[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40407-40421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15925]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123; FCC 13-82]
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program:
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission issues a further notice of
proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) seeking comment on options and proposals to
ensure that the entire telecommunications relay services (TRS) program
continues to offer functional equivalence to all eligible users and is
as immune as possible from any additional waste, fraud, and abuse.
These proposals involve a transition plan to a market-based
compensation methodology for VRS, funding mechanism for research and
development, TRS Fund contribution calculations and reporting method,
allowing hearing persons to purchase access to video point to point
service, replacement of the current TRS Advisory Council,
disaggregation of emergency calls to 911 and additional issues relating
to restructure of the VRS program. The Commission continues to solicit
input on ways to strengthen VRS to ensure its efficiency and that this
service is being offered in a functionally equivalent manner.
DATES: Comments are due on or before August 19, 2013, and reply
comments on or before September 18, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 10-51
and 03-123, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the
Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS), through the Commission's Web site http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site
for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal
screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal service
mailing address, and CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123.
Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the
Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal
Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S.
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail should be
[[Page 40408]]
addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
[ssquf] In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading
with the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing,
Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via
email to [email protected].
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418-
2235 or email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program;
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), document FCC 13-82, adopted on June 7,
2013 and released on June 10, 2013, in CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123.
In document FCC 13-82, the Commission adopted an accompanying Report
and Order (Report and Order), which is summarized in a separate Federal
Register Publication. The full text of document FCC 13-82 will be
available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals
II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also
may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (800) 378-3160, fax: (202) 488-5563,
or Internet: www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 13-82 can also be downloaded
in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html#orders. To request materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
(TTY).
Synopsis
1. In March 2000, the Commission recognized VRS as a reimbursable
relay service. See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-
Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,
CC Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking; published at 65 FR 38432, June 21, 2000, and at 65 FR
38490, June 21, 2000.
2. In this document, the Commission takes further action to achieve
VRS compensation rates that better approximate the actual cost of
providing VRS while ensuring that VRS is provided in accordance with
the Act. See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Order,
(2010 TRS Rate Order), CG Docket No. 03-123, published at 75 FR 49491,
August 13, 2010. Ratemaking based on calculations of allowable costs is
inherently a contentious, complicated, and imprecise process,
particularly in the VRS context. Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (2011 VRS Reform
FNPRM), CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123, published at 77 FR 4948,
February 1, 2012. First, unlike most regulated telecommunications
services, VRS is generally provided at no charge to users. There is no
pressure from users on VRS suppliers to restrain the amount they charge
because the users share none of the costs. Second, a number of
questions have arisen over the past several years concerning the
methodology used for determining VRS costs as well as the
appropriateness of certain costs. Third, the VRS compensation rate has
fluctuated significantly over time, with frequent recalculation of
rates as cost or demand levels change or as new evidence about cost and
demand levels come to light. Finally, the absence of retail prices has
encouraged perverse provider behavior and contributed to fraud and
abuse--e.g., by resulting in providers artificially generating minutes
of use in order to collect more TRS Fund revenues. Therefore, the
Commission proposes to transition to a new ratemaking approach that
makes use of competitively established pricing, i.e., contract prices
set through a competitive bidding process, where feasible.
3. There are several elements in this new approach. First, the
outreach and registration verification components of VRS will not be
handled by VRS providers but that they will be handled by neutral
entities pursuant to contracts. Therefore, as these transfers to
neutral entities are implemented, the costs associated with these
components of VRS will be removed from compensation rates for all VRS
providers.
4. Second, the Commission will also contract with a neutral entity
to offer the video communication service components of VRS,
disaggregated from VRS CA service, without charge, to those VRS
providers that choose to make use of such a common video communication
service platform. The costs associated with the disaggregated
components of VRS will also be removed from the cost basis for the
compensation rates applicable to such standalone VRS CA service
providers.
5. Third, the Commission proposes that the contract price that the
Commission pays to the neutral video communication service provider for
the disaggregated video communication service component of VRS will
serve as a benchmark for setting appropriate compensation applicable to
any VRS provider that chooses to continue offering a fully integrated
service.
6. Fourth, the Commission proposes to establish a compensation rate
for the provision of VRS CA service by auctioning a portion of VRS
traffic.
Using the Cost of the Neutral Video Communication Service Provider
Contract as a Benchmark
7. The Commission tentatively concluded that the contract price
that it pays to the neutral video communication service provider for
the disaggregated video communication service component of VRS will
serve as a benchmark for setting appropriate compensation applicable to
any VRS provider that chooses to continue offering a fully integrated
service. Such result is appropriate, given that the neutral video
communication service provider will be serving many of the same
functions as an integrated provider--i.e., user registration and
validation, authentication, authorization, ACD platform functions,
routing (including emergency call routing), call setup, mapping, call
features (such as call forwarding and video mail), and such other
features and functions not directly related to the provision of VRS CA
services. This would also be consistent with its rules requiring
providers only to be compensated for the reasonable costs of providing
service. See 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) of the Commission's rules.
Would such an approach ensure an appropriate level of compensation for
integrated providers? Specifically, how should the contract price be
used to determine the appropriate additional compensation for fully
integrated service? Are there overhead or other costs that an
integrated VRS provider might incur that a neutral video communication
service provider would not, or vice versa? Are there other factors the
Commission should consider
[[Page 40409]]
when setting compensation for the video communication service component
of an integrated VRS provider's service offering? The winning neutral
video communication service provider may be compensated on a usage
insensitive basis or a usage sensitive basis. Does the compensation
structure for the neutral video communication service provider affect
this analysis?
Using Auctions To Establish a Per Minute Rate for CA Service
8. Data from the TRS numbering directory indicates that a sizeable
percentage of compensable VRS calls are placed to a relatively small
number of telephone numbers that terminate to an even smaller number of
companies and government agencies.
9. Given this pattern of calling, the Commission proposes that an
auction of the right to provide VRS CA service for all calls terminated
to an appropriately selected set of telephone numbers representing a
sufficient number of minutes of use could be used to establish a market
rate for all minutes of use of VRS CA service--including VRS CA service
delivered by integrated VRS providers. The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal. Is it appropriate to use an auction determined price as
a benchmark for regulating other prices?
10. What Is To Be Auctioned? If the Commission were to auction the
right to provide VRS CA service to a set of telephone numbers, how
should those telephone numbers be selected? The top 100 numbers called?
All calls to government agencies, entities regulated by the Commission,
and/or general business call centers? Some other selection criteria?
How can the Commission ensure that the telephone numbers selected
account for sufficient minutes of use to ensure that the winning bid
represents a market rate for VRS CA service?
11. VRS minutes of use arguably could be categorized, by, for
example, time of day or the nature of the called party (e.g., a
government agency as opposed to a corporate technical support line).
For the purposes of an auction, should the Commission establish and
auction more than one category of minutes, where minutes within each
category can be considered homogenous and minutes across categories are
sufficiently different? If so, what would be appropriate categories? If
more than one category is established should the different categories
be auctioned simultaneously, as in spectrum auctions with different
categories of interrelated licenses, or auctioned sequentially? A
simultaneous dynamic (e.g., descending clock) auction has the advantage
that it allows bidders to easily switch bids among categories of
licenses as relative prices change.
12. Number of Winners. Should there be one or multiple auction
winners? One approach for a single winner auction would be to select
the bidder with the lowest price per minute willing to serve all demand
for VRS CA service to the specified telephone numbers. One option is a
single-round sealed bid auction in which bidders submit their price
offer. Alternatively, the Commission could use a descending clock
auction in which bid prices are reduced until only a single bidder
remains. A descending clock auction may be simpler for bidders because
optimal bidding does not require strategic calculations about what
others may bid as in a single-round auction and bidders need not
determine an exact bid at the beginning of the auction. How can the
Commission ensure before the auction that there are multiple qualified
bidders capable of providing quality VRS CA service for all auctioned
minutes of use? Are there other ways a single winner auction could be
structured to accomplish the Commission's goals?
13. Another option would be to design an auction that allows for
multiple winners. One possibility is a descending clock auction, in
which the auctioneer calls out a price and winners indicate the
percentage of total demand to the eligible numbers they are willing to
serve at that price. The auctioneer would continue to reduce the price
until the sum of provider bids equals 100%. Given that the Commission
has historical data on calling patterns, would such a structure provide
flexibility to accommodate the actual number of minutes without
creating a high degree of uncertainty as to the number of minutes each
auction winner would be expected to service? Are there other ways a
multiple winner auction could be structured to accomplish the
Commission's goals?
14. In the case of a multiple winner auction, how should specific
minutes be assigned to winners? If minutes are truly homogenous, should
they be randomly assigned? If minutes, while sufficiently alike to be
classified in a single category, are nonetheless somewhat
differentiated should the Commission use another procedure? For
example, bidders could be randomly assigned priorities and then pick
preferences for types of minutes within a given category (e.g., minutes
to be terminated to a particular entity). An alternative approach would
allow winners of minutes within a given category to bid for the order
in which they pick preferences.
15. Form of Bids. What form should bids take? The Commission
contemplates that bids would take the form of an offer to provide VRS
CA service at a price per minute for all demand or a percentage of the
demand to certain telephone numbers. Is that the appropriate bid
structure? Should bidders be required to specify a fixed quantity of
minutes of use they are willing to provide? If bids are for a fixed
number of minutes, what should the Commission do if the total minutes
of use for which bids are received are insufficient to cover demand?
Would additional demand be routed through a user's default provider?
16. Bidder Qualifications. What qualifications should the
Commission set for bidders? Should the Commission allow entities to bid
only after they have been certified by the Commission, or would it be
sufficient to condition final auction reward on a bidder's ability to
achieve certification? Are there additional criteria that should be
established for entities that wish to bid in an auction?
17. Frequency of Auctions. How often should auctions be conducted
(i.e., for what period of time would bidders win the right to provide
exclusive VRS CA service)?
18. Reserve Price. Should the Commission set a reserve price and,
if so, how? Is the cost data submitted by providers sufficient to allow
the Commission to set a reserve price based on historical provider
costs? What other mechanism might be used to establish a reserve price?
19. Ensuring Quality of Service. How can the Commission ensure that
auction winners provide an appropriate level of quality of service?
Should it require that auction winners be bonded (i.e., obtain a
financial guarantee of performance)? Are the Commission's existing
rules on quality of service sufficient to guarantee an appropriate
level of performance? Should additional performance metrics with
penalties for failure to achieve those metrics be implemented by
contract? In the event of a failure to perform, should the party lose
all the rights it won in the auction, or should it lose a portion of
its rights commensurate with its degree of performance failure until
performance improves? If all rights are terminated should it be
immediate or phased out over a period of time and, if so, over what
period?
[[Page 40410]]
Other Issues
20. How can the Commission ensure that there are sufficient bidders
for a competitive auction? If it is willing to select only one winner,
are any of the suppliers other than the largest incumbent able to serve
all the demand? How is competitive behavior affected by the fact that
the winning bids will be used as a benchmark for setting prices for
non-participants? Would any large incumbent be willing to participate
since driving down the price in the auction would reduce its prices on
the rest of its business? Would any such disincentive for large
incumbents to participate tend to encourage participation by small
incumbents and new entrants?
21. Compensation for Integrated Providers. The neutral video
communication service provider and any winners of an auction of VRS CA
service minutes will account for overhead and other costs they incur in
setting their bid prices. Is it therefore reasonable to assume that the
sum of a benchmark rate for video communication service and a market
rate for VRS CA service established by auction would be sufficient to
compensate integrated VRS providers for the services they deliver? If
not, what other factors should be considered when setting market based
compensation rates?
22. Providers of Multiple Forms of iTRS. A number of VRS providers
also provide other forms of iTRS and VRI, an interpreting service that
allows a provider to pre-schedule, for a fee, remote interpreting
sessions between ASL users and other individuals who are located in the
same room, or in different locations. Several VRS providers also
provide VRI. How do such providers allocate costs that may be shared
across services? For example, how are costs for facilities and indirect
costs such as financial/accounting, legal/regulatory, and human
resources allocated between services when submitting cost data for
multiple services? How can the Commission and the TRS Fund
administrator ensure that entities that provide more than one iTRS
service and/or VRI are not being overcompensated for shared resources?
23. Using Auctions for Other Forms of iTRS. Would it be appropriate
to establish the compensation rate for other forms of iTRS by
conducting similar types of auctions? What changes, if any, would the
Commission need to consider if setting rates by auction for IP Relay
and/or IP CTS?
Cost Recovery
24. Section 225 of the Act creates a cost recovery regime whereby
TRS providers are compensated for their reasonable costs of providing
service in compliance with the TRS regulations. See 47 U.S.C.
225(d)(3); 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5) of the Commission's rules. To be
reasonable, the costs of providing service must relate to the provision
of service in compliance with the applicable mandatory minimum
standards.
25. As noted in Report and Order, the Commission does not believe
that the providers' additional costs necessary to implement the
requirements adopted today will be substantial, but it recognizes that,
in its First Internet-Based TRS Numbering Order, it provided a
mechanism whereby providers could seek to recover their actual
reasonable costs of complying with certain of the new requirements
adopted in that Report and Order. Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-To-Speech Services For Individuals With Hearing and Speech
Disabilities; E911 Requirements For IP-Enabled Services Providers, CG
Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196, Report and Order; published
at 73 FR 41286, July 18, 2008. The Commission seeks comment on whether
it should adopt such a mechanism in connection with any comparable
requirements adopted today. What costs, if any, would it be appropriate
to consider for additional recovery? How long would providers be
entitled to seek recovery of such costs? By what standard should the
Commission and the Fund administrator review any submitted costs to
ensure that the costs are both allowable and reasonable?
Research and Development
26. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate budget and
funding mechanism for research conducted pursuant to the arrangement
with the National Science Foundation it directs be entered into in the
Report and Order. The Commission proposes to set the initial budget for
research under this arrangement at $3 million dollars, which is
approximately 40 percent of the expenditures reported by VRS providers
for Fund year 2012 on compensable research and development, and seeks
comment on this proposal. The Commission further seeks comment on the
mechanism by which research and development should be funded under this
arrangement. For example, what review criteria should be applied to
identify appropriate research? What types of awards would be
appropriate?
TRS Fund Contribution Calculations and Reporting
27. The Commission proposes to amend Sec. Sec. 64.604(c)(iii)(B)
and (H) of the Commission's rules to match the periodicity of filing
requirements from the TRS Fund administrator proposing contribution
factors to the Commission for the TRS Fund to those of the Universal
Service Fund (currently quarterly). Under this revision and the
clarification above of the Office of the Managing Director's (OMD)
duties in relation to the TRS Fund, the Fund administrator would
request TRS providers to revise their projected minutes of use, and OMD
would put the contribution factor proposals on public notice, and adopt
a new contribution factor each quarter based on the TRS Fund
administrator's proposal under OMD's delegated authority. This would
allow for greater flexibility in addressing increases or decreases in
requests for reimbursement and projections of service requirements from
TRS providers. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and asks
commenters to address the costs and benefits of the proposal.
Allowing Hearing Individuals To Purchase Access to the Neutral Video
Communication Service Provider for Point-to-Point Calls
28. The Consumer Groups have urged the Commission to adopt rules
that would permit hearing individuals to obtain ten-digit numbers that
would allow them to make point-to-point calls with VRS users, and note
that if all registration is done through a central database, it
presumably would be easier to flag a hearing person's ten-digit number
in the system so that it is not eligible for VRS reimbursement while
still allowing them to use the system to make direct calls to their
deaf or hard of hearing contacts. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal. Should the neutral video communication service provider and/
or integrated VRS providers be permitted to sell point-to-point service
to hearing individuals? Should hearing individuals that purchase such
service be registered in the TRS User Registration Database (TRS-URD)
but flagged as ``hearing'' or ``non-compensable?'' How can the
Commission ensure that TRS Funds are not used to subsidize such a
service? Is it sufficient to require that the charge for such a service
be sufficient to cover the costs of providing that service? What other
factors must be considered if such a service is implemented?
[[Page 40411]]
TRS Fund Advisory Council
29. The Commission proposes to revise the nature, composition, and
functions of the advisory body that focuses on TRS issues. It proposes
to replace the existing Interstate TRS Fund Advisory Council (TRS Fund
Council), which advises the TRS Fund administrator on TRS cost recovery
matters, with a new advisory council that will provide advice and
recommendations in four areas: (1) Technology; (2) efficiency; (3)
outreach; and (4) user experience. Stakeholders and experts on the new
Council will provide advice on ways that iTRS can adapt to the evolving
and advancing nature of technology in communication technologies that
affect the iTRS service, and ensure that iTRS users obtain a
functionally equivalent service. The unique insight, institutional
knowledge, and expertise that consumer and industry representatives can
offer would help ensure that iTRS technologies and services are
developed and deployed in a timely manner in response to the evolving
needs of iTRS users.
30. The Commission believes that the role and structure of the TRS
Fund Council should be redefined to reflect the changing needs of the
TRS program. The Commission notes that at various times, the existing
TRS Fund Council itself has asked for additional responsibilities,
including matters concerning TRS quality. The Commission proposes to
dissolve the existing TRS Fund Council. Given that rate methodology
decisions currently are made by the Commission, not the TRS Fund
administrator, and that it is moving to a regime in which compensation
rates for most VRS functions will be set by a contractual competitive
bidding process, there will be less need for the Council under its
current mission.
31. In place of the existing TRS Fund Council, the Commission
proposes to direct the TRS Fund administrator to establish a new
advisory committee to provide advice on specified matters related to
the TRS program. With respect to VRS, it is intended that the advisory
committee provide input to TRS program administrators, including the
TRS Fund administrator, the iTRS Outreach Coordinator(s), the VRS
access technology reference platform administrator, the TRS-URD
administrator, and/or the neutral video communication service provider
in the implementation of their responsibilities under this
restructuring. The Commission seeks comment on which of the following
areas should be included within the new advisory committee's focus: (1)
Technology; (2) efficiency; (3) outreach; (4) user experience
(reference functional equivalency requirement); (5) eligibility,
registration, and verification; and (6) porting and slamming. In
addition, comments are solicited on which specific matters within these
general areas require input from an advisory committee.
32. Composition of Proposed Committee's Membership. The Commission
invites input on the appropriate composition of the new advisory
committee to ensure that all interested parties are fairly represented.
It is believed that the committee should be comprised of consumers who
stand to benefit from VRS, researchers, and entities paying into the
fund--rather than providers that receive compensation for services.
State administrators should also be included if this includes PSTN-
based TRS. While it is expected that providers will have an opportunity
to make their views known to the committee through open sessions held
by the advisory committee, the Commission is concerned that with the
change in the council's focus, provider membership in the committee
would create a potential conflict of interest when the committee is
making decisions regarding recommended technologies, outreach
initiatives, quality of service improvements and the like. In addition,
provider membership may lead to distracting discussions regarding the
relative merits of competing provider services and technologies.
33. The Commission proposes that the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau releases a PN seeking nominations for the new committee.
Comments are sought on ways in which the proposed advisory committee
may play a productive role in connection with the four proposed areas.
Consistent Regulations of All Forms of iTRS
34. With certain exceptions such as the treatment of iTRS access
technology, this proceeding has focused on the structure and practices
of the VRS program. There are, however, significant commonalities among
VRS, IP Relay, and other forms of iTRS. Indeed, VRS and IP Relay
already are subject to the same user registration requirements, both
utilize the TRS numbering directory, and VRS and IP CTS now have
comparable requirements for certification of eligibility. Indeed, many
of the actions taken in the Report and Order to improve the efficiency
and availability of the VRS program could be equally beneficial if
applied to other forms of iTRS, and such application would further
simplify the administration of the TRS program. The Commission
therefore seeks comment on extending the structural reforms adopted in
the Report and Order to all forms of Internet-based TRS.
35. Registration and the TRS-URD. The Commission has taken
significant steps to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the IP Relay and
IP CTS programs in the last year. As is the case with VRS, however, the
Commission lacks a definitive count of the number of unique, active
users of each service, hindering the ability of the Commission and the
TRS Fund administrator to conduct audits and determine compliance with
the Commission's rules. The Commission therefore proposes to require
each iTRS provider to provide users with the capability to register
with that iTRS provider as a ``default provider,'' to populate the TRS-
URD with the necessary information for each registered user, and to
query the database to ensure each user's eligibility for each call.
Given that deaf and hard of hearing Americans may use multiple forms of
iTRS, what modifications to the TRS-URD, if any, are necessary to
accommodate IP Relay and IP CTS data in the TRS-URD? Should the
Commission modify or waive its registration requirements as they
pertain to NANP numbers in light of the distinct technical and
regulatory issues posed by IP CTS?
36. Certification and Verification Requirements. The Commission has
adopted detailed eligibility certification and verification
requirements for IP CTS and VRS to ensure that the use of those
services is limited to those who have a hearing or speech disability.
e.g. Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned Telephone Service;
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 13-24
and 03-123, (IP CTS Report and Order); published at 78 FR 8030, March
7, 2013. Comment is sought on extending these certification and
verification requirements to IP Relay. What criteria should be
established when determining a user's eligibility for IP Relay? The
Commission previously has required IP Relay providers to take
reasonable measures to verify the registration information of new IP
Relay registrants. Misuse Of Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service;
Telecommunications Relay Services And Speech-To-Speech Services For
Individuals With Hearing And Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 12-38
and 03-123, Order, (2012 IP Relay Misuse Order); published at 77 FR
[[Page 40412]]
43538, July 25, 2012. Is the information currently required for IP CTS
or VRS eligibility certification sufficient for IP Relay, given the
history of fraud in this program, or should additional information be
required?
37. Neutral Platform. The Commission seeks comment on extending the
capabilities of the neutral video communication service provider to
other forms of iTRS. Would IP Relay and IP CTS benefit from the
introduction of ``standalone'' providers of the CA service components
of those services? To what extent might new providers of those services
be induced to enter the market given the potential reduction of
barriers to entry? Would it be appropriate to require provider
certification consistent with its VRS rules? Would the availability of
single communication service provider allow for or encourage the
development of iTRS access technologies capable of delivering multiple
forms of iTRS?
38. Outreach. The Report and Order initiates a national pilot
program to conduct TRS outreach, and no longer allows IP Relay and VRS
providers to include the cost of outreach in their yearly cost
submissions. The Commission seeks comment on whether similar action is
appropriate with regard to IP CTS. To what extent do IP CTS providers
currently engage in outreach? Would it be more effective, as is the
case with IP Relay and VRS, to conduct IP CTS outreach through a
national outreach coordinator?
39. Other Rules and Obligations. To what extent should the
Commission make applicable to all iTRS providers other VRS-specific
rules and obligations adopted herein? Specifically, the general
prohibitions on VRS provider practices causing discrimination, waste,
fraud, and abuse would appear to be appropriate for application to IP
Relay and IP CTS providers. Similarly, the rule on VRS provider
compliance plans appears to be appropriate for application to IP Relay
and IP CTS providers, and the rules on prevention of slamming appear to
be appropriate for application to IP CTS providers. Comment is sought
on whether to make these provisions of its rules applicable to all iTRS
providers.
Disaggregation of Emergency Calls to 911
40. In the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on
whether the proposed changes to a per-user rate methodology and the
elimination of the dial-around feature necessitate modifications to VRS
emergency calling requirements. These requirements direct VRS providers
to transmit all calls to 911, along with the automatic number
identification, the caller's registered location, the VRS provider's
name, and the CA identification number for each call, to the
appropriate PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or
appropriate local emergency authority serving the caller's registered
location. 47 CFR 64.605(b)(2)(ii). Because the Report and Order does
not adopt the proposed per-user compensation model, the Commission no
longer needs to consider the impact that a change in rate methodology
would have on its mandates for emergency calling. Nevertheless, in an
effort to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of emergency call
handling for VRS users, the Commission invites comment on other ways to
ensure that VRS users have access to 911 services that is functionally
equivalent to 911 access available to the general population.
41. In particular, in line with the Commission's decision to
disaggregate and contract for the provision of the video communication
service components of VRS, as well as its proposal to partially include
certain CA service components in a competitive bidding process,
feedback is sought on whether the Commission should similarly transfer
the VRS emergency call handling obligation to a single VRS contractor
through a competitive bidding process. Given the urgent and specialized
nature of such calls, the Commission asks for comment on the benefits
to be gained by routing VRS 911 calls to pre-identified CAs who, under
contract, would be specially trained to handle the safety and medical
issues that typically characterize emergency calls. To what extent
should CAs who handle emergency calls be integrated into general
purpose VRS centers or separated out into centralized or regional call
centers? In the event of a widespread emergency, should the Commission
prescribe a means for addressing call handling if these specialized
centers reach capacity?
42. It would also help the Commission to receive public comment on
the average number of 911 calls that are made through VRS each month.
To that end, commenters--both providers and consumers--are asked to
indicate the average length of time that it takes to connect a 911 call
made through VRS to the appropriate PSAP or emergency authority, as
well as how this compares with making calls directly via voice or TTY.
Should the Commission require that VRS calls to 911 be connected within
a certain time frame, and, if so, what should that time frame be?
43. Under the Commission's rules, all CAs must be qualified
interpreters, i.e., capable of interpreting ``effectively, accurately,
and impartially, both receptively and expressively, using any necessary
specialized vocabulary.'' 47 CFR 604(a)(1)(iv) of the Commission's
rules. Should CAs who handle emergency calls be required to take
additional training to better equip them to address the specialized
needs of consumers who make these calls? If so, what should the nature
of this training be? Commenters are asked to describe the extent to
which such training already is provided for the purpose of handling
emergency VRS calls.
44. Finally, in March 2013, the Commission's Emergency Access
Advisory Committee (EAAC), established under the Twenty-First Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), released a
report containing recommendations to facilitate effective communication
for relay users who need to access 911. According to the EAAC, because
current VRS providers have frequently improperly delivered or
mishandled emergency calls it would be best to create nationally
certified ``Media Communications Line Service,'' (MCLS) centers, that
would provide ``translation service for people with disabilities and
telecommunicators using video, voice, text and data during NG [next
generation] 911 calls.'' The Commission seeks further information about
the nature of these proposed centers and in particular, how their
services would interface with VRS and other forms of TRS, whether their
services should be provided by a single national entity or through
regional centers, and whether funding for such centers would be
expected to come from the Fund or another source, such as local and
state governmental programs supporting emergency 911 services. The EAAC
Report also proposed regulatory changes for national and uniform
standards for relay service providers in processing 911 calls, training
protocols and performance criteria to achieve and maintain highly
skilled CAs capable of handling crisis calls, the provision of stress
management services for CAs, the availability of caller profiles, and
compatibility between emergency call handling procedures by VRS
providers and specifications established by the National Emergency
Number Association (NENA). The Commission invites comment on each of
these recommendations, the appropriateness of integrating any or all of
the EAAC's proposals into the Commission's VRS program, and information
on the costs
[[Page 40413]]
and benefits of adopting each of the EAAC's proposals.
Speed of Answer
45. In the Report and Order, the Commission establishes new
benchmarks for the VRS speed of answer requirements. Specifically, as
measured on a daily basis: (1) By January 1, 2014, VRS providers must
answer 85 percent of all VRS calls within 60 seconds; and (2) by July
1, 2014, VRS providers must answer 85 percent of all VRS calls within
30 seconds. In document FCC 13-82 FNPRM, comment is sought on how the
Commission should measure compliance with the new threshold.
Specifically, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on the
following formula to measure VRS speed-of-answer compliance: (Calls
unanswered in 30 seconds or less + calls answered in 30 seconds or
less)/(all calls (unanswered and answered)).
46. Alternatively, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on the
following formula, which removes unanswered calls for which the caller
ended the call prior to the threshold time. Under this formula, the
provider's measured speed-of-answer performance would be unaffected by
callers that do not give the CA enough time to answer the call within
the threshold time period: (Calls answered in 30 seconds or less)/(All
calls answered by a CA + Calls abandoned after more than 30 seconds).
47. As noted in the Report and Order, compliance will be determined
on a daily basis. Calls will be considered as part of the measurement
for the date when the call was handed off to the provider's system for
purposes of establishing compliance with the VRS speed-of-answer
requirements.
48. To enable the TRS Fund administrator to confirm the correct
calculation of speed-of-answer performance, the Commission proposes
that providers be required to submit to the TRS Fund administrator
certain call detail record information. First, providers would submit
an identifier for each inbound call that is unique and used only once
and not reused in subsequent periods. Second, submissions would
include, for each call, the date and time that each call arrives at the
provider's network. Third, for each answered call, the submission would
include the time when the first assigned CA answered the incoming call,
to the nearest second. Fourth, for each call (including abandoned
calls), the provider would submit the time, to the nearest second, that
the incoming call ends. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed
methodology for calculating and verifying speed-of-answer compliance
for video relay service.
49. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to further reduce
the permissible wait time for VRS calls by requiring calls to be
answered 85 percent of the time within 10 seconds. Making this change
would fully harmonize the permissible wait time for VRS with the
permissible wait time for other forms of TRS. The Commission further
proposes that, if adopted, compliance with this measurement continue to
be determined on a daily basis. Feedback is requested on the benefits
and the costs of adopting these proposals. Specifically, commenters are
asked to address whether the proposed further reduction in the speed of
answer would require VRS providers to hire additional CAs, and if so,
what effect, if any, there would be on the per minute costs incurred by
providers. Finally, commenters are asked to address whether adopting a
phase-in period to implement this further reduction would facilitate
any necessary hiring of additional interpreters and whether such a
phase-in would help mitigate the effects of any additional costs that
may be incurred to implement the change.
Administrative, Oversight, and Certification Rules
50. In the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on
whether, if it should choose to adopt any of the options set forth
therein, there should be changes in its rules relating to the TRS Fund,
including (1) Modifying the rules on data that must submitted to or
that may be collected by the TRS Fund administrator, (2) modifying the
rules governing payments to TRS providers, eligibility for payments
from the TRS Fund, and notice of participation in the TRS Fund, (3)
modifying the rules governing the obligations of the TRS Fund
administrator, Commission review of the TRS Fund administrator's
performance, and treatment of TRS customer information, (4)
modifications to TRS rules to ensure that they are enforceable, and (5)
modifying or enhancing the TRS Fund administrator's authority to
conduct audits. See 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D) through (K), (7). The
Commission has adopted some changes to these rules, as described above.
The Commission seeks additional comment on whether further changes to
these rules are necessary and appropriate to effectively implement
those reforms.
51. Additionally, comment is invited on the following specific
issues. Is the existing general grant of authority to the TRS Fund
administrator to request information reasonably ``necessary to
determine TRS Fund revenue requirements and payments'' sufficient?
Should the Commission explicitly require providers to submit additional
detailed information, such as information regarding their financial
status?
52. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there should be
changes in its rules relating to the certification of VRS providers
and/or other iTRS providers, in order to effectively implement the
reforms adopted in the accompanying order. For example, Section V.E of
the Report and Order creates a new category of VRS providers--
standalone VRS CA service providers, which will not be required to own
their own platforms for automatic call distribution and routing.
Because the Commission's existing VRS rules do require the ownership or
lease of such technology, they consequently require applicants for
certification to provide both a description of the equipment used for
this purpose, as well as the proofs of purchase, leases or license
agreements of technology and equipment used to support their call
center functions--including, but not limited to, automatic call
distribution, routing, call setup, mapping, call features, billing for
compensation from the TRS Fund, and registration. The Commission
proposes to modify its VRS certification rules to eliminate such
requirements and seek comment on this proposal. In addition, it seeks
comment on whether and how to modify its VRS certification rules to
ensure that standalone VRS CA service providers meet high standards of
service and to eliminate incentives and opportunities for waste, fraud,
and abuse by such providers. For example, should such providers be
required to have certain levels of expertise or experience in the
provision of interpreting services, and if so what should these levels
be--for example, should such applicants be required to have provided
interpreter services for a certain number of years, and if so, for how
long? Should such providers be required to have prior experience in the
provision of TRS or VRS? Should the Commission adopt specific
requirements to ensure the financial stability of such applicants? To
what extent should the Commission consider the impact that certifying a
standalone provider may have on the availability of community
interpreting services in the areas served by that provider? To what
extent should the Commission consider the existence of non-competitive
measures, such as non-compete contractual clauses for CAs
[[Page 40414]]
who provide sign language functions, in determining certification for
either standalone VRS CA service providers or integrated VRS providers?
The Commission welcomes other comments on considerations that the
Commission should take into consideration when certifying such
standalone entities or integrated providers.
Restructuring Section 64.604
53. In the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM, observing that Sec. 64.604 of
the Commission's rules has become somewhat unwieldy since it was
adopted in 2000, the Commission sought comment on whether, the
provisions in that section should be reorganized. 2011 VRS Reform
FNPRM. The Commission also sought comment on whether it should separate
Sec. 64.604 of the Commission's rules into service-specific rules
(e.g., VRS, speech-to-speech, captioned telephone relay service),
transmission-specific rules (i.e., PSTN-based TRS vs. iTRS), or adopt
some other structure. The Commission now proposes to revise the
structure of its rules so that they are service-specific and
transmission-specific, where appropriate, and seeks additional comment
on this proposed structural approach and related issues. For example,
it would be preferable, from the perspective of clarity and convenience
of access, for all rules applicable to each service to be placed in a
single section dedicated to that service? Alternatively, would it be
more desirable for the rules to be segregated by category--e.g.
operational standards, emergency calling, registration, etc.--with each
service addressed in a subsection of the rule for a particular
category?
Use of Consumer Information
54. The Commission is adopting a number of privacy protections for
users of TRS services. The Consumer Groups proposed that the Commission
prohibit a relay provider from using CPNI to contact a relay user for
political and regulatory advocacy purposes, unless the user opts in to
such contacts. The Consumer Groups argue that just as voice telephone
users do not receive political and regulatory advocacy messages when
using the telephone, the Commission should emphasize that TRS
providers, while permitted to advocate such issues on their Web sites,
may not advocate these issues or promote or advertise anything, on Web
pages that must be navigated to make a relay call. The Commission seeks
comment on the Consumer Groups' proposal in this regard. Would the
proposed restrictions advance section 225's functional equivalency
mandate as the Consumer Groups appear to suggest? Would they otherwise
be consistent with the Act and with the First Amendment? What are the
relative costs and benefits of such requirements? Are there other rules
governing TRS providers' use of customer information that the
Commission should consider?
Unjust and Unreasonable Practices
55. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts a rule modeled
on section 202(a) of the Act designed to address impermissible
discrimination by VRS providers, as well as a rule intended to prevent
practices that cause or encourage unauthorized or unnecessary use of
relay services. Building on those steps, the Commission seeks comment
on whether to adopt a rule implementing section 225 of the Act that
would prohibit unjust and unreasonable practices for or in connection
with TRS services. Like the rule modeled on section 202(a) of the Act,
this rule would be modeled on section 201(b) of the Act, and the
interpretation of that rule could be informed by the Commission's
common carrier precedent under section 201(b) of the Act. Comment is
sought on the need for such a rule, as well as the Commission's
authority to adopt such a requirement. Would such a requirement advance
the statutory mandate for functional equivalency, consistent with the
Commission's section 225(d)(1)(A) of the Act, authority to ``prescribe
regulations to implement this section, including regulations that--(A)
establish functional requirements, guidelines, and operations
procedures for telecommunications relay services. . .''? 47 U.S.C.
225(d)(1)(A). Would such a rule be consistent with prior Commission
decisions interpreting section 225(d)(1)(E) of the Act and its
legislative history? Is there other authority that would provide a
basis for the Commission to adopt such a rule? Are there alternative
rules that the Commission should consider in this regard, and if so,
how should they operate?
Temporary Registration
56. When the Commission directed VRS and IP Relay providers in the
Second Internet-Based TRS Numbering Order to implement a reasonable
means of verifying registration and eligibility information, the
Commission added that, ``to the extent technically feasible, Internet-
based TRS providers must allow newly registered users to place calls
immediately,'' even before completing the verification of such
individuals. Telecommunications Relay Services, Speech-to-Speech
Services, E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, CG Docket
No. 03-123, (Second Internet-Based TRS Numbering Order); 73 FR 79683,
published December 30, 2008, at 79687. In permitting such temporary use
of VRS and IP Relay by new registrants, the Commission responded to
comments by a coalition of consumer groups, who were concerned that
legitimate VRS and IP Relay users would be cut off from service during
the transition to the new ten-digit numbering and registration system.
In order to enable users to make calls under this ``guest user''
procedure, some providers have been giving users temporary ten-digit
numbers and provisioning these numbers to the iTRS Directory. These
numbers were allowed to remain valid for the purpose of making VRS and
IP Relay calls until such time that the users' identifying information
was authenticated or rejected.
Access to Video Mail
57. In 2012, in an effort to address concerns of rampant use of IP
Relay by people who did not have hearing or speech disabilities, the
Commission prohibited IP Relay providers from handling non-emergency
calls made by new IP Relay registrants prior to taking reasonable
measures to verify their registration information. Misuse of Internet
Protocol (IP) Relay Service; Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing And Speech
Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 12-38 and 03-123, (2012 IP Relay Misuse
Order); published at 77 FR 43538, July 25, 2012. The Commission found
that although there may have been some value in allowing unverified
users to make calls for a short period of time during the Commission's
transition to the IP Relay registration system, the Commission was
concerned that reliance on the guest user procedure had resulted in
abuse of the IP Relay program by unauthorized IP Relay users. In
addition, the Commission was concerned that unverified users had
remained in the iTRS numbering directory--and made repeated IP Relay
calls--for extended periods of time, despite the obligation of IP Relay
providers to institute procedures to verify the accuracy of
registration information.
58. In view of the fact that it is now approximately three and a
half years since the transition period to ten-digit numbering has
ended, the Commission questions whether there is still any reason to
continue the guest user procedure for VRS. The Commission
[[Page 40415]]
therefore proposes to prohibit VRS providers from handling non-
emergency calls made by new VRS registrants prior to verification of
their registration information and seek comment on its proposal. In
particular, commenters are asked to weigh the costs and benefits of
continuing the guest user procedure for VRS against the costs and
benefits of eliminating the procedure.
Access to Video Mail
59. The Commission proposes to amend its rules to explicitly
require that, if a VRS provider offers a video mail feature to its
customers, the provider must ensure that video mail messages can be
left by point-to-point callers who are customers of other VRS providers
and are using access technology provided by such other providers. As
the Commission has previously noted, point to point calls, while not
relay calls, do constitute an important form of communication for many
VRS users, and any loss of basic functionality for these calls is not
acceptable. Therefore, the Commission has ruled that all default
providers must support the ability of VRS users to make point-to-point
calls without the intervention of an interpreter. Such interoperability
is intended to ensure that VRS users can make point-to-point calls to
all other VRS users, irrespective of the default provider of the
calling and called party. See 47 CFR 64.611(e) of the Commission's
rules. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission's
authority extends to this type of rule
60. The Commission believes that a VRS provider's failure to allow
other providers' customers to leave video mail messages causes
significant degradation in the value of point-to-point video
communication capabilities for all VRS users. It seeks comment on this
point, on the percentage of VRS customers who currently have video mail
boxes, and on the extent to which customers currently encounter
difficulties in attempting to leave messages in video mail boxes of
customers registered with other providers. In addition, comment is
sought on the extent to which the failure of a provider to allow such
messages to be left could endanger a consumer's safety or health, and
on whether such failure may unfairly discourage a consumer from
switching from one default VRS provider to another.
61. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which
any new or changed technical standards are necessary to ensure that
video mail messages can be left in another provider's mail box, beyond
the standards necessary to ensure interoperability of point-to-point
calling generally. To the extent that any new or changed standards are
needed, comment is also sought on the appropriate forum for developing
such standards and on the content of such standards.
Non-Competition Agreements in VRS CA Employment Contracts
62. In 2007, a coalition of five VRS providers petitioned the
Commission for a declaratory ruling to prohibit VRS providers from
using non-competition agreements in VRS CA employment contracts that
limit the ability of VRS CAs to work for competing VRS providers after
the VRS CAs terminate their employment with their current employer.
Petitioners argued that non-competition agreements are overly broad,
harm the VRS market, and are contrary to the public interest. The
Commission placed the petition on public notice, and received five
comments and two reply comments from organizations and providers. In
addition, 109 individual consumers and interpreters submitted comments.
Since then, several additional ex parte communications on this issue
have been filed with the Commission. All commenters except Sorenson and
one individual have supported the Coalition Petition. In a recent ex
parte communication, Purple maintains that such non-competition
agreements are contrary to the public interest because they
artificially remove VRS CAs from the labor pool, resulting in higher
interpreter costs and limiting the ability of VRS companies to compete
in the market place, thereby depriving consumers of the full benefits
of competition. However, Sorenson, which makes use of such agreements,
maintains that they increase the pool of available VRS CAs because they
encourage Sorenson to invest in training new VRS CAs, knowing that
competitors will not hire away Sorenson's newly-trained CAs.
63. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which these non-
competition agreements have an adverse effect on the provision of VRS,
and to the extent that they do, whether the Commission should prohibit
these agreements in VRS CA employment contracts. What are the benefits
or disadvantages of allowing or prohibiting these agreements? The
Commission is especially interested in understanding any harm that
these agreements may cause for VRS providers or consumers. Do non-
competition agreements limit the pool of VRS CAs that are available to
VRS providers? If so, does any such limitation affect the ability of
VRS providers to effectively compete in the marketplace? To what extent
do these agreements have an impact on the level of compensation paid to
VRS CAs, and consequently, the cost of providing VRS? Do the agreements
affect speed of answer, accuracy or other quality of service metrics
for VRS users? As an alternative to an outright prohibition on non-
competition agreements, should the Commission limit the scope of such
agreements? If so, how? Commenters are asked to address the costs and
benefits of prohibiting or limiting such agreements and how such costs
and benefits would affect the TRS Fund. Commenters should support their
positions with data to the extent possible. The Commission also asks
commenters to address possible sources of authority for the Commission
to regulate or prohibit VRS Relay CA non-competition agreements, and
seeks feedback on any other matter that might assist the Commission in
determining whether and how to regulate these agreements.
CAs Working from Home Environments During Overnight Hours
64. In the VRS Call Practices R&O the Commission found that
allowing VRS CAs to work from home poses more risks than benefits, and
consequently adopted a rule prohibiting VRS CAs from handling relay
calls from a location used primarily as their home. Structure and
Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, (VRS
Call Practices R&O); published at 76 FR 24393, May 2, 2011, at 24395.
The Commission was particularly concerned that the unsupervised home
environment is more conducive to fraud than a supervised call center
with on-site management. The Commission also concluded that compliance
with its mandatory minimum requirements, including the expectation of
user privacy, and its technical standards, including requirements for
redundancy features, uninterruptible power for emergency use, and the
ability to handle 9-1-1 calls, might be compromised in the home
environment. Lastly, the Commission was concerned that CAs working in
the home environment might not be able to meet service quality
standards. Notwithstanding these concerns, the Commission explained
that it remained open to revisiting the issue of at-home VRS call
handling if, in the future, the Commission determines that ``home-based
VRS can be provided in a manner that meets all of the Commission's
requirements.'' Id. at 24395.
65. In August 2011, CSDVRS filed a petition for partial waiver of
the above
[[Page 40416]]
prohibition for a maximum of 10 percent of its active VRS CAs on duty
and a maximum of 10 percent of CSDVRS's VRS call volume to address its
concern for the safety of CAs who work during overnight hours.
According to CSDVRS, its remote interpreting program ensures the safety
of VRS interpreters, strictly adheres to mandatory minimum TRS
standards, utilizes failsafe monitoring to prevent fraud, and ensures
that CSDVRS' service to consumers is not interrupted or otherwise
degraded by an inability to provide adequate support. CSDVRS further
alleges that its at-home interpreting service provides sufficient
safeguards against fraud; security for CAs working at home during off-
hours because the CAs do not need to report to an office building; and
more opportunities to recruit CAs. Finally, CSDVRS argues that it has
taken steps to ensure confidentiality, redundancy, the handling of
emergency calls, and service quality.
66. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should permit VRS
CAs to work from home during the overnight hours when the safety and
security of CAs may be endangered from travelling to or from VRS call
centers. It asks commenters to address these safety concerns and to
propose specific hours when CAs may be permitted to work from home. It
also asks commenters to identify rules needed to ensure appropriate
safeguards against fraud and to ensure that all of the Commission's
mandatory minimum standards and technical standards are met. In
particular, commenters are asked to address the concerns expressed by
the Commission in the VRS Call Practices R&O with regard to privacy,
redundancy, uninterruptable power, emergency calling, and service
quality, and what measures need to be taken to ensure that functional
equivalency is achieved if CAs were to be permitted to work from home
during overnight hours. The Commission also asks commenters to address
the costs and benefits of permitting CAs to work from home on this
limited basis.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification
67. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in document FCC 13-82 FNPRM. Written
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments in document FCC 13-82. The Commission will send a copy of
document FCC 13-82, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
68. Under Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
the Commission must ensure that relay services ``are available, to the
extent possible and in the most efficient manner'' to persons in the
United States with hearing or speech disabilities. Section 225 of the
Act defines TRS as a service provided in a manner that is
``functionally equivalent'' to voice telephone services and directs the
Commission to establish functional requirements, minimum standards, and
other regulations to carry out the statutory mandate. In addition, the
Commission's regulations must encourage the use of existing technology
and must not discourage the development of new technology. Finally, the
Commission must ensure that TRS users ``pay rates no greater than the
rates paid for functionally equivalent voice communication services.''
To this end, the costs of providing TRS on a call are supported by
shared funding mechanisms at the state and federal levels. The federal
fund supporting TRS is the interstate Telecommunications Relay Services
Fund (TRS Fund or Fund), which is managed by the TRS Fund
administrator, subject to the oversight of the Commission. Video relay
service (VRS) is a form of TRS that allows persons with hearing or
speech disabilities to use sign language to communicate in near real
time through a communications assistant (CA), via video over a
broadband Internet connection.
69. In the Report Order, as an important first step in its reforms,
the Commission has identified certain discrete areas in which it can
explore a new approach of relying on the efforts of one or more non-VRS
provider third parties, either in whole or in part, to carry out the
Commission's VRS policies. Specifically, the Commission establishes
mechanisms:
To enable research designed to further the Commission's
multiple goals of ensuring that TRS is functionally equivalent to voice
telephone services and improving the efficiency and availability of
TRS;
For a two-to three year pilot Internet-based TRS (iTRS)
National Outreach Program (iTRS-NOP) and to select one or more
independent iTRS Outreach Coordinators;
For the development and deployment of a VRS access
technology reference platform;
To contract for a central TRS-URD which incorporates a
centralized eligibility verification requirement to ensure accurate
registration and verification of users, to achieve more effective fraud
and abuse prevention, and to allow the Commission to know, for the
first time, the number of individuals that actually use VRS; and
To contract for a neutral party to build, operate, and
maintain a neutral video communication service platform, which will
allow eligible relay interpretation service providers to compete as VRS
providers.
70. The Commission also includes in document FCC 13-82 Report and
Order incremental measures to improve the efficiency of the program,
help protect against waste, fraud, and abuse, improve its
administration of the program, and to generally ensure that VRS users'
experiences reflect the policies and goals of section 225 of the Act.
Specifically, the Commission:
Adopts a general prohibition on practices resulting in
waste, fraud, and abuse;
Requires providers to adopt regulatory compliance plans
subject to Commission review;
Amends the VRS speed of answer rules by reducing the
permissible wait time for a VRS call to be answered within 30 seconds,
85 percent of the time, to be measured on a daily basis;
Adopts rules to protect relay consumers against
unauthorized default provider changes, also known as ``slamming,'' by
VRS and Internet Protocol (IP) Relay providers;
Adopts rules to protect the privacy of customer
information relating to all relay services authorized under section 225
of the Act and to point-to-point video services offered by VRS
providers;
Adopts permanent rules requiring that providers certify,
under penalty of perjury, that their certification applications and
annual compliance filings required under Sec. 64.606(g) of the
Commission's rules are truthful, accurate, and complete; and
Adjusts a volume-based three-tier rate structure by
modifying the tier boundaries and calling for a series of incremental
rate reductions, every six months, over a four-year period.
71. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on a series of
proposals to further improve the structure and efficiency of the VRS
program, to ensure that it is available to all eligible users and
offers functional equivalence--particularly given advances in
commercially-available technology--
[[Page 40417]]
and is as immune as possible from the waste, fraud, and abuse that
threaten the long-term viability of the program as it currently
operates.
72. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposes to replace cost-of-
service ratemaking with a more market-based approach by establishing a
compensation rate for the provision of VRS communications assistant
(CA) service through an auction process. Specifically, the Commission
proposes to auction contracts to VRS providers to provide service to
those governmental agencies and businesses that receive a substantial
volume of VRS calls. The proposal, if adopted would provide for the
winners of these auctions to receive the contracts to provide VRS to
those agencies and businesses, and the rates for all other VRS traffic
would be based on the rates of these competitively bid contracts.
73. In the FNPRM, the Commission also seeks comment on whether
there should be changes to the Commission's rules relating to
certification of VRS providers and/or other iTRS providers, including
whether to modify the rules to ensure that standalone VRS CA service
providers meet high standards of service and to eliminate incentives
and opportunities for waste, fraud, and abuse. To this end the
Commission asks whether there should be requirements for certain levels
of expertise or experience in the provision of interpreting services;
requirements of prior experience in the provision of TRS or VRS; and
requirements to ensure financial stability. The FNPRM asks whether the
Commission should consider the impact of certifying the standalone
provider on the availability of community interpreting services. In
addition, the FNPRM asks whether the certification application should
ask for information regarding whether interpreter employment contracts
for both standalone CA service providers and integrated VRS providers
include non-compete clauses.
74. The Commission also seeks comment in the FNPRM on whether to
extend the structural reforms and other rules adopted in the Report and
Order with regard to VRS to other forms of Internet-based TRS (iTRS).
These would include:
Extending use of the TRS-URD to IP Relay and Internet
Protocol captioned telephone service (IP CTS);
Extending user certification and verification requirements
to IP Relay;
Extending the capabilities of the neutral video
communication service provider to IP Relay and IP CTS;
Conducting IP CTS outreach through a national outreach
coordinator;
Extending the general prohibitions on discrimination,
waste, fraud, and abuse to IP Relay and IP CTS;
Extending the rules on compliance plans to IP Relay and IP
CTS;
Extending the prohibitions on slamming to IP CTS; and
The extent to which other VRS-specific rules should be
extended to other forms of iTRS.
75. In the FNPRM, the Commission also seeks comment on a number of
other issues as follows:
Whether to adopt a mechanism whereby providers could seek
to recover the actual reasonable costs of complying with certain of the
new requirements adopted in the Report and Order;
The appropriate budget and funding mechanism for research
contracting to improve the efficiency and availability of TRS;
Whether to match the periodicity of filing requirements
from the TRS Fund administrator proposing contribution factors to the
Commission for the TRS Fund to those of the Universal Service Fund
(currently quarterly) rather than annually;
Whether to permit hearing individuals to obtain ten-digit
phone numbers that would allow them to make point-to-point video calls
to VRS users, so long as TRS Funds are not used to subsidize such
service;
Whether to replace the current TRS Fund Advisory Council,
which advises the TRS Fund administrator on TRS cost recovery matters,
with a new advisory council that would provide advice and
recommendations to the iTRS database administrator on technology,
efficiency, outreach, and user experience;
Whether to transfer the VRS emergency call handling
obligation to a single VRS contractor through a competitive bidding
process;
The methodology for measuring compliance with the new VRS
speed of answer requirements and whether to further reduce the
permitted speed of answer time for VRS to 10 seconds for 85 percent of
the calls;
Whether the existing grant of authority to the TRS Fund
administrator to request information reasonably ``necessary to
determine TRS Fund revenue requirements and payments'' is sufficient,
or whether the Commission should explicitly require TRS providers to
submit additional detailed information, such as information regarding
their financial status (e.g., cash flow to debt ratio);
Whether to separate Sec. 64.604 of the Commission's rules
into service-specific rules or transmission-specific rules or to adopt
some other structure;
Whether to prohibit TRS providers from using Customer
Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) for the purpose of contacting
TRS users for political and advocacy purposes, unless the user
affirmatively agrees to such contacts through an opt-in procedure;
Whether to adopt a rule implementing section 225 of the
Act that would prohibit unjust and unreasonable practices on the part
of TRS providers and would be modeled after section 201(b) of the Act,
which prohibits unjust and unreasonable practices on the part of common
carriers;
Whether to terminate the ``guest user'' procedure for VRS,
which requires VRS providers to provide temporary service to users
while verification of the user's eligibility is pending;
Whether to explicitly require that, if a VRS provider
offers a video mail feature to its customers, the provider must ensure
that video mail messages can be left by point-to-point video callers
who are customers of other VRS providers and are using access
technology provided by such other providers;
Whether to prohibit non-competition agreements in VRS CA
employment contracts;
Whether to permit VRS CAs to work from home during the
overnight hours.
76. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules. The RFA generally defines the term ``small
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,''
``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small
business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated;
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the SBA.
77. The Commission believes that the entities that may be affected
by the proposed rules are VRS providers and other TRS providers that
are eligible to receive compensation from the TRS Fund. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of ``small entity''
specifically directed toward TRS providers. The closest applicable size
standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers,
for which the small business size standard is all such firms having
1,500 or fewer employees. Currently, there are ten TRS providers that
are
[[Page 40418]]
authorized by the Commission to receive compensation from the Fund. Six
of these entities may be small businesses under the SBA size standard.
78. If the Commission were to adopt a mechanism whereby providers
could seek to recover the actual reasonable costs of complying with
certain of the new requirements adopted in the Report and Order,
providers, including small entities, would be subject to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with such cost
recovery.
79. If the Commission were to adopt an auction process to award
contracts to provide service to part of the VRS market, VRS providers,
including small entities, may wish to participate. Such participation
would entail compliance with the various filing, reporting,
recordkeeping and bidding requirements associated with the action
process.
80. If the Commission were to adopt additional certification
requirements for VRS providers and/or other iTRS providers, small
entities would be subject to the qualification, reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance obligations. Additional
qualification and/or reporting requirements might include certain
levels of expertise or experience in the provision of interpreting
services, prior experience in the provision of TRS or VRS, assurances
of financial stability, including the provision of financial
information, the anticipated impact on the availability of community
interpreting services, and whether interpreter employment contracts
include non-compete clauses.
81. If the Commission were to extend the use of the TRS-URD to IP
Relay and IP CTS, providers of those services, including small entities
would be required to collect certain information from consumers and
enter that information in the TRS-URD. However, the TRS-URD would
actually reduce the regulatory burden on IP Relay and IP CTS providers,
including small entities, because (1) the providers would no longer be
required to verify user information, which would be accomplished
centrally by a single entity contracted by the Commission, and (2) the
providers would have reduced burdens when collecting information from
users who switch providers, because the user information of those
consumers would already be in the database.
82. If the Commission were to extend user certification and
verification requirements to IP Relay, there would be no additional
compliance obligations imposed on IP Relay providers, including small
businesses, because the user certification and verification would be
managed centrally by a Commission-contracted entity.
83. If the Commission were to extend to IP Relay and IP CTS
providers, including small entities, the option to use the platform of
the neutral video communication service provider for network
operations, such providers would be able to operate more efficiently
because they would be relieved of the obligation to provide their own
communication service platform. Although providers, including small
entities, who elect to continue to operate their own communication
service platform, would be required to ensure that such platform is
interoperable with the platform of the neutral communication service
provider, the interoperability requirement would benefit small entities
because the interoperability requirement would facilitate their ability
to compete with larger providers.
84. If the Commission were to extend to IP Relay and IP CTS
providers, including small entities, the general prohibition on
practices resulting in waste, fraud, and abuse, this would in effect be
a codification and clarification of the already existing prohibition on
such practices. Therefore, no new regulatory compliance obligations
would be imposed.
85. If the Commission were to extend to IP Relay and IP CTS
providers, including small entities, the requirement to adopt
regulatory compliance plans, submit such plans to the Commission and
certify that they are in compliance, these additional requirements
would result in new reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance
requirements for such providers.
86. If the Commission were to extend to IP CTS providers, including
small entities, the rules to protect consumers against unauthorized
default provider changes, also known as ``slamming,'' such requirements
would result in additional regulatory compliance requirements for such
providers.
87. If the Commission were to require the TRS Fund administrator to
propose changes to the Fund contribution factor with the same
periodicity as is done with the Universal Service Fund (currently
quarterly) rather than annually, such requirement may impose on TRS
providers receiving compensation form the Fund, including small
entities, a requirement to submit to the Commission their usage
projections quarterly rather than annually.
88. If the Commission were to permit hearing individuals to obtain
ten-digit phone numbers that would allow them to make point-to-point
video calls to VRS users, VRS providers, including small entities,
would be obligated to register and provide service to hearing users.
Since it would be prohibited to use TRS Funds to subsidize such
service, VRS providers, including small entities, either would absorb
the cost of providing such service or would collect payments for
service from the hearing users. Thus, such change in regulations would
impose additional compliance obligations on VRS providers, including
small entities.
89. If the Commission were to transfer the VRS emergency call
handling obligation to a single VRS contractor through a competitive
bidding process, VRS providers, including small entities, that desire
to provide emergency call handling would have the additional regulatory
obligation of participating in a competitive bidding process. However,
those VRS providers, including small entities, that do not desire to
provide emergency call handling, would be relieved of such obligations.
90. If the Commission were to adopt new regulations regarding the
methodology for measuring compliance with the new VRS speed of answer
requirements or if the Commission were to further reduce the permitted
speed of answer time for VRS to 10 seconds for 85 percent of the calls,
VRS providers, including small entities, would be obligated to comply
with such regulations.
91. If the Commission were to explicitly require TRS providers,
including small entities, to submit additional detailed information to
the Commission, such as information regarding their financial status
(e.g., cash flow to debt ratio), the Commission would be imposing
additional reporting requirements on such providers.
92. If the Commission were to restructure Sec. 64.604 of its
rules, such restructuring would not impose additional regulatory
obligations on TRS providers, including small entities.
93. If the Commission were to prohibit TRS providers, including
small entities, from using CPNI for the purpose of contacting TRS users
for political and advocacy purposes, unless the user affirmatively
agrees to such contacts through an opt-in procedure, this would impose
additional regulatory compliance obligations on TRS providers,
including small entities.
94. If the Commission were to adopt a rule that would prohibit
unjust and unreasonable practices on the part of
[[Page 40419]]
TRS providers, it would impose additional regulatory compliance
obligations on TRS providers, including small entities.
95. If the Commission were to terminate the ``guest user''
procedure for VRS, which requires VRS providers to provide temporary
service to users while verification of the user's eligibility is
pending, the change in rules would not impose new compliance
requirements on VRS providers, including small entities, because VRS
providers are already required to refuse service to unqualified
individuals. The new requirements would simply expand the circumstances
under which individuals would be denied service.
96. If the Commission were to explicitly require that, if a VRS
provider offers a video mail feature to its customers, the provider
must ensure that video mail messages can be left by point-to-point
video callers who are customers of other VRS providers and are using
access technology provided by such other providers, VRS providers,
including small entities, would be obligated to comply with such
regulations.
97. If the Commission were to prohibit non-competition agreements
in VRS CA employment contracts, VRS providers, including small
entities, would be obligated to comply with such regulations and would
be subject to additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements if
the Commission were to require that such information be included with
certification applications and/or annual reports.
98. If the Commission were to permit VRS CAs to work from home
during the overnight hours, it would reduce the regulatory burdens on
VRS providers, including small entities, because VRS providers,
including small entities, would be afforded more flexibility with VRS
CA staffing.
99. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives, specific to small entities, that it has considered in
developing its approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
100. In general, alternatives to proposed rules are discussed only
when those rules pose a significant adverse economic impact on small
entities. In this context, however, the proposed rules generally confer
benefits as explained below.
101. If the Commission were to adopt a mechanism whereby providers
could seek to recover the actual reasonable costs of complying with
certain of the new requirements adopted in the Report and Order,
providers, including small entities, would be subject to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with such cost
recovery. However, because compliance with such requirements would
result in cost recovery by providers, including small entities, small
entities would benefit from such recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
102. If the Commission were to adopt an auction process to award
contracts to provide service to part of the VRS market, VRS providers,
including small entities, may wish to participate. Such participation
would entail compliance with the various filing, reporting,
recordkeeping and bidding requirements associated with the action
process. However, those providers, including small entities, who were
not interested in serving the market segments subject to the auction
process would not be participating in the auction.
103. If the Commission were to adopt additional certification
requirements for VRS providers and/or other iTRS providers, small
entities would be subject to the qualification, reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance obligations. Additional
qualification and/or reporting requirements might include certain
levels of expertise or experience in the provision of interpreting
services, prior experience in the provision of TRS or VRS, assurances
of financial stability, including the provision of financial
information, the anticipated impact on the availability of community
interpreting services, and whether interpreter employment contracts
include non-compete clauses. If the Commission were to adopt any such
certification requirements, it would weigh the public interest benefits
of the new requirements against the impact on VRS and other iTRS
providers, including small entities, and would consider how to minimize
the impact on small entities. For example, since the neutral video
communication service provider would relieve small providers who elect
to utilize the common platform of the qualification, reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance obligations associated with
providing video communication service, those small entities could
potentially have fewer regulatory burdens than larger entities
utilizing their own video communication service platforms.
104. If the Commission were to extend the use of the TRS-URD to IP
Relay and IP CTS, providers of those services, including small entities
would be required to collect certain information from consumers and
enter that information in the TRS-URD. However, the TRS-URD would
actually reduce the regulatory burden on IP Relay and IP CTS providers,
including small entities, because (1) the providers would no longer be
required to verify user information, which would be accomplished
centrally by a single entity contracted by the Commission, and (2) the
providers would have reduced burdens when collecting information from
users who switch providers, because the user information of those
consumers would already be in the database.
105. If the Commission were to extend user certification and
verification requirements to IP Relay, there would be no additional
compliance obligations imposed on IP Relay providers, including small
businesses, because the user certification and verification would be
managed centrally by a Commission-contracted entity.
106. If the Commission were to extend to IP Relay and IP CTS
providers, including small entities, the option to use the platform of
the neutral video communication service provider for network
operations, such providers would be able to operate more efficiently
because they would be relieved of the obligation to provide their own
communication service platform. Although providers, including small
entities, who elect to continue to operate their own communication
service platform, would be required to ensure that such platform is
interoperable with the platform of the neutral communication service
provider, the interoperability requirement would benefit small entities
because the interoperability requirement would facilitate their ability
to compete with larger providers.
107. If the Commission were to extend to IP Relay and IP CTS
providers, including small entities, the general prohibition on
practices resulting in waste, fraud, and abuse, this would in effect be
a codification and clarification of the already existing prohibition on
such practices. Therefore, no new regulatory compliance obligations
would be imposed.
[[Page 40420]]
108. If the Commission were to extend to IP Relay and IP CTS
providers, including small entities, the requirement to adopt
regulatory compliance plans, submit such plans to the Commission and
certify that they are in compliance, these additional requirements
would result in new reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance
requirements for such providers. In determining whether to enact any
such requirements, the Commission would weigh the public interest
benefits of the new requirements in curbing waste, fraud, and abuse and
the need to control the expenditure of public funds against the impact
on VRS and other iTRS providers, including small entities, and would
consider how to minimize the impact on small entities. For example,
since the neutral video communication service provider would relieve
small providers who elect to utilize the common platform of the
compliance plan obligations associated with providing video
communication service, those small entities could potentially have
fewer regulatory burdens than larger entities utilizing their own video
communication service platforms.
109. If the Commission were to extend to IP CTS providers,
including small entities, the rules to protect consumers against
unauthorized default provider changes, also known as ``slamming,'' such
requirements would result in additional regulatory compliance
requirements for such providers. However, in addition to protecting
consumers, these requirements would also protect IP CTS providers,
including small entities, from unauthorized provider changes, thereby
enhancing the ability of such entities to compete.
110. If the Commission were to require the TRS Fund administrator
to propose changes to the Fund contribution factor with the same
periodicity as is done with the Universal Service Fund (currently
quarterly) rather than annually, such requirement may impose on TRS
providers receiving compensation from the Fund, including small
entities, a requirement to revise their usage projections more often
than the current annual requirement. Although this change would impose
an additional obligation on TRS providers, including small entities,
the change would also benefit such providers due to the fact that more
frequent revisions to the Fund contribution factor will help ensure
that there are sufficient monies in the Fund to compensate providers.
In determining whether to require TRS providers to revise their usage
projections more often, the Commission will consider how to minimize
the impact on small entities, such as considering whether to exempt
small providers from providing quarterly more often and requiring only
annual estimates from such small providers.
111. If the Commission were to permit hearing individuals to obtain
ten-digit phone numbers that would allow them to make point-to-point
video calls to VRS users, VRS providers, including small entities,
would be obligated to register and provide service to hearing users.
Since it would be prohibited to use TRS Funds to subsidize such
service, VRS providers, including small entities, either would absorb
the cost of providing such service or would collect payments for
service from the hearing users. In determining whether to adopt these
proposed regulatory changes, the Commission would weigh the benefits of
facilitating communication between individuals with hearing and speech
disabilities and individuals without such disabilities against the
additional compliance obligations on VRS providers, including small
entities.
112. If the Commission were to transfer the VRS emergency call
handling obligation to a single VRS contractor through a competitive
bidding process, VRS providers, including small entities, that desire
to provide emergency call handling would have the additional regulatory
obligation of participating in a competitive bidding process. However,
those VRS providers, including small entities, that do not desire to
provide emergency call handling, would be relieved of such obligations.
113. If the Commission were to adopt new regulations regarding the
methodology for measuring compliance with the new VRS speed of answer
requirements, VRS providers, including small entities, would be
obligated to comply with such regulations. Such regulations would be in
the public interest and would benefit VRS providers, including small
entities, because they would provide additional certainty to VRS
providers, including small entities, on how to comply with and report
compliance with the VRS speed of answer requirements. If the Commission
were to further reduce the permitted speed of answer time to 10 seconds
for 85 percent of the calls, VRS providers, including small entities,
would be required to comply with such regulations. Adopting such a
requirement would be in the public interest because it would result in
service to VRS consumers that would be comparable to the permitted
speed of answer wait time for other forms of TRS and would be more
functionally equivalent than a permitted wait time of 30 seconds for 85
percent of the calls. Nevertheless, in determining whether to further
reduce the permitted speed of answer time, the Commission will consider
how to minimize the impact on small entities, such as considering
whether to phase-in a further reduction in permitted speed of answer
time.
114. If the Commission were to explicitly require TRS providers,
including small entities, to submit additional detailed information to
the Commission, such as information regarding their financial status
(e.g., cash flow to debt ratio), the Commission would be imposing
additional reporting requirements on such providers. In determining
whether to enact such requirements, the Commission would weigh the
public interest benefits of how these requirements would help combat
waste, fraud, and abuse and help preserve the integrity of the TRS Fund
against the impact of imposing such requirements on TRS providers,
including small entities. In determining whether to require TRS
providers to provide such information, the Commission will consider how
to minimize the impact on small entities, such as considering the level
of detail that would be required of small providers.
115. If the Commission were to restructure Sec. 64.604 of its
rules, such restructuring would not impose additional regulatory
obligations on TRS providers, including small entities.
116. If the Commission were to prohibit TRS providers, including
small entities, from using CPNI for the purpose of contacting TRS users
for political and advocacy purposes, unless the user affirmatively
agrees to such contacts through an opt-in procedure, this would impose
additional regulatory compliance obligations on TRS providers,
including small entities. In deciding whether to enact such
requirements, the Commission would weigh the public interest benefits
in protecting consumers from misuse of CPNI against the impact on TRS
providers, including small entities, and would examine whether any such
requirements would infringe on the First Amendment rights of TRS
providers. For example, the Commission would consider whether there
would be a difference in terms of the First Amendment between utilizing
CPNI to help develop a contact list for political and advocacy purposes
as compared to developing a contact list for political and advocacy
purposes without the use of CPNI.
117. If the Commission were to adopt an explicit rule that would
prohibit
[[Page 40421]]
unjust and unreasonable practices on the part of TRS providers, it
would not likely impose additional regulatory compliance obligations on
TRS providers, including small entities, because a prohibition on
unjust and unreasonable practices is implicit in the current TRS
requirements.
118. If the Commission were to terminate the ``guest user''
procedure for VRS, which requires VRS providers to provide temporary
service to users while verification of the user's eligibility is
pending, the change in rules would not impose new compliance
requirements on VRS providers, including small entities, because VRS
providers are already required to refuse service to unqualified
individuals. The new requirements would simply expand the circumstances
under which individuals would be denied service.
119. If the Commission were to explicitly require that, if a VRS
provider offers a video mail feature to its customers, the provider
must ensure that video mail messages can be left by video point-to-
point callers who are customers of other VRS providers and are using
access technology provided by such other providers, VRS providers,
including small entities, would be obligated to comply with such
regulations. However, such regulations would benefit small entities
because the regulations would enhance the ability of small entities to
compete by ensuring that point-to-point callers using the services of
all VRS providers, including small entities, would be able to leave
video mail messages with consumers using any VRS provider.
120. If the Commission were to prohibit non-competition agreements
in VRS CA employment contracts, VRS providers, including small
entities, would be obligated to comply with such regulations and would
be subject to additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements if
the Commission were to require that such information be included with
certification applications and/or annual reports. However, such
regulations would benefit small entities because the regulations would
enhance the ability of small entities to compete by ensuring that all
VRS providers, including small entities, would be able to hire VRS CAs
without the pool of available VRS CAs being limited by non-competition
agreements.
121. If the Commission were to permit VRS CAs to work from home
during the overnight hours, it would reduce the regulatory burdens on
VRS providers, including small entities, because VRS providers,
including small entities, would be afforded more flexibility with VRS
CA staffing.
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), (j), 225, 251 254 and 303(r), of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), (j)
and (o), 225, 251, 254 and 303(r), document FCC 13-82 is adopted.
The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 13-82
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2013-15925 Filed 7-2-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P