[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75199-75206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25341]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, 13-24; FCC 22-51; FR ID 114538]


VRS Rules Governing Communications Assistants and International 
Calling

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) 
proposes to modify or eliminate certain provisions of its Video Relay 
Service (VRS) rules. Specifically, the Commission proposes to: increase 
from 50% to 80% the portion of a VRS provider's monthly minutes that 
may be handled by Communications Assistants (CAs) working from home; 
reduce or eliminate the three-year experience rule for CAs working from 
home, and allow VRS providers to use contract CAs for 30% of the 
providers' monthly call minutes; and allow Telecommunications Relay 
Services (TRS) Fund compensation of calls placed by registered VRS 
users to the United States from outside the country, for up to one year 
after leaving the country, as long as they notify their provider of 
such travel at any time before placing the first such call. The 
Commission also requests comment on whether any other at-home VRS rules 
should be modified.

DATES: Comments are due January 9, 2023. Reply comments are due 
February 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 03-
123, 10-51, and 13-24, by either of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see document FCC 22-51 at 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-51A1.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Wallace, Disability Rights 
Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at 202-418-2716, or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 22-51, adopted on June 28, 2022, 
released on June 30, 2022, in CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, and 13-24. 
The full text of document FCC 22-51 is available for public inspection 
and copying via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS).
    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.
    Ex Parte Rules. 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,

[[Page 75200]]

memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of 
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Sec.  1.1206(b) 
of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by Sec.  1.49(f) 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.

Synopsis

Background

    1. Under section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(the Act), 47 U.S.C. 225, the Commission must ensure that TRS is 
available ``to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner'' 
to persons ``in the United States'' who are deaf, hard of hearing, or 
deafblind, or who have speech disabilities, so that they can 
communicate by telephone in a manner that is functionally equivalent to 
voice communication service. VRS, a form of TRS, enables people with 
hearing or speech disabilities who use sign language to make telephone 
calls over a broadband connection using a video communication device. 
The video link allows a CA to view and interpret the party's signed 
conversation and relay the conversation back and forth with a voice 
caller. Providers of VRS are compensated from the TRS Fund for service 
provided in accordance with applicable rules. To be eligible to receive 
payment from the TRS Fund, a VRS provider must be granted certification 
by the Commission. To allow TRS users to choose among competing service 
providers, the Commission has certified multiple firms to offer each of 
these services.
    2. Adoption of Anti-Fraud Rules in 2011. More than ten years ago, a 
wave of fraud and abuse ``plagued the [VRS] program and threatened its 
long-term sustainability.'' Numerous uncertified entities were 
providing VRS or purporting to do so, without effective supervision, 
while using certified VRS providers as billing agents to obtain 
payment--sometimes fraudulently--from the TRS Fund. In response, the 
Commission prohibited or restricted a number of VRS provider practices 
that increased the likelihood of fraud and abuse. The Commission 
prohibited TRS Fund compensation for VRS calls handled by CAs working 
at home and prohibited compensation arrangements that tie a CA's 
compensation to the number of minutes or calls processed by a CA. In 
addition, the Commission amended its rules to prohibit an eligible 
(i.e., FCC-certified) VRS provider from contracting with or otherwise 
authorizing any third party to provide interpretation services or call 
center functions (including call distribution, call routing, call 
setup, mapping, call features, billing, and registration) on its 
behalf, unless that authorized third party also is an eligible VRS 
provider. Further, the Commission sharply restricted compensation of 
VRS providers for calls placed to the United States from foreign 
locations, prohibiting TRS Fund compensation for such VRS calls, 
subject to a limited exception for calls placed during travel--by a 
U.S. resident who has pre-registered with his or her default provider 
prior to leaving the country, during specified periods of time while on 
travel and from specified regions of travel, for which there is an 
accurate means of verifying the identity and location of such callers.
    3. Reauthorization of At-Home VRS Call Handling. In 2017, 
recognizing that anti-fraud safeguards and advances in network 
technology appeared to have reduced the fraud and abuse risks 
associated with CAs working at home, the Commission authorized a pilot 
program whereby participating VRS providers could permit some CAs to 
work at home, so long as the provider complied with the Commission's 
mandatory minimum standards and with specified personnel, technical, 
and environmental safeguards, as well as with monitoring, oversight, 
and reporting requirements. Three years later, the Commission further 
amended its rules to allow at-home call-handling on a permanent basis, 
subject to safeguards similar to those of the pilot program. Among 
other requirements, the current rules limit at-home call handling to a 
maximum of 50% of a provider's monthly VRS minutes and require that CAs 
working at home have at least three years of American Sign Language 
(ASL) interpreting experience.
    4. COVID-19 Pandemic Waivers. During the COVID-19 pandemic national 
emergency, to ensure the uninterrupted availability of VRS, the 
Commission temporarily waived several rules applicable to VRS 
providers. At the beginning of the pandemic, VRS providers reported 
sharp increases in the volume of calls and decreases in call center 
staffing, which made it difficult to comply with certain minimum TRS 
standards. Providers also moved CAs to home workstations to comply with 
social distancing requirements and stay-at-home orders. To address 
these extraordinary circumstances, the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau), on its own motion, temporarily waived 
several VRS rules, including the three that the Commission proposes to 
modify or eliminate in this document. Due to the pandemic's continuing 
impact on VRS operations, all the above waivers were extended for 
additional periods in successive orders, including one by the full 
Commission.
    5. Convo Petition for Rulemaking. On June 4, 2021, Convo 
Communications, LLC (Convo) filed a petition requesting that the 
Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to modify several of the 
VRS rules that had previously been waived. Convo urged the Commission 
to raise the percentage of permitted VRS at-home call-handling to 80% 
of a provider's monthly minutes and to allow a VRS provider to use 
contract CAs for up to 30% of its monthly minutes. On June 17, 2021, 
the Bureau released a public notice seeking comment on Convo's 
Petition.

Proposed Rules

    6. VRS providers report an increasing shortage of ASL interpreters 
able and willing to work as VRS CAs. This shortage, which appears to 
have begun before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, has been 
aggravated by the pandemic but appears likely to continue well beyond 
its end. In light of these developments, the Commission proposes to 
eliminate or modify certain requirements that may be no longer needed 
in their current form and that may unnecessarily restrict the available 
pool of ASL interpreters who are able and willing to work as VRS CAs.
    7. Cap on VRS Minutes Handled by CAs Working at Home. The 
Commission proposes to increase from 50% to 80% the percentage of a VRS 
provider's monthly minutes that may be handled by CAs working at home. 
In adopting permanent rules to allow at-home call handling, the 
Commission found that allowing CAs to work at home could improve the 
efficiency and effectiveness of VRS by enabling VRS providers to 
attract and retain qualified CAs for whom working at the companies' 
call centers was not a practical option. The Commission also noted that 
working at home could reduce CA stress and

[[Page 75201]]

improve productivity and performance. Based on its experience with at-
home call handling to date, the Commission believes these benefits can 
be enhanced by allowing VRS providers, on a permanent basis, more 
flexibility to employ additional teleworking CAs if warranted by a 
provider's own assessment of the effects on efficiency and service 
quality. The Commission also believes that, in general, VRS providers 
are unlikely to add more teleworking CAs if doing so will detract from 
service quality. Finally, the Commission believes the safeguards of its 
at-home rules are sufficient to ensure that a permanent increase in 
reliance on at-home call handling, up to the proposed 80% maximum, does 
not adversely affect call confidentiality or increase the risk of 
waste, fraud, and abuse. The Commission also believes that permanently 
raising the at-home cap is a necessary measure to help maintain a 
sufficient supply of qualified VRS CAs, many of whom are reluctant, 
unable, or unwilling to work from a call center.
    8. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, including the 
assumptions above and the costs, risks, and benefits. If the cap is 
permanently raised, would VRS providers maintain or increase the 
percentage of CAs working at home? What factors do providers consider 
(apart from public health considerations related to the pandemic) in 
deciding whether to maintain or increase reliance on CAs working from 
home? For example, do providers consider primarily the opportunity to 
save costs, or to improve or maintain service quality, e.g., by 
maintaining or adding CAs who may be unable or unwilling to work in 
call centers, and in particular more experienced CAs? Would permanently 
raising the cap substantially expand the pool of interpreters 
potentially able to work as VRS CAs, and if so, by how much? Would a 
return to the 50% cap result in a loss of CAs and a reduction in 
service quality? What kinds of costs savings, if any, have resulted or 
will result from increased at-home call-handling, and how are the new 
costs or cost savings of this practice calculated? For example, do 
hourly wages differ for CAs working at home or in call centers--and if 
so, by how much? The Commission also asks commenters to provide 
quantitative data on the extent to which increasing the percentage of 
at-home CAs has resulted in or will result in a reduction in call 
center overhead costs over the costs of establishing and maintaining 
at-home workstations. To the extent that there are both benefits and 
harms from increasing the use of at-home CAs, how should they be 
balanced?
    9. What are the possible adverse effects, if any, of raising the 
cap? How is the quality of interpreting affected, if at all, when calls 
are handled by CAs working at home? Are consumers able to discern that 
a call is being handled by a CA working at home? If so, what 
differences, if any, do consumers detect in the quality of at-home 
versus call-center calls? The Commission also invites VRS providers to 
share the results of any analyses they have conducted regarding 
differences, if any, in call quality or complaint frequency for call-
center and teleworking CAs.
    10. What specific concerns, if any, would be raised by permanently 
raising the cap, with respect to providers' ability to serve demand 
efficiently, protect the confidentiality of conversations, and prevent 
waste, fraud, and abuse? What technical, operational, training, or 
other challenges have been faced by providers, and how have they 
responded to ensure that service quality, confidentiality, and other 
requirements do not suffer? What specific lessons have VRS providers 
learned about the advantages, disadvantages, and challenges of having 
calls handled by CAs working at home?
    11. The Commission also seeks information on how providers select 
and train CAs allowed to work at home. Do providers require CAs to work 
in call centers if one is available within commuting distance and there 
is no valid reason why the CA must work at home? Or is each CA allowed 
to choose where to work, if qualified to work at home? Should the 
Commission impose any additional training or other requirements in 
connection with increased use of CAs working at home or other proposals 
in the NPRM?
    12. The Commission also seeks comment, supported by quantitative 
data where possible, on whether 80%--or a different percentage--is an 
appropriate limit for monthly at-home minutes. Alternatively, should 
the Commission eliminate the cap altogether, and rely solely on VRS 
providers' business judgement to determine to what extent it is 
appropriate to rely on at-home CAs? Is a minimum level of call center 
staffing necessary to ensure continuity of service? Alternatively, is 
such a minimum necessary to ensure that certain types of calls are 
handled appropriately--e.g., emergency calls? Are there other types of 
calls or call scenarios, e.g., those requiring multiple interpreters, 
that are more effectively handled at a call center? How frequent are 
such calls? Would it be feasible to transfer such calls to a call 
center once it is determined that multiple CAs are required?
    13. Three-Year Experience Rule. The Commission proposes to reduce 
or eliminate the requirement that an at-home CA have at least three 
years of experience providing interpretation services. This rule was 
adopted to ensure that CAs working at home are able to handle and 
interpret VRS calls without in-person supervision. However, the 
Commission also sought to avoid imposing requirements that impede VRS 
providers' ability to recruit CAs from an expanded pool of skilled 
labor. The Commission revisits the need for this rule in light of the 
ongoing shortage of VRS CAs. Based on the past two years of experience 
with at-home call-handling--during which this requirement has been 
waived--the Commission now believes that the three-year requirement is 
not needed to maintain service quality. VRS providers, like other 
employers, report that during the pandemic, VRS CAs have demonstrated 
an ability to work effectively in the home environment. In addition, 
the Commission notes that its personnel safeguards for at-home CAs 
require that a CA must be ``a qualified interpreter'' who ``has the 
experience, skills, and knowledge necessary to effectively interpret 
VRS calls without in-person supervision, has learned the provider's 
protocols for at-home call handling, and understands and follows the 
TRS mandatory minimum standards.'' VRS providers must also provide at-
home CAs with the same support and supervision as CAs in call centers. 
These rules, coupled with the technical requirements for effective 
supervision, help ensure that teleworking CAs will handle calls 
efficiently and effectively in the home environment.
    14. The Commission also believes that competition among VRS 
providers will help ensure that VRS providers make appropriate 
decisions regarding the qualifications of CAs they allow to work at 
home. Pursuant to the Commission's longstanding policy to allow VRS 
users to choose among multiple providers, consumers have the 
opportunity to choose the VRS provider that offers the highest quality 
of service. Therefore, it appears that VRS providers have a substantial 
incentive to ensure that any CA allowed to work at home is qualified to 
do so. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal and these 
underlying assumptions. What are the costs and benefits of maintaining 
a three-year experience requirement for at-home CAs? How should the

[[Page 75202]]

Commission balance the need for effective interpretation skills with 
allowing VRS providers access to a larger pool of available 
interpreters?
    15. The Commission seeks comment on alternative ways to modify the 
rule. For example, should the Commission retain an experience 
requirement? Would one or two years of interpreting experience meet the 
goal of ensuring effective interpretation without direct supervision? 
Is it necessary for initial VRS training to be conducted at a call 
center? Should CAs have logged a certain number of minutes of 
supervised, call-center-based VRS call handling before being allowed to 
work at home? Or are the remaining requirements in Sec.  
64.604(b)(8)(ii)(A) of the Commission's rules sufficient to provide 
assurance that a VRS CA can work effectively without in-person 
supervision? Are there any other conditions that may be warranted to 
support continued high quality VRS service in connection with any of 
the Commission's proposals?
    16. The Commission seeks comment on whether other changes should be 
made in the at-home VRS call-handling rules, based on experience over 
the last two years. Commenters should identify any current rule that 
they think should be modified, explain in detail why such modifications 
would advance the purposes of section 225 of the Act, and provide 
factual support for their recommendations based on actual experience.
    17. Contracting for CAs. The Commission proposes to modify the 
restriction on VRS providers' ability to contract for CA services, to 
allow VRS providers to contract for interpretation services for up to 
30% of their monthly call minutes. The Commission adopted this rule in 
2011 to end the proliferation of arrangements whereby uncertified 
entities were providing VRS pursuant to subcontracting agreements with 
eligible providers. Due to the obstacles they posed to effective 
oversight, the Commission reasoned, such arrangements encouraged and 
facilitated fraudulent billing of the TRS Fund for non-compensable 
calls. To reduce fraud and establish better oversight of the VRS 
program, the Commission amended its rules to prohibit the 
subcontracting of interpreting and call-center functions to third 
parties whose operations are not under the direct supervision of the 
Commission.
    18. The Commission believes that its proposed modification of the 
current restriction on contracting for interpretation services (which 
would not change the rule's restriction on contracting for call center 
functions) will help alleviate the ongoing shortage of VRS CAs. The 
restriction on contracting for interpretation services has been waived 
on an emergency basis during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the shortage of 
VRS CAs, while aggravated by the pandemic, is likely to outlast it.
    19. The record suggests that permanently allowing VRS providers to 
contract for interpretation services will enable providers to continue 
retaining the services of many qualified ASL interpreters who prefer 
not to sign up as VRS provider employees. According to Convo, many of 
the VRS interpreters it hires through a contractor only want a short 
assignment or want to supplement their community-interpreting income by 
working limited shifts as a VRS CA. Convo also asserts that contract 
CAs can help providers respond to short term fluctuations in both 
demand and CA availability, for example, when a weather event causes 
both a spike in traffic and the closing of a call center. The 
Commission believes that VRS providers and users can benefit from the 
flexibility that contracting allows providers during short-time 
fluctuations in demand. Does allowing VRS providers to contract for up 
to 30% of their monthly minutes provide sufficient flexibility for that 
purpose? The Commission seeks comment on its proposal, these underlying 
assumptions, and the costs and benefits of allowing VRS providers to 
contract for interpretation services from uncertified entities.
    20. The Commission also seeks comment on any risks of harm 
currently posed by the use of contract CAs. Some commenters on the 
Convo Petition raised the concern that relaxing the rule could 
reinstate incentives and opportunities for fraud and abuse by VRS 
providers. Have there been changes in the VRS industry in the last 10 
years that reduce these concerns? Are other measures instituted by the 
Commission sufficient to prevent fraud and abuse? Since April 2020, 
when the Bureau initially waived the prohibition on contracting for CA 
services as part of the Commission's pandemic emergency measures, has 
there been any indication of increased waste, fraud, and abuse? Would 
allowing VRS providers to contract for interpretation services on a 
permanent basis run the risk of changing providers' incentives 
regarding the making of VRS calls that would not otherwise be made?
    21. The Commission also seeks comment on what conditions it could 
impose to limit any risk of waste, fraud, and abuse that may result 
from the use of contract CAs? In adopting the contracting restriction, 
the Commission explained that the proliferation of ineligible VRS 
providers prior to 2011 had frustrated its ability to exercise 
effective oversight of the VRS program. Should organizations 
contracting with a VRS provider for interpretation services be required 
to register with the Commission and agree to direct oversight, 
including audits, inspection of records, etc.? Alternatively, should 
the Commission require the VRS provider to expressly accept 
responsibility for any fraud or abuse committed by a contracting CA or 
agency? In addition, what records should the Commission require VRS 
providers to keep regarding transactions with and services provided by 
contracting CAs or agencies, in addition to copies of the contracts 
themselves? What information about the use of contract CAs should be 
included in VRS providers' annual reports? For example, should the 
Commission require VRS providers to identify each entity with which it 
has contracted for interpretation services and the number of 
conversation minutes handled by each? Should the Commission allow 
contract CAs to be stationed outside the United States?
    22. The Commission also seeks comment on permissible payment 
arrangements for contract CAs. For example, the Commission's current 
rules prohibit VRS providers from providing compensation or other 
benefits to CAs in any manner that is based upon the number of VRS 
minutes or calls that the CA relays, either individually or as part of 
a group. Is this rule sufficient--and sufficiently clear--to prevent 
incentives to generate minutes that would not otherwise have been made 
by individuals using VRS, artificially lengthen the time of a call, or 
create fictional calls where no relaying takes place? To limit 
incentives for fraud and abuse, should the Commission expressly require 
VRS providers to pay contract interpreters or agencies based on hours 
of availability, rather than call or session minutes? Are there other 
safeguards that the Commission should require in contracts with 
contracting CAs or agencies?
    23. Is 30% an appropriate cap on the number of minutes handled by 
contract interpreters? Would a different percentage cap strike a more 
appropriate balance between the need for provider flexibility and the 
risk of waste, fraud, and abuse? Should the Commission direct the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to conduct a review of the 
level of the cap, e.g., three years after the effective date of the 
rules, to determine if the 30% limit continues to be necessary to 
prevent waste, fraud,

[[Page 75203]]

and abuse, or if adjustments are needed in light of experience?
    24. To enable enforcement of the cap and facilitate review of the 
need for or possible changes in the cap, the Commission proposes to 
require VRS providers to identify, in their monthly call reports, those 
CAs that are working on a contract basis. The Commission seeks comment 
on this proposal.
    25. The Commission also seeks comment on how its rules on at-home 
call-handling should be amended to address the use of contract CAs to 
work from home workstations. Should contract CAs be allowed to work 
from home? What amendments to the Commission's rules, if any, would be 
needed to ensure compliance with the Commission's at-home call-handling 
requirements? Because contract CAs are not employees of the VRS 
provider, should VRS providers be required to obtain written assurance 
from contract CAs that they will comply with each relevant requirement 
if they are allowed to work from home?
    26. International Calling Restrictions. The Commission proposes to 
modify the current restriction on TRS Fund compensation for calls 
placed to the United States by registered VRS users temporarily located 
abroad. The Commission proposes to modify the current notice 
requirement for such calls, to allow payment of compensation if the 
default VRS provider has been notified of the user's travel plans at 
any time before such a call is placed. In addition, the Commission 
proposes to codify the Declaratory Ruling in document FCC 22-51, by 
amending its rules to provide that such calls may be compensated if 
placed up to one year after a user leaves the United States.
    27. The Commission's rules currently prohibit TRS Fund compensation 
for any VRS calls placed to the United States from foreign IP 
addresses, except calls made by a U.S. resident who has pre-registered 
with his or her default provider prior to leaving the United States, 
during specified periods of time while on travel and from specified 
regions of travel, for which there is an accurate means of verifying 
the identity and location of such callers. In adopting this rule, the 
Commission stated, in a footnote, that ``specified periods of time'' 
was not intended to mean extended periods of time, which it defined as 
more than four weeks.
    28. In the Declaratory Ruling in document FCC 22-51, the Commission 
finds that interpreting this exception as limited to periods of no 
longer than four weeks imposes unnecessary restrictions on registered 
VRS users who are traveling internationally. That interpretation was 
adopted at a time when the VRS program was plagued by fraud and abuse, 
much of which involved international calls placed to the United States 
from foreign IP addresses. Since then, however, the anti-fraud measures 
adopted by the Commission appear to have been effective in suppressing 
illegal VRS calling. Further, in 2019, the Commission implemented the 
User Database, in which the identity of each registered VRS user is 
entered and verified in a central database. The vetting of each VRS 
user by the TRS Fund administrator provides additional assurance 
against payment of compensation for fraudulent VRS calls, including 
calls from unknown users located outside the United States.
    29. The Commission proposes to amend its rules to clarify that 
calls originating from international IP addresses may be compensated if 
placed within one year after a user leaves the United States. The 
proposed revision would: relax the current preregistration requirement 
to allow notification to the user's default VRS provider at any time 
prior to placing such calls; and clarify that such notifications may 
specify travel periods for up to one year. Under this proposed 
modification, the content of the required notification must include the 
specific regions of travel, the date of departure from the United 
States, and the approximate date when the individual intends to return 
to the United States. The Commission seeks comment on the proposal and 
its costs and benefits. Does the proposed revision, in conjunction with 
the existing User Database rules and other fraud prevention measures, 
sufficiently address the risk of waste, fraud and abuse that the 
current rule was intended to prevent?
    30. The Commission also notes that as a result of the pandemic 
waiver orders, the prohibition on calling the United States from abroad 
has been largely waived. Is there evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse in 
international calling during that period? If so, does such evidence 
warrant changes to this proposal?
    31. Statutory Authority. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
these proposed revisions are consistent with section 225 of the Act, 
which directs the Commission to ensure the availability of TRS to 
persons with hearing or speech disabilities ``in the United States.'' 
Other than requiring that compensable calls must either originate or 
terminate in the United States, the Commission has not formally 
determined what limits this statutory language places on TRS Fund 
support for calls placed by persons located abroad. However, the 
Commission requires that, to register for internet-based TRS, a 
consumer must establish that he or she is a U.S. resident, at least on 
a temporary basis. In the Declaratory Ruling in document FCC 22-51, the 
Commission finds that one year is long enough to cover most reasons why 
U.S. residents would be traveling abroad and is a reasonable 
``default'' time limit to prevent the use of TRS funds to support VRS 
calls by persons who can no longer be considered U.S. residents.
    32. The Commission seeks comment on codifying these determinations. 
Is one year an appropriate maximum duration? For example, is this 
period long enough to cover students studying abroad, employees on 
temporary work assignments abroad, or individuals on extended travel? 
Is a one-year limit, combined with other safeguards such as the User 
Database, an effective means of ensuring that the use of VRS by 
individuals located outside the United States is limited to U.S. 
residents who are only temporarily living abroad and have an intent to 
return to the United States?
    33. Extensions. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to 
allow extensions of the one-year limit. For example, should the 
Commission adopt an informal process for individuals to apply to the 
Disability Rights Office for an extension of the one-year maximum 
period, and be granted such an extension upon a showing that the 
individual's primary residence remains in the United States, even 
though the individual will remain abroad longer than one year?
    34. Proposed Exception for Military and U.S. Government Personnel. 
The Commission proposes an exception to the one-year maximum time 
period for calls to the United States by registered VRS users who are 
U.S. military personnel, federal government employees, or federal 
contractors (or their accompanying immediate family members) 
temporarily stationed outside the United States. Under this proposed 
exception, the content of the required notification to the default 
provider must include the specific regions of foreign assignment, the 
date of departure from the United States, the contemplated end date for 
the foreign assignment, and that the user (or a family member of the 
user) is a member of the military services, or is employed by a federal 
government agency or federal contractor, and is temporarily stationed 
outside the United States. If the user's foreign assignment does not 
contain an end date, the user may specify an end date that is one year 
after the date of

[[Page 75204]]

departure. The Commission proposes that this exception apply for the 
duration of the user's (or family member's) foreign assignment plus an 
additional time period following the end of such assignment to allow 
the user additional time to travel abroad and return to the United 
States. How long should the Commission allow as an additional time 
period beyond the end of the foreign assignment? The Commission also 
proposes that, if the foreign assignment is extended (or an assignment 
that does not contain an end date lasts more than one year), the user 
must notify his or her default provider of the new end date of the 
assignment to continue making VRS calls during such extension (plus the 
permitted additional time period). The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposed exception, including its costs and benefits. The Commission 
also proposes to apply this exception to individuals placing calls to 
the United States from U.S. military and government organizations with 
enterprise VRS registrations.
    35. Should the scope or conditions of this proposed exception be 
modified? For example, are there other categories of users who should 
be included in the exception? In the case of lengthy foreign 
assignments, how should providers (and indirectly the Fund 
administrator) be made aware of the status of such users--via an ad hoc 
notice from the user, from the relay official or other responsible 
individual specified in an enterprise registration, see 47 CFR 
64.611(a)(6)(ii)(A), or in some other way? Should confirmation of the 
user's eligibility for this exception be required?

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    36. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended, the Commission has prepared the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed 
in this document. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadline for comments provided in this document.
    37. Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules. The Commission 
proposes to increase from 50% to 80% the cap on call minutes that can 
be handled by VRS communications assistants from home work stations, 
eliminate the three-year experience requirement for at-home VRS CAs, 
and allow VRS providers to contract for interpretation services from 
entities that are not also certified VRS providers for up to 30% of 
their monthly call minutes. These changes would increase the pool of 
available VRS CAs and give VRS providers more flexibility in ensuring 
that they have sufficient staff to meet the demand from VRS users, 
which can fluctuate during a day and over longer periods of time. The 
Commission also proposes to allow compensation from the TRS Fund for 
VRS calls originating from international IP addresses to the United 
States for up to one year while the user is on travel, and for the 
duration of their required service overseas for United States miliary 
personnel and federal government works and contractors who are 
stationed abroad, including their immediate family members living with 
them.
    38. Legal Basis. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is 
contained in sections 1, 2, and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 225.
    39. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities 
Impacted. If the proposed rules are adopted, the rules will affect the 
obligations of Video Relay Service providers. These services can be 
included within the broad economic category of All Other 
Telecommunications.
    40. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements. The Commission's existing rules require VRS providers to 
report on the use of CAs utilizing at-home work stations. The proposed 
rule would increase from 50% to 80% the percentage of a VRS provider's 
monthly call minutes that may be handled by at-home CAs. VRS providers 
who rely on at-home CAs would have to separately track the monthly call 
minutes handled by those CAs.
    41. The Commission proposes to allow VRS providers to employ 
contract CAs and to permit contract CAs to handle up to 30% of a 
provider's total monthly call minutes. VRS providers may have to 
separately track call minutes handled by contract CAs. If a VRS 
provider employs contract CAs, it may be required to, upon request, 
make available to the Commission and the TRS Fund administrator written 
copies of such contracts. VRS providers who employ contract CAs also 
may be required to submit reports on such personnel at regular 
intervals.
    42. The Commission proposes to allow VRS users to make calls to the 
United States from international locations for up to one year while on 
travel and require VRS users to notify their default VRS providers of 
their travel plans before they start making such calls. The Commission 
also proposes to allow federal employees, contractors, and their 
immediate family members to make VRS calls from international locations 
for the length of their service while stationed abroad plus up to an 
additional 90 days to allow for travel while returning to the United 
States after such individuals notify their default VRS provider of 
where they are stationed and the length of their service tour. New or 
modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance obligations may 
be imposed on VRS providers in association with tracking VRS users 
while on international travel.
    43. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered. Participation in the at-home 
call-handling program would continue to be optional for VRS providers. 
The Commission is not proposing any new requirements that would 
increase regulatory requirements beyond those that are already required 
as part of the at-home call-handling program. The existing and proposed 
requirements would apply equally to all VRS providers and are necessary 
to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund by ensuring that CAs 
are subject to proper supervision and accountability. To the extent 
there are differences in operating costs resulting from economies of 
scale, those costs are reflected in the different rate structures 
applicable to large and small VRS providers.
    44. The proposal to permit VRS providers to hire contract CAs is 
designed to increase the pool of American Sign Language interpreters 
available and willing to work as VRS CAs. Hiring contract CAs would be 
optional for VRS providers. Those VRS providers that choose to hire 
contract CAs may be subject to certain reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other obligations associated with the hiring of such personnel. The 
proposed requirements would apply equally to all VRS providers using 
contract CAs and are necessary to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of 
the TRS Fund. 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.
    45. The proposal to modify from four weeks to one year the time 
period during which VRS users may make calls to the United States from 
international locations is designed to provide more flexibility to VRS 
users and bring the specified period of time in line with the 
Commission's updated interpretation of

[[Page 75205]]

this rule. Similarly, the Commission is proposing to allow federal 
military, employees, and contractors, and their immediate family 
members to make international VRS calls to the United States for the 
time period of their tour of duty abroad plus an additional 90 days to 
allow for travel back to the United States. The Commission is not 
proposing any new requirements that would increase regulatory 
requirements beyond those that are already required of VRS providers 
handling international calls. The existing and proposed requirements 
would apply equally to all VRS providers and are necessary to prevent 
waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund by ensuring that only U.S. 
residents are permitted to make VRS calls to the United States from 
abroad. 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.
    46. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the 
Commission's Proposals. None.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The Commission 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).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications, 
Telecommunications relay services.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Regulations

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

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 
276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 617, 620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise 
noted; Public Law 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.

0
2. Amend Sec.  64.604 by revising paragraphs (a)(7), (b)(8)(i)(A), (B), 
and (ii)(A), and (c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.604  Mandatory minimum standards.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (7) International calls.
    (i) VRS calls that originate from an international IP address will 
not be compensated, except in accordance with this section. For 
purposes of this section, an international IP address is defined as one 
that indicates that the individual initiating the call is located 
outside the United States and its territories.
    (ii) A VRS provider may seek TRS Fund compensation for VRS calls 
placed to the United States by a United States resident who is a 
registered VRS user, if:
    (A) Such calls are placed one year or less after the VRS user 
departs the United States; and
    (B) At any time prior to placing such calls, the VRS user notifies 
the user's default provider of the specific region(s) of travel, the 
date of departure from the United States, and the intended date of 
return to the United States.
    (iii) A registered VRS user may request approval from the 
Commission's Disability Rights Office for an extension of the one-year 
international calling period. Such request shall include a showing that 
the user's primary residence remains in the United States, even though 
the user will remain outside the United States longer than one year. 
Upon approval of such an extension, the user shall notify the user's 
default VRS provider of such change, and the provider may seek 
compensation for international calls placed by the user through the end 
of such extended return date.
    (iv) A VRS provider may seek TRS Fund compensation for VRS calls 
placed to the United States, pursuant to an individual or enterprise 
VRS registration, by a United States resident who is a United States 
military or federal government employee or contractor temporarily 
stationed abroad, or an immediate family member of such employee or 
contractor, if:
    (A) Such calls are placed either during the period of such foreign 
assignment or within 90 days after the end date of such foreign 
assignment; and
    (B) At any time prior to placing such calls, the registered VRS 
user, or the Relay official or other responsible individual designated 
in an enterprise registration, notifies the default VRS provider of the 
specific regions of foreign assignment, the date of departure from the 
United States, and the intended end date of the foreign assignment, and 
that the user (or an immediate family member of the user) is a United 
States military or federal employee or contractor, and is temporarily 
stationed outside the United States. If the foreign assignment is 
extended, the registered VRS user, or the Relay official or other 
responsible individual designated in an enterprise registration, shall 
notify the default VRS provider of the new end date of such foreign 
assignment and of any change of the region where the user is stationed.
    (C) For purposes of this section, an ``immediate family member'' is 
a parent, spouse, or child of a United States military or federal 
government employee or contractor.
    (D) If the intended end date of the foreign assignment is not known 
as of the time of notification to the default VRS provider, the 
notification may specify one-year from the date of departure from the 
United States as the end date.
    (b) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Eighty percent (80%) of a VRS provider's total minutes for 
which compensation is paid in that month; or
    (B) Eighty percent (80%) of the provider's average projected 
monthly conversation minutes for the calendar year, according to the 
projections most recently filed with the TRS Fund administrator.
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Allow a CA to work at home only if the CA is a qualified 
interpreter who has the experience, skills, and knowledge necessary to 
effectively interpret VRS calls without in-person supervision, has 
learned the provider's protocols for at-home call handling, and 
understands and follows the TRS mandatory minimum standards set out in 
this section; and
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (N) * * *
    (1) * * *

[[Page 75206]]

    (iii) Contracting of call center functions. An eligible VRS 
provider shall not contract with or otherwise authorize any third party 
to provide call center functions (including call distribution, call 
routing, call setup, mapping, call features, billing, and registration, 
but not including interpretation services) on its behalf, unless that 
authorized third party also is an eligible provider. An eligible VRS 
provider may contract with third parties to provide interpretation 
services for up to a maximum of the greater of: thirty percent (30%) of 
a VRS provider's total minutes for which compensation is paid in that 
month; or thirty percent (30%) of the provider's average projected 
monthly conversation minutes for the calendar year, according to the 
projections most recently filed with the TRS Fund administrator. A VRS 
provider that contracts for interpretation services shall submit a 
written report every six months that identifies each entity with which 
it contracted for interpretation services and the number of 
conversation minutes handled by each such contractor. Such reports 
shall be submitted on August 1 covering the six months from January 
through June and February 1 covering the six months from July through 
December, and shall be included with the semi-annual call center 
reports required by section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(2) of this chapter.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-25341 Filed 12-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P