Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities, 72029-72035 [2015-29371]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 222 (Wednesday, November 18, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72029-72035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29371]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123; FCC 15-143]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes to amend its rules 
to modify its current four-year compensation rate plan for Video Relay 
Service (VRS), adopted in 2013, by adopting a limited-duration 
compensation rate freeze applicable to VRS providers with 500,000 or 
fewer monthly minutes, and solicits comment on whether to adopt a 
number of service quality measures that could enhance the functional 
equivalence of VRS.

DATES: Comments on the section entitled VRS Compensation Rates 
(paragraphs 1-9) are due on or before December 9, 2015, and reply 
comments are due on or before December 24, 2015. Comments on the 
section entitled VRS Improvements (paragraphs 10-25) are due on or 
before January 4, 2016, and reply comments are due on or before 
February 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 10-51 
and 03-123, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions 
provided on the Commission's Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS 
filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include 
their full name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket 
Nos. 10-51 and 03-123.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by 
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the 
Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal 
Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at 202-418-2235 
or email Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may 
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on 
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand 
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. 
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    This is a summary of the Commission's document FCC 15-143, 
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program and 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, adopted on October 21, 2015, and released on 
November 3, 2015, in CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123. The full text of 
document FCC 15-143 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

[[Page 72030]]

CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document FCC 15-143 can also be 
downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/disability-rights-office-headlines. This 
proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in 
accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 
Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In 
proceedings governed by Sec.  1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for 
which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, 
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the 
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and 
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
    To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 15-143 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that 
may result in modified information collection requirements. If the 
Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the 
Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting 
the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. 
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, the Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees. Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat. 729; 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

    1. VRS Compensation Rates. In 2013, the Commission adopted a report 
and order amending its telecommunications relay service (TRS) rules to 
improve the structure, efficiency, and quality of the VRS program, 
reduce the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse, and ensure that the program 
makes full use of advances in commercially-available technology. 
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services Program, 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 10-51, 
03-123, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
published at 78 FR 40407, July 5, 2013, and 78 FR 40582, July 5, 2013 
(VRS Reform Order), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom. Sorenson 
Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 765 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Sorenson). 
The VRS Reform Order established the rates at which VRS providers are 
compensated from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund 
(TRS Fund) for a four-year period beginning July 1, 2013, and adopted 
structural reforms designed to establish a more level playing field for 
all VRS providers.
    2. Under the current compensation methodology for VRS, providers 
submit the number of minutes of service they provide to the TRS Fund 
administrator on a monthly basis and are compensated for these minutes 
based on rates set annually by the Commission. The Commission currently 
uses a three-tier compensation rate structure that allows smaller 
providers to receive a higher average per-minute rate than larger 
providers. In the VRS Reform Order, the Commission found that, for many 
years, VRS compensation rates had exceeded providers' average allowable 
costs, causing overcompensation of VRS providers. To address this 
issue, the Commission proposed basing VRS compensation rates largely on 
competitively established pricing--i.e., prices that would be set 
through a competitive bidding process, and which would be instituted 
after the completion of structural reforms to the VRS program in the 
FNPRM accompanying the VRS Reform Order. Pending the resolution of 
these matters, however, in the VRS Reform Order, the Commission adopted 
a four-year schedule for gradually adjusting VRS compensation rates 
downward towards cost based levels.
    3. On March 30, 2015, the six currently certified VRS providers 
jointly filed a petition (Joint VRS Providers Proposal) in which they 
urged the Commission to freeze the currently applicable VRS 
compensation rates of $5.29, $4.82, and $4.25 per minute. They also 
indicated that they would support the following measures to improve the 
service quality of VRS: (1) A faster speed-of-answer standard, under 
which 80 percent of calls must be answered within 45 seconds, measured 
monthly; (2) a limited trial of ``skills-based routing'' in order to 
assess the cost and feasibility of offering that service feature; and 
(3) authorization for providers to use deaf sign language interpreters, 
to supplement hearing interpreters who are communications assistants 
(CAs), for the purpose of achieving functionally equivalent relay calls 
to or from certain categories of deaf users.
    4. Generally, the Commission believes the four-year compensation 
rate plan continues to be justified. For the three smallest providers, 
however, the record does indicate that their average per-minute costs 
are higher than the applicable rates in effect as of July 1, 2015. 
According to recent filings by the smallest providers, while these 
companies generally have achieved significant reductions in their per-
minute costs over the last two years, and while they have begun to 
increase market share to some extent, they have yet to approach the 
size or efficiency levels of their larger rivals.
    5. The Commission continues to believe that, as stated in the VRS 
Reform Order, ``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 expect to result from our structural reforms.'' The 
Commission proposes a

[[Page 72031]]

limited modification of the VRS Reform Order, to allow small providers 
a reasonable measure of temporary relief from rate reductions that, 
according to the TRS Fund administrator, are potentially jeopardizing 
their continuation of service. Specifically, the Commission proposes to 
freeze for a maximum of 16 months the rate of compensation paid to 
``small'' VRS providers, defined as providers whose monthly compensable 
minutes do not exceed 500,000 minutes. The Tier I rate of $5.29 per 
minute that was in effect prior to June 30, 2015, would be frozen only 
for those providers whose monthly minutes fall entirely within Tier I. 
Larger providers would be subject to the Tier I rate established in the 
VRS Reform Order, as well as the established Tier II and III rates. The 
Commission invites comment on whether a different dividing line is 
appropriate for purposes of a rate freeze and also seeks comment 
generally on this proposal and its costs and benefits.
    6. The Commission next seeks comment on how the proposed partial 
rate freeze should be implemented. The partial rate freeze proposed 
herein would extend, for qualifying providers and for a maximum of 16 
months, beginning July 1, 2015, the Tier I rate of $5.29 per minute 
that was in effect prior to June 30, 2015. The Commission seeks comment 
on this approach, including the precise duration of the proposed rate 
freeze. The Commission seeks additional comment regarding these 
providers' actual expectations regarding their progress in closing the 
gap between rates and costs, what specific structural reform milestones 
are most critical to their ability to compete effectively, what 
criteria should be used in determining when such milestones were or 
will be achieved, and what specific dates for the end of a rate freeze 
result from that analysis. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on 
how rate adjustments should be resumed upon the termination of a rate 
freeze period, regardless of its duration. The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether it is the case that some small providers may not be 
likely in the foreseeable future to achieve ``minimum efficient scale'' 
but may nevertheless provide significant value to certain consumer 
groups. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which some 
providers offer types of specialized features or services to specific 
segments of consumers, the nature of such specialized features or 
services, and the costs of providing them. The Commission also seeks 
comment on the extent to which larger companies are able to efficiently 
provide comparable features or services to the specific market segments 
served by smaller providers and whether they have an adequate incentive 
to do so notwithstanding the applicability of higher-tier compensation 
rates.
    7. Generally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should apply different rates to well-defined categories of 
specialized service, and how such rate categories could appropriately 
be defined consistently with the objectives of section 225 of the Act 
and the need to prevent fraud, abuse, and waste of the TRS Fund. For 
example, what specific features or services are necessary to ensure the 
provision of functionally equivalent VRS to deaf-blind individuals, 
what would be the additional per-minute cost for a company to provide 
such a service ``in the most efficient manner,'' and how could such a 
service be defined and an applicable VRS compensation rate be 
structured to best meet the statutory objectives? Are there any other 
specialized features or services that are or could be provided to 
specific segments of VRS consumers and that are necessary for such 
consumers to receive functionally equivalent VRS? If so, what is the 
per-minute cost for a company to provide such features or services ``in 
the most efficient manner,'' and how could such services or features be 
defined and an applicable VRS compensation rate be structured to best 
meet the statutory objectives?
    8. The Commission tentatively concludes that it would not advance 
the objectives of section 225 of the Act to freeze VRS compensation 
rates in all rate tiers, for all providers, at the Jan. 1-June 30, 2015 
levels, as proposed by the VRS providers, or to freeze the Tier I rate 
for all providers. However, the Commission invites comment on the 
merits, including the costs and benefits, of these alternatives and 
others that may be suggested by commenting parties. The Commission also 
seeks comment on the appropriate duration and other parameters of such 
alternatives.
    9. The Commission invites any party advocating a more broadly 
applicable rate freeze to provide a detailed, fact-based showing as to 
why such a rate freeze is necessary to prevent service degradation 
rather than to provide debt service far in excess of the amounts for 
which recovery from the TRS Fund is allowed by the Commission's rules 
and orders. The Commission also invites commenters to suggest how any 
proposed alternative rate freeze could be structured to ensure that TRS 
Fund monies are no longer used to subsidize excessive levels of debt.
    10. VRS Improvements. The Commission is charged with ensuring that 
TRS is made available to the extent possible, and in the most efficient 
manner, and that it provides the ability for individuals with hearing 
or speech disabilities to engage in communication by telephone in a 
manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of individuals 
who do not have such disabilities. (47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3), (b)(1).) The 
Commission seeks comment on whether to: (1) Impose a faster speed-of-
answer standard; (2) adopt a limited trial of ``skills-based routing''; 
(3) authorize providers to use qualified deaf sign language 
interpreters, in addition to the hearing interpreters, as CAs; (4) 
authorize the use of at-home interpreters under certain conditions; and 
(5) permit the assignment of ten-digit numbers for telephones used by 
hearing individuals. In general, the Commission seeks comment on the 
costs and benefits of these proposals and alternatives discussed in 
document FCC 15-143 or submitted by the parties, and on whether and how 
such proposals and alternatives comport with section 225 of the Act and 
any other relevant legal authorities.
    11. In the VRS Reform Order, the Commission amended the VRS speed-
of-answer standard, requiring that (1) effective January 1, 2014, VRS 
providers must answer 85 percent of all VRS calls within 60 seconds, 
measured on a daily basis, and (2) effective July 1, 2014, VRS 
providers must answer 85 percent of all VRS calls within 30 seconds, 
measured on a daily basis. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit vacated the amended requirements, ruling that the 
Commission had failed to consider the cost impact of the strengthened 
requirements. In the Joint VRS Providers Proposal, the providers 
endorse strengthening the speed-of-answer rule to require that 80 
percent of all VRS calls be answered within 45 seconds, measured on a 
monthly basis. On June 23, 2015, the Disability Advisory Committee 
(DAC) submitted to the Commission the same recommendation as was made 
in the Joint VRS Providers Proposal.
    12. The Commission proposes to amend the speed-of-answer rule to 
require that 80 percent of all VRS calls be answered within 45 seconds, 
measured on a monthly basis, and invites parties to comment on the 
costs and benefits of this proposal. The Commission tentatively 
concludes that there are factors besides functional equivalence--
including the availability

[[Page 72032]]

of sign language interpreters, the need to ensure adequate working 
conditions for CAs who handle VRS calls, and the need to ensure a high 
quality of interpreting--that merit consideration in setting the speed-
of-answer standard.
    13. The Commission proposes to continue to measure compliance with 
the speed-of-answer requirement for VRS on a monthly rather than a 
daily basis. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on 
whether, as the VRS providers assert, a daily measurement requirement, 
under which a provider must meet the requirement every day or lose 
compensation for that day, can be counterproductive because providers 
are subject to random variation in demand that cannot reasonably be 
anticipated. To what extent will such standard enable the Commission to 
meet its obligation to ensure functionally equivalent service? Will a 
daily measurement have value because it would encourage providers to 
maintain sufficient staffing to ensure a consistent level of service 
over time? Is it likely that competitive forces will prompt providers 
to exceed the level of service the Commission sets by this rulemaking?
    14. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that 
compliance with the proposed standard could be achieved without any 
provider incurring additional costs in excess of those incurred over 
the past year.
    15. The Commission seeks comment on the providers' proposal that, 
in lieu of the ``all-or-nothing'' compensation withholding policy, 
under which a provider that misses the speed-of-answer requirement on a 
particular day or month loses all compensation from the TRS Fund for 
that period, the Commission adopt a ``sliding scale'' approach, whereby 
the consequence for missing the speed-of-answer requirement in a given 
period is limited to withholding that percentage of the provider's 
total VRS billing that corresponds to the percentage by which the 
provider fell short of the applicable standard during that period.
    16. The Commission also seeks comment on (1) whether to adopt an 
incentive-based system in which providers who meet stricter speed of 
answer thresholds receive additional compensation, (2) whether the 
Commission should publish summaries of each provider's speed-of-answer 
performance data, so that consumers can compare the performance of 
various providers, and the amount of detail that would be useful for 
consumers to know, and (3) whether to adopt a self-executing exemption 
from the speed-of-answer standard for calls occurring as a result of 
specific extraordinary events beyond a provider's control and a 
streamlined waiver procedure to address other events that may justify a 
waiver of the speed-of-answer standard.
    17. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the existing 
speed-of-answer rule for VRS, which states that the speed of answer for 
VRS is measured beginning from the time a VRS call reaches facilities 
operated by the VRS CA service provider, adequately defines when the 
speed-of-answer ``clock'' starts. The Commission proposes to amend the 
speed-of-answer rule for VRS so that it expressly incorporates the same 
language applicable to other TRS calls, i.e., that the call must be 
``answered . . . by any method which results in the caller's call 
immediately being placed, not put in a queue or on hold.''
    18. In the VRS Reform Order, the Commission considered comments 
advocating the authorization of ``skills-based routing,'' a practice 
whereby VRS callers could request that calls be routed to VRS CAs with 
particular skill sets--such as particular spoken-language abilities, 
interpreting, transliteration, and signing styles and skills, or 
knowledge of specific subject matters (e.g., medicine, law, or 
technology). As suggested in the Joint VRS Providers Proposal, the 
Commission now seeks comment on whether to authorize ``skills-based 
routing'' on a trial basis.
    19. The Commission seeks additional comment on the merits of 
skills-based routing generally. To what extent is skills-based routing 
necessary to achieve a telephone service that is functionally 
equivalent to the service provided to voice telephone users? Is skills-
based routing consistent with the fundamental nature of TRS, which is 
currently subject to requirements that TRS calls must be answered in 
the order received, that providers must not unreasonably discriminate 
in the handling of calls, and that CAs must not refuse calls? If 
skills-based routing is authorized on a permanent basis, how should the 
types of calls appropriate for skills-based routing be defined? Would 
it be appropriate to provide compensation for the cost of such 
interpreters from the TRS Fund as a cost of providing service that 
meets minimum TRS standards? Generally, what additional costs would be 
incurred by providers for the provision of skills-based routing? What 
indirect impact might its provision have on the TRS Fund? For example, 
we seek comment on whether providers expect that they would need to pay 
higher wages to interpreters employed in the provision of skills-based 
routing. Should such additional labor costs be recoverable in VRS 
compensation rates, and if so, in what manner? To what extent could the 
provision of skills-based routing using higher-paid interpreters cause 
a migration of the most qualified interpreters to those positions, 
lowering the average quality of interpretation available on non-
specialized calls?
    20. If the Commission were to authorize a trial of skills-based 
routing, how should it be structured? Should skills-based routed calls 
during a trial period be exempt from all speed-of-answer compliance but 
subject to collection and reporting of speed-of-answer data, as the 
providers suggest? What types of skills-based routing (e.g., medical, 
legal, other call categories) should be included in the trial? Should 
the Commission limit the percentage of calls that can be subject to 
skills-based routing? Should the Commission waive the ``sequential call 
rule'' for successive calls not requiring specialized interpretation, 
so that such calls can be routed to a generalist interpreter? Should 
the Commission impose a requirement that a caller requesting a 
specialist interpreter be given an estimate of the expected wait time 
and the option of waiting for a skills-based CA or proceeding with a 
regular interpreter?
    21. If the Commission were to authorize a trial of skills-based 
routing, how long should that trial last? What types of data should be 
collected during the trial to assess the costs and benefits of skills-
based routing? What standards should be applied in assessing whether 
the interpreters to whom calls are routed actually have the relevant 
specialized skills and whether specialized interpreting is actually 
provided on such calls? The Commission also seeks comment on its 
assumption that any provider's participation in a trial of skills-based 
routing should be voluntary and thus that any costs incurred by 
providers to participate in such a trial would not be billable to the 
TRS Fund as exogenous costs or otherwise.
    22. The Commission seeks comment on whether to amend its rules to 
permit compensation for the use of deaf interpreters where needed to 
achieve functionally equivalent service on VRS calls for consumers of 
VRS where the provision of a hearing video interpreter in a VRS call is 
not sufficient for effective communications. The Commission seeks 
comment on the types and estimated percentage of VRS users who would 
benefit from the availability of deaf interpreters and on the costs of 
providing deaf interpreters. How many additional interpreter-hours

[[Page 72033]]

would be needed and at what hourly rate? In the event that the 
Commission decides to adopt a rule that supports the provision of deaf 
interpreters, how should the Commission define the necessary 
qualifications for a deaf interpreter? What recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are appropriate? Should the Commission treat deaf 
interpreters as a form of skills-based routing, exempting calls 
requiring a deaf interpreter from the speed-of-answer calculations? The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether, before authorizing the use of 
deaf interpreters on a permanent basis, the Commission should first 
conduct a trial of this practice, similar to the trial of skills-based 
routing discussed previously.
    23. To prevent fraud and abuse, the Commission previously adopted a 
rule prohibiting VRS interpreters from working from their homes. (47 
CFR 64.604 (b)(4)(iii).) In the VRS Reform Order, the Commission sought 
comment on whether to permit VRS CAs to work from home during the 
overnight hours when the safety and security of CAs may be endangered 
from travelling to or from VRS call centers. The Commission now seeks 
comment on whether circumstances have changed sufficiently so that CAs 
should be permitted to work from home at any time, subject to 
appropriate safeguards. The Commission asks what specific safeguards 
are needed to ensure protection against fraud and abuse of the VRS 
program were such rule change to take place. The Commission further 
notes that home interpreting arrangements might fall short of achieving 
full compliance with the Commission's mandatory minimum standards for 
TRS, including standards protecting call privacy, requiring the 
handling of 911 calls, mandating service redundancy, and assuring 
certain call quality. The Commission asks commenters to address the 
costs and benefits of permitting CAs to work from home and how such 
costs and benefits would differ, based on whether CAs are permitted to 
work from home at any time or only during overnight hours.
    24. The Commission proposes to allow VRS providers to assign ten-
digit Internet-based TRS numbers to hearing individuals so that they 
are able to place and receive direct (point-to-point) video calls to 
and from other VRS users. In the VRS Reform Order, the Commission 
previously sought comment on whether to allow such use. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether the Commission has statutory authority to 
allow such use of VRS facilities. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether permitting eligible VRS users to communicate directly with 
hearing people who can use American Sign Language (ASL) will increase 
the functional equivalence of TRS by facilitating telephone 
communication between members of the deaf and hearing communities, 
conserve the resources of the TRS Fund, and allow more natural, 
efficient, and effective communication between the parties, and whether 
to require or merely authorize providers to register hearing 
individuals for this service.
    25. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that 
assigning hearing individuals their own numbers would cause no 
significant increase in the costs incurred by VRS providers and on who 
should bear such costs as will be incurred to provide this service. The 
Commission also proposes to adopt measures to prevent fraud, abuse, and 
waste in connection with ten-digit numbers assigned to hearing 
individuals, including requiring the default provider to transmit a 
hearing person's registration information, as well as the assigned ten-
digit number, to the TRS User Registration Database (TRS-URD) and to 
notify both the TRS Numbering Directory and the TRS-URD that the 
registrant is a hearing person who is not entitled to place or receive 
VRS calls. The Commission seeks comment on what additional registration 
information, if any, beyond that collected for eligible VRS users, the 
Commission should require the default provider to collect and provide 
to the TRS-URD for hearing users.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    26. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in document 
FCC 15-143. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines for comments as indicated in the Dates section. The 
Commission will send a copy of document FCC 15-143, including this 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). (See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).)

A. Need For, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    27. The Commission proposes to modify in part the four-year 
compensation rate plan for video relay service (VRS) adopted in 2013 
and also seeks comment on whether to adopt a number of measures that 
could enhance the functional equivalence of VRS.
    28. Although the Commission believes that the four-year schedule of 
VRS compensation rate reductions continues to be justified in order to 
gradually move compensation rates close to a level close to average 
allowable provider costs, the Commission proposes to modify the 
schedule as applied to the smallest VRS providers, i.e., those 
providing 500,000 or fewer compensable minutes of use of VRS per month. 
Spreading rate reductions over a four-year period was largely intended 
to provide a reasonable opportunity for the smallest providers to reach 
minimum efficient scale while benefitting from the VRS Reform Order 
initiatives which were intended to address many of the issues that have 
made it difficult for small providers to operate efficiently.
    29. The smallest providers have achieved significant reductions in 
their per-minute costs but have yet to approach the size or efficiency 
levels of their larger rivals. Further, some relevant VRS Reform Order 
initiatives, such as the open source video access platform, will soon 
be implemented, and the Commission believes all existing providers 
should have a fair opportunity to participate in this important reform. 
Finally, some small providers offer service features that may be 
helpful in advancing the goal of functionally equivalent service for 
certain subsets of VRS consumers, such as Spanish language speakers, 
deaf-blind consumers, and deaf-owned businesses.
    30. Therefore, the Commission proposes to temporarily ``freeze'' 
the rate applicable to providers with monthly call volumes that do not 
exceed 500,000 compensable minutes per month, effective July 1, 2015, 
at the level of the Tier I rate ($5.29 per minute) in effect on June 
30, 2015. The Commission proposes that this rate remain in effect for a 
maximum of 16 months and seeks comment on the specific duration of the 
rate freeze and the rate that should apply upon its expiration. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether there are unique types of VRS 
that are inherently more expensive to provide and to which an 
alternative rate level should apply. Finally, the Commission invites 
comment on alternatives to its rate freeze proposal, such as freezing 
rates in all tiers, for all providers, or freezing rates for all 
providers for their first 500,000 minutes.
    31. In addition to the proposed VRS compensation rate freeze, the 
FNPRM seeks comment on a number of rule

[[Page 72034]]

changes that may improve the functional equivalence of VRS. 
Specifically, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether to: (1) Impose a 
faster speed-of-answer standard, e.g., requiring VRS providers to 
answer 80 percent of all VRS calls within 45 seconds, as measured on a 
monthly basis, in lieu of the current requirement to answer 80 percent 
of all VRS calls within 120 seconds, as measured on a monthly basis; 
(2) adopt a limited trial of ``skills-based routing,'' allowing VRS 
callers to request that calls be routed to VRS communications 
assistants (CAs) with particular skill sets, such as particular spoken-
language abilities, interpreting, transliteration, and signing styles 
and skills, or knowledge of specific subject matters (e.g., medicine, 
law, or technology); (3) authorize providers to use qualified deaf sign 
language interpreters, in addition to the hearing interpreters, as CAs 
for those consumers who need such additional assistance for effective 
communication; (4) authorize the use of at-home interpreters under 
certain conditions; and (5) permit the assignment of ten-digit numbers 
for video phones used by hearing individuals who know American Sign 
Language (ASL) to communicate directly with deaf consumers. The 
Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of each of these 
measures.

B. Legal Basis

    32. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in 
sections 4(i), 201(b), 225, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201(b), 225, 303(r).

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Impacted

    33. 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 proposed rules and policies, if adopted. (5 U.S.C. 
603(b)(3).) The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as 
having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' (5 U.S.C. 
601(6).) In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning 
as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. (5 
U.S.C. 601(3).) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition 
of a small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with 
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after 
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of 
such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and 
publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.'') 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. (15 U.S.C. 
632.)
    34. VRS Providers. These services can be included within the broad 
economic category of All Other Telecommunications. Six providers 
currently receive compensation from the TRS Fund for providing VRS: ASL 
Services Holdings, LLC (ASL Services); CSDVRS, LLC (CSDVRS); Convo 
Communications, LLC (Convo); Hancock, Jahn, Lee and Puckett, LLC d/b/a 
``Communications Axess Ability Group'' (CAAG); Purple Communications, 
Inc. (Purple); and Sorenson Communications, Inc. (Sorenson) (VRS and IP 
CTS).
    35. All Other Telecommunications. ``All Other Telecommunications'' 
is defined as follows: ``This U.S. industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, 
such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station 
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged 
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of 
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications 
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or 
voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.'' 
(U.S. Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System, 
Definition of NAICS Code 517919. See https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.)
    36. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for All 
Other Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms with gross 
annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. (See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS 
Code 517919.) All the authorized VRS providers can be included within 
the broad economic census category of All Other Telecommunications. 
Under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
approximately half of the VRS providers can be considered small.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    37. No additional compliance requirements would be imposed by the 
VRS compensation rate freeze proposed in document FCC 15-143. If the 
Commission were to adopt some or all of the service improvement 
measures on which comments are sought in document FCC 15-143, the 
adoption of such measures could result in additional reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. Specifically, in 
seeking comments on whether to authorize a limited trial of ``skills-
based routing,'' provide for the use of qualified deaf sign language 
interpreters to provide additional communications assistance for VRS 
users who need such additional assistance for effective communication, 
or permit the assignment of ten-digit numbers for video phones used by 
hearing individuals to communicate directly with deaf consumers, the 
Commission has also sought comment on whether additional reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements would be needed to document the use of such 
features in order to prevent fraud, abuse, and waste. There may also be 
associated recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance requirements if the 
Commission were to allow the use of at-home interpreters, but such 
compliance requirements would apply only if a provider chooses to 
permit its interpreters to work from home. If the Commission were to 
increase the required speed of answer for VRS calls, no additional 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements are contemplated, and the cost 
of compliance would increase only to the extent that the new standard 
exceeded providers' current performance.

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

    38. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities. (5 U.S.C. 603(b).)
    39. The temporary compensation rate freeze proposed in document FCC 
15-143 would not impose additional compliance burdens and would 
temporarily ease the impact of existing VRS regulations on small 
entities by temporarily increasing the VRS

[[Page 72035]]

compensation rate for small entities above the rate currently in 
effect. Similarly, if the Commission were to amend its rules to 
authorize at-home interpreting for VRS, the impact of existing VRS 
regulations on small entities could be reduced because providers would 
have additional flexibility to structure their VRS operations so as to 
minimize cost and maximize efficiency.
    40. Regarding the possible additional record-keeping and reporting 
requirements that could be adopted if the Commission were to authorize 
skills-based routing, deaf interpreters, or assignment of ten-digit 
numbers to hearing individuals using video phones, the Commission is 
seeking comment on the alternative of allowing providers to choose 
whether to provide such features and incur the associated compliance 
requirements.

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

    41. None.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29371 Filed 11-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P