Rule2022-25294
TRS Fund Contributions
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 25, 2022
Effective
December 27, 2022
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) modifies the cost recovery rules for funding two forms of internet-based telecommunications relay services (TRS)--video relay service (VRS) and internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay). The Commission expands the Interstate TRS Fund (TRS Fund or Fund) contribution base for support of those services to include intrastate as well as interstate end-user revenues of TRS Fund contributors. This action will ensure fair treatment of intrastate and interstate communications services and users in the funding of relay services.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72409-72413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25294]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, 12-38; FCC 22-49; FR ID 114537]
TRS Fund Contributions
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) modifies
the cost recovery rules for funding two forms of internet-based
telecommunications relay services (TRS)--video relay service (VRS) and
internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay). The Commission expands the
Interstate TRS Fund (TRS Fund or Fund) contribution base for support of
those services to include intrastate as well as interstate end-user
revenues of TRS Fund contributors. This action will ensure fair
treatment of intrastate and interstate communications services and
users in the funding of relay services.
DATES:
Effective date: This rule is effective December 27, 2022.
Compliance date: July 1, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Scott, Disability Rights
Office, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-1264 or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#efa2868c878e8a83c1bc8c809b9baf898c8cc1888099"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="430e2a202b22262f6d10202c3737032520206d242c35">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Report and Order,
document FCC 22-49, adopted June 26, 2022, released June 30, 2022, in
CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, and 12-38. The Commission previously
sought comment on these issues in Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service
Program, Misuse of internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, and 12-38,
FCC 20-161, published at 86 FR 14859, March 19, 2021. To request
materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille,
large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f191c1c4a4f4b3f191c1c51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a0c09095f5a5e2a0c0909440d051c">[email protected]</span></a>, or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202) 418-0530 (voice).
Synopsis
1. Background. Section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the Act), requires the Commission to ensure that both
``interstate and intrastate'' TRS are available ``to the extent
possible and in the most efficient manner.'' 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1). The
Act directs the Commission to adopt, administer, and enforce
regulations governing the provision of interstate and intrastate TRS,
including rules on cost separation, which ``shall generally provide''
that interstate TRS costs are recovered from all subscribers for every
interstate service and intrastate TRS costs are recovered from the
intrastate jurisdiction. The Act also authorizes, but does not require,
the establishment of state-administered TRS programs, subject to
approval by the Commission. Currently, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and several United States territories have TRS programs
approved by the Commission. For ease of reference, The Commission
refers to all state and territory TRS programs as state TRS programs.
The Commission requires that state TRS programs include text-based TRS
and speech-to-speech relay (STS).
2. To provide for the recovery of interstate TRS costs, the
Commission established the interstate TRS Fund in 1993.
Telecommunications carriers, as well as providers of interconnected and
non-interconnected voice-over-internet-Protocol (VoIP) service, are
required to contribute to the TRS Fund, on a quarterly basis, a
specified percentage of their end-user revenues for the prior year.
Providers of international as well as interstate services are currently
required to contribute to the TRS Fund. For ease of reference, the
Commission uses the term ``interstate'' to mean ``interstate and
international.''
3. Although initially limited to supporting interstate TRS, the
scope of the TRS Fund changed beginning in 2000, as the Commission
authorized internet-based forms of TRS--VRS, IP Relay, and internet
Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS). VRS is a form of TRS
that enables people with hearing or speech disabilities who use sign
language to make telephone calls over broadband with a videophone. IP
Relay is a form of TRS that permits an individual with a hearing or a
speech disability to communicate in text using an internet Protocol-
enabled device via the internet. IP CTS is a form of TRS that permits
an individual who can speak but who has difficulty hearing over the
telephone to use a telephone and an internet Protocol-enabled device
via the internet to simultaneously listen to the other party and read
captions of what the other party is saying.
4. When the Commission first authorized use of internet-based forms
of TRS, it decided, as an interim measure to speed the development of
these services, that all of the costs of providing internet-based TRS
should be paid by contributors to the TRS Fund, based only on their
interstate end-user revenues. This approach was deemed preferable to
burdening state relay programs with the responsibility to fund and
supervise, on a state-by-state basis, the provision of intrastate relay
services via these nascent technologies. In those proceedings, the
Commission did not consider the alternative, adopted here, of expanding
the TRS Fund contribution base to include intrastate end-user revenues.
However, the Commission stated an intention to revisit these interim
funding arrangements in the future.
5. In 2019, the Commission revisited the funding arrangement for
one form of internet-based TRS, IP CTS. Recognizing that the
``interim'' funding mechanism for IP CTS disproportionately burdens
providers and users of interstate services, the Commission concluded it
was no longer justifiable. Therefore, the Commission amended its rules
to expand the TRS Fund contribution base for that service to include
intrastate as well as interstate end-user revenues. TRS Fund
Contributions, Document FCC 19-118, published at 85 FR 462, January 6,
2020 (IP CTS Contributions Order).
6. Discussion. The Commission amends its rules to provide that TRS
Fund contributions for the support of VRS and IP Relay shall be
calculated based on the total interstate and intrastate end-user
revenues of each telecommunications carrier and VoIP service provider.
The Commission thereby replaces ``interim'' funding measures adopted
nearly two decades ago. The record supports the Commission's conclusion
that the rules it adopts will provide a fair allocation of TRS Fund
contribution obligations among those entities subject to its TRS
funding authority. The total contributions needed to support the TRS
Fund will not be affected, but the Commission anticipates that
(assuming there is no unrelated change in the TRS Fund budget for
supporting these
[[Page 72410]]
services) TRS Fund contributions paid as a percentage of interstate
end-user revenues for the support of VRS and IP Relay will decline by
approximately 55%.
7. The Commission adopts this rule change for the reasons set forth
in the NPRM. First, the current funding arrangements for VRS and IP
Relay were authorized some 20 years ago as interim measures to speed
the development of these services, and that purpose has been achieved.
VRS is the second largest TRS program, and IP Relay's annual minutes
exceed the annual TRS Fund-supported minutes of all state TRS programs
combined.
8. Second, the Commission's action corrects the inherent inequity
of the current funding arrangements. VRS and IP Relay, which
cumulatively require close to $540 million in TRS Fund backing, are
supported entirely from interstate end-user telecommunications and VoIP
revenues, with 0% contribution from intrastate revenues. By contrast,
approximately 76% of the costs of relay services provided through state
TRS programs are funded from intrastate sources, and, since the
Commission's 2019 IP CTS funding reforms were implemented,
approximately 55% of IP CTS costs are funded from intrastate end-user
revenues. The Commission notes that contributions to support IP CTS are
divided between interstate and intrastate sources in the same
percentages as the reported end-user revenue. According to the 2021 USF
Monitoring Report, approximately 55% of total end-user
telecommunications and interconnected VoIP revenues are intrastate, and
45% are interstate. Although the contribution base for TRS includes
non-interconnected VoIP end-user revenues, while the USF contribution
base does not, the inclusion of this relatively small category is
unlikely to have a major impact on the Commission's estimate of the
relative percentages of intrastate and interstate end-user revenues in
the TRS contribution base.
9. As a result, the burden of supporting VRS and IP Relay has
widely disparate impacts on TRS Fund contributors, based solely on the
extent of interstate usage of their services. For TRS Fund Year 2022-
23, for example, the administrator has recommended a contribution
factor of 0.01125, meaning that a provider of interstate-only services
must contribute approximately 1.11% of its total annual end-user
revenues to support VRS and IP Relay. By contrast, the average TRS Fund
contributor pays only 0.50% of its total annual end-user revenues to
support those services. And providers of intrastate-only services
contribute nothing, despite the availability of VRS and IP Relay for
intrastate as well as interstate calling.
10. Third, recovering VRS and IP Relay costs based on total end-
user revenues reduces the likelihood of distortions in the pricing of
interstate and intrastate voice services due to inaccurate market
signals regarding their relative costs. As the Commission has
recognized in various contexts, applying artificial regulatory
distinctions or other disparate treatment to providers of similar
services may create unintended market distortions, which can reduce the
effectiveness of competition in ensuring efficient pricing of
telecommunications services.
11. Fourth, the total amount of end-user revenues from which TRS
Fund contributions can be drawn has been steadily decreasing over time,
worsening the impact of the current funding arrangement on interstate
service providers and users and increasing any resulting distortions in
the pricing of intrastate and interstate service. Expanding
contributions to support VRS and IP Relay to encompass intrastate as
well as interstate revenues may strengthen the sustainability of these
services.
12. Fifth, no state TRS program offers VRS or IP Relay, and there
continue to be impediments to any state successfully administering and
funding intrastate VRS and IP Relay. Accordingly, the Commission has no
reason to believe that encouraging or mandating state program support
of VRS and IP Relay would be a practical alternative. The Commission
notes that its action today does not preclude any state from seeking
certification to provide VRS or IP Relay, but given the lack of
indication in the record that any state agency intends to do so, the
Commission need not address at this time what changes in funding
arrangements could be appropriate in the event of such a change in
state policies.
13. Finally, no party has identified any differences between VRS
and IP Relay, on the one hand, and IP CTS, on the other, that would
support maintaining different funding arrangements for these services.
14. Legal Authority. The Commission finds that it has statutory
authority to include the intrastate end-user revenues of
telecommunications carriers and VoIP service providers in the
calculation of TRS Fund contributions to support VRS and IP Relay.
Section 225 of the Act expressly directs the Commission to ensure that
both interstate and intrastate TRS are available and grants the
Commission broad authority to establish regulations governing both
interstate and intrastate TRS, including TRS cost recovery. Further,
the Act affords the Commission, without limitation, ``the same
authority, power, and functions with respect to common carriers engaged
in intrastate communication as the Commission has in administering and
enforcing the provisions of this [Act] with respect to any common
carrier engaged in interstate communication.'' 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(2). In
addition, section 715 of the Act requires that VoIP service providers
``participate in and contribute to the Telecommunications Relay
Services Fund . . . in a manner prescribed by the Commission . . .
consistent with and comparable to the obligations of other contributors
to such Fund.'' 47 U.S.C. 616. The Commission also notes that Congress
expressly carved out section 225 of the Act from the Act's general
reservation of state authority over intrastate communications, and that
responsibility for administering TRS is shared with the states only to
the extent that a state applies for and receives Commission approval to
exercise such authority. The Commission concludes that, where a form of
TRS is not offered in state TRS programs, the Commission may adopt
reasonable measures to ensure equitably distributed contributions from
all interstate and intrastate service providers subject to the
Commission's authority under sections 225 and 715 of the Act.
15. To collect TRS Fund contributions for VRS and IP Relay from
intrastate and interstate end-user revenues, the administrator will
follow the same procedure currently used for IP CTS, except that a
single contribution factor will be used to determine the total level of
support required for all three services. The interstate-only
contribution factor will continue to be used, but only to support the
interstate costs of services provided in state TRS programs (currently
TTY-based TRS, STS, and non-internet-based CTS). The TRS Fund
administrator will determine a revenue requirement for the three
services, based on the applicable compensation formulas and projected
demand for each service. Next, the TRS Fund administrator will compute
a TRS Fund contribution factor for the three services, by dividing the
revenue requirement by the total intrastate and interstate end-user
revenues reported by TRS Fund contributors on Forms 499-A.
16. This approach is simple and feasible to administer, requires
only
[[Page 72411]]
minor modification of our rules, and distributes the funding obligation
among TRS Fund contributors in a reasonably equitable manner, with each
contributor paying the same percentage of its total interstate and
intrastate end-user revenues for support of internet-based TRS.
Further, this approach does not require jurisdictional separation of
TRS costs. As under the current funding mechanism for VRS and IP Relay,
no cost separation is needed because all costs of the service will be
supported by the TRS Fund, and the amounts paid by each Fund
contributor are unaffected by the proportion of TRS costs that might be
deemed interstate or intrastate. Accordingly, the Commission finds it
unnecessary to refer this matter to a Federal-State Joint Board.
17. Economic Impact. The Commission adopts its tentative conclusion
that the benefits of more efficient production and consumption exceed
the costs of the proposed rule change. Broadening the TRS funding base
will tend to reduce any current distortions in the relative prices of
intrastate and interstate telecommunications and VoIP services,
increasing economic efficiency by more accurately signaling relative
costs to purchasers, which in turn will generate more efficient
provider investment signals.
18. Further, this transfer results in no net increase in
contributions for TRS Fund contributors as a whole. Expanding the TRS
Fund contribution base for VRS and IP Relay to include intrastate
revenues will reduce the TRS funding contributions paid by providers of
interstate telecommunications and VoIP services and concomitantly
increase the contributions paid by providers of intrastate services. To
the extent this would occur, it is not a cost of the Commission's rule
change, but a transfer of the contribution burden from some providers
and their customers to other providers and their customers. As an
example, based on the administrator's recommended budget for TRS Fund
Year 2022-23, approximately 55% of TRS Fund expenditures on VRS and IP
Relay in 2022-23, or $297 million--which under the existing rules would
be collected from contributors' interstate end-user revenues--will be
collected from intrastate end-user revenues instead. This represents a
$297 million transfer in the incidence of TRS Fund contributions from
the interstate to the intrastate jurisdiction, but the total funding
requirement is unaffected. In addition, the record does not indicate
that any transitional costs of this transfer, which the Commission
mitigates by extending the implementation timeline, as discussed
further below, could be so substantial as to outweigh the long-lasting
efficiency benefits described above.
19. The Commission is cognizant that this change will have
disparate impacts on carriers and service providers, as each provider's
contribution may be adjusted up or down depending on the percentage of
their end-user revenues that is classified as intrastate. NTCA--The
Rural Broadband Association suggests that such changes may have
``inequitable'' effects on some rural service providers and customers,
pointing out that the analogous change in IP CTS funding adopted in
2019 led to significant increases in contribution obligations for rural
providers. However, NTCA does not dispute that such changes are
necessary to correct more pervasive, longstanding inequities in TRS
funding, or that those service providers who now face increased costs--
as a result of our action to equalize each contributor's percentage
contribution from total end-user revenues--have derived offsetting
benefits over the preceding two decades, by paying a much lower than
average share of their total end-user revenues to support TRS. While
the Commission is mindful of the increased contribution cost that some
entities must bear, it does not consider such increases inequitable.
Therefore, the Commission denies NTCA's request to adjust the
contribution formula for rural service providers to limit their
required contributions from intrastate end-user revenues. The
Commission also notes that NTCA has not provided specific evidence that
any provider would be unable to recover such increased costs. Further,
given that the cost of TRS Fund support for VRS and IP Relay is
approximately 25% lower than for IP CTS, the Commission expects the net
effect on any provider's total TRS Fund contribution to be less
burdensome than the impact of the analogous rule change adopted in 2019
with regard to IP CTS funding.
20. The Commission does not address NTCA's request for unspecified
changes in access charge cost recovery rules, which is outside the
scope of this proceeding and, in any event, does not provide a specific
description of either the perceived problem or a proposed solution.
After the Commission adopted a cap on all switched access rate elements
in 2011, the Wireline Competition Bureau clarified, pursuant to its
delegated authority, how incumbent local exchange carriers may recover
increases in TRS Fund contribution costs and waived applicable rules to
facilitate such cost recovery. To the extent that any service provider
believes the access charge rules unreasonably hinder its recovery of
TRS Fund contribution costs, the Commission notes that specific
concerns may be brought to the Commission's or Wireline Competition
Bureau's attention for further clarification, waiver, or other action
consistent with the 2011 order (76 FR 65965, October 25, 2011) and the
Commission's rules.
21. Compliance Deadline. Telecommunications carriers and VoIP
service providers shall be required to contribute a percentage of
intrastate as well as interstate end-user revenues to fund VRS and IP
Relay beginning July 1, 2023. Based on the record, the Commission finds
good cause to establish a more extended compliance timeline than the
seven months allowed in the IP CTS Contribution Order. The Commission
is persuaded by commenters that a transition period of substantially
less than one year could subject some TRS Fund contributors to undue
economic stress. A longer period will allow additional time for
carriers and providers facing changes in required contributions to
adjust budgets, proposals, billing and compliance systems, and other
planning processes. Setting a compliance date of July 1, 2023, will
afford contributors close to one year from the effective date of this
final rule to prepare for compliance. In addition, it is
administratively efficient to tie the compliance date to the start of a
new TRS Fund year. As an additional administrative benefit, a July 1
compliance date aligns with the filing date for incumbent local
exchange carriers' annual tariffs. Although IDT Corporation (IDT)
argues that administrative efficiency should not be the Commission's
primary concern, the Commission's decision takes account of other
factors in addition to administrative efficiency. To avoid
unnecessarily complicating the TRS Fund contribution process and the
cost recovery adjustments that must be made by affected contributors,
the Commission finds it appropriate to align the implementation of this
change with the beginning of TRS Fund Year 2023-24 on July 1, 2023.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
22. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) into the NPRM and sought written public
comment on the proposals in that document, including comment on the
IRFA.
[[Page 72412]]
23. Need For, and Objectives of, the Rules. The Commission modifies
the cost recovery rules for VRS and IP Relay to provide a fair and
reasonable allocation of the funding burden for TRS. Specifically,
providers of intrastate as well as interstate telecommunications and
VoIP services must contribute to the TRS Fund for the support of VRS
and IP Relay, based on a percentage of their total annual end-user
revenues from intrastate, interstate, and international services.
Requiring that contributions to support VRS and IP Relay include
contributions from intrastate end-user revenues removes contribution
asymmetry and ensures intrastate revenue is available to support
intrastate VRS and IP Relay. This action addresses the interim cost
recovery rules for VRS and IP Relay and better aligns the cost recovery
rules with the terms of section 225 of the Act. See 47 U.S.C. 225. It
also both reduces the inequitable burden on providers of interstate
telecommunications and VoIP services and strengthens the funding base
for these critical services.
24. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
Response to the IRFA. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA.
25. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration did not file any comments in response to
the proposed rules in this proceeding.
26. Small Entities to which the Rules will Apply. The rules adopted
in the Report and Order will affect the following types of small
entities: wired telecommunications carriers; interexchange carriers;
local resellers; toll resellers; other toll carriers; wireless
telecommunications carriers (except satellite); satellite
telecommunications service providers; and providers of all other
telecommunications.
27. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. The rules adopted in the Report and Order do
not impose new or additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements on small entities.
28. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered. Expanding the TRS Fund
contribution base for VRS and IP Relay to include intrastate end-user
revenues will cause a corresponding reduction in the contributions
required from interstate and international end-user revenues. As a
result, while small entities with mostly intrastate revenue will be
required to make increased payments to the TRS Fund, other small
entities with mostly interstate revenue will experience a reduction in
TRS Fund contributions. This change will not increase the total
contributions required. The additional costs incurred by some small
entities are justified by the benefits of appropriately allocating the
funding of the provision of VRS and IP Relay among all
telecommunications carriers and VoIP providers.
29. The Commission considered whether to revise the contribution
formula or the cost recovery mechanisms available to small rural
carriers and providers as suggested by NTCA. The Commission determined
that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to justify such
changes. The Commission left open the ability for an adversely affected
carrier or provider to petition the Commission for waiver with specific
evidence showing that current rules inhibited said carrier or provider
from fully recovering contribution costs. The Commission also modified
the proposed compliance deadline in response to comments filed in the
proceeding to provide affected entities close to one year to comply
with the modified contribution obligations. This should allow small
entities sufficient time to adjust budgets, proposals, billing and
compliance systems, and other planning processes for meeting their
funding obligations.
30. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission's Proposals. None.
Ordering Clauses
31. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 225, and 715 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 225, 616, the Report and
Order is adopted, and part 64 of title 47 is amended.
Congressional Review Act
32. The Commission sent a copy of the Report and Order to Congress
and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
33. The Report and Order does not contain new or modified
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or
modified information collection burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications, Communications common carriers, Individuals with
disabilities, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
Final Regulations
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 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, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
0
2. Amend Sec. 64.604 by revising paragraphs (c)(5)(ii) and
(c)(5)(iii)(A) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.604 Mandatory minimum standards.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) Cost recovery. Costs caused by interstate TRS shall be
recovered from all subscribers for every interstate service, utilizing
a shared-funding cost recovery mechanism. Except as noted in this
paragraph (c)(5)(ii), costs caused by intrastate TRS shall be recovered
from the intrastate jurisdiction. In a state that has a certified
program under Sec. 64.606, the state agency providing TRS shall,
through the state's regulatory agency, permit a common carrier to
recover costs incurred in providing TRS by a method consistent with the
requirements of this section. Costs caused by the provision of
interstate and intrastate IP CTS, and (beginning July 1, 2023) for VRS
and IP Relay, if not provided through a certified state program under
Sec. 64.606, shall be recovered from all subscribers for every
interstate and intrastate service, using a shared-funding cost recovery
mechanism.
(iii) * * *
(A) Contributions. (1) Every carrier providing interstate or
intrastate telecommunications services (including interconnected VoIP
service providers pursuant to Sec. 64.601(b)) and every provider of
non-interconnected VoIP service shall contribute to the TRS Fund, as
described in this paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(A):
[[Page 72413]]
(i) For the support of TRS other than IP CTS, VRS, and IP Relay, on
the basis of interstate end-user revenues; and
(ii) For the support of IP CTS, and (beginning July 1, 2023) for
VRS and IP Relay, on the basis of interstate and intrastate end-user
revenues.
(2) Contributions shall be made by all carriers who provide
interstate or intrastate services, including, but not limited to,
cellular telephone and paging, mobile radio, operator services,
personal communications service (PCS), access (including subscriber
line charges), alternative access and special access, packet-switched,
WATS, 800, 900, message telephone service (MTS), private line, telex,
telegraph, video, satellite, intraLATA, international, and resale
services.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-25294 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 25, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.