[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 12, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17613-17624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07153]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123; FCC 17-26]


Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services Program

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on establishing 
performance goals and service quality metrics to evaluate the efficacy 
of the video relay service (VRS) program and on the incidence of 
``phony'' VRS calls and the handling of such calls. The Commission also 
proposes a four-year plan for VRS compensation and rule amendments to 
permit server-based routing of VRS and point-to-point video calls, 
provide safeguards regarding who may use VRS at enterprise and public 
videophones, allow customer service support centers to access the 
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Numbering Directory for direct 
video calling, and make a technical change to per-call validation 
requirements. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to continue 
including research and development in the TRS Fund budget, prohibit 
non-service related inducements to register for VRS, and prohibit the 
use of non-compete provisions in VRS communications assistant (CA) 
employment contracts.

DATES: For VRS compensation rates, server-based routing, and research 
and development, comments are due April 24, 2017, and reply comments 
are due May 4, 2017. For performance goals and service quality metrics, 
the incidence and handling of ``phony'' VRS calls, VRS use of 
enterprise and public videophones, direct video calling customer 
support services, per-call validation procedures, non-service related 
inducements, and non-compete provisions in VRS employment contracts, 
comments are due May 30, 2017, and reply comments are due June 26, 
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 10-51 
and 03-123, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on 
the Web

[[Page 17614]]

site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the 
transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal 
service mailing address, and CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Aldrich, Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau (202) 418-0996, email [email protected], or Eliot 
Greenwald, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202) 418-2235, 
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, 
interested parties may file comments on or before the dates indicated 
in the DATES section. Comments may be filed using the Commission's 
ECFS. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 
FR 24121 (1998).
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing 
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held 
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must 
be disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
    This is a summary of document FCC 17-26, Structure and Practices of 
the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and 
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, Notice of Inquiry and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, document FCC 17-26, adopted on March 23, 2017, and released 
on March 23, 2017, in CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123. The Report and 
Order and Order, FCC 17-26, adopted on March 23, 2017, and released on 
March 23, 2017, will be published elsewhere in a later issue. The full 
text of document FCC 17-26 will be available for public inspection and 
copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. This proceeding shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte 
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a 
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days 
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the 
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations 
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list 
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at 
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide 
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of 
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 
In proceedings governed by 47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the Commission 
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.
    To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an email to: [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (844) 432-2272 (videophone), 
or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 17-26 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that 
may result in modified information collection requirements. If the 
Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the 
Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting 
the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the 
Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees. Public Law 107-198; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

Notice of Inquiry on Service Quality Metrics for VRS

Performance Goals

    1. The Commission seeks comment on appropriate performance goals 
for the VRS program. 47 U.S.C. 225 requires the Commission to ensure, 
to the extent possible, the availability to people with disabilities of 
telephone services that are functionally equivalent to services used by 
individuals who do not need TRS. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether establishing performance goals that align with this requirement 
is appropriate for VRS. The Commission believes that the mandate for 
VRS to be functionally equivalent to voice telephone services requires 
levels of service that are equivalent to those experienced in 
mainstream wireless, wireline, and voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) 
communication calls between and among hearing persons. In this regard, 
the Commission notes that a policy statement submitted by various 
Consumer Groups in April 2011 proposes to define functional equivalence 
generally for all forms of TRS as follows:

    Persons receiving or making relay calls are able to participate 
equally in the entire conversation with the other party or parties 
and they experience the same activity, emotional context, purpose, 
operation, work, service, or role (function) within the call as

[[Page 17615]]

if the call is between individuals who are not using relay services 
on any end of the call.

The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which this is an 
appropriate definition of functional equivalence for the purpose of 
defining performance goals and service quality metrics.
    2. The Commission also seeks comment on whether other goals are 
appropriate for assessing the VRS program and VRS provider performance. 
For example, should VRS performance goals also mirror the Commission's 
statutory obligations to ensure that TRS is provided ``in the most 
efficient manner,'' and to encourage ``the use of existing technology 
and . . . not discourage or impair the development of improved 
technology?'' Should the cost-effective provision of VRS be included in 
VRS performance goals, either as a component of the efficient provision 
of VRS or as a separate goal?
    3. The Commission seeks comment on how the use of mainstream and 
off-the-shelf technologies that do not rely on VRS can serve the 
communications needs of individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, 
deaf-blind, or have speech disabilities. For example, people who use 
sign language are now able to communicate directly with each other via 
video over broadband and cellular networks; and electronic messaging 
services, such as email, short messaging service (SMS), instant 
messaging (IM), and chat, allow people to use these networks to 
communicate in text. In addition, the Commission expects some wireless 
providers to be rolling out real-time text (RTT) by the end of this 
calendar year. The Commission asks commenters to address the types of 
circumstances when such services can be used to provide effective 
communication for these individuals. What steps, if any, should the 
Commission be taking to provide such direct communication solutions? 
Alternatively, are there certain situations where such services would 
fall short of functional equivalency for the signing population? To 
what extent can these direct video or text alternatives be used for 
calls made to businesses and other parties, such as doctors' offices, 
schools, stores, family members, and colleagues? What are the potential 
cost-savings to the TRS Fund resulting from the use of such non-VRS 
technologies?

Performance Measures

    4. The Commission seeks comment on whether the derivation of data 
used to measure VRS service quality should be overseen by the TRS Fund 
administrator or otherwise developed through contractual or similar 
arrangements with independent third parties selected by the Commission. 
The Commission believes that the establishment of estimates and 
calculations resulting from performance measures will have greater 
efficacy if the measurements and reports of results are conducted 
independently, i.e., not by the regulated entities. The Commission also 
seeks comment on whether to publish the metrics achieved for each 
provider, as it appears likely that making the results of these 
measurements available to the public in a standard format will aid 
users in their selection of VRS providers. Finally, the Commission 
seeks comment on the merits of developing a system by which VRS users 
can rate the quality and performance of VRS calls, which would be based 
on the metrics discussed below and shared publicly to improve 
competition.
    5. To measure functional equivalence, the Commission seeks specific 
comment on whether to use the following metrics: (1) Quality and 
accuracy of interpretation; (2) technical voice and video quality; (3) 
interoperability and portability; (4) percentage and frequency of 
dropped or disconnected calls; and (5) service outages.
    6. Quality and Accuracy of Interpretation. The Commission seeks 
comment on how interpretation quality can be effectively measured to 
assess functional equivalence. A key element of interpretation quality 
is accuracy, i.e., the extent to which the information conveyed by one 
party to a VRS call accurately matches the communication conveyed by 
the CA to the other parties to that call. How should accuracy be 
measured? What metrics and methods are currently used to evaluate VRS 
interpreters, e.g., for purposes of certification or evaluation during 
interpreter training? Are there relevant metrics and methods used by 
spoken language translators that could be effectively applied to 
evaluate the accuracy of VRS interpretation? For example, for any given 
call, can accuracy be measured by comparing the signs of the American 
Sign Language (ASL) user and words of the hearing person--as each are 
delivered to the CA--to the words spoken and signs made by the CA? 
Given that interpretation of ASL to English is often a matter of 
conveying concepts rather than word-for-word translation, how can an 
appropriate comparison between the signs produced by ASL users be 
effectively compared to the words relayed by the CA to produce an 
effective accuracy percentage? Unlike speech-to-text transcription, 
interpretation accuracy may be difficult to evaluate on a word-by-word 
basis because the grammar and word usage differ between ASL and spoken 
languages such as English or Spanish. How can the Commission account 
for such differences in taking accuracy measurements? Are there scales 
similar to the voice five-step mean opinion score (MOS) metrics? MOS 
scores are used to rate the user-perceived quality and listening effort 
on a five point scale, such as ``excellent-good-fair-poor-bad,'' as 
defined in ITU-T Recommendation P.800.
    7. Should the Commission adjust accuracy measurements for certain 
kinds of calls, such as calls to 911 or calls where a skills-based or 
deaf interpreter is utilized? More broadly, what tools should the 
Commission use to measure the accuracy of VRS calls given that 
measurements may be unreliable without access to both sides of the 
conversation? Should test calls, e.g., by independent third parties, 
using sample scripts, be employed to evaluate the accuracy of 
interpretation? Alternatively, should independent third parties be 
permitted to monitor unscripted calls for the purpose of measuring 
interpretation quality, and under what conditions to protect privacy 
and confidentiality? The Commission's rules presently prohibit 
providers from retaining records of the content of any conversation 
beyond the duration of a call. Are there real-time or other methods 
that can be used to measure the accuracy of calls consistently with 
this prohibition? Or should an exception be permitted for purposes of 
ensuring call quality? For example, should the Commission require 
providers to record a statistically valid sample of calls? Should the 
Commission use anonymous callers to make and record call interactions 
for later analysis by experts? How many calls would be appropriate for 
either of these methods? How should the Commission address the 
confidentiality concerns of VRS users if recordings are used in this 
process?
    8. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how to measure 
the synchronicity of interpreted communications taking place during a 
VRS call. Although the Commission recognizes that there is necessarily 
some delay during relay calls and inherent time lag involved in 
interpretation, these delays should be kept to a minimum and signing 
should begin to appear at the approximate time that the corresponding 
speech begins and end approximately when the speech ends. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether there are existing metrics, e.g., 
for non-ASL language interpreters,

[[Page 17616]]

that might be used for this purpose. Are there studies that indicate 
what kind of delay is acceptable for fluid conversation? Does the 
interpretation delay vary significantly among CAs such that there is a 
need to determine this measurement? To what extent should this metric 
be measured by independent third parties?
    9. Are there other metrics that the Commission should use to 
evaluate interpreter quality and accuracy? How effectively will such 
metrics assess the extent to which functional equivalence is being 
attained and what methods can be used to measure these?
    10. Technical Voice and Video Quality. What metrics should be 
assigned to evaluate the technical quality of VRS as a component of 
functional equivalence? What are the key parameters of a VRS provider's 
audio and video communication service, and how should they be measured, 
evaluated, and published? Should providers disclose whether they 
interconnect with their telecommunication service provider in high 
definition (HD) audio? To what extent is this capability needed for 
functionally equivalent VRS communications, and what metrics can be 
used to measure this feature?
    11. Interoperability. To enhance the ability of the Commission and 
consumers to evaluate the extent of the interoperability that is 
achieved by VRS providers, the Commission seeks comment on the most 
appropriate metrics and measurement methods for quantitatively 
assessing interoperability. For example, is there a means of 
quantifying the interoperability of various types of user-visible 
functions, such as the connection of calls, video mail and address 
books, or technical protocol features such as call setup, codecs, 
system configuration, end-to-end security and registration that could 
fail to interoperate as a result of noncompliance?
    12. Dropped or Disconnected Calls. The Commission next seeks 
comment on whether it would be appropriate to track and measure the 
percentage and frequency of ``dropped'' or disconnected VRS calls as an 
indicator of service quality and functional equivalence, and how such 
data should be compared with dropped or disconnected telephone calls 
made over mainstream voice networks. Should such metrics be collected 
through user feedback or test calls or by analyzing provider logs? Is 
it possible to distinguish call drops that occur due to disruptions in 
the Internet connectivity of the VRS user from call drops caused by the 
VRS provider or deficiencies in the VRS user software or hardware? Are 
there metrics and measurement methodologies used in wireless or wired 
networks that can be used for VRS? The Commission further seeks comment 
on how such data should be collected.
    13. Service Outages. In general, to achieve functional equivalence, 
the Commission believes that the frequency and extent of VRS service 
outages and interruptions should not exceed that of outages and 
interruptions occurring on transmission services used by hearing 
people. The Commission seeks comment on this assumption. The Commission 
seeks comment on an appropriate metric to measure functional 
equivalence in this regard.
    14. Other Metrics. The Commission seeks further comment on other 
concrete, measurable metrics it could employ to measure the quality of 
service among VRS providers. Commenters should address, with 
specificity, what should be measured, how it should be measured, and 
how often it should be measured, along with any estimated costs of such 
measurements.

Phony VRS Calls

    15. The Commission has received anecdotal evidence of calls made to 
VRS CAs that are not made for the purpose of communicating with a third 
party, but rather for the sole purpose of harassing or threatening a 
CA. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which such calls 
occur, as well as the incidence of other types of ``phony'' VRS calls, 
for example, those that involve scams or spoofing. The Commission seeks 
comment on how such calls should be handled and on action that should 
be taken by the Commission to effectively address such calls.
    16. On a related matter, the Commission notes that in the past, the 
Commission received reports that text-based Internet Protocol (IP) 
Relay was being used to commit ``swatting,'' i.e., individuals were 
using IP Relay to hide their identities in order to place calls to 911, 
in an attempt to trick public safety answering points into dispatching 
emergency services based on false reports. The Commission is unaware of 
similar incidents of swatting through VRS, but the Commission invites 
commenters to share reports of any such occurrences, as well as 
recommendations on how to address such incidents.

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

VRS Compensation Rates

    17. In 2007, the Commission adopted a tiered VRS compensation rate 
structure in order to reflect likely cost differentials between small, 
mid-level, and large, dominant providers. In 2013, having determined 
that VRS compensation rates for all the rate tiers were substantially 
in excess of providers' actual costs, the Commission adopted a 
transitional four-year ``glide path'' of compensation rate adjustments 
in lieu of a more immediate reduction to cost-based levels, in order to 
assist providers in adjusting to cost-based rates. The Commission's 
four-year rate plan established gradual per-minute VRS rate reductions 
every six months, from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2017. The 
Commission also reassessed the use of a tiered compensation structure. 
The Commission decided that, to encourage the provision of VRS in the 
most efficient manner, the gap between the highest and lowest tiered 
rates would be reduced over time. Upon the completion of certain 
structural reforms, which the Commission expected to occur before the 
expiration of the four-year plan, the Commission contemplated moving to 
a unitary compensation rate for all minutes, which the Commission hoped 
to set based on pricing benchmarks developed through competitive 
bidding for the provision of various elements of VRS. On March 1, 2016, 
after considering a petition by all six certified VRS providers urging 
an interruption of the scheduled compensation rate adjustments, the 
Commission adopted a temporary ``freeze'' of the compensation rates of 
the smallest VRS providers--those handling 500,000 or fewer monthly 
minutes. On December 20, 2016, Convo, Purple, and ZVRS submitted a 
joint VRS compensation proposal to the Commission, and on January 31, 
2017, Global joined in this proposal. They propose a four-year VRS rate 
plan with the following per-minute rates: $5.29 for providers with 
500,000 or fewer monthly minutes (``emergent rate''); $4.82 for other 
providers' first 1,000,000 VRS minutes (Tier I); $4.35 for a provider's 
monthly minutes between 1,000,001 and 2,500,000 (Tier II); and $2.83 
for a provider's monthly minutes in excess of $2,500,000 (Tier III).
    18. The Commission's last four-year plan was successful in lowering 
the cost of VRS by $35.7 million in FY2013, $86.7 million in FY2014, 
$131.3 million in FY2016, and $90.4 million in the first half of 
FY2017. This gradual reduction in rates has driven VRS providers to 
provision their services more efficiently. The weighted average per-
minute cost for providing service has declined from $3.09 in 2012 
(before the rate plan

[[Page 17617]]

became effective) to $2.63 today. However, the VRS market structure has 
seen little change, in part because the structural reforms the 
Commission envisioned in 2013 have been slow to arrive. Thus, the 
Commission believes its previous four-year plan was too optimistic in 
assuming that rates for all VRS providers could start to converge in 
FY2016, as indicated by the Commission's decision to freeze small-
provider compensation rates in 2016. Indeed, Rolka Loube reports that 
four of the five providers continue to incur per-minute costs that are 
higher than the weighted average per-minute cost of providing VRS.
    19. Given these circumstances, the Commission believes that 
maintaining a tiered rate structure continues to be necessary to allow 
smaller providers a reasonable opportunity to continue providing 
service. Having analyzed the cost data reported by Rolka, as well as 
recent data submissions from four of the providers, the Commission 
believes another four-year plan best balances the need to minimize the 
cost of service for ratepayers, maintain competition in the marketplace 
pending further structural reforms, reflect the differing costs of 
differing providers, and give VRS providers the long-term stability in 
rates to make investment decisions. The Commission proposes that this 
four-year period run from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2021, and sets forth 
a proposed restructuring of rates and tiers for this period below. Like 
the Joint VRS Providers, the Commission believe three tiers plus a rate 
for ``emergent'' VRS providers are appropriate for this purpose.
    20. The Commission seeks comment on this overall approach. To what 
extent are the goals of functional equivalence and efficiency served by 
maintaining a tiered rate approach during an additional four-year 
transitional rate period? For instance, is the VRS industry 
characterized by sufficient economies of scale to warrant tiered rates? 
Which components of a VRS provider's costs are and are not subject to 
significant economies of scale and how do such scale economies affect 
provider costs at various levels of demand? Do considerations other 
than scale economies, such as the benefits of allowing consumer choice 
among a diversity of providers, justify tiered rates? What marketplace 
distortions, if any, may be created if tiers boundaries are not closely 
correlated to scale economies, and how should such distortions, as well 
as the inefficiencies that may result from a tiered structure, be 
weighed against the benefits of enabling competition by multiple 
providers? What marketplace distortions, if any, could result from 
moving to a single unitary compensation rate? Is there an alternative 
tiered structure to that proposed below that would strike a more 
appropriate balance between efficiency and competition?
    21. The Commission also seeks comment on the following proposals. 
First, given that the Commission's current rate plan sets the same rate 
for the first 500,000 minutes of larger providers and the next 500,000 
minutes, the Commission proposes to redefine Tier I to include the 
first 1,000,000 minutes as suggested by the Joint VRS Providers. 
Second, the Commission agrees with the Joint VRS Providers that 
economies of scale continue to increase significantly for VRS providers 
with more than 1,000,000 monthly minutes. In line with the suggestion 
of the Joint VRS Providers, the Commission proposes to draw the line 
between Tiers II and III at 2,500,000 monthly minutes. Third, the 
Commission agrees with the Joint VRS Providers that an emergent rate 
for the smaller, new entrants is appropriate given the slow onset of 
structural reforms to encourage competition and interoperability. An 
emergent rate also reflects the Commission's previous decision to 
freeze the rates for this class of providers on a temporary basis, and 
generally the higher cost of service for new entrants in the market. 
The Commission proposes to apply this emergent rate to VRS providers 
with no more than 500,000 monthly minutes as of January 1, 2017, and to 
maintain this rate for the first 500,000 monthly minutes of such 
providers through the end of this four-year rate plan. Structuring the 
emergent rate in this way should encourage new entry into the program 
and give small providers appropriate incentives to grow without risking 
a sudden reduction in rates if they grow above the 500,000 monthly 
minute threshold.
    22. The Commission proposes to adjust the rates for each of these 
tiers through several steps, at six-month intervals as in the current 
rate plan. First, the Commission seeks comment on rates for the initial 
period of the four-year rate plan. For emergent providers, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether to increase the rate to $5.29 as 
proposed by the Joint VRS Providers or to maintain the $4.82 rate that 
is set to be in effect in June. For Tier I, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether to increase the rate to $4.82, as proposed by the 
Joint VRS Providers, or to maintain the current $4.06 rate. For Tier 
II, the Commission seeks comment on whether to increase the rate to 
$4.35 as proposed by the Joint VRS Providers or to maintain the current 
$3.49 rate. For Tier III, the Commission seeks comment on whether to 
maintain the current $3.49 rate or decrease it to the $2.83 rate 
proposed by the Joint VRS Providers. The Commission also invites 
parties to submit other suggested rate levels for each tier, with 
justification and supporting data.
    23. Next, the Commission seeks comment on rates for the final 
period in the four-year rate plan. For emergent providers, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether to set a $5.29 rate as proposed by 
the Joint VRS Providers, a $4.82 rate reflecting the rate that is set 
to be in effect in June, or a $4.06 rate based on the current Tier I 
rate. For Tier I, the Commission seeks comment on whether to set a 
$4.82 rate as proposed by the Joint VRS Providers, a $4.06 rate based 
on the current Tier I rate, or a rate of $3.74 based on the historical 
costs of providers achieving only some economies of scale plus an 
operating margin, or a rate of $3.49 based on the current Tier II rate. 
For Tier II, the Commission seeks comment on whether to set a $4.35 
rate as proposed by the Joint VRS Providers, a rate of $3.49 based on 
the current Tier III rate, or a rate of $3.08 based on the historical 
costs of providers achieving significant economies of scale plus an 
operating margin. For Tier III, the Commission seeks comment on a $3.49 
rate based on the current Tier III rate, a $2.83 rate as proposed by 
the Joint VRS Providers, and a $2.63 rate based on average historical 
expenses for all providers. The Commission also invites parties to 
submit other suggested rate levels for each tier, with justification 
and supporting data.
    24. For each six-month period between the initial and final 
periods, the Commission proposes to apply transitional rates that 
gradually transition the rates the Commission proposes for the initial 
period to the final rates that will apply in the first half of 2021. By 
definition, the larger the difference between initial and final rates, 
the greater the transitional step taken every six months.
    25. The Commission notes that providers have long argued that, 
because substantial plant investment is not necessary to provide VRS, a 
rate-of-return allowance based on the telephone industry model is 
inadequate to generate sufficient profits to attract significant long-
term investment in VRS companies. As such, providers have argued that 
an 11.25% rate-of-return on net capital investment is insufficiently 
compensatory. The Commission also

[[Page 17618]]

notes that the Commission has recently reconsidered whether an 11.25% 
rate-of-return is reasonable given the current financial and economic 
environment and, in 2016 determined that a lower range of 7.12-9.75% is 
instead reasonable. The Commission seeks comment on whether to adopt 
that lower range of rates-of-return if the Commission maintains a rate-
of-return approach to cost calculations. To respond to the VRS 
providers' concern, however, the Commission also seeks comment on 
eschewing the traditional rate-of-return calculation and instead 
employing an operating margin approach with that same range of 7.12-
9.75%.
    26. The Commission further notes that the average weighted per-
minute cost for the industry is $2.63 in 2015, or $2.82-2.89 if the 
Commission includes an operating margin. Excluding any VRS provider 
with significantly more than 1,000,000 monthly minutes, average 
weighted per-minute costs in 2015 were more than $1.00 higher. The 
Commission further notes that for the VRS industry as a whole, total 
compensation for calendar year 2015 was $563,069,736, while the total 
cost of service plus an operating margin was only $360,197,998 to 
$369,041,545. Given the large gap between total compensation for VRS 
providers and the total cost of service plus an operating margin, the 
Commission tentatively concludes that any new rate schedule it adopts 
should result in a smaller gap than freezing rates in June 2017 for a 
four-year period. The Commission seeks comments on this analysis and 
this tentative conclusion, and their implications for setting rates 
during the four-year term. Although the Commission seeks comment on the 
possible substitution of an alternative approach, such as described 
above, for the current rate-of-return allowance, the Commission does 
not intend to reopen questions that would expand the types of expenses 
that should be included in allowable costs.
    27. In setting rates, the Commission is not required to guarantee 
all providers that they will recover their allowable costs--the purpose 
of the tiered rate structure has been to set rates for providers in 
discrete size classes based on general differentials between large, 
medium-sized, and small providers, not to guarantee all providers 
recovery of their individual costs. Although the Commission seeks to 
preserve a diversity of suppliers in the market, the Commission is not 
required to ensure the viability of every VRS competitor, no matter how 
inefficient.
    28. Despite the past four years of significant reductions in 
compensation rates, VRS providers apparently continue to give out 
iPads, video monitors, and state-of-the-art videophones to customers in 
order to secure their default VRS traffic. To the extent that a VRS 
provider engages in such behavior, it would appear to confirm that the 
marginal compensation rate for that provider continues to be well above 
the provider's marginal cost of serving additional customers, and 
remains above the marginal cost even including the per-minute cost of 
the giveaways offered to gain those customers' traffic. The 
continuation of such wasteful and disruptive marketing tactics seems to 
confirm the importance of bringing the rate for each tier as close as 
possible to the marginal per-minute cost of the affected firms. The 
Commission seeks comment on what proposed rates would be a step in that 
direction.
    29. The Commission seeks comment on these proposed service tiers, 
the suggested alternatives for initial and final compensation rates, 
and the proposed schedule of rate reductions. Should the Commission 
collapse the tiers to reduce the possible overpayment of some providers 
or expand them further to reflect the differing costs of service as VRS 
providers scale up? What are the most appropriate initial rates to 
begin the further transition to cost-based levels? What are the most 
appropriate final rates to ensure that providers are neither over- nor 
under-compensated? Is the proposed transition schedule too fast or too 
slow? What is the likely impact of various alternative rate levels on 
the competitiveness of the VRS market? What is the likely impact on the 
quality of service to consumers?
    30. The Commission also seeks comment on any other factors the 
Commission should consider in setting compensation rates for this four-
year period. For example, what, if any, categories of costs should 
providers be able to recover as exogenous costs (including 
consideration of improved services discussed elsewhere in this 
proceeding), and how should the Commission ensure that such costs are 
adequately documented and that providers do not incur such costs 
imprudently? Are there marketplace benchmarks, such as rates paid for 
video remote interpreting (VRI), that could serve as a benchmark 
against which the Commission could determine the reasonableness of 
proposed VRS compensation rates? If so, what are such benchmarks and 
how should the Commission factor them into VRS rates? Further, should 
the Commission impose an auditing requirement on any companies that 
seek to qualify for the emergent provider rate? The Commission notes 
that some very small providers have reported costs well above 
compensable rates for multiyear periods, yet have continued to offer 
VRS--a circumstance that appears inconsistent with the behavior of a 
rational firm. Conditioning the emergent provider rate on an audit to 
determine whether improper cost allocation is occurring may be one 
means of ensuring that the cost data reported actually reflects the 
incremental costs of a business to offer VRS alongside its other 
marketplace offerings.
    31. Further, should the Commission make any of the proposed initial 
rates that are higher than current rates retroactive to January 1, 
2017, as proposed by the Joint VRS Providers? On a number of prior 
occasions, the Commission has applied adjustments, including changes in 
TRS compensation rates and contribution factors, retroactively to the 
beginning of a Fund Year. Are retroactive adjustments appropriate here? 
If so, for which rates and based on what specific justification? For 
example, in what way is such retroactive compensation relevant to 
providers' ability to recover their costs and attract investment on a 
going-forward basis?
    32. Although the proposed approach contains elements of a price-cap 
regime--because rates are not directly tied to, and tend to lag, 
costs--the Commission also seeks comment on a price-cap approach. 
First, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
initialize rates for each carrier based on its own historical costs, as 
the Commission did when it created price-cap regulation over two 
decades ago. Second, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should 
apply a productivity factor and an inflation factor to such price-caps 
over the course of the four-year term. If the Commission was to adopt 
this approach, would that cause greater striation in rates and costs 
among VRS providers? Would a price-cap regime give carriers sufficient 
incentive to reduce costs? Would such a regime reduce the compensation 
paid for the service closer to its costs? Would such a regime unfairly 
penalize more efficient providers? How should the Commission set a 
productivity factor (would it be based on industry-wide efficiencies or 
company-by-company)? How complicated would it be to establish and 
administer a price-cap regime? If the Commission declines to adopt such 
a regime, should the Commission nonetheless apply productivity and

[[Page 17619]]

inflation factors to rates the Commission adopt under the proposed 
approach?
    33. Sorenson also suggests that the Commission set rates for 
individual components of VRS based on pricing benchmarks developed 
through competitive bidding. The Commission notes that the proposal in 
the 2013 VRS Reform FNPRM, published at 78 FR 40407, July 5, 2013, was 
premised on developing a neutral video communications service platform. 
The Commission previously canceled that procurement. In light of the 
general lack of industry interest in the neutral video communications 
services platform, the Commission seeks comment on whether it would be 
productive for the Commission to request new bids for such a platform. 
Absent a showing that the Commission should request new bids, the 
Commission proposes to repeal the provisions of its rules relating to 
it. Providers and other parties that believe the Commission should 
proceed with its original plan to develop this platform should explain 
why they believe its build-out is necessary to achieve the goals of 
functional equivalence and efficiency under section 225 of the Act, as 
well as the extent to which VRS providers would commit to utilizing 
such a platform. If the Commission does decide to pursue a neutral 
platform, the Commission seeks comment on whether the use of 
competitive bidding to set rates for other services would make sense. 
What would be the impact of moving toward a piece-part system of 
compensation on VRS providers? Would there remain sufficient 
competitive bidding prospects to ensure an efficient auction given the 
rise of direct connections at federal agencies and other entities that 
have historically received a large number of VRS calls?
    34. Alternatively, Sorenson asks that the Commission seek comment 
on employing a reverse auction approach to set rates based on a 
modified version of the electricity supply auctions authorized by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Under this suggested approach, 
the Commission would determine how many VRS providers are needed to 
provide sufficient competitive choices for users and then would seek 
bids from each potential VRS provider on the per-minute rate of 
compensation each will accept for the provision of VRS. Compensation 
would be paid to all winning providers at the highest rate bid by the 
winners, i.e., the rate bid by the last bidder whose bid was accepted. 
How many providers would be sufficient under this approach? If less 
than the total number of VRS providers currently in the market, how 
would the reduction in choice and competition affect VRS users? If 
equal to the total number of VRS providers currently in the market, 
would that be considered an auction at all? How would such an approach 
address the apparent economies of scale and scope within the VRS 
market, ensuring that no VRS provider receives an unjust windfall? 
Would such an approach increase--perhaps substantially--the cost of VRS 
service to ratepayers? Would such an approach prohibit new entry into 
the VRS market during the rate period? Would such an approach be less 
``regulatory,'' as Sorenson suggests?
    35. As another alternative, Sorenson suggests replacing the TRS 
Fund with a system under which telecommunications carriers would 
provide service themselves or by contracting with TRS providers, 
pursuant to the provision of section 225 of the Act that requires 
carriers to provide service directly or ``through designees, through a 
competitively selected vendor, or in concert with other carriers.'' 47 
U.S.C. 225(c). This approach would thus entail revisiting the 
Commission's earlier determination that VRS should not be a 
``mandatory'' service for common carriers. The Commission seeks comment 
on the feasibility, costs, and benefits of migrating to a system in 
which VRS--as well as, perhaps, other forms of TRS--would be provided 
by carriers, through private contracts or self-provisioning, rather 
than through the FCC-administered TRS Fund. How would such an approach 
be likely to affect the provision of functionally equivalent service in 
the most efficient manner, and could it be done consistently with the 
requirements of section 225 of the Act? In addition, are there any 
other relevant statutory provisions that would inform our consideration 
of Sorenson's suggestion?

Server-Based Routing

    36. In August 2015, the VRS Task Group of the Session Initiation 
Protocol (SIP) Forum completed a technical standard, the VRS Provider 
Interoperability Profile, which addresses interoperability between VRS 
providers, as well as the interface between a VRS provider and the TRS 
Numbering Directory. Subsequently, the Consumer and Government Affairs 
Bureau incorporated the VRS Provider Interoperability Profile by 
reference into the Commission's VRS interoperability rule. To enable 
implementation of the new call routing protocol specified by the VRS 
Provider Interoperability Profile, the Commission proposes to amend 47 
CFR 64.613 to provide that the routing information provided to the TRS 
numbering directory may include Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) 
that contain provider domain names rather than user IP addresses. All 
the current VRS providers, as well as consumer groups, support this 
approach. The Commission believes that this proposed amendment will 
advance interoperability and will otherwise serve the public interest 
for the following reasons.
    37. First, enabling the use of domain names to route VRS and point-
to-point video calls will allow the implementation of a consensus 
interoperability standard and will thereby advance VRS 
interoperability, an objective long sought by the Commission and one 
that is integral to achieving functional equivalence. Second, the 
record indicates that this rule amendment will improve the efficiency, 
reliability, and security of VRS and point-to-point video 
communications, thus advancing these important Commission objectives as 
well. Third, the Commission believes that amending the rule to allow 
routing based on domain names will promote TRS regulation that 
``encourage[s] . . . the use of existing technology and do[es] not 
discourage or impair the development of improved technology,'' as 
required by 47 U.S.C. 225(c)(2). Finally, the record indicates that the 
proposed amendment will not impair the Commission's ability to prevent 
fraud, abuse, and waste in the VRS program.
    The Commission seeks comment on these conclusions, and any other 
factors it should consider regarding this proposed amendment. The 
Commission believes it has authority to amend its rules to allow server 
based routing under 47 U.S.C. 225 and 251, and the Commission seeks 
comment on this assumption.

VRS Use of Enterprise and Public Videophones

    38. Historically, VRS providers have handled and received 
compensation for VRS calls placed from both private videophones of VRS 
users, and from enterprise and public videophones. For the limited 
purposes of document FCC 17-26, the Commission uses the term 
``enterprise videophones'' to refer to videophones provided by entities 
such as businesses, organizations and governmental agencies that are 
designated for use by their employees who use ASL. These phones can be 
situated in a variety of locations, including private or shared 
offices, conference rooms, or other common rooms. ``Public 
videophones,'' for

[[Page 17620]]

purposes of document FCC 17-26, are those made available in public 
spaces, such as schools, hospitals, libraries, airports, and 
governmental agencies, for use by any individuals who communicate 
through ASL.
    39. The TRS user registration database (TRS-URD) and associated TRS 
Numbering Directory have been set up to enable validation of individual 
VRS users by transmitting either the originating or terminating 
Internet-based TRS telephone number (iTRS number) for each call. For 
enterprise or public videophones, each of which permit use by more than 
one individual, however, the identity of all users of the videophone 
cannot be known in advance and thus is not retrievable from 
registration information associated with the videophone's iTRS number. 
For this reason, at present, there is no means of validating the 
eligibility of registered VRS users wishing to use these phones. The 
Commission proposes procedures to achieve this, along with safeguards 
for the use of these phones to protect against fraud, waste and abuse.
    40. For all public videophones, and for enterprise videophones that 
are not located in private workspaces, the Commission proposes to 
require that VRS providers establish log-in procedures for VRS users. 
For example, for VRS users who already have registered a personal 
videophone, the VRS provider can require the user to electronically 
enter the user's iTRS number plus a personal identification number 
(PIN) before making or receiving a VRS or point-to-point call. 
Individuals who are not registered for VRS would first be required to 
complete such registration with the provider in accordance with the 
requirements of 47 CFR 64.611(a) and receive a personal identifier (ID) 
and PIN number from the provider in order to begin using the public or 
enterprise videophone with such log-in information. The Commission also 
proposes that when VRS providers submit the call data records (CDRs) 
for calls made from public and enterprise phones, in addition to the 
registered telephone number, the CDR should include the telephone or ID 
number of the person using the public or enterprise videophone. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal or any other alternative 
suggestions to ensure the eligibility and verification of users of 
enterprise and public phones. The Commission asks commenters whether 
these precautionary measures will further the Commission's efforts to 
reduce waste, fraud, and abuse and improve its ability to efficiently 
manage the VRS program.
    41. For enterprise videophones that are located in private 
workspaces, defined as workspaces where access is limited to one 
individual, the Commission proposes to permit the registered VRS user 
of the enterprise videophone to log in a single time, without having to 
again log in each time the phone is used. The Commission seeks comment 
on this proposal.
    42. In addition, the Commission proposes that VRS providers be 
required to submit the registration information specified below to the 
TRS-URD administrator for each new public or enterprise videophone 
prior to initiating service, and for each such videophone already in 
service, within 60 days of notice from the Commission that the TRS-URD 
is ready to accept such information.
    43. For enterprise videophones, the Commission proposes to require 
the following information:
     Name and business address of the enterprise;
     Name of the responsible person for the videophone, as well 
as a digital copy of a self-certification (as described below) from 
that person and the date this certification was obtained by the 
provider;
     Tax identification number of the enterprise (for non-
governmental enterprises);
     Registered Location of the phone;
     VRS provider's name;
     Date of the videophone's service initiation; and
     For existing enterprise videophones, the date on which the 
videophone was last used to place a point-to-point or TRS call.

In addition, the Commission proposes that each VRS provider be required 
to obtain from the individual responsible for each enterprise 
videophone a certification that such responsible person (1) has 
authority to port the phone to a different VRS provider, (2) will, to 
the best of that person's ability, permit only eligible VRS users with 
hearing or speech disabilities to use the phone, and (3) understands 
that the cost of VRS calls is financed by the federally regulated 
Interstate TRS Fund. The Commission seeks comment on the collection of 
the information listed, as well any exception to the above-proposed 
information collection requirements that should be made for 
governmental entities that are restricted in their ability to provide 
certain information due to national security concerns. The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether enterprises consider any of the proposed 
information collection requirements described above to contain 
commercially sensitive information, and if so, whether it is necessary 
for the Commission to impose data security requirements on VRS 
providers in order to protect such information.
    44. For public videophones, the Commission proposes to require the 
following information and seeks comment on such collection:
     Name and physical address of the organization, business, 
or agency where the public videophone is located (which will be used as 
the Registered Location of the videophone);
     VRS provider's name;
     Date on which the videophone was placed in that location; 
and
     Date on which the videophone was last used to place a 
point-to-point or TRS call.
    45. For both enterprise and public videophones, in the event that a 
registered videophone is removed from service or permanently 
disconnected from VRS, the Commission proposes that the VRS provider be 
required to notify the TRS Fund administrator of such termination of 
use within 24 hours of such termination. In addition, for each type of 
phone, the Commission proposes to require each VRS provider to monitor 
usage and report any unusual activity to the TRS Fund administrator. 
Because each of these videophones are available for use by multiple 
individuals, the Commission believes that the collection of this 
information is necessary to ensure the legitimacy of calls made on 
these phones. The Commission seeks comment on its assumptions and on 
these proposals and ask commenters to describe the types of unusual 
activity that should trigger a report to the Commission.

Direct Video Calling Customer Support Services

    46. A direct video calling (DVC) customer support service is a 
telephone customer assistance service provided by an organization that 
permits individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or have 
a speech disability, using telephone numbers that are registered in the 
TRS numbering directory, to engage in real-time video communication in 
ASL without using VRS. The purpose of DVC is to provide direct 
telephone service to such individuals that is functionally equivalent 
to voice communications service provided to hearing individuals who do 
not have speech disabilities. Because it is a direct service, no CA is 
involved and there is no compensation from the TRS Fund.
    47. The Commission seeks comment on whether to amend 47 CFR 64.613 
to allow all providers of DVC customer

[[Page 17621]]

support services to access the TRS Numbering Directory. The Commission 
believes amending its rules to allow DVC customer support service 
providers access to the TRS Numbering Directory will enhance the 
functional equivalence of the TRS program by allowing VRS users to 
engage in more direct, private, and reciprocal communication with 
customer service agents. As the Commission has repeatedly recognized, 
compared to traditional TRS, point-to-point services even more directly 
support the purposes of 47 U.S.C. 225 because they increase the utility 
of the Nation's telephone system for persons with hearing and speech 
disabilities by providing direct communication--including all visual 
cues that are so important to persons with hearing and speech 
disabilities. The Commission also believes allowing DVC customer 
support service access to the TRS Numbering Directory will likely 
reduce the TRS costs that would otherwise be borne by the TRS Fund 
because using DVC involves direct, rather than interpreted, 
communication and does not trigger the costs involved with 
interpretation or unnecessary routing. The Commission seeks comment on 
these tentative conclusions. The Commission further seeks comment on 
the concerns raised by Sorenson, specifically whether any rule changes 
should require that ASL-capable DVC numbers be distinct from general 
service numbers used by hearing individuals to the same customer call 
center. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on any other factors it 
should consider regarding this proposed rule amendment, including 
specific costs or additional benefits from allowing DVC customer 
support services providers to access the TRS Numbering Directory, as 
well as alternative proposals for ensuring direct access to DVC 
customer support services.

Per-Call Validation Procedures

    48. 47 CFR 64.615(a)(i) requires each VRS provider to validate the 
eligibility of the party on the video side of each VRS call (once the 
TRS-URD is up and running) by querying the TRS-URD on a per-call basis. 
The Commission's Managing Director has contracted with the TRS 
Numbering Directory administrator to validate the eligibility of the 
party on the video side of each VRS call by utilizing the TRS Numbering 
Directory to respond to the per call query. The Commission proposes to 
amend 47 CFR 64.615(a)(i) to require that each VRS provider query 
either the TRS-URD or the TRS Numbering Directory, as directed by the 
Commission or the TRS Fund administrator, and seeks comment on this 
proposal.

Research and Development

    49. In 2014, the Commission set an initial budget for research and 
development projects to be supported by the TRS Fund. Congress, in 
recognizing the need for relay services for persons with hearing and 
speech disabilities, charged the FCC with ensuring that the services 
evolve with improvements in technology. To this end, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether to continue this important research. 
Specifically, it seeks comment on whether it should take action to 
ensure continued funding from the TRS Fund beyond the initial project's 
$3 million budget, as that amount was only sufficient through the 2016-
2017 TRS Fund Year. Therefore, to continue to meet its statutory 
obligations, the Commission seeks comment on whether to direct the TRS 
Fund administrator, for the 2017-2018 TRS Fund Year, and as part of 
future annual ratemaking proceedings, to include in proposed 
administrative costs for the Commission's approval an appropriate 
amount for research and development necessary to continue to meet the 
Commission's charge of furthering the goals of functional equivalence 
and efficient availability of TRS. The Commission asks commenters to 
address the specific purposes of such research and whether the benefits 
of such research outweigh the cost to the TRS Fund.

Non-Service Related Inducements To Sign Up for VRS

    50. In 2013, the Commission adopted a rule prohibiting providers 
from offering or providing ``to any person or entity that registers to 
use IP CTS any form of direct or indirect incentives, financial or 
otherwise, to register for or use IP CTS'' and denying compensation to 
providers violating the rule. 47 CFR 64.604(c)(8)(i). The Commission 
seeks comment on whether to adopt a similar prohibition for VRS. 
Specifically, should the Commission prohibit VRS providers from 
offering or providing non-service related inducements (e.g., video game 
systems) to sign up for or to continue to use a VRS provider's service? 
Are there any circumstances in which such inducements should be 
permitted? Does it matter if the provider offers the same inducements 
to all users, regardless of call volume? Further, how should the 
Commission define what is a non-service related inducement?

Non-Compete Provisions in VRS CA Employment Contracts

    51. In 2007, a coalition of five VRS providers petitioned the 
Commission for a declaratory ruling to prohibit VRS providers from 
using non-competition agreements in VRS CA employment contracts that 
limit the ability of VRS CAs to work for competing VRS providers after 
the VRS CAs terminate their employment with their current employer. The 
Commission sought and received comment on these agreements in the 2013 
VRS Reform FNPRM. The Commission seeks further comment on the impact of 
non-competition agreements on the provision of VRS. What are the cost 
and benefits or advantages and disadvantages of allowing, prohibiting 
or limiting the scope of these agreements? Do non-competition 
agreements limit the pool of VRS CAs that are available to VRS 
providers? If so, does any such limitation affect the ability of VRS 
providers to effectively compete in the marketplace? To what extent do 
these agreements have an impact on the level of compensation paid to 
VRS CAs, and consequently, the cost of providing VRS? Do the agreements 
affect speed of answer, accuracy or other quality of service metrics 
for VRS users? Commenters should support their positions with data to 
the extent possible.
    52. The Commission also asks commenters to address possible sources 
of authority for the Commission to regulate VRS CA non-competition 
agreements. For example, does 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(1)(A), which directs the 
Commission to ``establish functional requirements, guidelines, and 
operations procedures for telecommunications relay services'' afford 
the Commission sufficient authority to address these agreements? Are 
there other provisions of 47 U.S.C. 225 that provide the Commission 
with such authority? The Commission seeks feedback on any other matter 
that might assist the Commission in determining whether and how to 
address these agreements.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    53. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed document FCC 17-26. Written public comments are requested on 
this IRFA. Comments must be identified as

[[Page 17622]]

responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadline for comments 
specified in the DATES section. The Commission will send a copy of 
document FCC 17-26 to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA).

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    54. Document FCC 17-26 addresses server-based routing of VRS calls; 
registration of VRS enterprise and public videophones in the TRS-URD; 
access to the TRS Numbering Directory by DVC customer support services; 
per-call validation procedures for VRS calls; funding for research and 
development; prohibiting inducements to register for VRS; and 
prohibiting non-compete clauses in VRS CA employment contracts.
    55. The proposed changes to permit server-based routing will expand 
the ways that VRS calls can be routed. The Commission proposes to 
permit domain names to be included in the user routing information 
provided to the TRS numbering directory.
    56. The Commission proposes to require the registration of 
enterprise and public videophones in the TRS-URD and to require that 
the users of such videophones log-in to use the videophones, so that 
calls from such equipment may be appropriately processed and 
compensated for by the TRS Fund, as they have been in the past.
    57. The Commission proposes to permit providers of DVC services to 
have access to the TRS Numbering Directory. Such access will enhance 
the functional equivalence of DVC. Because the per-call query function 
has been built into the TRS Numbering Directory rather than the TRS-
URD, the Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 64.615(a)(1)(i) to require 
per-call validation using either the TRS-URD or the TRS Numbering 
Directory, as directed by either the Commission or the TRS Fund 
administrator.
    58. The Commission proposes to direct the TRS Fund administrator 
for the 2017-2018 TRS Fund Year, and as part of future annual 
ratemaking proceedings to include for Commission approval proposed 
funding for research and development. Such funding is necessary to 
continue to meet the Commission's charge of furthering the goals of 
functional equivalence and efficient availability of TRS.
    59. The Commission also proposes to adopt a rule prohibiting VRS 
providers from offering direct or indirect inducements to customers to 
register for VRS. Such rules may be necessary to ensure that VRS is 
available to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner and 
to help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund.
    60. Lastly, the Commission proposes to prohibit VRS providers from 
preventing CAs from subsequently working for a competing VRS provider 
through the inclusion of non-compete provisions in VRS CA employment 
contracts or otherwise requiring or inducing CAs to agree to non-
compete agreements. A prohibition on non-compete agreements will ensure 
that VRS is available to the extent possible and in the most efficient 
manner by increasing the CA labor pool, ensuring the availability of 
qualified interpreters, and removing a barrier to competition.

Legal Basis

    61. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in 47 
U.S.C. 225, 251.

Small Entities Impacted

    62. The rules proposed in document FCC 17-26 will affect 
obligations of VRS providers and providers of DVC services. These 
services can be included within the broad economic category of All 
Other Telecommunications.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    63. The proposed server-based call routing option will permit the 
use of domain names, and will require VRS providers to keep records of 
such domain names. The domain names will then be processed as call 
routing information, just as other call routing information is 
processed currently. The changes to the TRS-URD design to permit calls 
to be made from enterprise and public videophones will require VRS 
providers to register such equipment in the TRS-URD, in a manner 
similar to how they currently register individuals in the TRS-URD. The 
other proposed rule changes do not involve recordkeeping requirements.

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

    64. The proposed server-based call routing option using domain 
names will be available to all VRS providers, will not be burdensome, 
and will advance interoperability. Greater interoperability will foster 
competition, thereby benefitting the smaller providers. To the extent 
there are differences in operating costs resulting from economies of 
scale, those costs are reflected in the different compensation rate 
structures applicable to large and small VRS providers.
    65. The provision of VRS service to enterprise and public 
videophones is optional for VRS providers. The proposed registration 
requirements for such videophones and log-in procedures for users of 
such videophones apply equally to all VRS providers and users, and are 
necessary to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund. The 
registration requirements for enterprise and public videophones are no 
more burdensome than the registration requirements for individual 
videophones. To the extent there are differences in operating costs 
resulting from economies of scale, those costs are reflected in the 
different rate structures applicable to large and small VRS providers. 
Therefore, the Commission does not adopt any of the four alternatives 
listed above for small entities.
    66. Permitting providers of DVC call centers to access the TRS 
Numbering Directory is necessary for the purpose of routing calls to 
and from DVC call centers. Such access would subject such call center 
providers to call-routing rules similar to those currently applicable 
to Internet-based TRS providers. Such rules are not burdensome.
    67. Requiring VRS providers to transmit per-call validation queries 
to the TRS Numbering Directory instead of the TRS-URD, as currently 
required, is not burdensome. The only difference is the database that 
must be queried.
    68. Directing the TRS Fund administrator to propose an appropriate 
amount of funding for research and development for the 2017-2018 TRS 
Fund year and as a part of each future annual ratemaking proceeding 
extends a past Commission directive to the TRS Fund Administrator to 
set an initial budget for research and development projects to be 
supported by the TRS Fund. The Commission seeks comment on the 
appropriate budget for research and development and whether to continue 
independently funding research and development through the TRS Fund. 
Funding independent research and development through the TRS Fund may 
result in a reduction in the costs that VRS providers incur to conduct 
their own research and development.
    69. Prohibiting VRS providers from offering customers direct or 
indirect inducements to register for VRS will help ensure that VRS is 
available to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner while 
helping to limit waste, fraud, and abuse. Adopting this prohibition may 
benefit small providers by removing competitive costs associated with 
offering inducements

[[Page 17623]]

unrelated to providing service and focusing competition on service 
quality.
    70. Prohibiting non-compete provisions in VRS CA employment 
contracts and prohibiting VRS providers from otherwise requesting or 
requiring CAs to agree to non-compete agreements narrowly targets a 
concern that affects the size of the CA labor pool, restricts 
competition, and impedes consumers choice. Prohibiting such 
restrictions may benefit smaller providers through increased 
availability of qualified interpreters.

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

    71. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications, 
Telecommunications relay services, Video relay services.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend Title 47 of the Code of 
Federal Regulation as follows:

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 225, 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 715, 
Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 
218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class 
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  64.611 by adding paragraphs (a)(6) and (7) and revising 
paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.611  Internet-based TRS registration.

    (a) * * *
    (6) Enterprise videophones. For purposes of this section, an 
enterprise videophone is a videophone provided by an entity such as a 
business, an organization, or a governmental entity that is designated 
for use by its employees who use American Sign Language.
    (i) A VRS provider seeking compensation from the TRS Fund for 
providing VRS to a registered VRS user utilizing an enterprise 
videophone must first obtain a written certification from the 
individual responsible for the enterprise videophone, attesting that:
    (A) The individual will, to the best of that individual's ability 
permit only eligible VRS users with hearing or speech disabilities to 
use the enterprise videophone; and
    (B) The individual understands that the cost of VRS calls is paid 
for by contributions from telecommunications and VoIP providers to the 
TRS Fund.
    (ii) The certification required by paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this 
section must be made on a form separate from any other agreement or 
form, and must include a separate user signature specific to the 
certification. For the purposes of this rule, an electronic signature, 
defined by the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce 
Act, as an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or 
logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or 
adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record, has the same 
legal effect as a written signature. For the purposes of this rule, an 
electronic record, defined by the Electronic Signatures in Global and 
National Commerce Act as a contract or other record created, generated, 
sent, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means, 
constitutes a record.
    (iii) Each VRS provider shall collect and transmit to the TRS User 
Registration Database, in a format prescribed by the administrator of 
the TRS User Registration Database, the following registration 
information for each of its enterprise videophones, for new enterprise 
videophones prior to the initiation of service, and for existing 
enterprise videophones within 60 days of notice from the Commission 
that the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept such 
information:
    (A) The name and business address of the enterprise;
    (B) The name of the individual responsible for the videophone, a 
digital copy of the certification required by paragraph (a)(6)(i) of 
this section, and the date the certification was obtained by the 
provider;
    (C) The last digits of the tax identification number of the 
enterprise, unless it is a governmental enterprise;
    (D) The Registered Location of the phone;
    (E) The VRS provider's name;
    (F) The date of the enterprise videophone's service initiation; and
    (G) For existing enterprise videophones, the date on which the 
videophone was last used to place a point-to-point or relay call.
    (iv) Each VRS provider must obtain, from the individuals 
responsible for each new and existing enterprise videophone, consent to 
transmit the registered Internet-based TRS user's information to the 
TRS User Registration Database. Prior to obtaining consent, the VRS 
provider must describe to the individual responsible for the enterprise 
videophone, using clear, easily understood language, the specific 
information being transmitted, that the information is being 
transmitted to the TRS User Registration Database to ensure proper 
administration of the TRS program, and that failure to provide consent 
will result in the registered Internet-based TRS user being denied 
service. VRS providers must obtain and keep a record of affirmative 
acknowledgment of such consent for every enterprise videophone.
    (v) Each VRS provider shall maintain the confidentiality of any 
registration and certification information obtained by the provider, 
and may not disclose such registration and certification information, 
or the content of such registration and certification information, 
except as required by law or regulation.
    (vi) After the time period for the 60-day notice from the 
Commission that the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept 
registration information has passed, VRS calls provided to enterprise 
videophones shall not be compensable from the TRS Fund unless the user 
of the enterprise videophone is a registered VRS user and logs in to 
the videophone with a user identification plus a passcode or PIN. For 
enterprise videophones located in private work spaces where access is 
limited to one individual, the user of such enterprise videophone may 
log in a single time, without being required to log in each time the 
videophone is used.
    (vii) VRS providers shall require their CAs to terminate any call 
which does not involve an individual eligible to use VRS due to a 
hearing or speech disability or, pursuant to the provider's policies, 
the call does not appear to be a legitimate VRS call, and VRS providers 
may not seek compensation for such calls from the TRS Fund.
    (viii) A VRS provider may be compensated from the TRS Fund for 
dial-around VRS provided to registered users of registered enterprise 
videophones.
    (7) Public videophones. For purposes of this section, a public 
videophone is a videophone that is made available in a public space, 
such as a school, a hospital, a library, an airport, or a governmental 
building, for use by any individual who communicates through American 
Sign Language.
    (i) A VRS provider seeking compensation from the TRS Fund for 
providing VRS to a registered VRS user utilizing a public videophone 
must transmit to the TRS User Registration

[[Page 17624]]

Database, in a format prescribed by the administrator of the TRS User 
Registration Database, the following information, for each of its new 
public videophones prior to the initiation of VRS on the videophone, 
and for existing public videophones, within 60 days of notice from the 
Commission that the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept 
such information:
    (A) The name and physical address of the organization, business, or 
agency where the public videophone is located;
    (B) The VRS provider's name;
    (C) The date on which the videophone was placed in that location; 
and
    (D) The date on which the videophone was last used to place a 
point-to-point or TRS call.
    (ii) After the time period for the 60-day notice from the 
Commission that the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept 
registration information has passed, VRS calls provided to public 
videophones shall not be compensable from the TRS Fund unless the user 
of the public videophone is a registered VRS user and logs in to the 
videophone with a user identification plus a passcode or PIN.
    (iii) VRS providers shall require their CAs to terminate any call 
which does not involve an individual eligible to use VRS due to a 
hearing or speech disability or, pursuant to the provider's policies, 
the call does not appear to be a legitimate VRS call, and VRS providers 
may not seek compensation for such calls from the TRS Fund.
    (iv) A VRS provider may be compensated from the TRS Fund for dial-
around VRS provided to registered users of registered public 
videophones.
* * * * *
    (c) Obligations of default providers and former default providers.
    (1) Default providers must:
    (i) Obtain current routing information from their Registered 
Internet-based TRS Users, registered enterprise videophones, and 
hearing point-to-point video users;
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  64.613 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(4) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  64.613  Numbering directory for Internet-based TRS users.

    (a) TRS Numbering Directory.
    (1) The TRS Numbering Directory shall contain records mapping the 
geographically appropriate NANP telephone number of each Registered 
Internet-based TRS User, registered enterprise videophone, public 
videophone, Direct Video Calling customer support services, and hearing 
point-to-point video user to a unique Uniform Resource Identifier 
(URI).
    (2) For each record associated with a geographically appropriate 
NANP telephone number for a Registered Internet-based TRS User, 
registered enterprise videophone, public videophone, Direct Video 
Calling customer support services, or hearing point-to-point video 
user, the URI shall contain a server domain name or the IP address of 
the user's device. For each record associated with an IP Relay user's 
geographically appropriate NANP telephone number, the URI shall contain 
the user's user name and domain name that can be subsequently resolved 
to reach the user.
    (3) * * *
    (4) The TRS Numbering Administrator, Internet-based TRS providers, 
and Direct Video Calling customer support services providers may access 
the TRS Numbering Directory.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  64.615 by revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding 
subparagraph (a)(1)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.615   TRS User Registration Database and administrator.

    (a) TRS User Registration Database.
    (1) VRS providers shall validate the eligibility of the party on 
the video side of each call by querying the TRS User Registration 
Database or the TRS Numbering Directory, as directed by the Commission 
or the TRS Fund Administrator, on a per-call basis. Emergency 911 calls 
are excepted from this requirement.
* * * * *
    (iv) The eligibility of a party using an enterprise videophone or 
public VRS phone may be validated by the registration information for 
the enterprise phones or public VRS phones in the TRS User Registration 
Database.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-07153 Filed 4-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P