Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services Program, 17613-17624 [2017-07153]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules
to organophosphorus flame retardants
and tetrabromobisphenol A at five work
environments. Environmental Science &
Technology, 43(3), 941–947. https://
doi.org/10.1021/es802593t.
142. Washington State Department of
Ecology. 2014. Flame Retardants in
General Consumer and Children’s
Products. (Publication No. 14–04–021).
Washington State Department of
Ecology: Olympia, WA. https://
fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/
documents/1404021.pdf.
143. Miller, G.Z. & Gearhart, J. 2016.
Traveling with Toxics: Flame Retardants
& Other Chemicals in Children’s Car
Seats. Ecology Center: Ann Arbor, MI.
https://www.ecocenter.org/healthy-stuff/
pages/childrens-car-seat-study-2016report.
144. EPA. 2012a. Avian Acute Oral Toxicity
Test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.2100).
145. Fernie K., Palace V., Peters L., Basu Nil,
Letcher R., Karouna-Renier N., Schultz
S., Lazarus R. and Rattner B. 2015.
Investigating Endocrine and
Physiological Parameters of Captive
American Kestrels Exposed by Diet to
Selected Organophosphate Flame
Retardants; Environmental Science &
Technology, vol. 49, issue 12, pp. 7448–
7455.
146. EPA. 2012b. Avian Dietary Toxicity Test
(OCSPP Test Guideline 850.2200).
147. Sprague G.L., Sandvik L.L., BrookinsHendricks M.J. and Bickford A.A. 1981.
Neurotoxicity of two organophosphorus
ester flame retardants in hens. J. Toxicol.
Environ. Health, 8, 507–518.
148. EU (European Union). 2009. European
Union Risk Assessment Report: Tris (2Chloroethyl) Phosphate, (TCEP) CAS No:
115–96–8. Ireland and United Kingdom,
Luxembourg. https://echa.europa.eu/
documents/10162/6434698/orats_final_
rar_tris2-chloroethylphosphate_en.pdf.
149. EPA. 2012c. Earthworm Subchronic
Toxicity Test (OCSPP Test Guideline
850.3100).
150. Wildlife International, Ltd. 2006a.
Tris[2-chloro-1-(chloromethyl)ethyl]phosphate (TDCP): A 28-Day Sediment
Toxicity Test with Chironomus riparius
Using Spiked Sediment. Final Report
Project Number: 583A–104. Wildlife
International, Ltd., Easton, Maryland
21601, U.S.A., as cited in EU (European
Union), 2008b. (REF 106)
151. Wildlife International, Ltd. 2006b.
Tris[2-chloro-1-(chloromethyl)ethyl]phosphate (TDCP): A Prolonged
Sediment Toxicity Test with Hyalella
azteca Using Spiked Sediment. Final
Report Project Number: 583A–105.
Wildlife International, Ltd., Easton,
Maryland 21601, U.S.A., as cited in EU
(European Union), 2008b. (Ref. 97)
152. Wildlife International, Ltd. 2006c.
Tris[2-chloro-1-(chloromethyl)ethyl]phosphate (TDCP): A Prolonged
Sediment Toxicity Test with
Lumbriculus variegatus using Spiked
Sediment. Final Report Project Number:
583A–106. Wildlife International, Ltd.,
Easton, Maryland 21601, U.S.A., as cited
in EU (European Union), 2008b. (Ref. 97)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
153. Wetton P.M. 1996. Acute toxicity to
earthworms. Report of SPL Project
Number: 071/458. SafePharm
Laboratories Ltd., Derby. as cited in EU
(European Union), 2008a (Ref. 96) and
EU (European Union), 2008b (Ref. 97).
154. Servajean E. 2003a. Laboratory
determination of the long-term toxicity
of TCPP to earthworms (Eisenia fetida)
using artificial soil substrate. Report of
Phytosafe Study Number: 03–69–005–
ES. PHYTOSAFE s.a.r.l., 2, rue Marx
Dormoy, 64000 Pau, France. as cited in
EU (European Union), 2008a (Ref. 96).
155. Van Ginkel C.G. 2005b. Toxicity of
TDCP to soil micro-organisms: Nitrogen
transformation inhibition test. Akzo
Nobel Research and Technology
Chemicals Arnhem. Report number CER
F05047 T 05015 NTI, 20th October 2005.
as cited in EU (European Union), 2008b
(Ref. 97).
156. EPA. 2012d. Early Seedling Growth
Toxicity Test (OCSPP Test Guideline
850.4230).
157. Servajean E. 2004b. Laboratory
assessment of the side-effects of TDCP on
plant growth. Study Number: 04–99–
022–ES. PHYTOSAFE s.a.r.l. Pau,
France. as cited in EU (European Union),
2008b (Ref. 97).
¨
158. Rombke, J. Bauer, C. Brodesser, J.
Brodsky, J. Danneberg, G. Heimann, D.
Renner, I. and Schallnass, H.J. 1995.
Basis for the assessment of the
ecotoxicological potential of ‘‘existing
chemicals’’ in the terrestrial
environment—development of a testing
strategy. Batelle Eur. Res. rept. 106 04
103 (UBA), UBA-Texte 53/95 (in
German), as cited in EU (European
Union), 2009 (Ref. 148).
159. Servajean E. 2003b. Laboratory
assessment of the side-effects of TCPP on
plant growth. Report of Phytosafe Study
Number: 03–69–012–ES. PHYTOSAFE
s.a.r.l., 2, rue Marx Dormoy, 64000 Pau,
France. as cited in EU (European Union),
2008a (Ref. 96).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Chapter I
Environmental protection, Flame
retardants, Hazardous substances,
chlorinated phosphate ester cluster.
Dated: April 6, 2017.
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Acting,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2017–07404 Filed 4–11–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17613
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 10–51 and 03–123; FCC
17–26]
Structure and Practices of the Video
Relay Services Program
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission seeks comment on
establishing performance goals and
service quality metrics to evaluate the
efficacy of the video relay service (VRS)
program and on the incidence of
‘‘phony’’ VRS calls and the handling of
such calls. The Commission also
proposes a four-year plan for VRS
compensation and rule amendments to
permit server-based routing of VRS and
point-to-point video calls, provide
safeguards regarding who may use VRS
at enterprise and public videophones,
allow customer service support centers
to access the Telecommunications Relay
Service (TRS) Numbering Directory for
direct video calling, and make a
technical change to per-call validation
requirements. The Commission also
seeks comment on whether to continue
including research and development in
the TRS Fund budget, prohibit nonservice related inducements to register
for VRS, and prohibit the use of noncompete provisions in VRS
communications assistant (CA)
employment contracts.
DATES: For VRS compensation rates,
server-based routing, and research and
development, comments are due April
24, 2017, and reply comments are due
May 4, 2017. For performance goals and
service quality metrics, the incidence
and handling of ‘‘phony’’ VRS calls,
VRS use of enterprise and public
videophones, direct video calling
customer support services, per-call
validation procedures, non-service
related inducements, and non-compete
provisions in VRS employment
contracts, comments are due May 30,
2017, and reply comments are due June
26, 2017.
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://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow
the instructions provided on the Web
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
17614
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
For detailed instructions for submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
Aldrich, Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau (202) 418–0996, email
Robert.Aldrich@fcc.gov, or Eliot
Greenwald, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202)
418–2235, email Eliot.Greenwald@
fcc.gov.
Pursuant
to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested
parties may file comments on or before
the dates indicated in the DATES section.
Comments may be filed using the
Commission’s ECFS. See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
• Commercial 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 must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
This is a summary of document FCC
17–26, Structure and Practices of the
Video Relay Service Program;
Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
Disabilities, Notice of Inquiry and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
document FCC 17–26, adopted on
March 23, 2017, and released on March
23, 2017, in CG Docket Nos. 10–51 and
03–123. The Report and Order and
Order, FCC 17–26, adopted on March
23, 2017, and released on March 23,
2017, will be published elsewhere in a
later issue. The full text of document
FCC 17–26 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. This
proceeding shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-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 47 CFR
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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), (844) 432–2272
(videophone), or (202) 418–0432 (TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
Document FCC 17–26 seeks comment
on proposed rule amendments that may
result in modified information
collection requirements. If the
Commission adopts any modified
information collection requirements, the
Commission will publish another notice
in the Federal Register inviting the
public to comment on the requirements,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act. Public Law 104–13; 44 U.S.C.
3501–3520. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, the Commission seeks comment
on how it might further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. Public Law 107–198; 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
Notice of Inquiry on Service Quality
Metrics for VRS
Performance Goals
1. The Commission seeks comment on
appropriate performance goals for the
VRS program. 47 U.S.C. 225 requires the
Commission to ensure, to the extent
possible, the availability to people with
disabilities of telephone services that
are functionally equivalent to services
used by individuals who do not need
TRS. The Commission seeks comment
on whether establishing performance
goals that align with this requirement is
appropriate for VRS. The Commission
believes that the mandate for VRS to be
functionally equivalent to voice
telephone services requires levels of
service that are equivalent to those
experienced in mainstream wireless,
wireline, and voice over Internet
protocol (VoIP) communication calls
between and among hearing persons. In
this regard, the Commission notes that
a policy statement submitted by various
Consumer Groups in April 2011
proposes to define functional
equivalence generally for all forms of
TRS as follows:
Persons receiving or making relay calls are
able to participate equally in the entire
conversation with the other party or parties
and they experience the same activity,
emotional context, purpose, operation, work,
service, or role (function) within the call as
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
if the call is between individuals who are not
using relay services on any end of the call.
The Commission seeks comment on the
extent to which this is an appropriate
definition of functional equivalence for
the purpose of defining performance
goals and service quality metrics.
2. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether other goals are
appropriate for assessing the VRS
program and VRS provider performance.
For example, should VRS performance
goals also mirror the Commission’s
statutory obligations to ensure that TRS
is provided ‘‘in the most efficient
manner,’’ and to encourage ‘‘the use of
existing technology and . . . not
discourage or impair the development of
improved technology?’’ Should the costeffective provision of VRS be included
in VRS performance goals, either as a
component of the efficient provision of
VRS or as a separate goal?
3. The Commission seeks comment on
how the use of mainstream and off-theshelf technologies that do not rely on
VRS can serve the communications
needs of individuals who are deaf, hard
of hearing, deaf-blind, or have speech
disabilities. For example, people who
use sign language are now able to
communicate directly with each other
via video over broadband and cellular
networks; and electronic messaging
services, such as email, short messaging
service (SMS), instant messaging (IM),
and chat, allow people to use these
networks to communicate in text. In
addition, the Commission expects some
wireless providers to be rolling out realtime text (RTT) by the end of this
calendar year. The Commission asks
commenters to address the types of
circumstances when such services can
be used to provide effective
communication for these individuals.
What steps, if any, should the
Commission be taking to provide such
direct communication solutions?
Alternatively, are there certain
situations where such services would
fall short of functional equivalency for
the signing population? To what extent
can these direct video or text
alternatives be used for calls made to
businesses and other parties, such as
doctors’ offices, schools, stores, family
members, and colleagues? What are the
potential cost-savings to the TRS Fund
resulting from the use of such non-VRS
technologies?
Performance Measures
4. The Commission seeks comment on
whether the derivation of data used to
measure VRS service quality should be
overseen by the TRS Fund administrator
or otherwise developed through
contractual or similar arrangements
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
with independent third parties selected
by the Commission. The Commission
believes that the establishment of
estimates and calculations resulting
from performance measures will have
greater efficacy if the measurements and
reports of results are conducted
independently, i.e., not by the regulated
entities. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether to publish the
metrics achieved for each provider, as it
appears likely that making the results of
these measurements available to the
public in a standard format will aid
users in their selection of VRS
providers. Finally, the Commission
seeks comment on the merits of
developing a system by which VRS
users can rate the quality and
performance of VRS calls, which would
be based on the metrics discussed below
and shared publicly to improve
competition.
5. To measure functional equivalence,
the Commission seeks specific comment
on whether to use the following metrics:
(1) Quality and accuracy of
interpretation; (2) technical voice and
video quality; (3) interoperability and
portability; (4) percentage and frequency
of dropped or disconnected calls; and
(5) service outages.
6. Quality and Accuracy of
Interpretation. The Commission seeks
comment on how interpretation quality
can be effectively measured to assess
functional equivalence. A key element
of interpretation quality is accuracy, i.e.,
the extent to which the information
conveyed by one party to a VRS call
accurately matches the communication
conveyed by the CA to the other parties
to that call. How should accuracy be
measured? What metrics and methods
are currently used to evaluate VRS
interpreters, e.g., for purposes of
certification or evaluation during
interpreter training? Are there relevant
metrics and methods used by spoken
language translators that could be
effectively applied to evaluate the
accuracy of VRS interpretation? For
example, for any given call, can
accuracy be measured by comparing the
signs of the American Sign Language
(ASL) user and words of the hearing
person—as each are delivered to the
CA—to the words spoken and signs
made by the CA? Given that
interpretation of ASL to English is often
a matter of conveying concepts rather
than word-for-word translation, how
can an appropriate comparison between
the signs produced by ASL users be
effectively compared to the words
relayed by the CA to produce an
effective accuracy percentage? Unlike
speech-to-text transcription,
interpretation accuracy may be difficult
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17615
to evaluate on a word-by-word basis
because the grammar and word usage
differ between ASL and spoken
languages such as English or Spanish.
How can the Commission account for
such differences in taking accuracy
measurements? Are there scales similar
to the voice five-step mean opinion
score (MOS) metrics? MOS scores are
used to rate the user-perceived quality
and listening effort on a five point scale,
such as ‘‘excellent-good-fair-poor-bad,’’
as defined in ITU–T Recommendation
P.800.
7. Should the Commission adjust
accuracy measurements for certain
kinds of calls, such as calls to 911 or
calls where a skills-based or deaf
interpreter is utilized? More broadly,
what tools should the Commission use
to measure the accuracy of VRS calls
given that measurements may be
unreliable without access to both sides
of the conversation? Should test calls,
e.g., by independent third parties, using
sample scripts, be employed to evaluate
the accuracy of interpretation?
Alternatively, should independent third
parties be permitted to monitor
unscripted calls for the purpose of
measuring interpretation quality, and
under what conditions to protect
privacy and confidentiality? The
Commission’s rules presently prohibit
providers from retaining records of the
content of any conversation beyond the
duration of a call. Are there real-time or
other methods that can be used to
measure the accuracy of calls
consistently with this prohibition? Or
should an exception be permitted for
purposes of ensuring call quality? For
example, should the Commission
require providers to record a statistically
valid sample of calls? Should the
Commission use anonymous callers to
make and record call interactions for
later analysis by experts? How many
calls would be appropriate for either of
these methods? How should the
Commission address the confidentiality
concerns of VRS users if recordings are
used in this process?
8. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether and how to
measure the synchronicity of
interpreted communications taking
place during a VRS call. Although the
Commission recognizes that there is
necessarily some delay during relay
calls and inherent time lag involved in
interpretation, these delays should be
kept to a minimum and signing should
begin to appear at the approximate time
that the corresponding speech begins
and end approximately when the speech
ends. The Commission seeks comment
on whether there are existing metrics,
e.g., for non-ASL language interpreters,
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
17616
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules
that might be used for this purpose. Are
there studies that indicate what kind of
delay is acceptable for fluid
conversation? Does the interpretation
delay vary significantly among CAs
such that there is a need to determine
this measurement? To what extent
should this metric be measured by
independent third parties?
9. Are there other metrics that the
Commission should use to evaluate
interpreter quality and accuracy? How
effectively will such metrics assess the
extent to which functional equivalence
is being attained and what methods can
be used to measure these?
10. Technical Voice and Video
Quality. What metrics should be
assigned to evaluate the technical
quality of VRS as a component of
functional equivalence? What are the
key parameters of a VRS provider’s
audio and video communication
service, and how should they be
measured, evaluated, and published?
Should providers disclose whether they
interconnect with their
telecommunication service provider in
high definition (HD) audio? To what
extent is this capability needed for
functionally equivalent VRS
communications, and what metrics can
be used to measure this feature?
11. Interoperability. To enhance the
ability of the Commission and
consumers to evaluate the extent of the
interoperability that is achieved by VRS
providers, the Commission seeks
comment on the most appropriate
metrics and measurement methods for
quantitatively assessing interoperability.
For example, is there a means of
quantifying the interoperability of
various types of user-visible functions,
such as the connection of calls, video
mail and address books, or technical
protocol features such as call setup,
codecs, system configuration, end-toend security and registration that could
fail to interoperate as a result of
noncompliance?
12. Dropped or Disconnected Calls.
The Commission next seeks comment
on whether it would be appropriate to
track and measure the percentage and
frequency of ‘‘dropped’’ or disconnected
VRS calls as an indicator of service
quality and functional equivalence, and
how such data should be compared with
dropped or disconnected telephone
calls made over mainstream voice
networks. Should such metrics be
collected through user feedback or test
calls or by analyzing provider logs? Is it
possible to distinguish call drops that
occur due to disruptions in the Internet
connectivity of the VRS user from call
drops caused by the VRS provider or
deficiencies in the VRS user software or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
hardware? Are there metrics and
measurement methodologies used in
wireless or wired networks that can be
used for VRS? The Commission further
seeks comment on how such data
should be collected.
13. Service Outages. In general, to
achieve functional equivalence, the
Commission believes that the frequency
and extent of VRS service outages and
interruptions should not exceed that of
outages and interruptions occurring on
transmission services used by hearing
people. The Commission seeks
comment on this assumption. The
Commission seeks comment on an
appropriate metric to measure
functional equivalence in this regard.
14. Other Metrics. The Commission
seeks further comment on other
concrete, measurable metrics it could
employ to measure the quality of service
among VRS providers. Commenters
should address, with specificity, what
should be measured, how it should be
measured, and how often it should be
measured, along with any estimated
costs of such measurements.
Phony VRS Calls
15. The Commission has received
anecdotal evidence of calls made to VRS
CAs that are not made for the purpose
of communicating with a third party,
but rather for the sole purpose of
harassing or threatening a CA. The
Commission seeks comment on the
extent to which such calls occur, as well
as the incidence of other types of
‘‘phony’’ VRS calls, for example, those
that involve scams or spoofing. The
Commission seeks comment on how
such calls should be handled and on
action that should be taken by the
Commission to effectively address such
calls.
16. On a related matter, the
Commission notes that in the past, the
Commission received reports that textbased Internet Protocol (IP) Relay was
being used to commit ‘‘swatting,’’ i.e.,
individuals were using IP Relay to hide
their identities in order to place calls to
911, in an attempt to trick public safety
answering points into dispatching
emergency services based on false
reports. The Commission is unaware of
similar incidents of swatting through
VRS, but the Commission invites
commenters to share reports of any such
occurrences, as well as
recommendations on how to address
such incidents.
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
VRS Compensation Rates
17. In 2007, the Commission adopted
a tiered VRS compensation rate
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
structure in order to reflect likely cost
differentials between small, mid-level,
and large, dominant providers. In 2013,
having determined that VRS
compensation rates for all the rate tiers
were substantially in excess of
providers’ actual costs, the Commission
adopted a transitional four-year ‘‘glide
path’’ of compensation rate adjustments
in lieu of a more immediate reduction
to cost-based levels, in order to assist
providers in adjusting to cost-based
rates. The Commission’s four-year rate
plan established gradual per-minute
VRS rate reductions every six months,
from July 1, 2013, through June 30,
2017. The Commission also reassessed
the use of a tiered compensation
structure. The Commission decided
that, to encourage the provision of VRS
in the most efficient manner, the gap
between the highest and lowest tiered
rates would be reduced over time. Upon
the completion of certain structural
reforms, which the Commission
expected to occur before the expiration
of the four-year plan, the Commission
contemplated moving to a unitary
compensation rate for all minutes,
which the Commission hoped to set
based on pricing benchmarks developed
through competitive bidding for the
provision of various elements of VRS.
On March 1, 2016, after considering a
petition by all six certified VRS
providers urging an interruption of the
scheduled compensation rate
adjustments, the Commission adopted a
temporary ‘‘freeze’’ of the compensation
rates of the smallest VRS providers—
those handling 500,000 or fewer
monthly minutes. On December 20,
2016, Convo, Purple, and ZVRS
submitted a joint VRS compensation
proposal to the Commission, and on
January 31, 2017, Global joined in this
proposal. They propose a four-year VRS
rate plan with the following per-minute
rates: $5.29 for providers with 500,000
or fewer monthly minutes (‘‘emergent
rate’’); $4.82 for other providers’ first
1,000,000 VRS minutes (Tier I); $4.35
for a provider’s monthly minutes
between 1,000,001 and 2,500,000 (Tier
II); and $2.83 for a provider’s monthly
minutes in excess of $2,500,000 (Tier
III).
18. The Commission’s last four-year
plan was successful in lowering the cost
of VRS by $35.7 million in FY2013,
$86.7 million in FY2014, $131.3 million
in FY2016, and $90.4 million in the first
half of FY2017. This gradual reduction
in rates has driven VRS providers to
provision their services more efficiently.
The weighted average per-minute cost
for providing service has declined from
$3.09 in 2012 (before the rate plan
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules
became effective) to $2.63 today.
However, the VRS market structure has
seen little change, in part because the
structural reforms the Commission
envisioned in 2013 have been slow to
arrive. Thus, the Commission believes
its previous four-year plan was too
optimistic in assuming that rates for all
VRS providers could start to converge in
FY2016, as indicated by the
Commission’s decision to freeze smallprovider compensation rates in 2016.
Indeed, Rolka Loube reports that four of
the five providers continue to incur perminute costs that are higher than the
weighted average per-minute cost of
providing VRS.
19. Given these circumstances, the
Commission believes that maintaining a
tiered rate structure continues to be
necessary to allow smaller providers a
reasonable opportunity to continue
providing service. Having analyzed the
cost data reported by Rolka, as well as
recent data submissions from four of the
providers, the Commission believes
another four-year plan best balances the
need to minimize the cost of service for
ratepayers, maintain competition in the
marketplace pending further structural
reforms, reflect the differing costs of
differing providers, and give VRS
providers the long-term stability in rates
to make investment decisions. The
Commission proposes that this four-year
period run from July 1, 2017 to June 30,
2021, and sets forth a proposed
restructuring of rates and tiers for this
period below. Like the Joint VRS
Providers, the Commission believe three
tiers plus a rate for ‘‘emergent’’ VRS
providers are appropriate for this
purpose.
20. The Commission seeks comment
on this overall approach. To what extent
are the goals of functional equivalence
and efficiency served by maintaining a
tiered rate approach during an
additional four-year transitional rate
period? For instance, is the VRS
industry characterized by sufficient
economies of scale to warrant tiered
rates? Which components of a VRS
provider’s costs are and are not subject
to significant economies of scale and
how do such scale economies affect
provider costs at various levels of
demand? Do considerations other than
scale economies, such as the benefits of
allowing consumer choice among a
diversity of providers, justify tiered
rates? What marketplace distortions, if
any, may be created if tiers boundaries
are not closely correlated to scale
economies, and how should such
distortions, as well as the inefficiencies
that may result from a tiered structure,
be weighed against the benefits of
enabling competition by multiple
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
providers? What marketplace
distortions, if any, could result from
moving to a single unitary
compensation rate? Is there an
alternative tiered structure to that
proposed below that would strike a
more appropriate balance between
efficiency and competition?
21. The Commission also seeks
comment on the following proposals.
First, given that the Commission’s
current rate plan sets the same rate for
the first 500,000 minutes of larger
providers and the next 500,000 minutes,
the Commission proposes to redefine
Tier I to include the first 1,000,000
minutes as suggested by the Joint VRS
Providers. Second, the Commission
agrees with the Joint VRS Providers that
economies of scale continue to increase
significantly for VRS providers with
more than 1,000,000 monthly minutes.
In line with the suggestion of the Joint
VRS Providers, the Commission
proposes to draw the line between Tiers
II and III at 2,500,000 monthly minutes.
Third, the Commission agrees with the
Joint VRS Providers that an emergent
rate for the smaller, new entrants is
appropriate given the slow onset of
structural reforms to encourage
competition and interoperability. An
emergent rate also reflects the
Commission’s previous decision to
freeze the rates for this class of
providers on a temporary basis, and
generally the higher cost of service for
new entrants in the market. The
Commission proposes to apply this
emergent rate to VRS providers with no
more than 500,000 monthly minutes as
of January 1, 2017, and to maintain this
rate for the first 500,000 monthly
minutes of such providers through the
end of this four-year rate plan.
Structuring the emergent rate in this
way should encourage new entry into
the program and give small providers
appropriate incentives to grow without
risking a sudden reduction in rates if
they grow above the 500,000 monthly
minute threshold.
22. The Commission proposes to
adjust the rates for each of these tiers
through several steps, at six-month
intervals as in the current rate plan.
First, the Commission seeks comment
on rates for the initial period of the fouryear rate plan. For emergent providers,
the Commission seeks comment on
whether to increase the rate to $5.29 as
proposed by the Joint VRS Providers or
to maintain the $4.82 rate that is set to
be in effect in June. For Tier I, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
to increase the rate to $4.82, as proposed
by the Joint VRS Providers, or to
maintain the current $4.06 rate. For Tier
II, the Commission seeks comment on
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17617
whether to increase the rate to $4.35 as
proposed by the Joint VRS Providers or
to maintain the current $3.49 rate. For
Tier III, the Commission seeks comment
on whether to maintain the current
$3.49 rate or decrease it to the $2.83 rate
proposed by the Joint VRS Providers.
The Commission also invites parties to
submit other suggested rate levels for
each tier, with justification and
supporting data.
23. Next, the Commission seeks
comment on rates for the final period in
the four-year rate plan. For emergent
providers, the Commission seeks
comment on whether to set a $5.29 rate
as proposed by the Joint VRS Providers,
a $4.82 rate reflecting the rate that is set
to be in effect in June, or a $4.06 rate
based on the current Tier I rate. For Tier
I, the Commission seeks comment on
whether to set a $4.82 rate as proposed
by the Joint VRS Providers, a $4.06 rate
based on the current Tier I rate, or a rate
of $3.74 based on the historical costs of
providers achieving only some
economies of scale plus an operating
margin, or a rate of $3.49 based on the
current Tier II rate. For Tier II, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
to set a $4.35 rate as proposed by the
Joint VRS Providers, a rate of $3.49
based on the current Tier III rate, or a
rate of $3.08 based on the historical
costs of providers achieving significant
economies of scale plus an operating
margin. For Tier III, the Commission
seeks comment on a $3.49 rate based on
the current Tier III rate, a $2.83 rate as
proposed by the Joint VRS Providers,
and a $2.63 rate based on average
historical expenses for all providers.
The Commission also invites parties to
submit other suggested rate levels for
each tier, with justification and
supporting data.
24. For each six-month period
between the initial and final periods,
the Commission proposes to apply
transitional rates that gradually
transition the rates the Commission
proposes for the initial period to the
final rates that will apply in the first half
of 2021. By definition, the larger the
difference between initial and final
rates, the greater the transitional step
taken every six months.
25. The Commission notes that
providers have long argued that,
because substantial plant investment is
not necessary to provide VRS, a rate-ofreturn allowance based on the telephone
industry model is inadequate to
generate sufficient profits to attract
significant long-term investment in VRS
companies. As such, providers have
argued that an 11.25% rate-of-return on
net capital investment is insufficiently
compensatory. The Commission also
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
17618
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules
notes that the Commission has recently
reconsidered whether an 11.25% rateof-return is reasonable given the current
financial and economic environment
and, in 2016 determined that a lower
range of 7.12–9.75% is instead
reasonable. The Commission seeks
comment on whether to adopt that
lower range of rates-of-return if the
Commission maintains a rate-of-return
approach to cost calculations. To
respond to the VRS providers’ concern,
however, the Commission also seeks
comment on eschewing the traditional
rate-of-return calculation and instead
employing an operating margin
approach with that same range of 7.12–
9.75%.
26. The Commission further notes that
the average weighted per-minute cost
for the industry is $2.63 in 2015, or
$2.82–2.89 if the Commission includes
an operating margin. Excluding any VRS
provider with significantly more than
1,000,000 monthly minutes, average
weighted per-minute costs in 2015 were
more than $1.00 higher. The
Commission further notes that for the
VRS industry as a whole, total
compensation for calendar year 2015
was $563,069,736, while the total cost of
service plus an operating margin was
only $360,197,998 to $369,041,545.
Given the large gap between total
compensation for VRS providers and the
total cost of service plus an operating
margin, the Commission tentatively
concludes that any new rate schedule it
adopts should result in a smaller gap
than freezing rates in June 2017 for a
four-year period. The Commission seeks
comments on this analysis and this
tentative conclusion, and their
implications for setting rates during the
four-year term. Although the
Commission seeks comment on the
possible substitution of an alternative
approach, such as described above, for
the current rate-of-return allowance, the
Commission does not intend to reopen
questions that would expand the types
of expenses that should be included in
allowable costs.
27. In setting rates, the Commission is
not required to guarantee all providers
that they will recover their allowable
costs—the purpose of the tiered rate
structure has been to set rates for
providers in discrete size classes based
on general differentials between large,
medium-sized, and small providers, not
to guarantee all providers recovery of
their individual costs. Although the
Commission seeks to preserve a
diversity of suppliers in the market, the
Commission is not required to ensure
the viability of every VRS competitor,
no matter how inefficient.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
28. Despite the past four years of
significant reductions in compensation
rates, VRS providers apparently
continue to give out iPads, video
monitors, and state-of-the-art
videophones to customers in order to
secure their default VRS traffic. To the
extent that a VRS provider engages in
such behavior, it would appear to
confirm that the marginal compensation
rate for that provider continues to be
well above the provider’s marginal cost
of serving additional customers, and
remains above the marginal cost even
including the per-minute cost of the
giveaways offered to gain those
customers’ traffic. The continuation of
such wasteful and disruptive marketing
tactics seems to confirm the importance
of bringing the rate for each tier as close
as possible to the marginal per-minute
cost of the affected firms. The
Commission seeks comment on what
proposed rates would be a step in that
direction.
29. The Commission seeks comment
on these proposed service tiers, the
suggested alternatives for initial and
final compensation rates, and the
proposed schedule of rate reductions.
Should the Commission collapse the
tiers to reduce the possible overpayment
of some providers or expand them
further to reflect the differing costs of
service as VRS providers scale up? What
are the most appropriate initial rates to
begin the further transition to cost-based
levels? What are the most appropriate
final rates to ensure that providers are
neither over- nor under-compensated? Is
the proposed transition schedule too
fast or too slow? What is the likely
impact of various alternative rate levels
on the competitiveness of the VRS
market? What is the likely impact on the
quality of service to consumers?
30. The Commission also seeks
comment on any other factors the
Commission should consider in setting
compensation rates for this four-year
period. For example, what, if any,
categories of costs should providers be
able to recover as exogenous costs
(including consideration of improved
services discussed elsewhere in this
proceeding), and how should the
Commission ensure that such costs are
adequately documented and that
providers do not incur such costs
imprudently? Are there marketplace
benchmarks, such as rates paid for video
remote interpreting (VRI), that could
serve as a benchmark against which the
Commission could determine the
reasonableness of proposed VRS
compensation rates? If so, what are such
benchmarks and how should the
Commission factor them into VRS rates?
Further, should the Commission impose
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
an auditing requirement on any
companies that seek to qualify for the
emergent provider rate? The
Commission notes that some very small
providers have reported costs well
above compensable rates for multiyear
periods, yet have continued to offer
VRS—a circumstance that appears
inconsistent with the behavior of a
rational firm. Conditioning the emergent
provider rate on an audit to determine
whether improper cost allocation is
occurring may be one means of ensuring
that the cost data reported actually
reflects the incremental costs of a
business to offer VRS alongside its other
marketplace offerings.
31. Further, should the Commission
make any of the proposed initial rates
that are higher than current rates
retroactive to January 1, 2017, as
proposed by the Joint VRS Providers?
On a number of prior occasions, the
Commission has applied adjustments,
including changes in TRS compensation
rates and contribution factors,
retroactively to the beginning of a Fund
Year. Are retroactive adjustments
appropriate here? If so, for which rates
and based on what specific justification?
For example, in what way is such
retroactive compensation relevant to
providers’ ability to recover their costs
and attract investment on a goingforward basis?
32. Although the proposed approach
contains elements of a price-cap
regime—because rates are not directly
tied to, and tend to lag, costs—the
Commission also seeks comment on a
price-cap approach. First, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
the Commission should initialize rates
for each carrier based on its own
historical costs, as the Commission did
when it created price-cap regulation
over two decades ago. Second, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
it should apply a productivity factor and
an inflation factor to such price-caps
over the course of the four-year term. If
the Commission was to adopt this
approach, would that cause greater
striation in rates and costs among VRS
providers? Would a price-cap regime
give carriers sufficient incentive to
reduce costs? Would such a regime
reduce the compensation paid for the
service closer to its costs? Would such
a regime unfairly penalize more efficient
providers? How should the Commission
set a productivity factor (would it be
based on industry-wide efficiencies or
company-by-company)? How
complicated would it be to establish and
administer a price-cap regime? If the
Commission declines to adopt such a
regime, should the Commission
nonetheless apply productivity and
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules
inflation factors to rates the Commission
adopt under the proposed approach?
33. Sorenson also suggests that the
Commission set rates for individual
components of VRS based on pricing
benchmarks developed through
competitive bidding. The Commission
notes that the proposal in the 2013 VRS
Reform FNPRM, published at 78 FR
40407, July 5, 2013, was premised on
developing a neutral video
communications service platform. The
Commission previously canceled that
procurement. In light of the general lack
of industry interest in the neutral video
communications services platform, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
it would be productive for the
Commission to request new bids for
such a platform. Absent a showing that
the Commission should request new
bids, the Commission proposes to repeal
the provisions of its rules relating to it.
Providers and other parties that believe
the Commission should proceed with its
original plan to develop this platform
should explain why they believe its
build-out is necessary to achieve the
goals of functional equivalence and
efficiency under section 225 of the Act,
as well as the extent to which VRS
providers would commit to utilizing
such a platform. If the Commission does
decide to pursue a neutral platform, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
the use of competitive bidding to set
rates for other services would make
sense. What would be the impact of
moving toward a piece-part system of
compensation on VRS providers? Would
there remain sufficient competitive
bidding prospects to ensure an efficient
auction given the rise of direct
connections at federal agencies and
other entities that have historically
received a large number of VRS calls?
34. Alternatively, Sorenson asks that
the Commission seek comment on
employing a reverse auction approach to
set rates based on a modified version of
the electricity supply auctions
authorized by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. Under this
suggested approach, the Commission
would determine how many VRS
providers are needed to provide
sufficient competitive choices for users
and then would seek bids from each
potential VRS provider on the perminute rate of compensation each will
accept for the provision of VRS.
Compensation would be paid to all
winning providers at the highest rate
bid by the winners, i.e., the rate bid by
the last bidder whose bid was accepted.
How many providers would be
sufficient under this approach? If less
than the total number of VRS providers
currently in the market, how would the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
17619
reduction in choice and competition
affect VRS users? If equal to the total
number of VRS providers currently in
the market, would that be considered an
auction at all? How would such an
approach address the apparent
economies of scale and scope within the
VRS market, ensuring that no VRS
provider receives an unjust windfall?
Would such an approach increase—
perhaps substantially—the cost of VRS
service to ratepayers? Would such an
approach prohibit new entry into the
VRS market during the rate period?
Would such an approach be less
‘‘regulatory,’’ as Sorenson suggests?
35. As another alternative, Sorenson
suggests replacing the TRS Fund with a
system under which
telecommunications carriers would
provide service themselves or by
contracting with TRS providers,
pursuant to the provision of section 225
of the Act that requires carriers to
provide service directly or ‘‘through
designees, through a competitively
selected vendor, or in concert with other
carriers.’’ 47 U.S.C. 225(c). This
approach would thus entail revisiting
the Commission’s earlier determination
that VRS should not be a ‘‘mandatory’’
service for common carriers. The
Commission seeks comment on the
feasibility, costs, and benefits of
migrating to a system in which VRS—
as well as, perhaps, other forms of
TRS—would be provided by carriers,
through private contracts or selfprovisioning, rather than through the
FCC-administered TRS Fund. How
would such an approach be likely to
affect the provision of functionally
equivalent service in the most efficient
manner, and could it be done
consistently with the requirements of
section 225 of the Act? In addition, are
there any other relevant statutory
provisions that would inform our
consideration of Sorenson’s suggestion?
the routing information provided to the
TRS numbering directory may include
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) that
contain provider domain names rather
than user IP addresses. All the current
VRS providers, as well as consumer
groups, support this approach. The
Commission believes that this proposed
amendment will advance
interoperability and will otherwise
serve the public interest for the
following reasons.
37. First, enabling the use of domain
names to route VRS and point-to-point
video calls will allow the
implementation of a consensus
interoperability standard and will
thereby advance VRS interoperability,
an objective long sought by the
Commission and one that is integral to
achieving functional equivalence.
Second, the record indicates that this
rule amendment will improve the
efficiency, reliability, and security of
VRS and point-to-point video
communications, thus advancing these
important Commission objectives as
well. Third, the Commission believes
that amending the rule to allow routing
based on domain names will promote
TRS regulation that ‘‘encourage[s] . . .
the use of existing technology and
do[es] not discourage or impair the
development of improved technology,’’
as required by 47 U.S.C. 225(c)(2).
Finally, the record indicates that the
proposed amendment will not impair
the Commission’s ability to prevent
fraud, abuse, and waste in the VRS
program.
The Commission seeks comment on
these conclusions, and any other factors
it should consider regarding this
proposed amendment. The Commission
believes it has authority to amend its
rules to allow server based routing
under 47 U.S.C. 225 and 251, and the
Commission seeks comment on this
assumption.
Server-Based Routing
36. In August 2015, the VRS Task
Group of the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Forum completed a technical
standard, the VRS Provider
Interoperability Profile, which addresses
interoperability between VRS providers,
as well as the interface between a VRS
provider and the TRS Numbering
Directory. Subsequently, the Consumer
and Government Affairs Bureau
incorporated the VRS Provider
Interoperability Profile by reference into
the Commission’s VRS interoperability
rule. To enable implementation of the
new call routing protocol specified by
the VRS Provider Interoperability
Profile, the Commission proposes to
amend 47 CFR 64.613 to provide that
VRS Use of Enterprise and Public
Videophones
38. Historically, VRS providers have
handled and received compensation for
VRS calls placed from both private
videophones of VRS users, and from
enterprise and public videophones. For
the limited purposes of document FCC
17–26, the Commission uses the term
‘‘enterprise videophones’’ to refer to
videophones provided by entities such
as businesses, organizations and
governmental agencies that are
designated for use by their employees
who use ASL. These phones can be
situated in a variety of locations,
including private or shared offices,
conference rooms, or other common
rooms. ‘‘Public videophones,’’ for
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
17620
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules
purposes of document FCC 17–26, are
those made available in public spaces,
such as schools, hospitals, libraries,
airports, and governmental agencies, for
use by any individuals who
communicate through ASL.
39. The TRS user registration database
(TRS–URD) and associated TRS
Numbering Directory have been set up
to enable validation of individual VRS
users by transmitting either the
originating or terminating Internet-based
TRS telephone number (iTRS number)
for each call. For enterprise or public
videophones, each of which permit use
by more than one individual, however,
the identity of all users of the
videophone cannot be known in
advance and thus is not retrievable from
registration information associated with
the videophone’s iTRS number. For this
reason, at present, there is no means of
validating the eligibility of registered
VRS users wishing to use these phones.
The Commission proposes procedures
to achieve this, along with safeguards
for the use of these phones to protect
against fraud, waste and abuse.
40. For all public videophones, and
for enterprise videophones that are not
located in private workspaces, the
Commission proposes to require that
VRS providers establish log-in
procedures for VRS users. For example,
for VRS users who already have
registered a personal videophone, the
VRS provider can require the user to
electronically enter the user’s iTRS
number plus a personal identification
number (PIN) before making or
receiving a VRS or point-to-point call.
Individuals who are not registered for
VRS would first be required to complete
such registration with the provider in
accordance with the requirements of 47
CFR 64.611(a) and receive a personal
identifier (ID) and PIN number from the
provider in order to begin using the
public or enterprise videophone with
such log-in information. The
Commission also proposes that when
VRS providers submit the call data
records (CDRs) for calls made from
public and enterprise phones, in
addition to the registered telephone
number, the CDR should include the
telephone or ID number of the person
using the public or enterprise
videophone. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal or any other
alternative suggestions to ensure the
eligibility and verification of users of
enterprise and public phones. The
Commission asks commenters whether
these precautionary measures will
further the Commission’s efforts to
reduce waste, fraud, and abuse and
improve its ability to efficiently manage
the VRS program.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
41. For enterprise videophones that
are located in private workspaces,
defined as workspaces where access is
limited to one individual, the
Commission proposes to permit the
registered VRS user of the enterprise
videophone to log in a single time,
without having to again log in each time
the phone is used. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal.
42. In addition, the Commission
proposes that VRS providers be required
to submit the registration information
specified below to the TRS–URD
administrator for each new public or
enterprise videophone prior to initiating
service, and for each such videophone
already in service, within 60 days of
notice from the Commission that the
TRS–URD is ready to accept such
information.
43. For enterprise videophones, the
Commission proposes to require the
following information:
• Name and business address of the
enterprise;
• Name of the responsible person for
the videophone, as well as a digital copy
of a self-certification (as described
below) from that person and the date
this certification was obtained by the
provider;
• Tax identification number of the
enterprise (for non-governmental
enterprises);
• Registered Location of the phone;
• VRS provider’s name;
• Date of the videophone’s service
initiation; and
• For existing enterprise
videophones, the date on which the
videophone was last used to place a
point-to-point or TRS call.
In addition, the Commission proposes
that each VRS provider be required to
obtain from the individual responsible
for each enterprise videophone a
certification that such responsible
person (1) has authority to port the
phone to a different VRS provider, (2)
will, to the best of that person’s ability,
permit only eligible VRS users with
hearing or speech disabilities to use the
phone, and (3) understands that the cost
of VRS calls is financed by the federally
regulated Interstate TRS Fund. The
Commission seeks comment on the
collection of the information listed, as
well any exception to the aboveproposed information collection
requirements that should be made for
governmental entities that are restricted
in their ability to provide certain
information due to national security
concerns. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether enterprises
consider any of the proposed
information collection requirements
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
described above to contain
commercially sensitive information, and
if so, whether it is necessary for the
Commission to impose data security
requirements on VRS providers in order
to protect such information.
44. For public videophones, the
Commission proposes to require the
following information and seeks
comment on such collection:
• Name and physical address of the
organization, business, or agency where
the public videophone is located (which
will be used as the Registered Location
of the videophone);
• VRS provider’s name;
• Date on which the videophone was
placed in that location; and
• Date on which the videophone was
last used to place a point-to-point or
TRS call.
45. For both enterprise and public
videophones, in the event that a
registered videophone is removed from
service or permanently disconnected
from VRS, the Commission proposes
that the VRS provider be required to
notify the TRS Fund administrator of
such termination of use within 24 hours
of such termination. In addition, for
each type of phone, the Commission
proposes to require each VRS provider
to monitor usage and report any unusual
activity to the TRS Fund administrator.
Because each of these videophones are
available for use by multiple
individuals, the Commission believes
that the collection of this information is
necessary to ensure the legitimacy of
calls made on these phones. The
Commission seeks comment on its
assumptions and on these proposals and
ask commenters to describe the types of
unusual activity that should trigger a
report to the Commission.
Direct Video Calling Customer Support
Services
46. A direct video calling (DVC)
customer support service is a telephone
customer assistance service provided by
an organization that permits individuals
who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, or have a speech disability, using
telephone numbers that are registered in
the TRS numbering directory, to engage
in real-time video communication in
ASL without using VRS. The purpose of
DVC is to provide direct telephone
service to such individuals that is
functionally equivalent to voice
communications service provided to
hearing individuals who do not have
speech disabilities. Because it is a direct
service, no CA is involved and there is
no compensation from the TRS Fund.
47. The Commission seeks comment
on whether to amend 47 CFR 64.613 to
allow all providers of DVC customer
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
support services to access the TRS
Numbering Directory. The Commission
believes amending its rules to allow
DVC customer support service providers
access to the TRS Numbering Directory
will enhance the functional equivalence
of the TRS program by allowing VRS
users to engage in more direct, private,
and reciprocal communication with
customer service agents. As the
Commission has repeatedly recognized,
compared to traditional TRS, point-topoint services even more directly
support the purposes of 47 U.S.C. 225
because they increase the utility of the
Nation’s telephone system for persons
with hearing and speech disabilities by
providing direct communication—
including all visual cues that are so
important to persons with hearing and
speech disabilities. The Commission
also believes allowing DVC customer
support service access to the TRS
Numbering Directory will likely reduce
the TRS costs that would otherwise be
borne by the TRS Fund because using
DVC involves direct, rather than
interpreted, communication and does
not trigger the costs involved with
interpretation or unnecessary routing.
The Commission seeks comment on
these tentative conclusions. The
Commission further seeks comment on
the concerns raised by Sorenson,
specifically whether any rule changes
should require that ASL-capable DVC
numbers be distinct from general service
numbers used by hearing individuals to
the same customer call center. Finally,
the Commission seeks comment on any
other factors it should consider
regarding this proposed rule
amendment, including specific costs or
additional benefits from allowing DVC
customer support services providers to
access the TRS Numbering Directory, as
well as alternative proposals for
ensuring direct access to DVC customer
support services.
Per-Call Validation Procedures
48. 47 CFR 64.615(a)(i) requires each
VRS provider to validate the eligibility
of the party on the video side of each
VRS call (once the TRS–URD is up and
running) by querying the TRS–URD on
a per-call basis. The Commission’s
Managing Director has contracted with
the TRS Numbering Directory
administrator to validate the eligibility
of the party on the video side of each
VRS call by utilizing the TRS
Numbering Directory to respond to the
per call query. The Commission
proposes to amend 47 CFR 64.615(a)(i)
to require that each VRS provider query
either the TRS–URD or the TRS
Numbering Directory, as directed by the
Commission or the TRS Fund
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
17621
administrator, and seeks comment on
this proposal.
Non-Compete Provisions in VRS CA
Employment Contracts
Research and Development
51. In 2007, a coalition of five VRS
providers petitioned the Commission for
a declaratory ruling to prohibit VRS
providers from using non-competition
agreements in VRS CA employment
contracts that limit the ability of VRS
CAs to work for competing VRS
providers after the VRS CAs terminate
their employment with their current
employer. The Commission sought and
received comment on these agreements
in the 2013 VRS Reform FNPRM. The
Commission seeks further comment on
the impact of non-competition
agreements on the provision of VRS.
What are the cost and benefits or
advantages and disadvantages of
allowing, prohibiting or limiting the
scope of these agreements? Do noncompetition agreements limit the pool
of VRS CAs that are available to VRS
providers? If so, does any such
limitation affect the ability of VRS
providers to effectively compete in the
marketplace? To what extent do these
agreements have an impact on the level
of compensation paid to VRS CAs, and
consequently, the cost of providing
VRS? Do the agreements affect speed of
answer, accuracy or other quality of
service metrics for VRS users?
Commenters should support their
positions with data to the extent
possible.
52. The Commission also asks
commenters to address possible sources
of authority for the Commission to
regulate VRS CA non-competition
agreements. For example, does 47 U.S.C.
225(d)(1)(A), which directs the
Commission to ‘‘establish functional
requirements, guidelines, and
operations procedures for
telecommunications relay services’’
afford the Commission sufficient
authority to address these agreements?
Are there other provisions of 47 U.S.C.
225 that provide the Commission with
such authority? The Commission seeks
feedback on any other matter that might
assist the Commission in determining
whether and how to address these
agreements.
49. In 2014, the Commission set an
initial budget for research and
development projects to be supported
by the TRS Fund. Congress, in
recognizing the need for relay services
for persons with hearing and speech
disabilities, charged the FCC with
ensuring that the services evolve with
improvements in technology. To this
end, the Commission seeks comment on
whether to continue this important
research. Specifically, it seeks comment
on whether it should take action to
ensure continued funding from the TRS
Fund beyond the initial project’s $3
million budget, as that amount was only
sufficient through the 2016–2017 TRS
Fund Year. Therefore, to continue to
meet its statutory obligations, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
to direct the TRS Fund administrator,
for the 2017–2018 TRS Fund Year, and
as part of future annual ratemaking
proceedings, to include in proposed
administrative costs for the
Commission’s approval an appropriate
amount for research and development
necessary to continue to meet the
Commission’s charge of furthering the
goals of functional equivalence and
efficient availability of TRS. The
Commission asks commenters to
address the specific purposes of such
research and whether the benefits of
such research outweigh the cost to the
TRS Fund.
Non-Service Related Inducements To
Sign Up for VRS
50. In 2013, the Commission adopted
a rule prohibiting providers from
offering or providing ‘‘to any person or
entity that registers to use IP CTS any
form of direct or indirect incentives,
financial or otherwise, to register for or
use IP CTS’’ and denying compensation
to providers violating the rule. 47 CFR
64.604(c)(8)(i). The Commission seeks
comment on whether to adopt a similar
prohibition for VRS. Specifically,
should the Commission prohibit VRS
providers from offering or providing
non-service related inducements (e.g.,
video game systems) to sign up for or to
continue to use a VRS provider’s
service? Are there any circumstances in
which such inducements should be
permitted? Does it matter if the provider
offers the same inducements to all users,
regardless of call volume? Further, how
should the Commission define what is
a non-service related inducement?
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
53. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(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
document FCC 17–26. Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
17622
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadline for comments specified
in the DATES section. The Commission
will send a copy of document FCC 17–
26 to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration
(SBA).
Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
54. Document FCC 17–26 addresses
server-based routing of VRS calls;
registration of VRS enterprise and
public videophones in the TRS–URD;
access to the TRS Numbering Directory
by DVC customer support services; percall validation procedures for VRS calls;
funding for research and development;
prohibiting inducements to register for
VRS; and prohibiting non-compete
clauses in VRS CA employment
contracts.
55. The proposed changes to permit
server-based routing will expand the
ways that VRS calls can be routed. The
Commission proposes to permit domain
names to be included in the user routing
information provided to the TRS
numbering directory.
56. The Commission proposes to
require the registration of enterprise and
public videophones in the TRS–URD
and to require that the users of such
videophones log-in to use the
videophones, so that calls from such
equipment may be appropriately
processed and compensated for by the
TRS Fund, as they have been in the
past.
57. The Commission proposes to
permit providers of DVC services to
have access to the TRS Numbering
Directory. Such access will enhance the
functional equivalence of DVC. Because
the per-call query function has been
built into the TRS Numbering Directory
rather than the TRS–URD, the
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
64.615(a)(1)(i) to require per-call
validation using either the TRS–URD or
the TRS Numbering Directory, as
directed by either the Commission or
the TRS Fund administrator.
58. The Commission proposes to
direct the TRS Fund administrator for
the 2017–2018 TRS Fund Year, and as
part of future annual ratemaking
proceedings to include for Commission
approval proposed funding for research
and development. Such funding is
necessary to continue to meet the
Commission’s charge of furthering the
goals of functional equivalence and
efficient availability of TRS.
59. The Commission also proposes to
adopt a rule prohibiting VRS providers
from offering direct or indirect
inducements to customers to register for
VRS. Such rules may be necessary to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
ensure that VRS is available to the
extent possible and in the most efficient
manner and to help prevent waste,
fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund.
60. Lastly, the Commission proposes
to prohibit VRS providers from
preventing CAs from subsequently
working for a competing VRS provider
through the inclusion of non-compete
provisions in VRS CA employment
contracts or otherwise requiring or
inducing CAs to agree to non-compete
agreements. A prohibition on noncompete agreements will ensure that
VRS is available to the extent possible
and in the most efficient manner by
increasing the CA labor pool, ensuring
the availability of qualified interpreters,
and removing a barrier to competition.
Legal Basis
61. The authority for this proposed
rulemaking is contained in 47 U.S.C.
225, 251.
Small Entities Impacted
62. The rules proposed in document
FCC 17–26 will affect obligations of VRS
providers and providers of DVC
services. These services can be included
within the broad economic category of
All Other Telecommunications.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
63. The proposed server-based call
routing option will permit the use of
domain names, and will require VRS
providers to keep records of such
domain names. The domain names will
then be processed as call routing
information, just as other call routing
information is processed currently. The
changes to the TRS–URD design to
permit calls to be made from enterprise
and public videophones will require
VRS providers to register such
equipment in the TRS–URD, in a
manner similar to how they currently
register individuals in the TRS–URD.
The other proposed rule changes do not
involve recordkeeping requirements.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
64. The proposed server-based call
routing option using domain names will
be available to all VRS providers, will
not be burdensome, and will advance
interoperability. Greater interoperability
will foster competition, thereby
benefitting the smaller providers. To the
extent there are differences in operating
costs resulting from economies of scale,
those costs are reflected in the different
compensation rate structures applicable
to large and small VRS providers.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
65. The provision of VRS service to
enterprise and public videophones is
optional for VRS providers. The
proposed registration requirements for
such videophones and log-in procedures
for users of such videophones apply
equally to all VRS providers and users,
and are necessary to prevent waste,
fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund. The
registration requirements for enterprise
and public videophones are no more
burdensome than the registration
requirements for individual
videophones. To the extent there are
differences in operating costs resulting
from economies of scale, those costs are
reflected in the different rate structures
applicable to large and small VRS
providers. Therefore, the Commission
does not adopt any of the four
alternatives listed above for small
entities.
66. Permitting providers of DVC call
centers to access the TRS Numbering
Directory is necessary for the purpose of
routing calls to and from DVC call
centers. Such access would subject such
call center providers to call-routing
rules similar to those currently
applicable to Internet-based TRS
providers. Such rules are not
burdensome.
67. Requiring VRS providers to
transmit per-call validation queries to
the TRS Numbering Directory instead of
the TRS–URD, as currently required, is
not burdensome. The only difference is
the database that must be queried.
68. Directing the TRS Fund
administrator to propose an appropriate
amount of funding for research and
development for the 2017–2018 TRS
Fund year and as a part of each future
annual ratemaking proceeding extends a
past Commission directive to the TRS
Fund Administrator to set an initial
budget for research and development
projects to be supported by the TRS
Fund. The Commission seeks comment
on the appropriate budget for research
and development and whether to
continue independently funding
research and development through the
TRS Fund. Funding independent
research and development through the
TRS Fund may result in a reduction in
the costs that VRS providers incur to
conduct their own research and
development.
69. Prohibiting VRS providers from
offering customers direct or indirect
inducements to register for VRS will
help ensure that VRS is available to the
extent possible and in the most efficient
manner while helping to limit waste,
fraud, and abuse. Adopting this
prohibition may benefit small providers
by removing competitive costs
associated with offering inducements
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules
unrelated to providing service and
focusing competition on service quality.
70. Prohibiting non-compete
provisions in VRS CA employment
contracts and prohibiting VRS providers
from otherwise requesting or requiring
CAs to agree to non-compete agreements
narrowly targets a concern that affects
the size of the CA labor pool, restricts
competition, and impedes consumers
choice. Prohibiting such restrictions
may benefit smaller providers through
increased availability of qualified
interpreters.
Federal Rules Which Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission’s Proposals
71. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Individuals with disabilities,
Telecommunications,
Telecommunications relay services,
Video relay services.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend Title 47
of the Code of Federal Regulation as
follows:
PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES
RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for part 64
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 225, 254(k),
403(b)(2)(B), (c), 715, 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.
2. Amend § 64.611 by adding
paragraphs (a)(6) and (7) and revising
paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
■
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 64.611
Internet-based TRS registration.
(a) * * *
(6) Enterprise videophones. For
purposes of this section, an enterprise
videophone is a videophone provided
by an entity such as a business, an
organization, or a governmental entity
that is designated for use by its
employees who use American Sign
Language.
(i) A VRS provider seeking
compensation from the TRS Fund for
providing VRS to a registered VRS user
utilizing an enterprise videophone must
first obtain a written certification from
the individual responsible for the
enterprise videophone, attesting that:
(A) The individual will, to the best of
that individual’s ability permit only
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
eligible VRS users with hearing or
speech disabilities to use the enterprise
videophone; and
(B) The individual understands that
the cost of VRS calls is paid for by
contributions from telecommunications
and VoIP providers to the TRS Fund.
(ii) The certification required by
paragraph (a)(6)(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.
(iii) 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 registration information for
each of its enterprise videophones, for
new enterprise videophones prior to the
initiation of service, and for existing
enterprise videophones within 60 days
of notice from the Commission that the
TRS User Registration Database is ready
to accept such information:
(A) The name and business address of
the enterprise;
(B) The name of the individual
responsible for the videophone, a digital
copy of the certification required by
paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section, and
the date the certification was obtained
by the provider;
(C) The last digits of the tax
identification number of the enterprise,
unless it is a governmental enterprise;
(D) The Registered Location of the
phone;
(E) The VRS provider’s name;
(F) The date of the enterprise
videophone’s service initiation; and
(G) For existing enterprise
videophones, the date on which the
videophone was last used to place a
point-to-point or relay call.
(iv) Each VRS provider must obtain,
from the individuals responsible for
each new and existing enterprise
videophone, consent to transmit the
registered Internet-based TRS user’s
information to the TRS User
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17623
Registration Database. Prior to obtaining
consent, the VRS provider must
describe to the individual responsible
for the enterprise videophone, 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 of such consent for
every enterprise videophone.
(v) 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.
(vi) After the time period for the 60day notice from the Commission that
the TRS User Registration Database is
ready to accept registration information
has passed, VRS calls provided to
enterprise videophones shall not be
compensable from the TRS Fund unless
the user of the enterprise videophone is
a registered VRS user and logs in to the
videophone with a user identification
plus a passcode or PIN. For enterprise
videophones located in private work
spaces where access is limited to one
individual, the user of such enterprise
videophone may log in a single time,
without being required to log in each
time the videophone is used.
(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.
(viii) A VRS provider may be
compensated from the TRS Fund for
dial-around VRS provided to registered
users of registered enterprise
videophones.
(7) Public videophones. For purposes
of this section, a public videophone is
a videophone that is made available in
a public space, such as a school, a
hospital, a library, an airport, or a
governmental building, for use by any
individual who communicates through
American Sign Language.
(i) A VRS provider seeking
compensation from the TRS Fund for
providing VRS to a registered VRS user
utilizing a public videophone must
transmit to the TRS User Registration
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
17624
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Database, in a format prescribed by the
administrator of the TRS User
Registration Database, the following
information, for each of its new public
videophones prior to the initiation of
VRS on the videophone, and for existing
public videophones, within 60 days of
notice from the Commission that the
TRS User Registration Database is ready
to accept such information:
(A) The name and physical address of
the organization, business, or agency
where the public videophone is located;
(B) The VRS provider’s name;
(C) The date on which the videophone
was placed in that location; and
(D) The date on which the
videophone was last used to place a
point-to-point or TRS call.
(ii) After the time period for the 60day notice from the Commission that
the TRS User Registration Database is
ready to accept registration information
has passed, VRS calls provided to
public videophones shall not be
compensable from the TRS Fund unless
the user of the public videophone is a
registered VRS user and logs in to the
videophone with a user identification
plus a passcode or PIN.
(iii) 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.
(iv) A VRS provider may be
compensated from the TRS Fund for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
dial-around VRS provided to registered
users of registered public videophones.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Obligations of default providers
and former default providers.
(1) Default providers must:
(i) Obtain current routing information
from their Registered Internet-based
TRS Users, registered enterprise
videophones, and hearing point-to-point
video users;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 64.613 by revising
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(4) to
read as follows:
§ 64.613 Numbering directory for Internetbased TRS users.
(a) TRS Numbering Directory.
(1) The TRS Numbering Directory
shall contain records mapping the
geographically appropriate NANP
telephone number of each Registered
Internet-based TRS User, registered
enterprise videophone, public
videophone, Direct Video Calling
customer support services, and hearing
point-to-point video user to a unique
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI).
(2) For each record associated with a
geographically appropriate NANP
telephone number for a Registered
Internet-based TRS User, registered
enterprise videophone, public
videophone, Direct Video Calling
customer support services, or hearing
point-to-point video user, the URI shall
contain a server domain name or the IP
address of the user’s device. For each
record associated with an IP Relay
user’s geographically appropriate NANP
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
telephone number, the URI shall contain
the user’s user name and domain name
that can be subsequently resolved to
reach the user.
(3) * * *
(4) The TRS Numbering
Administrator, Internet-based TRS
providers, and Direct Video Calling
customer support services providers
may access the TRS Numbering
Directory.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Amend § 64.615 by revising
paragraph (a)(1) and adding
subparagraph (a)(1)(iv) to read as
follows:
■
§ 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 or the TRS
Numbering Directory, as directed by the
Commission or the TRS Fund
Administrator, on a per-call basis.
Emergency 911 calls are excepted from
this requirement.
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) The eligibility of a party using an
enterprise videophone or public VRS
phone may be validated by the
registration information for the
enterprise phones or public VRS phones
in the TRS User Registration Database.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2017–07153 Filed 4–11–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 12, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17613-17624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07153]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123; FCC 17-26]
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on establishing
performance goals and service quality metrics to evaluate the efficacy
of the video relay service (VRS) program and on the incidence of
``phony'' VRS calls and the handling of such calls. The Commission also
proposes a four-year plan for VRS compensation and rule amendments to
permit server-based routing of VRS and point-to-point video calls,
provide safeguards regarding who may use VRS at enterprise and public
videophones, allow customer service support centers to access the
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Numbering Directory for direct
video calling, and make a technical change to per-call validation
requirements. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to continue
including research and development in the TRS Fund budget, prohibit
non-service related inducements to register for VRS, and prohibit the
use of non-compete provisions in VRS communications assistant (CA)
employment contracts.
DATES: For VRS compensation rates, server-based routing, and research
and development, comments are due April 24, 2017, and reply comments
are due May 4, 2017. For performance goals and service quality metrics,
the incidence and handling of ``phony'' VRS calls, VRS use of
enterprise and public videophones, direct video calling customer
support services, per-call validation procedures, non-service related
inducements, and non-compete provisions in VRS employment contracts,
comments are due May 30, 2017, and reply comments are due June 26,
2017.
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://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on
the Web
[[Page 17614]]
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. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Aldrich, Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau (202) 418-0996, email Robert.Aldrich@fcc.gov, or Eliot
Greenwald, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202) 418-2235,
email Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419,
interested parties may file comments on or before the dates indicated
in the DATES section. Comments may be filed using the Commission's
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. The filing
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must
be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial 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 must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
This is a summary of document FCC 17-26, Structure and Practices of
the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Notice of Inquiry and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, document FCC 17-26, adopted on March 23, 2017, and released
on March 23, 2017, in CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123. The Report and
Order and Order, FCC 17-26, adopted on March 23, 2017, and released on
March 23, 2017, will be published elsewhere in a later issue. The full
text of document FCC 17-26 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. 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 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by 47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
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), (844) 432-2272 (videophone),
or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Document FCC 17-26 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that
may result in modified information collection requirements. If the
Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the
Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting
the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the
Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. Public Law 107-198; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
Notice of Inquiry on Service Quality Metrics for VRS
Performance Goals
1. The Commission seeks comment on appropriate performance goals
for the VRS program. 47 U.S.C. 225 requires the Commission to ensure,
to the extent possible, the availability to people with disabilities of
telephone services that are functionally equivalent to services used by
individuals who do not need TRS. The Commission seeks comment on
whether establishing performance goals that align with this requirement
is appropriate for VRS. The Commission believes that the mandate for
VRS to be functionally equivalent to voice telephone services requires
levels of service that are equivalent to those experienced in
mainstream wireless, wireline, and voice over Internet protocol (VoIP)
communication calls between and among hearing persons. In this regard,
the Commission notes that a policy statement submitted by various
Consumer Groups in April 2011 proposes to define functional equivalence
generally for all forms of TRS as follows:
Persons receiving or making relay calls are able to participate
equally in the entire conversation with the other party or parties
and they experience the same activity, emotional context, purpose,
operation, work, service, or role (function) within the call as
[[Page 17615]]
if the call is between individuals who are not using relay services
on any end of the call.
The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which this is an
appropriate definition of functional equivalence for the purpose of
defining performance goals and service quality metrics.
2. The Commission also seeks comment on whether other goals are
appropriate for assessing the VRS program and VRS provider performance.
For example, should VRS performance goals also mirror the Commission's
statutory obligations to ensure that TRS is provided ``in the most
efficient manner,'' and to encourage ``the use of existing technology
and . . . not discourage or impair the development of improved
technology?'' Should the cost-effective provision of VRS be included in
VRS performance goals, either as a component of the efficient provision
of VRS or as a separate goal?
3. The Commission seeks comment on how the use of mainstream and
off-the-shelf technologies that do not rely on VRS can serve the
communications needs of individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing,
deaf-blind, or have speech disabilities. For example, people who use
sign language are now able to communicate directly with each other via
video over broadband and cellular networks; and electronic messaging
services, such as email, short messaging service (SMS), instant
messaging (IM), and chat, allow people to use these networks to
communicate in text. In addition, the Commission expects some wireless
providers to be rolling out real-time text (RTT) by the end of this
calendar year. The Commission asks commenters to address the types of
circumstances when such services can be used to provide effective
communication for these individuals. What steps, if any, should the
Commission be taking to provide such direct communication solutions?
Alternatively, are there certain situations where such services would
fall short of functional equivalency for the signing population? To
what extent can these direct video or text alternatives be used for
calls made to businesses and other parties, such as doctors' offices,
schools, stores, family members, and colleagues? What are the potential
cost-savings to the TRS Fund resulting from the use of such non-VRS
technologies?
Performance Measures
4. The Commission seeks comment on whether the derivation of data
used to measure VRS service quality should be overseen by the TRS Fund
administrator or otherwise developed through contractual or similar
arrangements with independent third parties selected by the Commission.
The Commission believes that the establishment of estimates and
calculations resulting from performance measures will have greater
efficacy if the measurements and reports of results are conducted
independently, i.e., not by the regulated entities. The Commission also
seeks comment on whether to publish the metrics achieved for each
provider, as it appears likely that making the results of these
measurements available to the public in a standard format will aid
users in their selection of VRS providers. Finally, the Commission
seeks comment on the merits of developing a system by which VRS users
can rate the quality and performance of VRS calls, which would be based
on the metrics discussed below and shared publicly to improve
competition.
5. To measure functional equivalence, the Commission seeks specific
comment on whether to use the following metrics: (1) Quality and
accuracy of interpretation; (2) technical voice and video quality; (3)
interoperability and portability; (4) percentage and frequency of
dropped or disconnected calls; and (5) service outages.
6. Quality and Accuracy of Interpretation. The Commission seeks
comment on how interpretation quality can be effectively measured to
assess functional equivalence. A key element of interpretation quality
is accuracy, i.e., the extent to which the information conveyed by one
party to a VRS call accurately matches the communication conveyed by
the CA to the other parties to that call. How should accuracy be
measured? What metrics and methods are currently used to evaluate VRS
interpreters, e.g., for purposes of certification or evaluation during
interpreter training? Are there relevant metrics and methods used by
spoken language translators that could be effectively applied to
evaluate the accuracy of VRS interpretation? For example, for any given
call, can accuracy be measured by comparing the signs of the American
Sign Language (ASL) user and words of the hearing person--as each are
delivered to the CA--to the words spoken and signs made by the CA?
Given that interpretation of ASL to English is often a matter of
conveying concepts rather than word-for-word translation, how can an
appropriate comparison between the signs produced by ASL users be
effectively compared to the words relayed by the CA to produce an
effective accuracy percentage? Unlike speech-to-text transcription,
interpretation accuracy may be difficult to evaluate on a word-by-word
basis because the grammar and word usage differ between ASL and spoken
languages such as English or Spanish. How can the Commission account
for such differences in taking accuracy measurements? Are there scales
similar to the voice five-step mean opinion score (MOS) metrics? MOS
scores are used to rate the user-perceived quality and listening effort
on a five point scale, such as ``excellent-good-fair-poor-bad,'' as
defined in ITU-T Recommendation P.800.
7. Should the Commission adjust accuracy measurements for certain
kinds of calls, such as calls to 911 or calls where a skills-based or
deaf interpreter is utilized? More broadly, what tools should the
Commission use to measure the accuracy of VRS calls given that
measurements may be unreliable without access to both sides of the
conversation? Should test calls, e.g., by independent third parties,
using sample scripts, be employed to evaluate the accuracy of
interpretation? Alternatively, should independent third parties be
permitted to monitor unscripted calls for the purpose of measuring
interpretation quality, and under what conditions to protect privacy
and confidentiality? The Commission's rules presently prohibit
providers from retaining records of the content of any conversation
beyond the duration of a call. Are there real-time or other methods
that can be used to measure the accuracy of calls consistently with
this prohibition? Or should an exception be permitted for purposes of
ensuring call quality? For example, should the Commission require
providers to record a statistically valid sample of calls? Should the
Commission use anonymous callers to make and record call interactions
for later analysis by experts? How many calls would be appropriate for
either of these methods? How should the Commission address the
confidentiality concerns of VRS users if recordings are used in this
process?
8. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how to measure
the synchronicity of interpreted communications taking place during a
VRS call. Although the Commission recognizes that there is necessarily
some delay during relay calls and inherent time lag involved in
interpretation, these delays should be kept to a minimum and signing
should begin to appear at the approximate time that the corresponding
speech begins and end approximately when the speech ends. The
Commission seeks comment on whether there are existing metrics, e.g.,
for non-ASL language interpreters,
[[Page 17616]]
that might be used for this purpose. Are there studies that indicate
what kind of delay is acceptable for fluid conversation? Does the
interpretation delay vary significantly among CAs such that there is a
need to determine this measurement? To what extent should this metric
be measured by independent third parties?
9. Are there other metrics that the Commission should use to
evaluate interpreter quality and accuracy? How effectively will such
metrics assess the extent to which functional equivalence is being
attained and what methods can be used to measure these?
10. Technical Voice and Video Quality. What metrics should be
assigned to evaluate the technical quality of VRS as a component of
functional equivalence? What are the key parameters of a VRS provider's
audio and video communication service, and how should they be measured,
evaluated, and published? Should providers disclose whether they
interconnect with their telecommunication service provider in high
definition (HD) audio? To what extent is this capability needed for
functionally equivalent VRS communications, and what metrics can be
used to measure this feature?
11. Interoperability. To enhance the ability of the Commission and
consumers to evaluate the extent of the interoperability that is
achieved by VRS providers, the Commission seeks comment on the most
appropriate metrics and measurement methods for quantitatively
assessing interoperability. For example, is there a means of
quantifying the interoperability of various types of user-visible
functions, such as the connection of calls, video mail and address
books, or technical protocol features such as call setup, codecs,
system configuration, end-to-end security and registration that could
fail to interoperate as a result of noncompliance?
12. Dropped or Disconnected Calls. The Commission next seeks
comment on whether it would be appropriate to track and measure the
percentage and frequency of ``dropped'' or disconnected VRS calls as an
indicator of service quality and functional equivalence, and how such
data should be compared with dropped or disconnected telephone calls
made over mainstream voice networks. Should such metrics be collected
through user feedback or test calls or by analyzing provider logs? Is
it possible to distinguish call drops that occur due to disruptions in
the Internet connectivity of the VRS user from call drops caused by the
VRS provider or deficiencies in the VRS user software or hardware? Are
there metrics and measurement methodologies used in wireless or wired
networks that can be used for VRS? The Commission further seeks comment
on how such data should be collected.
13. Service Outages. In general, to achieve functional equivalence,
the Commission believes that the frequency and extent of VRS service
outages and interruptions should not exceed that of outages and
interruptions occurring on transmission services used by hearing
people. The Commission seeks comment on this assumption. The Commission
seeks comment on an appropriate metric to measure functional
equivalence in this regard.
14. Other Metrics. The Commission seeks further comment on other
concrete, measurable metrics it could employ to measure the quality of
service among VRS providers. Commenters should address, with
specificity, what should be measured, how it should be measured, and
how often it should be measured, along with any estimated costs of such
measurements.
Phony VRS Calls
15. The Commission has received anecdotal evidence of calls made to
VRS CAs that are not made for the purpose of communicating with a third
party, but rather for the sole purpose of harassing or threatening a
CA. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which such calls
occur, as well as the incidence of other types of ``phony'' VRS calls,
for example, those that involve scams or spoofing. The Commission seeks
comment on how such calls should be handled and on action that should
be taken by the Commission to effectively address such calls.
16. On a related matter, the Commission notes that in the past, the
Commission received reports that text-based Internet Protocol (IP)
Relay was being used to commit ``swatting,'' i.e., individuals were
using IP Relay to hide their identities in order to place calls to 911,
in an attempt to trick public safety answering points into dispatching
emergency services based on false reports. The Commission is unaware of
similar incidents of swatting through VRS, but the Commission invites
commenters to share reports of any such occurrences, as well as
recommendations on how to address such incidents.
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
VRS Compensation Rates
17. In 2007, the Commission adopted a tiered VRS compensation rate
structure in order to reflect likely cost differentials between small,
mid-level, and large, dominant providers. In 2013, having determined
that VRS compensation rates for all the rate tiers were substantially
in excess of providers' actual costs, the Commission adopted a
transitional four-year ``glide path'' of compensation rate adjustments
in lieu of a more immediate reduction to cost-based levels, in order to
assist providers in adjusting to cost-based rates. The Commission's
four-year rate plan established gradual per-minute VRS rate reductions
every six months, from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2017. The
Commission also reassessed the use of a tiered compensation structure.
The Commission decided that, to encourage the provision of VRS in the
most efficient manner, the gap between the highest and lowest tiered
rates would be reduced over time. Upon the completion of certain
structural reforms, which the Commission expected to occur before the
expiration of the four-year plan, the Commission contemplated moving to
a unitary compensation rate for all minutes, which the Commission hoped
to set based on pricing benchmarks developed through competitive
bidding for the provision of various elements of VRS. On March 1, 2016,
after considering a petition by all six certified VRS providers urging
an interruption of the scheduled compensation rate adjustments, the
Commission adopted a temporary ``freeze'' of the compensation rates of
the smallest VRS providers--those handling 500,000 or fewer monthly
minutes. On December 20, 2016, Convo, Purple, and ZVRS submitted a
joint VRS compensation proposal to the Commission, and on January 31,
2017, Global joined in this proposal. They propose a four-year VRS rate
plan with the following per-minute rates: $5.29 for providers with
500,000 or fewer monthly minutes (``emergent rate''); $4.82 for other
providers' first 1,000,000 VRS minutes (Tier I); $4.35 for a provider's
monthly minutes between 1,000,001 and 2,500,000 (Tier II); and $2.83
for a provider's monthly minutes in excess of $2,500,000 (Tier III).
18. The Commission's last four-year plan was successful in lowering
the cost of VRS by $35.7 million in FY2013, $86.7 million in FY2014,
$131.3 million in FY2016, and $90.4 million in the first half of
FY2017. This gradual reduction in rates has driven VRS providers to
provision their services more efficiently. The weighted average per-
minute cost for providing service has declined from $3.09 in 2012
(before the rate plan
[[Page 17617]]
became effective) to $2.63 today. However, the VRS market structure has
seen little change, in part because the structural reforms the
Commission envisioned in 2013 have been slow to arrive. Thus, the
Commission believes its previous four-year plan was too optimistic in
assuming that rates for all VRS providers could start to converge in
FY2016, as indicated by the Commission's decision to freeze small-
provider compensation rates in 2016. Indeed, Rolka Loube reports that
four of the five providers continue to incur per-minute costs that are
higher than the weighted average per-minute cost of providing VRS.
19. Given these circumstances, the Commission believes that
maintaining a tiered rate structure continues to be necessary to allow
smaller providers a reasonable opportunity to continue providing
service. Having analyzed the cost data reported by Rolka, as well as
recent data submissions from four of the providers, the Commission
believes another four-year plan best balances the need to minimize the
cost of service for ratepayers, maintain competition in the marketplace
pending further structural reforms, reflect the differing costs of
differing providers, and give VRS providers the long-term stability in
rates to make investment decisions. The Commission proposes that this
four-year period run from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2021, and sets forth
a proposed restructuring of rates and tiers for this period below. Like
the Joint VRS Providers, the Commission believe three tiers plus a rate
for ``emergent'' VRS providers are appropriate for this purpose.
20. The Commission seeks comment on this overall approach. To what
extent are the goals of functional equivalence and efficiency served by
maintaining a tiered rate approach during an additional four-year
transitional rate period? For instance, is the VRS industry
characterized by sufficient economies of scale to warrant tiered rates?
Which components of a VRS provider's costs are and are not subject to
significant economies of scale and how do such scale economies affect
provider costs at various levels of demand? Do considerations other
than scale economies, such as the benefits of allowing consumer choice
among a diversity of providers, justify tiered rates? What marketplace
distortions, if any, may be created if tiers boundaries are not closely
correlated to scale economies, and how should such distortions, as well
as the inefficiencies that may result from a tiered structure, be
weighed against the benefits of enabling competition by multiple
providers? What marketplace distortions, if any, could result from
moving to a single unitary compensation rate? Is there an alternative
tiered structure to that proposed below that would strike a more
appropriate balance between efficiency and competition?
21. The Commission also seeks comment on the following proposals.
First, given that the Commission's current rate plan sets the same rate
for the first 500,000 minutes of larger providers and the next 500,000
minutes, the Commission proposes to redefine Tier I to include the
first 1,000,000 minutes as suggested by the Joint VRS Providers.
Second, the Commission agrees with the Joint VRS Providers that
economies of scale continue to increase significantly for VRS providers
with more than 1,000,000 monthly minutes. In line with the suggestion
of the Joint VRS Providers, the Commission proposes to draw the line
between Tiers II and III at 2,500,000 monthly minutes. Third, the
Commission agrees with the Joint VRS Providers that an emergent rate
for the smaller, new entrants is appropriate given the slow onset of
structural reforms to encourage competition and interoperability. An
emergent rate also reflects the Commission's previous decision to
freeze the rates for this class of providers on a temporary basis, and
generally the higher cost of service for new entrants in the market.
The Commission proposes to apply this emergent rate to VRS providers
with no more than 500,000 monthly minutes as of January 1, 2017, and to
maintain this rate for the first 500,000 monthly minutes of such
providers through the end of this four-year rate plan. Structuring the
emergent rate in this way should encourage new entry into the program
and give small providers appropriate incentives to grow without risking
a sudden reduction in rates if they grow above the 500,000 monthly
minute threshold.
22. The Commission proposes to adjust the rates for each of these
tiers through several steps, at six-month intervals as in the current
rate plan. First, the Commission seeks comment on rates for the initial
period of the four-year rate plan. For emergent providers, the
Commission seeks comment on whether to increase the rate to $5.29 as
proposed by the Joint VRS Providers or to maintain the $4.82 rate that
is set to be in effect in June. For Tier I, the Commission seeks
comment on whether to increase the rate to $4.82, as proposed by the
Joint VRS Providers, or to maintain the current $4.06 rate. For Tier
II, the Commission seeks comment on whether to increase the rate to
$4.35 as proposed by the Joint VRS Providers or to maintain the current
$3.49 rate. For Tier III, the Commission seeks comment on whether to
maintain the current $3.49 rate or decrease it to the $2.83 rate
proposed by the Joint VRS Providers. The Commission also invites
parties to submit other suggested rate levels for each tier, with
justification and supporting data.
23. Next, the Commission seeks comment on rates for the final
period in the four-year rate plan. For emergent providers, the
Commission seeks comment on whether to set a $5.29 rate as proposed by
the Joint VRS Providers, a $4.82 rate reflecting the rate that is set
to be in effect in June, or a $4.06 rate based on the current Tier I
rate. For Tier I, the Commission seeks comment on whether to set a
$4.82 rate as proposed by the Joint VRS Providers, a $4.06 rate based
on the current Tier I rate, or a rate of $3.74 based on the historical
costs of providers achieving only some economies of scale plus an
operating margin, or a rate of $3.49 based on the current Tier II rate.
For Tier II, the Commission seeks comment on whether to set a $4.35
rate as proposed by the Joint VRS Providers, a rate of $3.49 based on
the current Tier III rate, or a rate of $3.08 based on the historical
costs of providers achieving significant economies of scale plus an
operating margin. For Tier III, the Commission seeks comment on a $3.49
rate based on the current Tier III rate, a $2.83 rate as proposed by
the Joint VRS Providers, and a $2.63 rate based on average historical
expenses for all providers. The Commission also invites parties to
submit other suggested rate levels for each tier, with justification
and supporting data.
24. For each six-month period between the initial and final
periods, the Commission proposes to apply transitional rates that
gradually transition the rates the Commission proposes for the initial
period to the final rates that will apply in the first half of 2021. By
definition, the larger the difference between initial and final rates,
the greater the transitional step taken every six months.
25. The Commission notes that providers have long argued that,
because substantial plant investment is not necessary to provide VRS, a
rate-of-return allowance based on the telephone industry model is
inadequate to generate sufficient profits to attract significant long-
term investment in VRS companies. As such, providers have argued that
an 11.25% rate-of-return on net capital investment is insufficiently
compensatory. The Commission also
[[Page 17618]]
notes that the Commission has recently reconsidered whether an 11.25%
rate-of-return is reasonable given the current financial and economic
environment and, in 2016 determined that a lower range of 7.12-9.75% is
instead reasonable. The Commission seeks comment on whether to adopt
that lower range of rates-of-return if the Commission maintains a rate-
of-return approach to cost calculations. To respond to the VRS
providers' concern, however, the Commission also seeks comment on
eschewing the traditional rate-of-return calculation and instead
employing an operating margin approach with that same range of 7.12-
9.75%.
26. The Commission further notes that the average weighted per-
minute cost for the industry is $2.63 in 2015, or $2.82-2.89 if the
Commission includes an operating margin. Excluding any VRS provider
with significantly more than 1,000,000 monthly minutes, average
weighted per-minute costs in 2015 were more than $1.00 higher. The
Commission further notes that for the VRS industry as a whole, total
compensation for calendar year 2015 was $563,069,736, while the total
cost of service plus an operating margin was only $360,197,998 to
$369,041,545. Given the large gap between total compensation for VRS
providers and the total cost of service plus an operating margin, the
Commission tentatively concludes that any new rate schedule it adopts
should result in a smaller gap than freezing rates in June 2017 for a
four-year period. The Commission seeks comments on this analysis and
this tentative conclusion, and their implications for setting rates
during the four-year term. Although the Commission seeks comment on the
possible substitution of an alternative approach, such as described
above, for the current rate-of-return allowance, the Commission does
not intend to reopen questions that would expand the types of expenses
that should be included in allowable costs.
27. In setting rates, the Commission is not required to guarantee
all providers that they will recover their allowable costs--the purpose
of the tiered rate structure has been to set rates for providers in
discrete size classes based on general differentials between large,
medium-sized, and small providers, not to guarantee all providers
recovery of their individual costs. Although the Commission seeks to
preserve a diversity of suppliers in the market, the Commission is not
required to ensure the viability of every VRS competitor, no matter how
inefficient.
28. Despite the past four years of significant reductions in
compensation rates, VRS providers apparently continue to give out
iPads, video monitors, and state-of-the-art videophones to customers in
order to secure their default VRS traffic. To the extent that a VRS
provider engages in such behavior, it would appear to confirm that the
marginal compensation rate for that provider continues to be well above
the provider's marginal cost of serving additional customers, and
remains above the marginal cost even including the per-minute cost of
the giveaways offered to gain those customers' traffic. The
continuation of such wasteful and disruptive marketing tactics seems to
confirm the importance of bringing the rate for each tier as close as
possible to the marginal per-minute cost of the affected firms. The
Commission seeks comment on what proposed rates would be a step in that
direction.
29. The Commission seeks comment on these proposed service tiers,
the suggested alternatives for initial and final compensation rates,
and the proposed schedule of rate reductions. Should the Commission
collapse the tiers to reduce the possible overpayment of some providers
or expand them further to reflect the differing costs of service as VRS
providers scale up? What are the most appropriate initial rates to
begin the further transition to cost-based levels? What are the most
appropriate final rates to ensure that providers are neither over- nor
under-compensated? Is the proposed transition schedule too fast or too
slow? What is the likely impact of various alternative rate levels on
the competitiveness of the VRS market? What is the likely impact on the
quality of service to consumers?
30. The Commission also seeks comment on any other factors the
Commission should consider in setting compensation rates for this four-
year period. For example, what, if any, categories of costs should
providers be able to recover as exogenous costs (including
consideration of improved services discussed elsewhere in this
proceeding), and how should the Commission ensure that such costs are
adequately documented and that providers do not incur such costs
imprudently? Are there marketplace benchmarks, such as rates paid for
video remote interpreting (VRI), that could serve as a benchmark
against which the Commission could determine the reasonableness of
proposed VRS compensation rates? If so, what are such benchmarks and
how should the Commission factor them into VRS rates? Further, should
the Commission impose an auditing requirement on any companies that
seek to qualify for the emergent provider rate? The Commission notes
that some very small providers have reported costs well above
compensable rates for multiyear periods, yet have continued to offer
VRS--a circumstance that appears inconsistent with the behavior of a
rational firm. Conditioning the emergent provider rate on an audit to
determine whether improper cost allocation is occurring may be one
means of ensuring that the cost data reported actually reflects the
incremental costs of a business to offer VRS alongside its other
marketplace offerings.
31. Further, should the Commission make any of the proposed initial
rates that are higher than current rates retroactive to January 1,
2017, as proposed by the Joint VRS Providers? On a number of prior
occasions, the Commission has applied adjustments, including changes in
TRS compensation rates and contribution factors, retroactively to the
beginning of a Fund Year. Are retroactive adjustments appropriate here?
If so, for which rates and based on what specific justification? For
example, in what way is such retroactive compensation relevant to
providers' ability to recover their costs and attract investment on a
going-forward basis?
32. Although the proposed approach contains elements of a price-cap
regime--because rates are not directly tied to, and tend to lag,
costs--the Commission also seeks comment on a price-cap approach.
First, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should
initialize rates for each carrier based on its own historical costs, as
the Commission did when it created price-cap regulation over two
decades ago. Second, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should
apply a productivity factor and an inflation factor to such price-caps
over the course of the four-year term. If the Commission was to adopt
this approach, would that cause greater striation in rates and costs
among VRS providers? Would a price-cap regime give carriers sufficient
incentive to reduce costs? Would such a regime reduce the compensation
paid for the service closer to its costs? Would such a regime unfairly
penalize more efficient providers? How should the Commission set a
productivity factor (would it be based on industry-wide efficiencies or
company-by-company)? How complicated would it be to establish and
administer a price-cap regime? If the Commission declines to adopt such
a regime, should the Commission nonetheless apply productivity and
[[Page 17619]]
inflation factors to rates the Commission adopt under the proposed
approach?
33. Sorenson also suggests that the Commission set rates for
individual components of VRS based on pricing benchmarks developed
through competitive bidding. The Commission notes that the proposal in
the 2013 VRS Reform FNPRM, published at 78 FR 40407, July 5, 2013, was
premised on developing a neutral video communications service platform.
The Commission previously canceled that procurement. In light of the
general lack of industry interest in the neutral video communications
services platform, the Commission seeks comment on whether it would be
productive for the Commission to request new bids for such a platform.
Absent a showing that the Commission should request new bids, the
Commission proposes to repeal the provisions of its rules relating to
it. Providers and other parties that believe the Commission should
proceed with its original plan to develop this platform should explain
why they believe its build-out is necessary to achieve the goals of
functional equivalence and efficiency under section 225 of the Act, as
well as the extent to which VRS providers would commit to utilizing
such a platform. If the Commission does decide to pursue a neutral
platform, the Commission seeks comment on whether the use of
competitive bidding to set rates for other services would make sense.
What would be the impact of moving toward a piece-part system of
compensation on VRS providers? Would there remain sufficient
competitive bidding prospects to ensure an efficient auction given the
rise of direct connections at federal agencies and other entities that
have historically received a large number of VRS calls?
34. Alternatively, Sorenson asks that the Commission seek comment
on employing a reverse auction approach to set rates based on a
modified version of the electricity supply auctions authorized by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Under this suggested approach,
the Commission would determine how many VRS providers are needed to
provide sufficient competitive choices for users and then would seek
bids from each potential VRS provider on the per-minute rate of
compensation each will accept for the provision of VRS. Compensation
would be paid to all winning providers at the highest rate bid by the
winners, i.e., the rate bid by the last bidder whose bid was accepted.
How many providers would be sufficient under this approach? If less
than the total number of VRS providers currently in the market, how
would the reduction in choice and competition affect VRS users? If
equal to the total number of VRS providers currently in the market,
would that be considered an auction at all? How would such an approach
address the apparent economies of scale and scope within the VRS
market, ensuring that no VRS provider receives an unjust windfall?
Would such an approach increase--perhaps substantially--the cost of VRS
service to ratepayers? Would such an approach prohibit new entry into
the VRS market during the rate period? Would such an approach be less
``regulatory,'' as Sorenson suggests?
35. As another alternative, Sorenson suggests replacing the TRS
Fund with a system under which telecommunications carriers would
provide service themselves or by contracting with TRS providers,
pursuant to the provision of section 225 of the Act that requires
carriers to provide service directly or ``through designees, through a
competitively selected vendor, or in concert with other carriers.'' 47
U.S.C. 225(c). This approach would thus entail revisiting the
Commission's earlier determination that VRS should not be a
``mandatory'' service for common carriers. The Commission seeks comment
on the feasibility, costs, and benefits of migrating to a system in
which VRS--as well as, perhaps, other forms of TRS--would be provided
by carriers, through private contracts or self-provisioning, rather
than through the FCC-administered TRS Fund. How would such an approach
be likely to affect the provision of functionally equivalent service in
the most efficient manner, and could it be done consistently with the
requirements of section 225 of the Act? In addition, are there any
other relevant statutory provisions that would inform our consideration
of Sorenson's suggestion?
Server-Based Routing
36. In August 2015, the VRS Task Group of the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Forum completed a technical standard, the VRS Provider
Interoperability Profile, which addresses interoperability between VRS
providers, as well as the interface between a VRS provider and the TRS
Numbering Directory. Subsequently, the Consumer and Government Affairs
Bureau incorporated the VRS Provider Interoperability Profile by
reference into the Commission's VRS interoperability rule. To enable
implementation of the new call routing protocol specified by the VRS
Provider Interoperability Profile, the Commission proposes to amend 47
CFR 64.613 to provide that the routing information provided to the TRS
numbering directory may include Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
that contain provider domain names rather than user IP addresses. All
the current VRS providers, as well as consumer groups, support this
approach. The Commission believes that this proposed amendment will
advance interoperability and will otherwise serve the public interest
for the following reasons.
37. First, enabling the use of domain names to route VRS and point-
to-point video calls will allow the implementation of a consensus
interoperability standard and will thereby advance VRS
interoperability, an objective long sought by the Commission and one
that is integral to achieving functional equivalence. Second, the
record indicates that this rule amendment will improve the efficiency,
reliability, and security of VRS and point-to-point video
communications, thus advancing these important Commission objectives as
well. Third, the Commission believes that amending the rule to allow
routing based on domain names will promote TRS regulation that
``encourage[s] . . . the use of existing technology and do[es] not
discourage or impair the development of improved technology,'' as
required by 47 U.S.C. 225(c)(2). Finally, the record indicates that the
proposed amendment will not impair the Commission's ability to prevent
fraud, abuse, and waste in the VRS program.
The Commission seeks comment on these conclusions, and any other
factors it should consider regarding this proposed amendment. The
Commission believes it has authority to amend its rules to allow server
based routing under 47 U.S.C. 225 and 251, and the Commission seeks
comment on this assumption.
VRS Use of Enterprise and Public Videophones
38. Historically, VRS providers have handled and received
compensation for VRS calls placed from both private videophones of VRS
users, and from enterprise and public videophones. For the limited
purposes of document FCC 17-26, the Commission uses the term
``enterprise videophones'' to refer to videophones provided by entities
such as businesses, organizations and governmental agencies that are
designated for use by their employees who use ASL. These phones can be
situated in a variety of locations, including private or shared
offices, conference rooms, or other common rooms. ``Public
videophones,'' for
[[Page 17620]]
purposes of document FCC 17-26, are those made available in public
spaces, such as schools, hospitals, libraries, airports, and
governmental agencies, for use by any individuals who communicate
through ASL.
39. The TRS user registration database (TRS-URD) and associated TRS
Numbering Directory have been set up to enable validation of individual
VRS users by transmitting either the originating or terminating
Internet-based TRS telephone number (iTRS number) for each call. For
enterprise or public videophones, each of which permit use by more than
one individual, however, the identity of all users of the videophone
cannot be known in advance and thus is not retrievable from
registration information associated with the videophone's iTRS number.
For this reason, at present, there is no means of validating the
eligibility of registered VRS users wishing to use these phones. The
Commission proposes procedures to achieve this, along with safeguards
for the use of these phones to protect against fraud, waste and abuse.
40. For all public videophones, and for enterprise videophones that
are not located in private workspaces, the Commission proposes to
require that VRS providers establish log-in procedures for VRS users.
For example, for VRS users who already have registered a personal
videophone, the VRS provider can require the user to electronically
enter the user's iTRS number plus a personal identification number
(PIN) before making or receiving a VRS or point-to-point call.
Individuals who are not registered for VRS would first be required to
complete such registration with the provider in accordance with the
requirements of 47 CFR 64.611(a) and receive a personal identifier (ID)
and PIN number from the provider in order to begin using the public or
enterprise videophone with such log-in information. The Commission also
proposes that when VRS providers submit the call data records (CDRs)
for calls made from public and enterprise phones, in addition to the
registered telephone number, the CDR should include the telephone or ID
number of the person using the public or enterprise videophone. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal or any other alternative
suggestions to ensure the eligibility and verification of users of
enterprise and public phones. The Commission asks commenters whether
these precautionary measures will further the Commission's efforts to
reduce waste, fraud, and abuse and improve its ability to efficiently
manage the VRS program.
41. For enterprise videophones that are located in private
workspaces, defined as workspaces where access is limited to one
individual, the Commission proposes to permit the registered VRS user
of the enterprise videophone to log in a single time, without having to
again log in each time the phone is used. The Commission seeks comment
on this proposal.
42. In addition, the Commission proposes that VRS providers be
required to submit the registration information specified below to the
TRS-URD administrator for each new public or enterprise videophone
prior to initiating service, and for each such videophone already in
service, within 60 days of notice from the Commission that the TRS-URD
is ready to accept such information.
43. For enterprise videophones, the Commission proposes to require
the following information:
Name and business address of the enterprise;
Name of the responsible person for the videophone, as well
as a digital copy of a self-certification (as described below) from
that person and the date this certification was obtained by the
provider;
Tax identification number of the enterprise (for non-
governmental enterprises);
Registered Location of the phone;
VRS provider's name;
Date of the videophone's service initiation; and
For existing enterprise videophones, the date on which the
videophone was last used to place a point-to-point or TRS call.
In addition, the Commission proposes that each VRS provider be required
to obtain from the individual responsible for each enterprise
videophone a certification that such responsible person (1) has
authority to port the phone to a different VRS provider, (2) will, to
the best of that person's ability, permit only eligible VRS users with
hearing or speech disabilities to use the phone, and (3) understands
that the cost of VRS calls is financed by the federally regulated
Interstate TRS Fund. The Commission seeks comment on the collection of
the information listed, as well any exception to the above-proposed
information collection requirements that should be made for
governmental entities that are restricted in their ability to provide
certain information due to national security concerns. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether enterprises consider any of the proposed
information collection requirements described above to contain
commercially sensitive information, and if so, whether it is necessary
for the Commission to impose data security requirements on VRS
providers in order to protect such information.
44. For public videophones, the Commission proposes to require the
following information and seeks comment on such collection:
Name and physical address of the organization, business,
or agency where the public videophone is located (which will be used as
the Registered Location of the videophone);
VRS provider's name;
Date on which the videophone was placed in that location;
and
Date on which the videophone was last used to place a
point-to-point or TRS call.
45. For both enterprise and public videophones, in the event that a
registered videophone is removed from service or permanently
disconnected from VRS, the Commission proposes that the VRS provider be
required to notify the TRS Fund administrator of such termination of
use within 24 hours of such termination. In addition, for each type of
phone, the Commission proposes to require each VRS provider to monitor
usage and report any unusual activity to the TRS Fund administrator.
Because each of these videophones are available for use by multiple
individuals, the Commission believes that the collection of this
information is necessary to ensure the legitimacy of calls made on
these phones. The Commission seeks comment on its assumptions and on
these proposals and ask commenters to describe the types of unusual
activity that should trigger a report to the Commission.
Direct Video Calling Customer Support Services
46. A direct video calling (DVC) customer support service is a
telephone customer assistance service provided by an organization that
permits individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or have
a speech disability, using telephone numbers that are registered in the
TRS numbering directory, to engage in real-time video communication in
ASL without using VRS. The purpose of DVC is to provide direct
telephone service to such individuals that is functionally equivalent
to voice communications service provided to hearing individuals who do
not have speech disabilities. Because it is a direct service, no CA is
involved and there is no compensation from the TRS Fund.
47. The Commission seeks comment on whether to amend 47 CFR 64.613
to allow all providers of DVC customer
[[Page 17621]]
support services to access the TRS Numbering Directory. The Commission
believes amending its rules to allow DVC customer support service
providers access to the TRS Numbering Directory will enhance the
functional equivalence of the TRS program by allowing VRS users to
engage in more direct, private, and reciprocal communication with
customer service agents. As the Commission has repeatedly recognized,
compared to traditional TRS, point-to-point services even more directly
support the purposes of 47 U.S.C. 225 because they increase the utility
of the Nation's telephone system for persons with hearing and speech
disabilities by providing direct communication--including all visual
cues that are so important to persons with hearing and speech
disabilities. The Commission also believes allowing DVC customer
support service access to the TRS Numbering Directory will likely
reduce the TRS costs that would otherwise be borne by the TRS Fund
because using DVC involves direct, rather than interpreted,
communication and does not trigger the costs involved with
interpretation or unnecessary routing. The Commission seeks comment on
these tentative conclusions. The Commission further seeks comment on
the concerns raised by Sorenson, specifically whether any rule changes
should require that ASL-capable DVC numbers be distinct from general
service numbers used by hearing individuals to the same customer call
center. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on any other factors it
should consider regarding this proposed rule amendment, including
specific costs or additional benefits from allowing DVC customer
support services providers to access the TRS Numbering Directory, as
well as alternative proposals for ensuring direct access to DVC
customer support services.
Per-Call Validation Procedures
48. 47 CFR 64.615(a)(i) requires each VRS provider to validate the
eligibility of the party on the video side of each VRS call (once the
TRS-URD is up and running) by querying the TRS-URD on a per-call basis.
The Commission's Managing Director has contracted with the TRS
Numbering Directory administrator to validate the eligibility of the
party on the video side of each VRS call by utilizing the TRS Numbering
Directory to respond to the per call query. The Commission proposes to
amend 47 CFR 64.615(a)(i) to require that each VRS provider query
either the TRS-URD or the TRS Numbering Directory, as directed by the
Commission or the TRS Fund administrator, and seeks comment on this
proposal.
Research and Development
49. In 2014, the Commission set an initial budget for research and
development projects to be supported by the TRS Fund. Congress, in
recognizing the need for relay services for persons with hearing and
speech disabilities, charged the FCC with ensuring that the services
evolve with improvements in technology. To this end, the Commission
seeks comment on whether to continue this important research.
Specifically, it seeks comment on whether it should take action to
ensure continued funding from the TRS Fund beyond the initial project's
$3 million budget, as that amount was only sufficient through the 2016-
2017 TRS Fund Year. Therefore, to continue to meet its statutory
obligations, the Commission seeks comment on whether to direct the TRS
Fund administrator, for the 2017-2018 TRS Fund Year, and as part of
future annual ratemaking proceedings, to include in proposed
administrative costs for the Commission's approval an appropriate
amount for research and development necessary to continue to meet the
Commission's charge of furthering the goals of functional equivalence
and efficient availability of TRS. The Commission asks commenters to
address the specific purposes of such research and whether the benefits
of such research outweigh the cost to the TRS Fund.
Non-Service Related Inducements To Sign Up for VRS
50. In 2013, the Commission adopted a rule prohibiting providers
from offering or providing ``to any person or entity that registers to
use IP CTS any form of direct or indirect incentives, financial or
otherwise, to register for or use IP CTS'' and denying compensation to
providers violating the rule. 47 CFR 64.604(c)(8)(i). The Commission
seeks comment on whether to adopt a similar prohibition for VRS.
Specifically, should the Commission prohibit VRS providers from
offering or providing non-service related inducements (e.g., video game
systems) to sign up for or to continue to use a VRS provider's service?
Are there any circumstances in which such inducements should be
permitted? Does it matter if the provider offers the same inducements
to all users, regardless of call volume? Further, how should the
Commission define what is a non-service related inducement?
Non-Compete Provisions in VRS CA Employment Contracts
51. In 2007, a coalition of five VRS providers petitioned the
Commission for a declaratory ruling to prohibit VRS providers from
using non-competition agreements in VRS CA employment contracts that
limit the ability of VRS CAs to work for competing VRS providers after
the VRS CAs terminate their employment with their current employer. The
Commission sought and received comment on these agreements in the 2013
VRS Reform FNPRM. The Commission seeks further comment on the impact of
non-competition agreements on the provision of VRS. What are the cost
and benefits or advantages and disadvantages of allowing, prohibiting
or limiting the scope of these agreements? Do non-competition
agreements limit the pool of VRS CAs that are available to VRS
providers? If so, does any such limitation affect the ability of VRS
providers to effectively compete in the marketplace? To what extent do
these agreements have an impact on the level of compensation paid to
VRS CAs, and consequently, the cost of providing VRS? Do the agreements
affect speed of answer, accuracy or other quality of service metrics
for VRS users? Commenters should support their positions with data to
the extent possible.
52. The Commission also asks commenters to address possible sources
of authority for the Commission to regulate VRS CA non-competition
agreements. For example, does 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(1)(A), which directs the
Commission to ``establish functional requirements, guidelines, and
operations procedures for telecommunications relay services'' afford
the Commission sufficient authority to address these agreements? Are
there other provisions of 47 U.S.C. 225 that provide the Commission
with such authority? The Commission seeks feedback on any other matter
that might assist the Commission in determining whether and how to
address these agreements.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
53. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (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 document FCC 17-26. Written public comments are requested on
this IRFA. Comments must be identified as
[[Page 17622]]
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadline for comments
specified in the DATES section. The Commission will send a copy of
document FCC 17-26 to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
54. Document FCC 17-26 addresses server-based routing of VRS calls;
registration of VRS enterprise and public videophones in the TRS-URD;
access to the TRS Numbering Directory by DVC customer support services;
per-call validation procedures for VRS calls; funding for research and
development; prohibiting inducements to register for VRS; and
prohibiting non-compete clauses in VRS CA employment contracts.
55. The proposed changes to permit server-based routing will expand
the ways that VRS calls can be routed. The Commission proposes to
permit domain names to be included in the user routing information
provided to the TRS numbering directory.
56. The Commission proposes to require the registration of
enterprise and public videophones in the TRS-URD and to require that
the users of such videophones log-in to use the videophones, so that
calls from such equipment may be appropriately processed and
compensated for by the TRS Fund, as they have been in the past.
57. The Commission proposes to permit providers of DVC services to
have access to the TRS Numbering Directory. Such access will enhance
the functional equivalence of DVC. Because the per-call query function
has been built into the TRS Numbering Directory rather than the TRS-
URD, the Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 64.615(a)(1)(i) to require
per-call validation using either the TRS-URD or the TRS Numbering
Directory, as directed by either the Commission or the TRS Fund
administrator.
58. The Commission proposes to direct the TRS Fund administrator
for the 2017-2018 TRS Fund Year, and as part of future annual
ratemaking proceedings to include for Commission approval proposed
funding for research and development. Such funding is necessary to
continue to meet the Commission's charge of furthering the goals of
functional equivalence and efficient availability of TRS.
59. The Commission also proposes to adopt a rule prohibiting VRS
providers from offering direct or indirect inducements to customers to
register for VRS. Such rules may be necessary to ensure that VRS is
available to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner and
to help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund.
60. Lastly, the Commission proposes to prohibit VRS providers from
preventing CAs from subsequently working for a competing VRS provider
through the inclusion of non-compete provisions in VRS CA employment
contracts or otherwise requiring or inducing CAs to agree to non-
compete agreements. A prohibition on non-compete agreements will ensure
that VRS is available to the extent possible and in the most efficient
manner by increasing the CA labor pool, ensuring the availability of
qualified interpreters, and removing a barrier to competition.
Legal Basis
61. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in 47
U.S.C. 225, 251.
Small Entities Impacted
62. The rules proposed in document FCC 17-26 will affect
obligations of VRS providers and providers of DVC services. These
services can be included within the broad economic category of All
Other Telecommunications.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
63. The proposed server-based call routing option will permit the
use of domain names, and will require VRS providers to keep records of
such domain names. The domain names will then be processed as call
routing information, just as other call routing information is
processed currently. The changes to the TRS-URD design to permit calls
to be made from enterprise and public videophones will require VRS
providers to register such equipment in the TRS-URD, in a manner
similar to how they currently register individuals in the TRS-URD. The
other proposed rule changes do not involve recordkeeping requirements.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
64. The proposed server-based call routing option using domain
names will be available to all VRS providers, will not be burdensome,
and will advance interoperability. Greater interoperability will foster
competition, thereby benefitting the smaller providers. To the extent
there are differences in operating costs resulting from economies of
scale, those costs are reflected in the different compensation rate
structures applicable to large and small VRS providers.
65. The provision of VRS service to enterprise and public
videophones is optional for VRS providers. The proposed registration
requirements for such videophones and log-in procedures for users of
such videophones apply equally to all VRS providers and users, and are
necessary to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund. The
registration requirements for enterprise and public videophones are no
more burdensome than the registration requirements for individual
videophones. To the extent there are differences in operating costs
resulting from economies of scale, those costs are reflected in the
different rate structures applicable to large and small VRS providers.
Therefore, the Commission does not adopt any of the four alternatives
listed above for small entities.
66. Permitting providers of DVC call centers to access the TRS
Numbering Directory is necessary for the purpose of routing calls to
and from DVC call centers. Such access would subject such call center
providers to call-routing rules similar to those currently applicable
to Internet-based TRS providers. Such rules are not burdensome.
67. Requiring VRS providers to transmit per-call validation queries
to the TRS Numbering Directory instead of the TRS-URD, as currently
required, is not burdensome. The only difference is the database that
must be queried.
68. Directing the TRS Fund administrator to propose an appropriate
amount of funding for research and development for the 2017-2018 TRS
Fund year and as a part of each future annual ratemaking proceeding
extends a past Commission directive to the TRS Fund Administrator to
set an initial budget for research and development projects to be
supported by the TRS Fund. The Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate budget for research and development and whether to continue
independently funding research and development through the TRS Fund.
Funding independent research and development through the TRS Fund may
result in a reduction in the costs that VRS providers incur to conduct
their own research and development.
69. Prohibiting VRS providers from offering customers direct or
indirect inducements to register for VRS will help ensure that VRS is
available to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner while
helping to limit waste, fraud, and abuse. Adopting this prohibition may
benefit small providers by removing competitive costs associated with
offering inducements
[[Page 17623]]
unrelated to providing service and focusing competition on service
quality.
70. Prohibiting non-compete provisions in VRS CA employment
contracts and prohibiting VRS providers from otherwise requesting or
requiring CAs to agree to non-compete agreements narrowly targets a
concern that affects the size of the CA labor pool, restricts
competition, and impedes consumers choice. Prohibiting such
restrictions may benefit smaller providers through increased
availability of qualified interpreters.
Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission's Proposals
71. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications,
Telecommunications relay services, Video relay services.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend Title 47 of the Code of
Federal Regulation 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, 225, 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 715,
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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 64.611 by adding paragraphs (a)(6) and (7) and revising
paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.611 Internet-based TRS registration.
(a) * * *
(6) Enterprise videophones. For purposes of this section, an
enterprise videophone is a videophone provided by an entity such as a
business, an organization, or a governmental entity that is designated
for use by its employees who use American Sign Language.
(i) A VRS provider seeking compensation from the TRS Fund for
providing VRS to a registered VRS user utilizing an enterprise
videophone must first obtain a written certification from the
individual responsible for the enterprise videophone, attesting that:
(A) The individual will, to the best of that individual's ability
permit only eligible VRS users with hearing or speech disabilities to
use the enterprise videophone; and
(B) The individual understands that the cost of VRS calls is paid
for by contributions from telecommunications and VoIP providers to the
TRS Fund.
(ii) The certification required by paragraph (a)(6)(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.
(iii) 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 registration
information for each of its enterprise videophones, for new enterprise
videophones prior to the initiation of service, and for existing
enterprise videophones within 60 days of notice from the Commission
that the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept such
information:
(A) The name and business address of the enterprise;
(B) The name of the individual responsible for the videophone, a
digital copy of the certification required by paragraph (a)(6)(i) of
this section, and the date the certification was obtained by the
provider;
(C) The last digits of the tax identification number of the
enterprise, unless it is a governmental enterprise;
(D) The Registered Location of the phone;
(E) The VRS provider's name;
(F) The date of the enterprise videophone's service initiation; and
(G) For existing enterprise videophones, the date on which the
videophone was last used to place a point-to-point or relay call.
(iv) Each VRS provider must obtain, from the individuals
responsible for each new and existing enterprise videophone, 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 individual responsible for the enterprise
videophone, 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 of such consent for every enterprise videophone.
(v) 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.
(vi) After the time period for the 60-day notice from the
Commission that the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept
registration information has passed, VRS calls provided to enterprise
videophones shall not be compensable from the TRS Fund unless the user
of the enterprise videophone is a registered VRS user and logs in to
the videophone with a user identification plus a passcode or PIN. For
enterprise videophones located in private work spaces where access is
limited to one individual, the user of such enterprise videophone may
log in a single time, without being required to log in each time the
videophone is used.
(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.
(viii) A VRS provider may be compensated from the TRS Fund for
dial-around VRS provided to registered users of registered enterprise
videophones.
(7) Public videophones. For purposes of this section, a public
videophone is a videophone that is made available in a public space,
such as a school, a hospital, a library, an airport, or a governmental
building, for use by any individual who communicates through American
Sign Language.
(i) A VRS provider seeking compensation from the TRS Fund for
providing VRS to a registered VRS user utilizing a public videophone
must transmit to the TRS User Registration
[[Page 17624]]
Database, in a format prescribed by the administrator of the TRS User
Registration Database, the following information, for each of its new
public videophones prior to the initiation of VRS on the videophone,
and for existing public videophones, within 60 days of notice from the
Commission that the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept
such information:
(A) The name and physical address of the organization, business, or
agency where the public videophone is located;
(B) The VRS provider's name;
(C) The date on which the videophone was placed in that location;
and
(D) The date on which the videophone was last used to place a
point-to-point or TRS call.
(ii) After the time period for the 60-day notice from the
Commission that the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept
registration information has passed, VRS calls provided to public
videophones shall not be compensable from the TRS Fund unless the user
of the public videophone is a registered VRS user and logs in to the
videophone with a user identification plus a passcode or PIN.
(iii) 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.
(iv) A VRS provider may be compensated from the TRS Fund for dial-
around VRS provided to registered users of registered public
videophones.
* * * * *
(c) Obligations of default providers and former default providers.
(1) Default providers must:
(i) Obtain current routing information from their Registered
Internet-based TRS Users, registered enterprise videophones, and
hearing point-to-point video users;
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 64.613 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(4)
to read as follows:
Sec. 64.613 Numbering directory for Internet-based TRS users.
(a) TRS Numbering Directory.
(1) The TRS Numbering Directory shall contain records mapping the
geographically appropriate NANP telephone number of each Registered
Internet-based TRS User, registered enterprise videophone, public
videophone, Direct Video Calling customer support services, and hearing
point-to-point video user to a unique Uniform Resource Identifier
(URI).
(2) For each record associated with a geographically appropriate
NANP telephone number for a Registered Internet-based TRS User,
registered enterprise videophone, public videophone, Direct Video
Calling customer support services, or hearing point-to-point video
user, the URI shall contain a server domain name or the IP address of
the user's device. For each record associated with an IP Relay user's
geographically appropriate NANP telephone number, the URI shall contain
the user's user name and domain name that can be subsequently resolved
to reach the user.
(3) * * *
(4) The TRS Numbering Administrator, Internet-based TRS providers,
and Direct Video Calling customer support services providers may access
the TRS Numbering Directory.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 64.615 by revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding
subparagraph (a)(1)(iv) to read as follows:
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 or the TRS Numbering Directory, as directed by the Commission
or the TRS Fund Administrator, on a per-call basis. Emergency 911 calls
are excepted from this requirement.
* * * * *
(iv) The eligibility of a party using an enterprise videophone or
public VRS phone may be validated by the registration information for
the enterprise phones or public VRS phones in the TRS User Registration
Database.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-07153 Filed 4-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P