.  
64.604(a)(5)(iii) of this subpart, may be used to compensate the 
administrator of the TRS User Registration Database for the reasonable 
costs of administration pursuant to the terms of its contract.


Sec.  64.617  Neutral Video Communication Service Platform.

    (a) VRS CA service providers certified by the Commission are 
required to utilize the Neutral Video Communication Service Platform to 
process VRS calls. Each VRS CA service provider shall be responsible 
for providing sign language interpretation services and for ensuring 
that the Neutral Video Communication Service Platform has the 
information it needs to provide video communication service on the VRS 
CA service provider's behalf.
    (b) Administration--(1) Terms of administration. The provider of 
the Neutral Video Communication Service Platform shall administer the 
Neutral Video Communication Service Platform pursuant to the terms of 
its contract.
    (2) Compensation. The TRS Fund, as defined by Sec.  
64.604(a)(5)(iii) of this subpart, may be used to compensate the 
provider of the Neutral Video Communication Service Platform for the 
reasonable costs of administration pursuant to the terms of its 
contract.


Sec.  64.619  VRS Access Technology Reference Platform and 
administrator.

    (a) VRS Access Technology Reference Platform. (1) The VRS Access 
Technology Reference Platform shall be a software product that performs 
consistently with the rules in this subpart, including any standards 
adopted in Sec.  64.621 of this subpart.
    (2) The VRS Access Technology Reference Platform shall be available 
for use by the public and by developers.
    (b) Administration--(1) Terms of administration. The administrator 
of the VRS Access Technology Reference Platform shall administer the 
VRS Access Technology Reference Platform pursuant to the terms of its 
contract.
    (2) Compensation. The TRS Fund, as defined by Sec.  
64.604(a)(5)(iii) of this subpart, may be used to compensate the 
administrator of the VRS Access Technology Reference Platform for the 
reasonable costs of administration pursuant to the terms of its 
contract.


Sec.  64.621  Interoperability and portability.

    (a) General obligations of VRS providers. (1) All VRS users must be 
able to place a VRS call through any of the VRS providers' services, 
and all VRS providers must be able to receive calls from, and make 
calls to, any VRS user.
    (2) A VRS provider may not take steps that restrict a user's 
unfettered access to another provider's service, such as providing 
degraded service quality to VRS users using VRS equipment or service 
with another provider's service.
    (3) All VRS providers must ensure that their VRS access 
technologies and their video communication service platforms are 
interoperable with the VRS Access Technology Reference Platform, 
including for point-to-point calls. No VRS provider shall be 
compensated for minutes of use involving their VRS access technologies 
or video communication service platforms that are not interoperable 
with the VRS Access Technology Reference Platform.
    (4) All VRS providers must ensure that their VRS access 
technologies and their video communication service platforms are 
interoperable with the Neutral Video Communication Service Platform, 
including for point-to-point calls. No VRS provider shall be 
compensated for minutes of use involving their VRS access technologies 
or video communication service platforms that are not interoperable 
with the Neutral Video Communication Service Platform.
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec.  64.623  Administrator requirements.

    (a) For the purposes of this section, the term ``Administrator'' 
shall refer to each of the TRS Numbering administrator, the 
administrator of the TRS User Registration Database, the administrator 
of the VRS Access Technology Reference Platform, and the provider of 
the Neutral Video Communication Service Platform. A single entity may 
serve in one or more of these capacities.
    (b) Neutrality. (1) The Administrator shall be a non-governmental 
entity that is impartial and not an affiliate of any Internet-based TRS 
provider.
    (2) Neither the Administrator nor any affiliate thereof shall issue 
a majority of its debt to, nor derive a majority of its revenues from, 
any Internet-based TRS provider.
    (3) Neither the TRS Numbering administrator nor any affiliate 
thereof shall be unduly influenced, as determined by the North American 
Numbering Council, by parties with a vested interest in the outcome of 
TRS-related numbering administration and activities.
    (4) None of the administrator of the TRS User Registration 
Database, the administrator of the VRS Access Technology Reference 
Platform, or the provider of the Neutral Video Communication Service 
Platform, nor any affiliates thereof, shall be unduly influenced, as 
determined by the Commission, by parties with a vested interest in the 
outcome of TRS-related activities.
    (5) Any subcontractor that performs any function of any 
Administrator shall also meet the neutrality criteria applicable to 
such Administrator.
    (c) Terms of administration. The Administrator shall administer 
pursuant to the terms of its contract.
    (d) Compensation. The TRS Fund, as defined by Sec.  
64.604(a)(5)(iii) of this subpart, may be used to compensate the 
Administrator for the reasonable costs of administration pursuant to 
the terms of its contract.


Sec.  64.630  Applicability of change of default TRS provider rules.

    Sections 64.630 through 64.636 of this part governing changes in 
default TRS providers shall apply to any provider of IP Relay or VRS 
eligible to receive payments from the TRS Fund.


Sec.  64.631  Verification of orders for change of default TRS 
providers.

    (a) No iTRS provider, either directly or through its numbering 
partner, shall initiate or implement the process to change an iTRS 
user's selection of a default provider prior to obtaining:
    (1) Authorization from the iTRS user, and
    (2) Verification of that authorization in accordance with the 
procedures prescribed in this section. The new default provider shall 
maintain and preserve without alteration or modification all records of 
verification of the iTRS user's authorization for a minimum period of 
five years after

[[Page 40611]]

obtaining such verification and shall make such records available to 
the Commission upon request. In any case where the iTRS provider is 
unable, unwilling or otherwise fails to make such records available to 
the Commission upon request, it shall be presumed that the iTRS 
provider has failed to comply with its verification obligations under 
the rules.
    (b) Where an iTRS provider is offering more than one type of TRS, 
that provider must obtain separate authorization from the iTRS user for 
each service, although the authorizations may be obtained within the 
same transaction. Each authorization must be verified separately from 
any other authorizations obtained in the same transaction. Each 
authorization must be verified in accordance with the verification 
procedures prescribed in this part.
    (c) A new iTRS provider shall not, either directly or through its 
numbering partner, initiate or implement the process to change a 
default provider unless and until the order has been verified in 
accordance with one of the following procedures:
    (1) The iTRS provider has obtained the iTRS user's written or 
electronically signed authorization in a form that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  64.632 of this part; or
    (2) An independent third party meeting the qualifications in this 
subsection has obtained, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, the iTRS user's 
authorization to implement the default provider change order that 
confirms and includes appropriate verification of registration data 
with the TRS User Registration Database as defined in Sec.  64.601(a) 
of this part. The independent third party must not be owned, managed, 
controlled, or directed by the iTRS provider or the iTRS provider's 
marketing agent; must not have any financial incentive to confirm 
default provider change orders for the iTRS provider or the iTRS 
provider's marketing agent; and must operate in a location physically 
separate from the iTRS provider or the iTRS provider's marketing agent.
    (i) Methods of third party verification. Third party verification 
systems and three-way conference calls may be used for verification 
purposes so long as the requirements of paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) through 
(iv) of this section are satisfied. It shall be a per se violation of 
these rules if at any time the iTRS provider, an iTRS provider's 
marketing representative, or any other person misleads the iTRS user 
with respect to the authorization that the iTRS user is giving, the 
purpose of that authorization, the purpose of the verification, the 
verification process, or the identity of the person who is placing the 
call as well as on whose behalf the call is being placed, if 
applicable.
    (ii) Provider initiation of third party verification. An iTRS 
provider or an iTRS provider's marketing representative initiating a 
three-way conference call must drop off the call once the three-way 
connection has been established.
    (iii) Requirements for content and format of third party 
verification. Any description of the default provider change 
transaction by a third party verifier must not be misleading. At the 
start of the third party verification process, the third party verifier 
shall identify the new default provider to the iTRS user and shall 
confirm that the iTRS user understands that the iTRS user is changing 
default providers and will no longer receive service from the iTRS 
user's current iTRS provider. In addition, all third party verification 
methods shall elicit, at a minimum: The date of the verification; the 
identity of the iTRS user; confirmation that the person on the call is 
the iTRS user; confirmation that the iTRS user wants to make the 
default provider change; confirmation that the iTRS user understands 
that a default provider change, not an upgrade to existing service, or 
any other misleading description of the transaction, is being 
authorized; confirmation that the iTRS user understands what the change 
in default provider means, including that the iTRS user may need to 
return any video equipment belonging to the original default provider; 
the name of the new default provider affected by the change; the 
telephone number of record to be transferred to the new default 
provider; and the type of TRS used with the telephone number being 
transferred. If the iTRS user has additional questions for the iTRS 
provider's marketing representative during the verification process, 
the verifier shall instruct the iTRS user that they are terminating the 
verification process, that the iTRS user may contact the marketing 
representative with additional questions, and that the iTRS user's 
default provider will not be changed. The marketing representative may 
again initiate the verification process following the procedures set 
out in this section after the iTRS user contacts the marketing 
representative with any additional questions. Third party verifiers may 
not market the iTRS provider's services by providing additional 
information.
    (iv) Other requirements for third party verification. All third 
party verifications shall be conducted in the same language and format 
that were used in the underlying marketing transaction and shall be 
recorded in their entirety. In the case of VRS, this means that if the 
marketing process was conducted in American Sign Language (ASL), then 
the third party verification shall be conducted in ASL. In the event 
that the underlying marketing transaction was conducted via text over 
IP Relay, such text format shall be used for the third party 
verification. The third party verifier shall inform both the iTRS user 
and, where applicable, the communications assistant relaying the call, 
that the call is being recorded. The third party verifier shall provide 
the new default provider an audio, video, or IP Relay transcript of the 
verification of the iTRS user authorization. New default providers 
shall maintain and preserve audio and video records of verification of 
iTRS user authorization in accordance with the procedures set forth in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (d) A new default provider shall implement an iTRS user's default 
provider change order within 60 days of obtaining either:
    (1) A written or electronically signed letter of agency in 
accordance with Sec.  64.632 of this part or
    (2) Third party verification of the iTRS user's default provider 
change order in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section. If 
not implemented within 60 days as required herein, such default 
provider change order shall be deemed void.
    (e) At any time during the process of changing an iTRS user's 
default provider, and until such process is completed, which is when 
the new default provider assumes the role of default provider, the 
original default provider shall not:
    (1) Reduce the level or quality of iTRS service provided to such 
iTRS user, or
    (2) Reduce the functionality of any VRS access technology provided 
by the iTRS provider to such iTRS user.
    (f) An iTRS provider that is certified pursuant to Sec.  
64.606(a)(2) of this part may acquire, through a sale or transfer, 
either part or all of another iTRS provider's iTRS user base without 
obtaining each iTRS user's authorization and verification in accordance 
with paragraph (c) of this section, provided that the acquiring iTRS 
provider complies with the following streamlined procedures. An iTRS 
provider shall not use these streamlined procedures for any fraudulent 
purpose, including any attempt to avoid liability for violations under 
part 64 of the Commission rules.

[[Page 40612]]

    (1) Not later than 30 days before the transfer of the affected iTRS 
users from the selling or transferring iTRS provider to the acquiring 
iTRS provider, the acquiring iTRS provider shall provide notice to each 
affected iTRS user of the information specified herein. The acquiring 
iTRS provider is required to fulfill the obligations set forth in the 
advance iTRS user notice. In the case of VRS, the notice shall be 
provided as a pre-recorded video message in American Sign Language sent 
to all affected iTRS users. In the case of IP Relay, the notice shall 
be provided as a pre-recorded text message sent to all affected iTRS 
users. The advance iTRS user notice shall be provided in a manner 
consistent with 47 U.S.C. 255, 617, 619 and the Commission's rules 
regarding accessibility to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 
Sec. Sec.  6.3, 6.5, 14.20, and 14.21 of this chapter. The following 
information must be included in the advance iTRS user notice:
    (i) The date on which the acquiring iTRS provider will become the 
iTRS user's new default provider;
    (ii) The iTRS user's right to select a different default provider 
for the iTRS at issue, if an alternative iTRS provider is available;
    (iii) Whether the acquiring iTRS provider will be responsible for 
handling any complaints filed, or otherwise raised, prior to or during 
the transfer against the selling or transferring iTRS provider, and
    (iv) The toll-free customer service telephone number of the 
acquiring iTRS provider.
    (2) All iTRS users receiving the notice will be transferred to the 
acquiring iTRS provider, unless they have selected a different default 
provider before the transfer date.


Sec.  64.632  Letter of authorization form and content.

    (a) An iTRS provider may use a written or electronically signed 
letter of authorization to obtain authorization of an iTRS user's 
request to change his or her default provider. A letter of 
authorization that does not conform with this section is invalid for 
purposes of this subpart.
    (b) The letter of authorization shall be a separate document or 
located on a separate screen or Web page. The letter of authorization 
shall contain the following title ``Letter of Authorization to Change 
my Default Provider'' at the top of the page, screen, or Web page, as 
applicable, in clear and legible type.
    (c) The letter of authorization shall contain only the authorizing 
language described in paragraph (d) of this section and be strictly 
limited to authorizing the new default provider to implement a default 
provider change order. The letter of authorization shall be signed and 
dated by the iTRS user requesting the default provider change.
    (d) At a minimum, the letter of authorization must be printed with 
a type of sufficient size and readable type to be clearly legible and 
must contain clear and unambiguous language that confirms:
    (1) The iTRS user's registered name and address and each telephone 
number to be covered by the default provider change order;
    (2) The decision to change the default provider from the original 
default provider to the new default provider;
    (3) That the iTRS user designates [insert the name of the new 
default provider] to act as the iTRS user's agent and authorizing the 
new default provider to implement the default provider change; and
    (4) That the iTRS user understands that only one iTRS provider may 
be designated as the TRS user's default provider for any one telephone 
number.
    (e) If any portion of a letter of authorization is translated into 
another language then all portions of the letter of authorization must 
be translated into that language. Every letter of authorization must be 
translated into the same language as any promotional materials, 
descriptions or instructions provided with the letter of authorization.
    (f) Letters of authorization submitted with an electronically 
signed authorization must include the consumer disclosures required by 
Section 101(c) of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National 
Commerce Act.


Sec.  64.633  Procedures for resolution of unauthorized changes in 
default provider.

    (a) Notification of alleged unauthorized provider change. Original 
default providers who are informed of an unauthorized default provider 
change by an iTRS user shall immediately notify the allegedly 
unauthorized provider and the Commission's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau of the incident.
    (b) Referral of complaint. Any iTRS provider that is informed by an 
iTRS user or original default provider of an unauthorized default 
provider change shall:
    (1) Notify the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau, and
    (2) Shall inform that iTRS user of the iTRS user's right to file a 
complaint with the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau. iTRS providers shall also inform the iTRS user that the iTRS 
user may contact and file a complaint with the alleged unauthorized 
default provider. An original default provider shall have the right to 
file a complaint with the Commission in the event that one of its 
respective iTRS users is the subject of an alleged unauthorized default 
provider change.
    (c) Notification of receipt of complaint. Upon receipt of an 
unauthorized default provider change complaint or notification filed 
pursuant to this section, the Commission will notify the allegedly 
unauthorized provider and the Fund administrator of the complaint or 
notification and order that the unauthorized provider identify to the 
Fund administrator all minutes attributable to the iTRS user after the 
alleged unauthorized change of default provider is alleged to have 
occurred. The Fund administrator shall withhold reimbursement for such 
minutes pending Commission determination of whether an unauthorized 
change, as defined by Sec.  64.601(a) of this part, has occurred, if it 
has not already done so.
    (d) Proof of verification. Not more than 30 days after notification 
of the complaint or other notification, the alleged unauthorized 
default provider shall provide to the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau a copy of any valid proof of verification 
of the default provider change. This proof of verification must clearly 
demonstrate a valid authorized default provider change, as that term is 
defined in Sec.  Sec.  64.631 through 64.632 of this part. The 
Commission will determine whether an unauthorized change, as defined by 
Sec.  64.601(a) of this part, has occurred using such proof and any 
evidence supplied by the iTRS user or other iTRS providers. Failure by 
the allegedly unauthorized provider to respond or provide proof of 
verification will be presumed to be sufficient evidence of a violation.


Sec.  64.634  Procedures where the Fund has not yet reimbursed the 
provider.

    (a) This section shall only apply after an iTRS user or iTRS 
provider has complained to or notified the Commission that an allegedly 
unauthorized change, as defined by Sec.  64.601(a) of this part, has 
occurred, and the TRS Fund (Fund), as defined in Sec.  
64.604(c)(5)(iii) of this part, has not reimbursed the allegedly 
unauthorized default provider for service attributable to the iTRS user 
after the allegedly unauthorized change occurred.

[[Page 40613]]

    (b) An allegedly unauthorized provider shall identify to the Fund 
administrator all minutes submitted by the allegedly unauthorized 
provider to the Fund for reimbursement that are attributable to the 
iTRS user after the allegedly unauthorized change of default provider, 
as defined by Sec.  64.601(a) of this part, is alleged to have 
occurred.
    (c) If the Commission determines that an unauthorized change, as 
defined by Sec.  64.601(a) of this part, has occurred, the Commission 
shall direct the Fund administrator to not reimburse for any minutes 
attributable to the iTRS user after the unauthorized change occurred, 
and neither the authorized nor the unauthorized default provider may 
seek reimbursement from the fund for those charges. The remedies 
provided in this section are in addition to any other remedies 
available by law.
    (d) If the Commission determines that the default provider change 
was authorized, the default provider may seek reimbursement from the 
Fund for minutes of service provided to the iTRS user.


Sec.  64.635  Procedures where the Fund has already reimbursed the 
provider.

    (a) The procedures in this section shall only apply after an iTRS 
user or iTRS provider has complained to or notified the Commission that 
an unauthorized change, as defined by Sec.  64.601(a) of this part, has 
occurred, and the Fund has reimbursed the allegedly unauthorized 
default provider for minutes of service provided to the iTRS user.
    (b) If the Commission determines that an unauthorized change, as 
defined by Sec.  64.601(a) of this part, has occurred, it shall direct 
the unauthorized default provider to remit to the Fund an amount equal 
to 100% of all payments the unauthorized default provider received from 
the Fund for minutes attributable to the iTRS user after the 
unauthorized change occurred. The remedies provided in this section are 
in addition to any other remedies available by law.


Sec.  64.636  Prohibition of default provider freezes.

    (a) A default provider freeze prevents a change in an iTRS user's 
default provider selection unless the iTRS user gives the provider from 
whom the freeze was requested his or her express consent.
    (b) Default provider freezes shall be prohibited.

0
9. Add subpart EE to part 64 to read as follows:

Subpart EE--TRS Customer Proprietary Network Information.

Sec.
64.5101 Basis and purpose.
64.5103 Definitions.
64.5105 Use of customer proprietary network information without 
customer approval.
64.5107 Approval required for use of customer proprietary network 
information.
64.5108 Notice required for use of customer proprietary network 
information.
64.5109 Safeguards required for use of customer proprietary network 
information.
64.5110 Safeguards on the disclosure of customer proprietary network 
information.
64. 5111 Notification of customer proprietary network information 
security breaches.


Sec.  64.5101  Basis and purpose.

    (a) Basis. The rules in this subpart are issued pursuant to the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
    (b) Purpose. The purpose of the rules in this subpart is to 
implement customer proprietary network information protections for 
users of telecommunications relay services pursuant to sections 4, 222, 
and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 4, 
222, and 225.


Sec.  64.5103  Definitions.

    (a) Address of record. An ``address of record,'' whether postal or 
electronic, is an address that the TRS provider has associated with the 
customer for at least 30 days.
    (b) Affiliate. The term ``affiliate'' shall have the same meaning 
given such term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 153.
    (c) Call data information. The term ``call data information'' means 
any information that pertains to the handling of specific TRS calls, 
including the call record identification sequence, the communications 
assistant identification number, the session start and end times, the 
conversation start and end times, incoming and outbound telephone 
numbers, incoming and outbound internet protocol (IP) addresses, total 
conversation minutes, total session minutes, and the electronic serial 
number of the consumer device.
    (d) Communications assistant (CA). The term ``communications 
assistant'' or ``CA'' shall have the same meaning given to the term in 
Sec.  64.601(a) of this part.
    (e) Customer. The term ``customer'' means a person:
    (1) To whom the TRS provider provides TRS or point-to-point 
service, or
    (2) Who is registered with the TRS provider as a default provider.
    (f) Customer proprietary network information (CPNI). The term 
``customer proprietary network information'' or ``CPNI'' means 
information that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, 
type, destination, location, and amount of use of a telecommunications 
service used by any customer of a TRS provider; and information 
regarding a customer's use of TRS contained in the documentation 
submitted by a TRS provider to the TRS Fund administrator in connection 
with a request for compensation for the provision of TRS.
    (g) Customer premises equipment (CPE). The term ``customer premises 
equipment'' or ``CPE'' shall have the same meaning given to such term 
in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
153.
    (h) Default provider. The term ``default provider'' shall have the 
same meaning given such term in Sec.  64.601(a) of this part.
    (i) Internet-based TRS (iTRS). The term ``Internet-based TRS'' or 
``iTRS shall have the same meaning given to the term in Sec.  64.601(a) 
of this part.
    (j) iTRS access technology. The term ``iTRS access technology'' 
shall have the same meaning given to the term in Sec.  64.601(a) of 
this part.
    (k) Opt-in approval. The term ``opt-in approval'' shall have the 
same meaning given such term in Sec.  64.5107(b)(1) of this subpart.
    (l) Opt-out approval. The term ``opt-out approval'' shall have the 
same meaning given such term in Sec.  64.5107(b)(2) of this subpart.
    (m) Point-to-point service. The term ``point-to-point service'' 
means a service that enables a VRS customer to place and receive non-
relay calls without the assistance of a CA over the VRS provider 
facilities using VRS access technology. Such calls are made by means of 
ten-digit NANP numbers assigned to customers by VRS providers. The term 
``point-to-point call'' shall refer to a call placed via a point-to-
point service.
    (n) Readily available biographical information. The term ``readily 
available biographical information'' means information drawn from the 
customer's life history and includes such things as the customer's 
social security number, or the last four digits of that number; 
mother's maiden name; home address; or date of birth.
    (o) Sign language. The term ``sign language'' shall have the same 
meaning given to the term in Sec.  64.601(a) of this part.
    (p) Telecommunications relay services (TRS). The term 
``telecommunications

[[Page 40614]]

relay services'' or ``TRS'' shall have the same meaning given to such 
term in Sec.  64.601(a) of this part.
    (q) Telephone number of record. The term ``telephone number of 
record'' means the telephone number associated with the provision of 
TRS, which may or may not be the telephone number supplied as part of a 
customer's ``contact information.''
    (r) TRS Fund. The term ``TRS Fund'' shall have the same meaning 
given to the term in Sec.  64.604(c)(5)(iii) of this part.
    (s) TRS provider. The term ``TRS provider'' means an entity that 
provides TRS and shall include an entity that provides point-to-point 
service.
    (t) TRS-related services. The term ``TRS-related services'' means, 
in the case of traditional TRS, services related to the provision or 
maintenance of customer premises equipment, and in the case of iTRS, 
services related to the provision or maintenance of iTRS access 
technology, including features and functions typically provided by TRS 
providers in association with iTRS access technology.
    (u) Valid photo ID. The term ``valid photo ID'' means a government-
issued means of personal identification with a photograph such as a 
driver's license, passport, or comparable ID that has not expired.
    (v) Video relay service. The term ``video relay service'' or VRS 
shall have the same meaning given to the term in Sec.  64.601(a) of 
this part.
    (w) VRS access technology. The term ``VRS access technology'' shall 
have the same meaning given to the term in Sec.  64.601(a) of this 
part.


Sec.  64.5105  Use of customer proprietary network information without 
customer approval.

    (a) A TRS provider may use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI for 
the purpose of providing or lawfully marketing service offerings among 
the categories of service (i.e., type of TRS) for which the TRS 
provider is currently the default provider for that customer, without 
customer approval.
    (1) If a TRS provider provides different categories of TRS, and the 
TRS provider is currently the default provider for that customer for 
more than one category of TRS offered by the TRS provider, the TRS 
provider may share CPNI among the TRS provider's affiliated entities 
that provide a TRS offering to the customer.
    (2) If a TRS provider provides different categories of TRS, but the 
TRS provider is currently not the default provider for that customer 
for more than one offering by the TRS provider, the TRS provider shall 
not share CPNI with its affiliates, except as provided in Sec.  
64.5107(b) of this subpart.
    (b) A TRS provider shall not use, disclose, or permit access to 
CPNI as described in this paragraph (b).
    (1) A TRS provider shall not use, disclose, or permit access to 
CPNI to market to a customer TRS offerings that are within a category 
of TRS for which the TRS provider is not currently the default provider 
for that customer, unless that TRS provider has customer approval to do 
so.
    (2) A TRS provider shall not identify or track CPNI of customers 
that call competing TRS providers and, notwithstanding any other 
provision of this subpart, a TRS provider shall not use, disclose or 
permit access to CPNI related to a customer call to a competing TRS 
provider.
    (c) A TRS provider may use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI, 
without customer approval, as described in this paragraph (c).
    (1) A TRS provider may use, disclose or permit access to CPNI 
derived from its provision of TRS without customer approval, for the 
provision of CPE or iTRS access technology, and call answering, voice 
or video mail or messaging, voice or video storage and retrieval 
services.
    (2) A TRS provider may use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI, 
without customer approval, in its provision of inside wiring 
installation, maintenance, and repair services.
    (3) A TRS provider may use CPNI, without customer approval, to 
market services formerly known as adjunct-to-basic services, such as, 
but not limited to, speed dialing, call waiting, caller I.D., and call 
forwarding, only to those customers that are currently registered with 
that TRS provider as their default provider.
    (4) A TRS provider shall use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI to 
the extent necessary to:
    (i) Accept and handle 911/E911 calls;
    (ii) Access, either directly or via a third party, a commercially 
available database that will allow the TRS provider to determine an 
appropriate Public Safety Answering Point, designated statewide default 
answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority that 
corresponds to the caller's location;
    (iii) Relay the 911/E911 call to that entity; and
    (iv) Facilitate the dispatch and response of emergency service or 
law enforcement personnel to the caller's location, in the event that 
the 911/E911 call is disconnected or the caller becomes incapacitated.
    (5) A TRS provider shall use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI 
upon request by the administrator of the TRS Fund, as that term is 
defined in Sec.  64.604(c)(5)(iii) of this part, or by the Commission 
for the purpose of administration and oversight of the TRS Fund, 
including the investigation and prevention of fraud, abuse, and misuse 
of TRS and seeking repayment to the TRS Fund for non-compensable 
minutes.
    (6) A TRS provider may use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI to 
protect the rights or property of the TRS provider, or to protect users 
of those services, other TRS providers, and the TRS Fund from 
fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of such services.


Sec.  64.5107  Approval required for use of customer proprietary 
network information.

    (a) A TRS provider may obtain approval through written, oral, 
electronic, or sign language methods.
    (1) A TRS provider relying on oral or sign language approval shall 
bear the burden of demonstrating that such approval has been given in 
compliance with the Commission's rules in this part.
    (2) Approval or disapproval to use, disclose, or permit access to a 
customer's CPNI obtained by a TRS provider must remain in effect until 
the customer revokes or limits such approval or disapproval. A TRS 
provider shall accept any such customer revocation, whether in written, 
oral, electronic, or sign language methods.
    (3) A TRS provider must maintain records of approval, whether oral, 
written, electronic, or sign language, during the time period that the 
approval or disapproval is in effect and for at least one year 
thereafter.
    (b) Use of opt-in and opt-out approval processes. (1) Opt-in 
approval requires that the TRS provider obtain from the customer 
affirmative, express consent allowing the requested CPNI usage, 
disclosure, or access after the customer is provided appropriate 
notification of the TRS provider's request consistent with the 
requirements set forth in this subpart.
    (2) With opt-out approval, a customer is deemed to have consented 
to the use, disclosure, or access to the customer's CPNI if the 
customer has failed to object thereto within the waiting period 
described in Sec.  64.5108(d)(1) of this subpart after the TRS provider 
has provided to the customer appropriate notification of the TRS 
provider's request for consent consistent with the rules in this 
subpart.
    (3) A TRS provider may only use, disclose, or permit access to the

[[Page 40615]]

customer's individually identifiable CPNI with the customer's opt-in 
approval, except as follows:
    (i) Where a TRS provider is permitted to use, disclose, or permit 
access to CPNI without customer approval under Sec.  64.5105 of this 
subpart.
    (ii) Where a TRS provider is permitted to use, disclose, or permit 
access to CPNI by making use of customer opt-in or opt-out approval 
under paragraph (?)(4) of this section.
    (4) A TRS provider may make use of customer opt-in or opt-out 
approval to take the following actions with respect to CPNI:
    (i) Use its customer's individually identifiable CPNI for the 
purpose of lawfully marketing TRS-related services to that customer.
    (ii) Disclose its customer's individually identifiable CPNI to its 
agents and its affiliates that provide TRS-related services for the 
purpose of lawfully marketing TRS-related services to that customer. A 
TRS provider may also permit such persons or entities to obtain access 
to such CPNI for such purposes.


Sec.  64.5108  Notice required for use of customer proprietary network 
information.

    (a) Notification, generally. (1) Prior to any solicitation for 
customer approval to use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI, a TRS 
provider shall provide notification to the customer of the customer's 
right to deny or restrict use of, disclosure of, and access to that 
customer's CPNI.
    (2) A TRS provider shall maintain records of notification, whether 
oral, written, electronic, or sign language, during the time period 
that the approval is in effect and for at least one year thereafter.
    (b) Individual notice. A TRS provider shall provide individual 
notice to customers when soliciting approval to use, disclose, or 
permit access to customers' CPNI.
    (c) Content of notice. Customer notification shall provide 
sufficient information in clear and unambiguous language to enable the 
customer to make an informed decision as to whether to permit a TRS 
provider to use, disclose, or permit access to, the customer's CPNI.
    (1) The notification shall state that the customer has a right to 
deny any TRS provider the right to use, disclose or permit access to 
the customer's CPNI, and the TRS provider has a duty, under federal 
law, to honor the customer's right and to protect the confidentiality 
of CPNI.
    (2) The notification shall specify the types of information that 
constitute CPNI and the specific entities that will use, receive or 
have access to the CPNI, describe the purposes for which CPNI will be 
used, and inform the customer of his or her right to disapprove those 
uses, and deny or withdraw the customer's consent to use, disclose, or 
permit access to access to CPNI at any time.
    (3) The notification shall advise the customer of the precise steps 
the customer must take in order to grant or deny use, disclosure, or 
access to CPNI, and must clearly state that customer denial of approval 
will not affect the TRS provider's provision of any services to the 
customer. However, TRS providers may provide a brief statement, in 
clear and neutral language, describing consequences directly resulting 
from the lack of access to CPNI.
    (4) TRS providers shall provide the notification in a manner that 
is accessible to the customer, comprehensible, and not misleading.
    (5) If the TRS provider provides written notification to the 
customer, the notice shall be clearly legible, use sufficiently large 
type, and be placed in an area so as to be readily apparent to a 
customer.
    (6) If any portion of a notification is translated into another 
language, then all portions of the notification must be translated into 
that language.
    (7) A TRS provider may state in the notification that the 
customer's approval to use CPNI may enhance the TRS provider's ability 
to offer products and services tailored to the customer's needs. A TRS 
provider also may state in the notification that it may be compelled to 
disclose CPNI to any person upon affirmative written request by the 
customer.
    (8) The notification shall state that any approval or denial of 
approval for the use of CPNI outside of the service for which the TRS 
provider is the default provider for the customer is valid until the 
customer affirmatively revokes or limits such approval or denial.
    (9) A TRS provider's solicitation for approval to use, disclose, or 
have access to the customer's CPNI must be proximate to the 
notification of a customer's CPNI rights to non-disclosure.
    (d) Notice requirements specific to opt-out. A TRS provider shall 
provide notification to obtain opt-out approval through electronic or 
written methods, but not by oral or sign language communication (except 
as provided in paragraph (f) of this section). The contents of any such 
notification shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (c) of 
this section.
    (1) TRS providers shall wait a 30-day minimum period of time after 
giving customers notice and an opportunity to opt-out before assuming 
customer approval to use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI. A TRS 
provider may, in its discretion, provide for a longer period. TRS 
providers shall notify customers as to the applicable waiting period 
for a response before approval is assumed.
    (i) In the case of an electronic form of notification, the waiting 
period shall begin to run from the date on which the notification was 
sent; and
    (ii) In the case of notification by mail, the waiting period shall 
begin to run on the third day following the date that the notification 
was mailed.
    (2) TRS providers using the opt-out mechanism shall provide notices 
to their customers every two years.
    (3) TRS providers that use email to provide opt-out notices shall 
comply with the following requirements in addition to the requirements 
generally applicable to notification:
    (i) TRS providers shall obtain express, verifiable, prior approval 
from consumers to send notices via email regarding their service in 
general, or CPNI in particular;
    (ii) TRS providers shall either:
    (A) Allow customers to reply directly to the email containing the 
CPNI notice in order to opt-out; or
    (B) Include within the email containing the CPNI notice a 
conspicuous link to a Web page that provides to the customer a readily 
usable opt-out mechanism;
    (iii) Opt-out email notices that are returned to the TRS provider 
as undeliverable shall be sent to the customer in another form before 
the TRS provider may consider the customer to have received notice;
    (iv) TRS providers that use email to send CPNI notices shall ensure 
that the subject line of the message clearly and accurately identifies 
the subject matter of the email; and
    (v) TRS providers shall make available to every customer a method 
to opt-out that is of no additional cost to the customer and that is 
available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. TRS providers may satisfy 
this requirement through a combination of methods, so long as all 
customers have the ability to opt-out at no cost and are able to 
effectuate that choice whenever they choose.
    (e) Notice requirements specific to opt-in. A TRS provider may 
provide notification to obtain opt-in approval through oral, sign 
language, written, or electronic methods. The contents of any such 
notification shall comply with the

[[Page 40616]]

requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
    (f) Notice requirements specific to one-time use of CPNI. (1) TRS 
providers may use oral, text, or sign language notice to obtain 
limited, one-time use of CPNI for inbound and outbound customer 
telephone, TRS, or point-to-point contacts for the duration of the 
call, regardless of whether TRS providers use opt-out or opt-in 
approval based on the nature of the contact.
    (2) The contents of any such notification shall comply with the 
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, except that TRS 
providers may omit any of the following notice provisions if not 
relevant to the limited use for which the TRS provider seeks CPNI:
    (i) TRS providers need not advise customers that if they have 
opted-out previously, no action is needed to maintain the opt-out 
election;
    (ii) TRS providers need not advise customers that the TRS provider 
may share CPNI with the TRS provider's affiliates or third parties and 
need not name those entities, if the limited CPNI usage will not result 
in use by, or disclosure to, an affiliate or third party;
    (iii) TRS providers need not disclose the means by which a customer 
can deny or withdraw future access to CPNI, so long as the TRS provider 
explains to customers that the scope of the approval the TRS provider 
seeks is limited to one-time use; and
    (iv) TRS providers may omit disclosure of the precise steps a 
customer must take in order to grant or deny access to CPNI, as long as 
the TRS provider clearly communicates that the customer can deny access 
to his or her CPNI for the call.


Sec.  64.5109  Safeguards required for use of customer proprietary 
network information.

    (a) TRS providers shall implement a system by which the status of a 
customer's CPNI approval can be clearly established prior to the use of 
CPNI. Except as provided for in Sec. Sec.  64.5105 and 64.5108(f) of 
this subpart, TRS providers shall provide access to and shall require 
all personnel, including any agents, contractors, and subcontractors, 
who have contact with customers to verify the status of a customer's 
CPNI approval before using, disclosing, or permitting access to the 
customer's CPNI.
    (b) TRS providers shall train their personnel, including any 
agents, contractors, and subcontractors, as to when they are and are 
not authorized to use CPNI, including procedures for verification of 
the status of a customer's CPNI approval. TRS providers shall have an 
express disciplinary process in place, including in the case of agents, 
contractors, and subcontractors, a right to cancel the applicable 
contract(s) or otherwise take disciplinary action.
    (c) TRS providers shall maintain a record, electronically or in 
some other manner, of their own and their affiliates' sales and 
marketing campaigns that use their customers' CPNI. All TRS providers 
shall maintain a record of all instances where CPNI was disclosed or 
provided to third parties, or where third parties were allowed access 
to CPNI. The record shall include a description of each campaign, the 
specific CPNI that was used in the campaign, including the customer's 
name, and what products and services were offered as a part of the 
campaign. TRS providers shall retain the record for a minimum of three 
years.
    (d) TRS providers shall establish a supervisory review process 
regarding TRS provider compliance with the rules in this subpart for 
outbound marketing situations and maintain records of TRS provider 
compliance for a minimum period of three years. Sales personnel must 
obtain supervisory approval of any proposed outbound marketing request 
for customer approval.
    (e) A TRS provider shall have an officer, as an agent of the TRS 
provider, sign and file with the Commission a compliance certification 
on an annual basis. The officer shall state in the certification that 
he or she has personal knowledge that the company has established 
operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the 
rules in this subpart. The TRS provider must provide a statement 
accompanying the certification explaining how its operating procedures 
ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the rules in this 
subpart. In addition, the TRS provider must include an explanation of 
any actions taken against data brokers, a summary of all customer 
complaints received in the past year concerning the unauthorized 
release of CPNI, and a report detailing all instances where the TRS 
provider, or its agents, contractors, or subcontractors, used, 
disclosed, or permitted access to CPNI without complying with the 
procedures specified in this subpart. In the case of iTRS providers, 
this filing shall be included in the annual report filed with the 
Commission pursuant to Sec.  64.606(g) of this part for data pertaining 
to the previous year. In the case of all other TRS providers, this 
filing shall be made annually with the Disability Rights Office of the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau on or before March 1 in CG 
Docket No. 03-123 for data pertaining to the previous calendar year.
    (f) TRS providers shall provide written notice within five business 
days to the Disability Rights Office of the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau of the Commission of any instance where the opt-out 
mechanisms do not work properly, to such a degree that consumers' 
inability to opt-out is more than an anomaly.
    (1) The notice shall be in the form of a letter, and shall include 
the TRS provider's name, a description of the opt-out mechanism(s) 
used, the problem(s) experienced, the remedy proposed and when it will 
be/was implemented, whether the relevant state commission(s) has been 
notified, if applicable, and whether the state commission(s) has taken 
any action, a copy of the notice provided to customers, and contact 
information.
    (2) Such notice shall be submitted even if the TRS provider offers 
other methods by which consumers may opt-out.


Sec.  64.5110  Safeguards on the disclosure of customer proprietary 
network information.

    (a) Safeguarding CPNI. TRS providers shall take all reasonable 
measures to discover and protect against attempts to gain unauthorized 
access to CPNI. TRS providers shall authenticate a customer prior to 
disclosing CPNI based on a customer-initiated telephone contact, TRS 
call, point-to-point call, online account access, or an in-store visit.
    (b) Telephone, TRS, and point-to-point access to CPNI. A TRS 
provider shall authenticate a customer without the use of readily 
available biographical information, or account information, prior to 
allowing the customer telephonic, TRS, or point-to-point access to CPNI 
related to his or her TRS account. Alternatively, the customer may 
obtain telephonic, TRS, or point-to-point access to CPNI related to his 
or her TRS account through a password, as described in paragraph (e) of 
this section.
    (c) Online access to CPNI. A TRS provider shall authenticate a 
customer without the use of readily available biographical information, 
or account information, prior to allowing the customer online access to 
CPNI related to his or her TRS account. Once authenticated, the 
customer may only obtain online access to CPNI related to his or her 
TRS account through a password, as described in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (d) In-store access to CPNI. A TRS provider may disclose CPNI to a 
customer who, at a TRS provider's retail location, first presents to 
the TRS

[[Page 40617]]

provider or its agent a valid photo ID matching the customer's account 
information.
    (e) Establishment of a password and back-up authentication methods 
for lost or forgotten passwords. To establish a password, a TRS 
provider shall authenticate the customer without the use of readily 
available biographical information, or account information. TRS 
providers may create a back-up customer authentication method in the 
event of a lost or forgotten password, but such back-up customer 
authentication method may not prompt the customer for readily available 
biographical information, or account information. If a customer cannot 
provide the correct password or the correct response for the back-up 
customer authentication method, the customer shall establish a new 
password as described in this paragraph.
    (f) Notification of account changes. TRS providers shall notify 
customers immediately whenever a password, customer response to a back-
up means of authentication for lost or forgotten passwords, online 
account, or address of record is created or changed. This notification 
is not required when the customer initiates service, including the 
selection of a password at service initiation. This notification may be 
through a TRS provider-originated voicemail, text message, or video 
mail to the telephone number of record, by mail to the physical address 
of record, or by email to the email address of record, and shall not 
reveal the changed information or be sent to the new account 
information.


Sec.  64.5111  Notification of customer proprietary network information 
security breaches.

    (a) A TRS provider shall notify law enforcement of a breach of its 
customers' CPNI as provided in this section. The TRS provider shall not 
notify its customers or disclose the breach publicly, whether 
voluntarily or under state or local law or these rules, until it has 
completed the process of notifying law enforcement pursuant to 
paragraph (b) of this section. The TRS provider shall file a copy of 
the notification with the Disability Rights Office of the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at the same time as when the TRS provider 
notifies the customers.
    (b) As soon as practicable, and in no event later than seven (7) 
business days, after reasonable determination of the breach, the TRS 
provider shall electronically notify the United States Secret Service 
(USSS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) through a central 
reporting facility. The Commission will maintain a link to the 
reporting facility at https://www.fcc.gov/eb/cpni.
    (1) Notwithstanding any state law to the contrary, the TRS provider 
shall not notify customers or disclose the breach to the public until 7 
full business days have passed after notification to the USSS and the 
FBI except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section.
    (2) If the TRS provider believes that there is an extraordinarily 
urgent need to notify any class of affected customers sooner than 
otherwise allowed under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, in order to 
avoid immediate and irreparable harm, it shall so indicate in its 
notification and may proceed to immediately notify its affected 
customers only after consultation with the relevant investigating 
agency. The TRS provider shall cooperate with the relevant 
investigating agency's request to minimize any adverse effects of such 
customer notification.
    (3) If the relevant investigating agency determines that public 
disclosure or notice to customers would impede or compromise an ongoing 
or potential criminal investigation or national security, such agency 
may direct the TRS provider not to so disclose or notify for an initial 
period of up to 30 days. Such period may be extended by the agency as 
reasonably necessary in the judgment of the agency. If such direction 
is given, the agency shall notify the TRS provider when it appears that 
public disclosure or notice to affected customers will no longer impede 
or compromise a criminal investigation or national security. The agency 
shall provide in writing its initial direction to the TRS provider, any 
subsequent extension, and any notification that notice will no longer 
impede or compromise a criminal investigation or national security and 
such writings shall be contemporaneously logged on the same reporting 
facility that contains records of notifications filed by TRS providers.
    (c) Customer notification. After a TRS provider has completed the 
process of notifying law enforcement pursuant to paragraph (b) of this 
section, and consistent with the waiting requirements specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section, the TRS provider shall notify its 
customers of a breach of those customers' CPNI.
    (d) Recordkeeping. All TRS providers shall maintain a record, 
electronically or in some other manner, of any breaches discovered, 
notifications made to the USSS and the FBI pursuant to paragraph (b) of 
this section, and notifications made to customers. The record must 
include, if available, dates of discovery and notification, a detailed 
description of the CPNI that was the subject of the breach, and the 
circumstances of the breach. TRS providers shall retain the record for 
a minimum of 2 years.
    (e) Definition. As used in this section, a ``breach'' has occurred 
when a person, without authorization or exceeding authorization, has 
intentionally gained access to, used, or disclosed CPNI.
    (f) This section does not supersede any statute, regulation, order, 
or interpretation in any State, except to the extent that such statute, 
regulation, order, or interpretation is inconsistent with the 
provisions of this section, and then only to the extent of the 
inconsistency.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2013-15926 Filed 7-2-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P