Improving Video Relay Service and Direct Video Calling, 26379-26387 [2019-11210]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26379-26387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11210]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123; FCC 19-39]


Improving Video Relay Service and Direct Video Calling

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC 
or Commission) proposes to: permit communications assistants (CAs) to 
handle video relay service (VRS) calls at home on a permanent basis; 
allow VRS providers to provide service to new and porting VRS users for 
up to two weeks while the telecommunications relay service (TRS) user 
registration database (User Database or Database) administrator is 
verifying the user's registration information, with compensation paid 
only after the user's identity is verified; and implement log-in 
procedures to authenticate users prior to their use of enterprise and 
public videophones for VRS calls. By these proposals, the Commission 
seeks to improve VRS while safeguarding the program against waste, 
fraud, and abuse.

DATES: Comments are due August 5, 2019. Reply comments are due 
September 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 10-51 
and 03-123, by either of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's website: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     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.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (888) 835-5322.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see document FCC 19-39 at: 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-39A1.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Scott, Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-1264, or email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

[[Page 26380]]

(FNPRM), document FCC 19-39, adopted on May 9, 2019, released on May 
15, 2019, in CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123. The Report and Order in 
document FCC 19-39 is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register. The full text of document FCC 19-39 is available for public 
inspection and copying via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS), and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference 
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for 
people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 
(TTY).
    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 rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 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.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The FNPRM in document FCC 19-39 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

    1. VRS is a form of TRS that enables people with hearing or speech 
disabilities who use sign language to make telephone calls over 
broadband with a videophone. In addition to enabling communication 
between American Sign Language (ASL) users and voice users, the VRS 
system also enables ASL users to communicate directly with other ASL 
users via video.

Permitting At-Home Interpreting on a Permanent Basis

    2. The Commission proposes to convert the Commission's pilot VRS 
at-home call-handling program, which allows VRS providers to have their 
CAs handle some VRS calls from at-home workstations, to a permanent 
program that will be subject to safeguards designed to maintain service 
quality, protect call confidentiality, and prevent waste, fraud, and 
abuse. The Commission believes that taking this action is likely to 
expand the available pool of qualified sign-language interpreters who 
can work as VRS interpreters (i.e., CAs) and improve VRS reliability, 
which will advance the Commission's goal of ensuring a high quality, 
functionally equivalent VRS program in furtherance of the objectives of 
section 225 of the Communications Act.
    3. The Commission believes that the benefits anticipated in the 
pilot at-home call-handling program are being realized. Specifically, 
the VRS provider reports required under the pilot program indicate that 
allowing CAs to work at home: has enabled providers to attract and 
retain qualified CAs for whom working at the companies' call centers is 
not a practical option; has improved working conditions and 
productivity of CAs working at home; can improve network reliability 
and redundancy; and has the potential to help providers better respond 
to calls in accordance with the Commission's speed-of-answer rules when 
unforeseen circumstances occur. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
this depiction of these benefits is accurate, and whether other 
benefits have been realized during the pilot program or are likely to 
be realized if the program is authorized on a permanent basis. Are 
there any disadvantages to making this program permanent?
    4. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, and to what 
extent, a rule change permitting at-home interpreting is likely to 
reduce or increase the total costs of the VRS program. Current program 
participants anticipate a significant net savings in VRS costs if 
permanent authorization allows the scale of the program to be expanded. 
The Commission seeks comment on how this would be achieved, and any 
additional information about costs incurred by participating providers. 
For example, costs could include training and supervising CAs, 
installing facilities and software to serve home workstations, 
troubleshooting and maintaining security at home workstations, ensuring 
compliance, and preparing required reports.
    5. The Commission believes that the various safeguards established 
as conditions for participation in the pilot program generally have 
been effective in preventing waste, fraud, and abuse, meeting the TRS 
mandatory minimum standards, and ensuring the confidentiality, 
reliability, and quality of at-home interpreting. The Commission seeks 
comment on the extent to which the pilot program's safeguards generally 
have been effective. The Commission lists below each of the safeguards 
and seeks comment on the extent to which each should be retained, 
modified, eliminated, or supplemented if the Commission makes this 
program permanent. When responding, the Commission urges commenters, 
especially participating providers, to provide detailed information, 
including quantitative data to the extent available, in support of 
their views on whether and how these governing rules should be 
modified, as well as the costs and benefits of incorporating each into 
the

[[Page 26381]]

permanent program. Further, the Commission seeks comment on any 
differences in call quality between traditional call centers and CAs 
working from home.
    6. Personnel Safeguards. The pilot program requires CAs working 
from their homes to have a minimum of three years of VRS experience. In 
addition, before allowing a CA to work at home, a VRS provider must:
     Ensure that the CA has sufficient experience, skills, and 
knowledge to effectively interpret from at-home workstations, including 
a thorough understanding of the Commission's mandatory minimum 
standards;
     Provide additional training to CAs to ensure that they 
understand and follow the provider's protocols for at-home call 
handling;
     Establish, and provide to the CA in writing, the grounds 
and process for dismissal from the at-home program if the CA fails to 
adhere to the Commission's TRS rules, including the specific 
requirements for at-home call handling; and
     Obtain a written certification from each CA as to their 
understanding of and commitment to complying with the Commission's TRS 
rules, and their understanding of the grounds and process for dismissal 
from the at-home program.
    While CAs are working from home, the VRS provider must:
     Provide support equivalent to that provided CAs in call 
centers, including, where appropriate, the opportunity to team 
interpret; and
     Ensure that supervisors are readily available to resolve 
problems that may arise during a relay call.
    Are these requirements effective in ensuring that CAs working at 
home can effectively handle VRS calls or should they be modified in any 
way? What, if any, screening, training, and disciplinary issues have 
been encountered in the pilot program and how have these been 
addressed? How should any such issues be dealt with in the Commission's 
rules?
    7. Technical and Environmental Safeguards. Under the pilot program, 
VRS providers are required to ensure that at-home workstations enable 
the provision of confidential and uninterrupted service to the same 
extent as the provider's call center, and that calls handled by at-home 
CAs are seamlessly integrated into the provider's call routing, 
distribution, tracking, and support systems. Specifically, the provider 
must:
     Require that home workstations be placed in a separate 
location within the home, with restricted access and effective means to 
minimize the impact of outside noise and prevent eavesdropping;
     Configure at-home workstations to enable the CA to use all 
call-handling technology to the same extent as other CAs, including the 
ability to transition a non-emergency call to an emergency call, engage 
in virtual teaming with another CA, and allow supervisors to 
communicate with and oversee calls;
     Ensure that each at-home workstation is capable of 
supporting VRS in compliance with the Commission's mandatory minimum 
standards, including the provision of system redundancy and other 
safeguards to the same degree as at call centers, and including the 
ability to route VRS calls around individual CA workstations in the 
event they experience a network outage or other service interruption; 
and
     Connect workstations to the provider's network over a 
secure connection to ensure caller privacy.
    8. Are these safeguards sufficient to ensure that CAs working from 
at-home workstations can provide high-quality, confidential, and 
uninterrupted service, and if not, what modifications to these 
requirements are necessary? What technical and environmental issues 
have been encountered in the pilot program, how have they affected the 
integration of calls handled by at-home CAs into the call routing, 
distribution, tracking and support systems, and how have any such 
technical challenges been addressed? How should any such issues be 
dealt with in the Commission's rules? Are some of the current 
safeguards--e.g., the requirement for system redundancy at each 
workstation, disproportionately burdensome in relation to their value 
for the stated purpose(s)?
    9. Monitoring and Oversight Requirements. To ensure that providers 
appropriately monitor and oversee the at-home call handling pilot 
program, they have been required to:
     Inspect and approve each at-home workstation before 
activating a CA's workstation for use;
     Equip each at-home workstation with monitoring technology 
sufficient to ensure that off-site supervision approximates the level 
of supervision at the provider's call center, including the ability to 
monitor both ends of a call, i.e., video and audio, to the same extent 
as is possible in a call center, and regularly analyze any data 
collected to proactively address possible waste, fraud, and abuse;
     Conduct random, unannounced inspections of at least five 
percent (5%) of all at-home workstations per year; and
     Keep all records pertaining to at-home workstations, 
including the data produced by any at-home workstation monitoring 
technology, except for any data that records the content of an 
interpreted conversation, for a minimum of three years.
    10. Do these monitoring and oversight requirements enable VRS 
providers to appropriately supervise the CAs working at home? What 
monitoring and oversight issues have been encountered in the pilot 
program and how have they been addressed? Which requirements were found 
to be most useful to ensure effective supervision of CAs? Under a 
permanent program, the number of at-home workstations is likely to 
increase. To what extent is this likely to increase the risk that 
individual CA workstations may fall short of full compliance with 
technical, environmental, and privacy safeguards? To ensure that 
providers detect and promptly address any such compliance issues, 
should the Commission increase the required annual percentage of at-
home workstations that must be subject to random, unannounced provider 
inspections--for example to 10 or 15% of a provider's at-home 
workstations each year? What are the costs and benefits of adopting 
this requirement?
    11. In addition to compliance with the above safeguards, during the 
pilot program, at-home workstations and workstation records must be 
available for review, audit, and unannounced inspections by the 
Commission and the TRS Fund administrator to the same extent as VRS 
call centers. The Commission proposes that, if made permanent, at-home 
workstations and records continue to be subject to such inspections to 
the same extent as regular call centers. The Commission seeks comment 
on this proposal.
    12. Authorization to Participate in the At-Home Call Handling 
Program. To participate in the pilot program, each VRS provider was 
required to submit a detailed plan to demonstrate its ability to 
achieve full compliance with the above safeguards and the Commission's 
mandatory minimum TRS standards, including:
     A description of the provider's at-home CA screening and 
training process, the protocols and expectations established for CAs 
working at home, and the grounds and process for dismissing a CA from 
the at-home program;
     All steps that the provider would take to install a 
workstation in a CA's home, including an evaluation to ensure the 
workstation was sufficiently secure

[[Page 26382]]

and equipped to prevent eavesdropping and outside interruptions;
     A description of the monitoring technology to be used to 
ensure that off-site supervision approximated the level of supervision 
at the provider's call center;
     An explanation of how the provider's workstations would 
connect to the provider's network, including how these would be 
integrated into the call center routing, distribution, tracking, and 
support systems, and how the provider would ensure system redundancy in 
the event of service disruptions in at-home workstations;
     A signed certification by an officer of the provider 
affirming that the provider would conduct random and unannounced 
inspections of at least five percent (5%) of all at-home workstations 
during the year; and
     A commitment to comply with all other at-home call-
handling safeguards and TRS rules.
    13. To what extent should providers be required to provide the same 
level of detailed information, certification, and commitment, if at-
home call handling is permitted on a permanent basis? Is any of the 
required information no longer necessary or disproportionately 
burdensome to its value in ensuring high-quality call handling and 
preventing fraud, waste, and abuse? What, if any, additional 
information should be collected to help the Commission maintain call 
quality and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse?
    14. Under the pilot program, Commission approval for participation 
can be canceled at any time if the provider fails to maintain 
compliance. The Commission proposes that the Commission retain such 
option and seeks comment on this approach.
    15. Data Collection Requirements. For calls handled at home 
workstations, the pilot program rules have required VRS providers to 
submit the following data in their monthly requests for compensation, 
in addition to the data otherwise required to receive payment for 
handling calls:
     A unique call center identification number (ID), street 
address, and CA ID for each CA working at home; and
     The location and call center IDs of call centers providing 
supervision for at-home workstations, and the names of persons at such 
call centers responsible for oversight of these workstations.
    16. In addition, providers had to submit a six-month implementation 
report that includes:
     A description of the screening process used to select CAs 
who may work from home;
     Copies of training materials and written protocols for at-
home CAs;
     The total number of CAs who have worked at home during the 
reporting period;
     The total number of 911 calls handled during the reporting 
period;
     A description and copies of any survey results or self-
evaluations concerning CAs' experience handling calls at home;
     The total number of CAs terminated from the program;
     The total number of complaints, if any, submitted to the 
provider regarding its at-home call-handling program or calls handled 
by at-home CAs; and
     The total number of on-site inspections of at-home 
workstations conducted, along with the dates and locations of such 
inspections.
    17. To what extent is the information required in monthly reports 
sufficient to support compensation requests and protect against waste, 
fraud, and abuse? Should the Commission continue to require VRS 
providers to submit such information as well as implementation reports 
at six-month intervals? If so, should these information reporting 
requirements be retained, modified, eliminated, or supplemented in any 
manner? Should any reported information be made available to the 
public? For example, if a VRS provider takes a survey of its CAs 
concerning their participation in the at-home VRS call handling 
program, could the aggregated responses be made public, as long as 
identifying information for CAs and respondents is redacted?
    18. Limitation on Service. The Commission proposes to increase or 
remove the pilot program's 30 percent limit on a provider's at-home 
call-handling minutes. Increasing the limit would allow each provider 
greater scope to make its own determination on the extent to which it 
can efficiently make use of at-home call handling while remaining in 
compliance with our minimum TRS standards. The Commission seeks comment 
on the costs and benefits of this proposal and on whether the limit 
should be retained at a higher level, e.g., 50 percent, or removed 
entirely. For example, could the limit be completely removed without 
significantly increasing the risk of fraud or abuse, in reliance on the 
safeguards described above?

Providing Service to New and Porting Users Pending Database 
Verification

    19. To eliminate unnecessary inconvenience to VRS registrants, 
without a significant increase in the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse, 
and in response to a petition by the five currently certified VRS 
providers, the Commission proposes to allow VRS providers to provide 
service to new and porting users for up to two weeks pending the 
completion of identity verification. The Commission believes this 
change would be helpful to ensure that service to new and porting VRS 
users can be commenced efficiently and without undue delay or 
disruption of service, in order to facilitate competition and ensure 
the functional equivalence of this service. Compensation for calls 
placed or received by the user during this period would be paid only if 
the user's identity is ultimately verified.
    20. For most users, identity verification is completed within hours 
of data submission to the User Database, but for some users, 
verification can take longer, e.g., due to technical problems or 
because the user's identity cannot be verified without the submission 
of additional information. Under the proposed rule change, a consumer 
would not be subjected to a delay in commencement of service as a 
result of verification issues that are often beyond the consumer's 
control.
    21. Under this proposal, VRS providers could assign a telephone 
number and begin service to a new or porting user immediately after 
registration. This telephone number would be entered in the TRS 
Numbering Directory on a temporary basis so that VRS calls (as well as 
point-to-point calls) may be placed to and from the number, either 
through the default provider or on a dial-around basis. In the event 
that the user's identity is not verified within the two-week period, 
the number would be removed from the Numbering Directory. The 
Commission believes that any resulting risk of waste, fraud, or abuse 
is minimal because, under the Commission's proposal, no compensation 
may be requested or paid until the user's identity has been verified. 
The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of this 
proposal.

Requiring Enterprise and Public Videophone Log-In Procedures

    22. The Commission seeks further comment on the Commission's 
proposal in the 2017 VRS Improvements FNPRM, 82 FR 17613, to require 
default VRS providers to implement log-in procedures for individuals 
using enterprise and public videophones for VRS calls. The Commission 
believes that a log-in procedure is needed to safeguard the TRS program 
from waste, fraud, and abuse because there is no record identifying the 
actual user of an enterprise or public videophone. As the

[[Page 26383]]

success of fraudulent activity often depends on the perpetrators 
remaining anonymous, we believe user log-in is needed to ensure that 
enterprise and public videophones are actually used only by registered 
VRS users.
    23. The Commission clarifies that, under the proposed log-in rule, 
VRS calls made to or from an enterprise or public videophone will be 
compensable only if: (1) The individual using the videophone is a 
registered VRS user; (2) before placing or receiving the call, the user 
provides a log-in code, consisting of the user's North American 
Numbering Plan (NANP) telephone number and a personal identification 
number (PIN) or password, which the VRS provider then validates through 
a prescribed procedure; and (3) the VRS provider includes the user's 
telephone number, as well as other information reasonably requested by 
the TRS Fund administrator, in the call detail records (CDRs) submitted 
to the TRS Fund administrator with the provider's request for 
compensation. The user can request a PIN or password from his or her 
default VRS provider at the time of registration or any time 
thereafter. The necessary log-in information and format will be 
determined by the TRS Numbering Administrator, in consultation with the 
User Database administrator and the Commission. Individuals who have 
not previously registered for VRS must do so before they can make VRS 
calls at enterprise or public videophones. The Commission seeks further 
comment on this proposal, including the proposed log-in procedure 
detailed below.
    24. Because the proposed log-in procedure will limit access to 
enterprise and public videophones to registered VRS users, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether to revise the certification 
requirement for enterprise videophones adopted in the Report and Order 
of document FCC 19-39, so as to be consistent with the restriction to 
registered users. Should the Commission require VRS providers to submit 
to the User Database a certification by the responsible individual for 
an enterprise videophone that the organization, business, or agency 
will make reasonable efforts to ensure that only registered VRS users 
are permitted to use the phone for VRS?
    25. Because total usage of enterprise and public videophones 
averages more than one million minutes per month, the Commission 
believes this degree of usage is sufficient to justify imposing a log-
in requirement to help prevent the recurrence of significant VRS fraud. 
The Commission seeks comment on its assumptions and its estimate of 
enterprise and public videophone usage. The Commission also does not 
believe that the log-in procedure is a ``solution to a problem that 
does not exist,'' as claimed by Sorenson Communications, LLC 
(Sorenson). Nonetheless, the Commission seeks comment on the 
assumptions underlying its proposals in this regard.
    26. Some commenters argue that a log-in requirement would conflict 
with functional equivalency, burden consumers, and hinder effective 
communication, noting that some public videophone users are not 
registered, while others may have difficulty remembering a PIN. 
However, the Commission believes that any burden imposed on users by 
the log-in requirement would be minor compared to its substantial 
benefit in preventing the misuse of enterprise and public videophones. 
Individuals use log-ins regularly to access smartphones, voicemail, and 
email, as well as work, school, and personal computers, and commercial, 
retail, and financial accounts. To use such devices and services, 
consumers routinely need to remember (or store in a retrievable 
location) usernames, passwords, and PINs. Further, consumers would not 
need to remember separate telephone numbers and PINs for each VRS 
provider, as once a user obtains a telephone number and PIN from one 
provider, that log-in information may be used to place a VRS call from 
any enterprise or public videophone. The Commission seeks comment on 
these assumptions. The Commission also seek comment on the cost to the 
VRS providers of having to provide a PIN reset service if this proposal 
is adopted.
    27. Neustar's Log-In Procedure Proposal. Neustar, the TRS Numbering 
Administrator, explains that online log-in systems are common and 
suggests that providers could use the widely relied-upon OAuth standard 
to implement log-in functionality. OAuth allows one party (in this case 
the default VRS provider for an enterprise or public videophone) to 
request another party (in this case the default VRS provider for the 
individual using the videophone) to authenticate a person's 
authorization for them, without the first party learning the identity 
or credentials of that person. Providers could develop a standard using 
the OAuth 2.0 protocol or utilize an existing standard, such as OpenID 
Connect, which is an interoperable authentication protocol based on the 
OAuth family of specifications. OAuth might be applied as follows: when 
a VRS user enters a telephone number and PIN at an enterprise or public 
videophone, the default VRS provider serving the videophone checks the 
TRS Numbering Directory to determine the user's default VRS provider 
for that number, and sends the telephone number and PIN to that 
provider; if authentication is positive, the user's default VRS 
provider transmits a token that allows the user to place or receive a 
VRS call at the videophone.
    28. Neustar asserts that the cost and effort to develop an OAuth-
based log-in feature would be reasonable and that development could be 
completed within six months. Neustar explains that many providers 
already utilize a username/password capability that could be extended 
to OAuth, and that even for providers who currently lack such a 
capability, the availability of open source code means that the cost of 
implementing OAuth servers and username/password capability will be 
modest. The Commission therefore tentatively concludes that the 
benefits of adopting a login requirement would far exceed the minimal 
costs of implementing it.
    29. If the VRS industry implements OAuth, the Commission believes 
that would enable enterprise OAuth integrations which would allow for 
an enterprise user to provide the VRS telephone number and log in with 
the user's enterprise credentials, and the enterprise would attest to 
the VRS provider that an authorized user has logged in. The Commission 
seeks comment on the costs and feasibility of Neustar's proposal and on 
the Commission's tentative conclusion that these costs will be minimal. 
What are the estimated costs of implementing an OAuth based log-in 
solution, including the streamlined version proposed by Neustar, and 
how would those costs vary by provider? While Sorenson estimates a cost 
of ``over $1 million'' for ``creating, testing, and deploying an OAuth 
authorization server and modifying and testing videophone software,'' 
it fails to support this claim. The Commission therefore seeks cost 
information regarding this estimate and any updated estimate. How much 
of the estimated cost is attributable to an OAuth server and how much 
is attributable to necessary videophone software modification? What 
kinds of videophone software would need to be modified, and why? What 
costs would be incurred by other providers? Are there significant 
differences in software modification costs for public and enterprise 
videophones, respectively?
    30. It appears that total implementation costs could be reduced if 
the Commission exempted certain kinds of videophones from the log-in

[[Page 26384]]

requirement. For example, Sorenson claims that that its ntouch 
videophones were not designed to have an internet browser and therefore 
cannot be modified to support a log-in mechanism. How many unmodifiable 
ntouch public and enterprise videophones are currently in use, and how 
much usage is there for such videophones? How much of the total 
estimated implementation cost would be saved by exempting them? Are 
there other videophones currently used in public and enterprise 
locations that do not have, and cannot be modified to support, an 
internet browser? How many such videophones are there and how much of 
the total estimated implementation cost would be saved by exempting 
them? How much usage is there of unmodifiable public and enterprise 
videophones, and would the implementation costs saved justify the 
increased risk of fraud from continuing to allow unidentified use of 
such phones? Would it be more cost effective to implement a log-in 
solution through VRS software used on third-party equipment, such as a 
personal computer or wireless device? To what extent is such third-
party equipment with VRS software deployed or deployable for use as 
enterprise and public videophones? If the Commission exempts existing 
videophones that cannot support browser functionality, should it 
require that, before registering new enterprise and public videophones, 
the default VRS provider must confirm that such phones have browser 
functionality and support OAuth log-in capability? The Commission also 
seeks comment from manufacturers, vendors, and owners of enterprise 
telephone systems and other non-provider equipment and software used 
for enterprise and public videophones, regarding the ability of such 
systems to support log-in capability.
    31. OAuth 2.0 enables devices without browsers or an ability to 
securely enter passcodes, such as legacy devices in public areas, where 
people can see what characters a user is typing on a screen, to still 
have secure authentication. However, the OAuth 2.0 solution to this 
problem requires the user to have access to the internet with a 
browser. Is it likely that a user who wants to use a public or semi-
public legacy device will have access to the internet, perhaps on a 
personal mobile phone; personal or communal tablet; or personal or 
public workstation or laptop? If the users who have smartphones, 
tablets, or laptops can use them to communicate via VRS, are these 
users making use of public and enterprise videophones? If not, who is 
making use of public and enterprise videophones? In the case of public 
phones, are the users generally individuals without smartphones, 
tablets, or laptops? In the case of enterprise phones, are the users 
generally using the enterprise phones to ensure that their videocalls 
are made over the communications facilities managed by the enterprise?
    32. Sorenson also claims that there are ``significant security 
vulnerabilities'' in OAuth and other third-party authentication 
applications. According to the studies cited by Sorenson, however, such 
vulnerabilities are not caused by OAuth 2.0 itself but by ``home-brewed 
adaptations'' in which ``the implicit security assumptions and 
operational requirements . . . are often not clearly documented or 
well-understood by the 3rd-party mobile app developers.'' What specific 
security issues would providers face in implementing an OAuth-based 
log-in solution, and what safeguards are available to address such 
concerns? Are there alternative log-in solutions that would not raise 
similar security vulnerability concerns?
    33. To date only Neustar has proposed a log-in solution. Are there 
other log-in solutions the Commission should consider? The OAuth 
specification is designed for use with HTTP. Would a session initiation 
protocol (SIP)-based standard, such as RADIUS or Diameter provide a 
more cost-effective or secure standard for implementing a log-in 
solution? The Commission also proposes to establish a common protocol 
for the log-in procedure to ensure that user log-ins can be quickly 
authenticated regardless of the user's default provider. Neustar 
indicates that in its role as the TRS Numbering administrator it could 
act as a proxy and direct the OAuth authentication process to the 
correct VRS provider without revealing the provider's identity to the 
provider of the enterprise or public videophone. The Commission seeks 
comment on this approach. Alternatively, should the Commission allow 
each provider to develop its own log-in protocol rather than require 
providers to implement a common protocol? What are the costs and 
benefits of each alternative approach? To what extent do providers 
already use log-in procedures for users to access VRS? Could such 
existing log-in procedures be incorporated into a log-in procedure for 
enterprise and public videophones?
    34. Exemptions. The Commission proposes to exempt point-to-point 
calls from the log-in requirement, because such calls are not billed to 
the TRS Fund. How would exempting point-to-point calls affect the 
implementation of a log-in procedure? At what point in the call process 
should a user be prompted to log-in to complete a VRS call on an 
enterprise or public videophone?
    35. Where an enterprise videophone is located within a private 
workspace or a private room within a long-term health care facility, 
the Commission proposes to allow the VRS provider to permit one 
registered VRS user to log in a single time and thereafter to continue 
using the videophone without repeated log-ins, so long as that user 
continues to be eligible and registered for VRS. In addition, the 
Commission proposes to broaden this proposed log-in exemption to allow 
relatively convenient access to shared enterprise devices, while 
limiting usage of the device to registered VRS users. For enterprise 
videophones at reception desks or other work areas in places of 
employment, the Commission proposes to allow up to five registered 
users to be simultaneously logged in to a videophone, provided that the 
phone is configured so that each user must select his or her user 
profile before placing or answering a VRS call. To limit misuse of this 
exemption, the Commission proposes to require VRS providers to keep 
records of users that are pre-authorized under each of these exceptions 
and to discontinue permission for such automatic use by any individual 
that the provider knows or has reason to believe no longer needs access 
to the device. What are the associated costs, benefits, and technical 
concerns?
    36. The Commission also proposes to exempt 911 calls from the log-
in requirement, so that providers may complete emergency calls from 
enterprise and public videophones at any time and without delay. The 
Commission seek comments on this proposal. Are there technical concerns 
with implementing a log-in exemption for calls to 911?
    37. Finally, the Commission proposes to exempt from the log-in 
requirement otherwise eligible VRS calls made from public videophones 
located in emergency shelters and domestic abuse shelters, so long as 
the registration data provided to the User Database in advance of such 
use identifies the phone as an emergency or domestic shelter 
videophone. The Commission believes there may be situations where 
individuals fleeing their homes may not have made log-in arrangements 
in advance of an emergency or domestic abuse incident, or may forget to 
retrieve such information when rushing to a

[[Page 26385]]

shelter. Providing individuals the ability to establish telephone 
communications could be vital to their health and safety in crisis 
situations. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Are there 
other locations where the Commission should adopt an emergency 
situation exemption to the log-in requirement for enterprise and public 
phones? How should the Commission define the scope of exempt locations 
for this purpose?
    38. Alternatives to a Log-In Requirement. The Commission also asks 
for comment on alternatives to a log-in requirement. For example, 
Sorenson argues that, once enterprise and public videophones are 
registered in the User Database, it should be sufficient for a VRS user 
to enter the user's VRS telephone number (without a PIN) before 
completing a call, noting that the TRS Fund administrator would have 
the ability to monitor usage trends at these phones to identify 
anomalous call patterns that may require further investigation. 
Sorenson also states that it requires all users who place a VRS call 
from a public phone to digitally sign to indicate that they have a 
hearing or speech disability and need VRS to communicate. Sorenson's 
certification states:
    By clicking the ``Accept,'' you certify that you have a hearing or 
speech disability and that you need VRS to be able to communicate with 
other people. You further certify that you understand that the cost of 
VRS calls is paid for by contributions from other telecommunications 
users to the interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund.
    39. Sorenson also proposes that the person responsible for 
compliant use of the enterprise or public videophone self-certify their 
status as the responsible person on a quarterly basis. The Commission 
seeks comment on Sorenson's proposals and invites commenters to propose 
other alternatives. The Commission asks commenters to address the costs 
and benefits of each alternative, including the extent to which such 
alternatives will protect the TRS Fund from waste, fraud, and abuse.

Technical Correction of the Data Collection Rule

    40. The Commission proposes a technical correction of 47 CFR 
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D), which addresses requirements imposed on TRS 
providers generally regarding data collection and audits. When the 
Commission amended this provision (then designated as Sec.  
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(C)) in 2011, it appears that a portion of the text of 
paragraph (1) was inadvertently deleted. Accordingly, the Commission 
proposes to amend paragraph (1) to restore the missing text, to read as 
follows (with the restored text in bold, underlined type):

    TRS providers seeking compensation from the TRS Fund shall 
provide the administrator with true and adequate data, and other 
historical, projected and state rate related information reasonably 
requested to determine the TRS Fund revenue requirements and 
payments. TRS providers shall provide the administrator with the 
following: Total TRS minutes of use, total interstate TRS minutes of 
use, total operating expenses and total TRS investment in general in 
accordance with part 32 of this chapter, and other historical or 
projected information reasonably requested by the administrator for 
purposes of computing payments and revenue requirements.

    41. The Commissions seeks comment on this proposed amendment, which 
the Commission does not anticipate will have any effect on the current 
practices of the TRS Fund administrator or TRS providers.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    42. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended, the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in document FCC 19-39. Written public comments are requested 
on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as 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 19-39 to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    43. In document FCC 19-39, the Commission proposes to (1) permit 
communications assistants (CAs) to handle video relay service (VRS) 
calls at home on a permanent basis; (2) allow VRS providers to provide 
service to new and ported users at their own risk for up to two weeks 
while the telecommunications relay service (TRS) user registration 
database (Database) administrator is verifying the user's registration 
information; and (3) implement log-in procedures to authenticate users 
prior to their use of enterprise and public videophones. If adopted, 
these proposals would improve video communications for people with 
disabilities, while safeguarding the VRS program against waste, fraud, 
and abuse by ensuring that only eligible individuals use enterprise and 
public videophones to place VRS calls.

Legal Basis

    44. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in 47 
U.S.C. 151, 225.

Small Entities Impacted

    45. The rules proposed in document FCC 19-39 will affect 
obligations of VRS providers. These services can be included within the 
broad economic category of All Other Telecommunications.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    46. The proposals to permit CAs to handle VRS calls at home on a 
permanent basis and to allow VRS providers to provide service to new 
and ported users for up to two weeks while the Database administrator 
is verifying the user's registration information do not create any new 
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on VRS 
providers beyond what is already required. The rules requiring users to 
log in when using enterprise and public videophones will require VRS 
providers to collect and retain log-in information from users.

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

    47. The proposal to permit CAs to handle VRS calls at home would 
make the current pilot program permanent, and participation in the 
program would continue to be optional for VRS providers. The Commission 
is not proposing any new requirements that would increase regulatory 
requirements beyond those that are already required as part of the 
pilot program. The existing and proposed requirements would apply 
equally to all VRS providers and are necessary to prevent waste, fraud, 
and abuse of the TRS Fund by ensuring that CAs are subject to proper 
supervision and accountability. 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.
    48. The proposal to allow VRS providers to provide service to new 
and ported users for up to two weeks while the Database administrator 
is verifying the user's registration information would simply provide a 
new option for VRS providers. The Commission is not proposing any new 
requirements that would increase regulatory requirements

[[Page 26386]]

beyond those that are already required. The existing and proposed 
requirements would apply equally to all VRS providers and are necessary 
to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund by ensuring that 
providers are not compensated for service provided to users who do not 
satisfy the verification requirements. 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.
    49. The provision of VRS to enterprise and public videophones is 
optional for VRS providers. The proposed user log-in requirements for 
such videophones would apply equally to all VRS providers and users, 
and are necessary to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund by 
ensuring that only registered users can use such phones for VRS calls. 
The log-in requirements for enterprise and public videophones would be 
no more burdensome than user authentication procedures for pay phones 
and for any type of commercial activity such as on-line banking and 
bill paying and use of various other internet services. 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.
    50. The Commission seeks comment from all interested parties. Small 
entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any 
specific concerns they may have with the proposals outlined in document 
FCC 19-39. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on 
small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to document 
FCC 19-39, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this 
proceeding.

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

    51. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications, Telephones.


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 part 64 as follows:

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 217 218, 220, 222, 225, 
226, 227, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 
620, and 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  64.604 by revising paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(D)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  64.604   Mandatory minimum standards.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (D) * * *
    (1) TRS providers seeking compensation from the TRS Fund shall 
provide the administrator with true and adequate data, and other 
historical, projected and state rate related information reasonably 
requested to determine the TRS Fund revenue requirements and payments. 
TRS providers shall provide the administrator with the following: total 
TRS minutes of use, total interstate TRS minutes of use, total 
operating expenses and total TRS investment in general in accordance 
with part 32 of this chapter, and other historical or projected 
information reasonably requested by the administrator for purposes of 
computing payments and revenue requirements.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  64.611 by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(6)(ii)(A) 
and by adding paragraphs (a)(6)(vi) through (viii) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.611   internet-based TRS registration.

    (a) * * *
    (4) TRS User Registration Database information for VRS.
    (i) Registration information. Prior to requesting compensation from 
the TRS Fund for service provided to a consumer, a VRS provider shall 
obtain the consumer's:
    (A) Full name;
    (B) Date of birth;
    (C) Full residential address;
    (D) Telephone number; and
    (E) Last four digits of the consumer's Social Security number or 
Tribal identification number.
    (ii) Registration submission. Each VRS provider shall collect and 
transmit to the TRS User Registration Database, in a format prescribed 
by the administrator of the TRS User Registration Database, the 
following information for each of its new and existing registered 
internet-based TRS users: Full name; full residential address; ten-
digit telephone number assigned in the TRS numbering directory; last 
four digits of the social security number or Tribal Identification 
number, if the registered internet-based TRS user is a member of a 
Tribal nation and does not have a social security number; date of 
birth; Registered Location; VRS provider name and dates of service 
initiation and termination; a digital copy of the user's self-
certification of eligibility for VRS and the date obtained by the 
provider; the date on which the user's identification was verified; and 
(for existing users only) the date on which the registered internet-
based TRS user last placed a point-to-point or relay call.
    (iii) Each VRS provider must obtain, from each new and existing 
registered internet-based TRS user, consent to transmit the registered 
internet-based TRS user's information to the TRS User Registration 
Database. Prior to obtaining consent, the VRS provider must describe to 
the registered internet-based TRS user, using clear, easily understood 
language, the specific information being transmitted, that the 
information is being transmitted to the TRS User Registration Database 
to ensure proper administration of the TRS program, and that failure to 
provide consent will result in the registered internet-based TRS user 
being denied service. VRS providers must obtain and keep a record of 
affirmative acknowledgment by every registered internet-based TRS user 
of such consent.
    (iv) VRS providers must, for existing registered internet-based TRS 
users, submit the information in paragraph (a)(3) of this section to 
the TRS User Registration Database within 60 days of notice from the 
Commission that the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept 
such information. Calls from or to existing registered internet-based 
TRS users that have not had their information populated in the TRS User 
Registration Database within 60 days of notice from the Commission that 
the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept such information 
shall not be compensable.
    (v) VRS providers must submit the information in paragraph (a)(4) 
of this section upon initiation of service for users registered after 
60 days of notice from the Commission that the TRS User Registration 
Database is ready to accept such information.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) A default VRS provider for an enterprise or public videophone 
shall obtain a written certification from the individual responsible 
for the videophone, attesting that the

[[Page 26387]]

individual understands the functions of the videophone and that the 
cost of VRS calls made on the videophone is financed by the federally 
regulated Interstate TRS Fund, and for enterprise videophones, that the 
organization, business, or agency will make reasonable efforts to 
ensure that registered VRS users are permitted to use the phone for 
VRS.
* * * * *
    (vi) Beginning 180 days after notice from the Commission that the 
TRS User Registration Database and TRS Numbering Directory are ready to 
process log-in information from enterprise and public videophones, VRS 
calls at such videophones shall not be compensable from the TRS Fund 
unless the videophone has been registered in accordance with this 
section, the videophone user is a registered VRS user, and the 
videophone user has logged into the videophone.
    (vii) Only one user may be logged into an enterprise or public 
videophone at any time, except that, for an enterprise videophone 
located at a reception desk or other work area, up to five users may be 
logged in simultaneously, provided that the phone is configured so that 
each user must select his or her individual user profile before 
answering or placing a call. Providers shall keep records of users that 
are pre-authorized under this paragraph and shall discontinue 
permission for such automatic use by any individual that the provider 
knows or has reason to believe no longer needs access to the device.
    (viii) Emergency 911 calls from enterprise and public videophones 
and calls from public videophones installed in emergency shelters shall 
be exempt from the videophone user log in requirements of paragraph 
(a)(6)(vi) of this section.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  64.615 by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (v) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  64.615   TRS User Registration Database and administrator.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) VRS providers shall validate the eligibility of a party using 
an enterprise or public videophone by querying the designated database 
in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (ii) VRS providers shall transmit with such queries any log-in 
information specified in the database administrator's instructions for 
validating such calls.
    (iii) VRS providers shall require their CAs to terminate any call 
which does not include an individual eligible to use VRS 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) Emergency 911 calls from enterprise and public videophones 
shall be exempt from the videophone validation requirements of 
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
    (v) Emergency 911 calls from enterprise and public videophones and 
calls from public videophones installed in emergency shelters shall be 
exempt from the videophone user log-in requirements of paragraph (a)(2) 
of this section.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2019-11210 Filed 6-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P