[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 51 (Thursday, March 14, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18586-18589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05461]



[[Page 18586]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51; FCC 23-78; FR ID 206954]


Video Relay Service Compensation

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) 
seeks comment on amending its rules on compensation from the 
Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund for providers of Video 
Relay Service (VRS) to address a number of special situations. The 
Commission proposes to allow VRS providers additional compensation for 
responding to a consumer's justified request that a Deaf Interpreter be 
added to a call. The Commission believes that providing additional 
compensation for such calls will advance the statutory objective to 
make functionally equivalent TRS available. The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether the TRS Fund should support: other methods of 
communication with eligible TRS users, such as cued language, as a 
specialized form of VRS; the routing of VRS calls to a Communication 
Assistant (CA) with a particular skill set or knowledge of a specific 
subject matter; calls between a VRS user who is deafblind and another 
VRS user; and, voice carry over (VCO) calls between a TRS user who is 
deafblind and a hearing user.

DATES: Comments are due April 15, 2024. Reply comments are due April 
29, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 03-123 
and 10-51 by the following method:
    Federal Communications Commission's website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    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: Joshua Mendelsohn, Disability Rights 
Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at 202-559-7304, or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 23-78, adopted on 
September 22, 2023, released on September 28, 2023, in CG Docket Nos. 
03-123 and 10-51. The full text of document FCC 23-78 is available for 
public inspection and copying via the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS).
    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the 
internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and one copy of each filing.
    Filings can be sent 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.
    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express 
Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and 
Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 
20554.
    Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission 
no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a 
temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of 
individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    People with Disabilities: 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.
    Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing 
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires 
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a 
brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary 
of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
    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, 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

    Section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the 
Act), requires the Commission to ensure the availability of TRS to 
persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind or who have speech 
disabilities, to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner. 
47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1). TRS are defined as telephone transmission services 
enabling such persons to communicate by wire or radio in a

[[Page 18587]]

manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of a hearing 
individual who does not have a speech disability to communicate using 
voice communication services. 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3). VRS, a relay service 
that allows people with hearing or speech disabilities who use sign 
language to communicate with voice telephone users through video 
equipment, is supported entirely by the TRS Fund. VRS providers are 
compensated for the reasonable costs of providing VRS in accordance 
with payment formulas approved by the Commission.

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In document FCC 23-78, the Commission seeks further comment on 
whether, and under what circumstances, the Commission should provide 
additional compensation for specific types of specialized service 
identified by commenters, and how such compensation should be 
structured.
    Deaf Interpreters. The Commission seeks comment on whether VRS 
providers should receive additional compensation for responding to a 
consumer's justified request that a Deaf Interpreter be added to a 
call. According to the Registry for Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. 
(RID), a Certified Deaf Interpreter is a holder of a certification that 
the individual is deaf or hard of hearing, possesses native or near 
native fluency in American Sign Language (ASL), has demonstrated 
knowledge and understanding of interpreting, deafness, the deaf 
community, and deaf culture, and has specialized training or experience 
in the use of tools to enhance communication. RID adds that Certified 
Deaf Interpreters are recommended for assignments where an interpreter 
who is deaf or hard of hearing would be beneficial, such as when the 
communication mode of an individual who is deaf is so unique that it 
cannot be adequately accessed by interpreters who are hearing. The 
record indicates that such interpreters are sometimes needed on VRS 
calls to enable functionally equivalent communication in ASL. For 
example, a commenter states that Deaf Interpreters provide necessary 
support to consumers with limited English or ASL proficiency, or 
cognitive or motor disabilities. It is also apparent that providing a 
Deaf Interpreter adds significantly to the cost of handling a VRS call 
where such interpreters are required. The Commission therefore believes 
that providing additional compensation for such calls will advance the 
objective of section 225 to make functionally equivalent TRS available. 
The Commission also believes such additional compensation can be 
implemented relatively efficiently, without adding administrative 
burdens disproportionate to the resulting benefits. The Commission 
seeks comment on its proposal and these underlying assumptions.
    As a threshold matter, the Commission seeks comment on the extent 
to which Deaf Interpreters (whether ``Certified'' or not) are currently 
being used in VRS. What percentage of a VRS provider's calls and 
minutes involve the provision of such additional assistance? How often 
are Certified Deaf Interpreters requested, and how often are such 
requests granted? Is there evidence that VRS providers are failing to 
provide a Certified Deaf Interpreter when such assistance is warranted? 
If so, what concerns lead VRS providers to withhold such assistance--
given that the Commission's allowable cost criteria do not exclude the 
costs of such assistance from allowable costs that may be subject to 
TRS Fund support?
    If additional compensation is provided for the use of Certified 
Deaf Interpreters, what criteria should be applied to determine when 
such additional compensation is paid? Should the Commission adopt RID's 
description as a definition for Certified Deaf Interpreter? Should that 
definition be modified or supplemented with other pertinent 
information? Should the Commission require that persons providing such 
assistance be certified, and if so, what bodies should be deemed 
qualified to issue such certifications? How should the Commission 
define the occasions when a Certified Deaf Interpreter is needed for a 
VRS call? For example, should the Commission adopt a commenter's 
suggested criterion, authorizing additional compensation when a 
Certified Deaf Interpreter is needed to provide necessary support to 
consumers with limited English or ASL proficiency, or cognitive or 
motor disabilities, or should different or more specific criteria be 
applicable? The Commission also seeks comment on the costs of providing 
this additional service, and how additional compensation should be 
determined. What additional amount, if any, would be necessary to 
incentivize providers to make this service available when needed? 
Alternatively, should the provision of Certified Deaf Interpreters when 
needed be mandatory for all VRS providers? The Commission also seeks 
comment on any changes to the call detail reporting requirements that 
may be needed to facilitate reporting calls that include Deaf 
Interpreters and to allow the TRS Fund administrator to validate those 
calls for compensation.
    Interpreting Other Than ASL. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether other methods of communication with eligible TRS users, such as 
cued language, should be authorized for compensation as a specialized 
form of VRS. How many people currently use cued language? To what 
extent could such a service be effectively offered by VRS providers, 
and what are the relevant additional costs that would be incurred to 
provide such a service? If authorized, how should the additional 
reasonable costs of such a service be determined for the purpose of 
setting an appropriate amount of additional compensation?
    Skills-based Interpreting. The Commission further seeks comment on 
whether VRS providers should receive additional compensation for 
responding to a VRS user's request to have a call routed to a CA with 
particular skill sets--such as particular spoken-language abilities, 
interpreting, transliteration, and signing styles and skills, or 
knowledge of specific subject matters, such as medicine, law, or 
technology. To what extent would the provision of skills-based 
interpreting enable functionally equivalent communications? To what 
extent could such a service be effectively offered by VRS providers, 
and what are the relevant additional costs that would be incurred to 
provide such a service? Would costs vary depending on the type of skill 
set? How should the costs for differing skill sets be determined for 
setting an appropriate amount of additional compensation? How could the 
additional costs be verified?
    If additional compensation is provided, what criteria should be 
applied to determine when such compensation is paid? What criteria 
should be met to determine that a CA has a particular skill set, and 
how should the Commission verify that such CAs provided such skills 
during a call? How should the Commission verify that the skills-based 
interpreting improved the call quality beyond what the user would have 
received from an interpreter without the identified skill set? The 
Commission also seeks comment on any changes to the call detail 
reporting requirements that may be needed to facilitate reporting calls 
that include skills-based interpreters and to allow the TRS Fund 
administrator to validate those calls for compensation.
    Compensable Calls for VRS Users Who Are Deafblind. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether the TRS Fund should support calls between a

[[Page 18588]]

VRS user who is deafblind and another VRS user. Do such calls require 
the participation of a CA for functionally equivalent communication? 
The Commission believes that during such a call, the VRS user who is 
deafblind would be signing to the other VRS user on the call and would 
receive a typed communication from the CA of the signed communication 
from the other VRS user. What are the costs and benefits of allowing 
such calls to be compensable from the TRS Fund? What changes, if any, 
would need to be implemented to a VRS provider's platform, to the TRS 
Numbering database, and to call details records to allow such calls to 
be compensated when a CA is needed? Should the Compensation Additive 
for calls from individuals who are deafblind apply to such calls? Or 
should an alternative compensation rate be considered for such calls? 
What rules, if any, would need to be revised or adopted to permit such 
calls to be compensable?
    Voice Carry Over Calls. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether voice carry over (VCO) calls between a TRS user who is 
deafblind and a hearing user should be compensable from the TRS Fund. 
In such a call, where the individual who is deafblind is using their 
voice, rather than ASL, the role of the CA is limited to typing the 
voiced communications of the other party to the call. The Commission 
seeks comment on how to classify such calls within the TRS program. On 
its face, such a call does not seem to be classifiable as VRS because 
no party is using ASL or other form of sign language. Should such a 
call be classified as an internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service 
(IP CTS) call or a VCO IP Relay call? What are the costs and benefits 
to finding such calls to be compensable? Would permitting such calls 
allow individuals who are deafblind that use ASL, their own voice, and 
Braille to complete all of their calls to hearing individuals on one 
TRS platform? Would it be an inefficient use of available VRS CAs, if 
no ASL is used on the call? Are there technological alternatives 
available on VRS platforms, such as voice-to-Real Time Text (RTT) or 
captioning using automatic speech recognition that would allow the 
other party to the call to have their voice transcribed and converted 
to braille without the presence of a VRS CA? If so, should such calls 
be considered point-to-point video calls on a VRS platform or should it 
be considered a compensable relay call, and if so, what compensation 
rate should apply to such calls?
    Digital Equity and Inclusion. Finally, the Commission, as part of 
its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including 
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural 
or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically 
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty 
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and 
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues 
discussed. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how these 
proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, 
inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's 
relevant legal authority.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    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.
    Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules. Under section 225 
of the Communications Act, as amended, the Commission is tasked with 
ensuring that TRS are available to the extent possible and in the most 
efficient manner to individuals with disabilities. The Commission seeks 
comment on additional compensation for VRS specialized services, 
including the use of Certified Deaf Interpreters, other methods of 
communications, such as cued speech, and skills-based interpreting. The 
Commission proposes adding an incentive per minute compensation amount 
to the compensation levels to provide these services and seeks comment 
on alternative approaches for providing additional compensation. The 
incentive would be added to the per-minute compensation rate that the 
provider is eligible to receive for the provisioning of VRS. In 
considering these proposals, the Commission seeks to ensure the 
availability of functionally equivalent VRS, provided in the most 
efficient manner, and ensure that the Commission's regulations 
encourage the use of existing technology and do not discourage or 
impair the development of improved technology. Providing compensation 
for VRS specialized services with added per-minute rates, the 
Commission expects to encourage the provisioning of these services to 
help ensure that individuals who need services beyond traditional VRS 
have access to the communications network in a manner that is 
functionally equivalent. The compensation proposal would allow 
providers to offer and improve the availability of these specialized 
services over time. The proposed limitations on the amount of 
compensation and the conditions for receiving the compensation would 
ensure that VRS with specialized services is offered in the most 
efficient manner.
    The Commission also seeks comment on the need for rule changes to 
allow communications assistants (CA) to be present on calls between VRS 
users who are deafblind and another VRS user, as well as the 
compensability of voice carry over calls for VRS users who are 
deafblind. Addressing these contours of compensability and eligibility 
will help ensure that the provision of services to individuals who are 
deafblind are functionally equivalent and offered in the most efficient 
manner.
    Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 
1, 2, and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
151, 152 and 225.
    Small Entities Impacted. The proposals will affect obligations of 
VRS providers. These services can be included within the broad economic 
category of All Other Telecommunications.
    Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements. In assessing the cost of compliance for small entities, 
at this time the Commission is unable to quantify the cost of 
compliance with any of the potential rule changes that may be adopted. 
Additionally, the Commission is currently not in a position to 
determine whether, if adopted, the proposals and matters upon which the 
Commission seeks comment will require small entities to hire 
professionals to comply. However, as the proposed rules are essentially 
an expansion of an existing framework used by VRS providers, the 
Commission does not anticipate that small entities will be required to 
hire professionals to comply with any rule modifications the Commission 
ultimately adopts. The Commission expects the information received in 
comments, including any requested cost information, will help the 
Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance issues, including 
costs, that may impact small entities.
    Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered. The

[[Page 18589]]

Commission is taking steps to minimize the economic impact on small 
entities and is considering significant alternatives by proposing and 
seeking alternative proposals for providing compensation for VRS 
specialized services. The Commission will consider these proposals to 
maintain and improve choice among suppliers for VRS users using 
specialized services; help maintain functionally equivalent service; 
and maintain an efficient VRS market over the long term in accordance 
with the Commission's statutory obligations. For example, in 
considering the proposal to allow additional compensation for 
specialized services, the Commission's intent is to help ensure that 
VRS is provided in a manner that would allow all individuals with 
disabilities to have the ability to engage in functionally equivalent 
communications while recognizing the additional costs small and other 
providers will encounter to provision these services. Further, allowing 
such compensation is an alternative to adopting and imposing a specific 
requirement for VRS providers to provide such services and would help 
ensure specialized services are voluntarily offered and minimize the 
cost to providers by allowing providers the opportunity to recover 
costs incurred in the provision of such services beyond the cost of 
providing traditional VRS. In the alternative, the Commission could 
adopt a specific mandate for the provision of these VRS specialized 
services or decline to allow additional compensation, but continue to 
allow providers to offer specialized services at the prevailing VRS 
compensation level. The Commission seeks comment on the effect these 
proposals will have on VRS providers that provision these specialized 
services.
    The Commission seeks comment from all interested parties. Small 
entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any 
specific concerns they may have with the proposals. The Commission 
expects to more fully consider the economic impact on small entities, 
based on any comments received, prior to reaching its final conclusions 
and adopting final rules in this proceeding.
    Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the 
Commission's Proposals. None.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains proposed modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the OMB to 
comment on the information collection requirements proposed in this 
document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 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).

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-05461 Filed 3-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P