Proposed Rule2026-05213
Internet-Based Telecommunications Relay Service Modernization
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
March 17, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to modernize its telecommunications relay services (TRS) rules and seeks comment on the use of automatic speech recognition (ASR) for speech-to- text conversion and advanced text-to-speech technologies for Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service; the need for metrics for IP Relay quality; the compatibility of IP Relay with Real-Time Text (RTT) technology; adding captioning functionality to Video Relay Service (VRS) platforms; amending VRS calling rules for calls to U.S. embassies and consulates by U.S. residents while traveling abroad; adjusting VRS call center requirements; streamlining TRS provider certification and user registration processes; updating or eliminating obsolete rules; and closing outdated dockets. With these proposals, the Commission presents targeted reforms that align internet-based TRS with twenty-first century technological advancements in relay services that can better serve the needs of persons with disabilities while securing the viability and enhancing the effectiveness and functional equivalency of internet-based TRS.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12736-12751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-05213]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, 12-38; FCC 26-4; FR ID 335624]
Internet-Based Telecommunications Relay Service Modernization
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to
modernize its telecommunications relay services (TRS) rules and seeks
comment on the use of automatic speech recognition (ASR) for speech-to-
text conversion and advanced text-to-speech technologies for Internet
Protocol (IP) Relay Service; the need for metrics for IP Relay quality;
the compatibility of IP Relay with Real-Time Text (RTT) technology;
adding captioning functionality to Video Relay Service (VRS) platforms;
amending VRS calling rules for calls to U.S. embassies and consulates
by U.S. residents while traveling abroad; adjusting VRS call center
requirements; streamlining TRS provider certification and user
registration processes; updating or eliminating obsolete rules; and
closing outdated dockets. With these proposals, the Commission presents
targeted reforms that align internet-based TRS with twenty-first
century technological advancements in relay services that can better
serve the needs of persons with disabilities while securing the
viability and enhancing the effectiveness and functional equivalency of
internet-based TRS.
[[Page 12737]]
DATES: Comments are due April 16, 2026. Reply comments are due May 18,
2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 03-123,
by the following method:
Federal Communications Commission's website: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings</a>. 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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cd87a2bea5b8ace380a8a3a9a8a1bea2a5a38dabaeaee3aaa2bb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a3e9ccd0cbd6c28deec6cdc7c6cfd0cccbcde3c5c0c08dc4ccd5">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 26-4, adopted on January 29, 2026,
released on January 30, 2026, in CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, and 12-
38. The NPRM can be accessed electronically via the Commission's
Electronic Document Management System website at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/edocs">https://www.fcc.gov/edocs</a>, or via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)
website at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments. Comments may be filed using ECFS.
<bullet> Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers. Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
<bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> People With Disabilities. 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#aec8cdcd9b9e9aeec8cdcd80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d7b1b4b4e2e7e397b1b4b4f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a> 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, 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) of the Commission's rules 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.
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 the NPRM is available at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
The NPRM may contain proposed new or modified information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in the NPRM, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific
comment on how it might further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Synopsis
Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),
codified at section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(the Act), established the foundation for the nationwide TRS program.
47 U.S.C. 225. Section 225 of the Act directs the Commission to ensure
that TRS are available to the extent possible and in the most efficient
manner to people with hearing and speech disabilities in the United
States.
IP Relay
The Commission must ensure that its TRS rules encourage the use of
existing technology and do not discourage the development of improved
technology. With the emergence of ASR technology and text-to-speech
functionalities in IP Relay, the Commission seeks to leverage this
technological progress while understanding and addressing its systemic
impact. The Commission invites comment regarding the deployment,
performance, potential benefits, or challenges of ASR and automated
text-to-speech technologies in the IP Relay context. How can further
advancements in text-to-speech technologies enhance the functional
equivalency and user experience of IP Relay services?
Billing. The Commission is committed to ensuring sound financial
stewardship of the TRS Fund. While many consumers register for only one
form of TRS, individuals with both hearing and speech disabilities may
register for both IP Relay and IP CTS. Furthermore, modern applications
allow a single platform or device to provide multiple forms of TRS
within the application,
[[Page 12738]]
giving users the flexibility to choose the specific communication
mode--such as typing text or speaking--that best suits their needs for
a particular call. Users of these platforms now have the ability to
switch between IP CTS and IP Relay during the call.
This distinction is critical because of the current differential
between IP Relay and IP CTS compensation rates, which may create a risk
of waste, fraud, and abuse when these services are delivered on the
same platforms. For the current Fund Year, IP Relay providers are
compensated at a per-minute rate of $2.1970. By contrast, CA-assisted
IP CTS is compensated at $1.40 a minute (plus a potential supplement),
while ASR-only IP CTS is compensated at $1.05 per minute. The
substantial difference in compensation rates appears to create a
financial incentive for providers offering both services to potentially
misclassify minutes, or to design their platforms to drive users to IP
Relay, to secure the higher rate.
Recently certified providers offering fully automatic IP Relay
utilize ASR to convert the hearing party's speech to text (for the IP
Relay user to read) and text-to-speech engines to convey the user's
typed message to the hearing party. This fully automated functionality
shares significant technical characteristics with ASR-only IP CTS,
which consists solely of automated voice-to-text transcription. In
granting certification for these services, the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) cautioned that providers utilizing
shared platforms must take care not to bill the TRS Fund at the higher
IP Relay rate for minutes that involve only transcription of a caller's
speech, without the necessary conversion of the user's communication
from text to speech.
How should the Commission address the issues arising from the
differences in compensation between fully automated IP Relay and ASR-
based IP CTS? Should the Commission resolve the difference through
changes to the compensation plan for IP Relay or consider technology-
based solutions or solutions based on user registration or call
reporting requirements? For example, should the Commission establish a
rule stating that a call is compensable only at the ASR-only IP CTS
rate unless verifiable records demonstrate that the user actively
utilized the text-to-speech output necessary for the full IP Relay
conversion process? Are there technical mechanisms (e.g., software
checks, specialized signaling, real-time logging of active speech or
text-to-speech modules) that integrated service platforms could
implement to reliably and automatically distinguish minutes provided as
IP Relay versus IP CTS in call detail records? Should providers
offering both IP Relay and IP CTS on an integrated platform be allowed
to include a feature giving users the affirmative choice of selecting
the desired service mode at the outset of the call, or the ability to
seamlessly switch between modes during the call, to ensure the recorded
service type reflects user preference and necessity? Does allowing for
such switching impede the ability of providers to automatically collect
call detail records? Could such switching increase the likelihood for
providers to improperly categorize minutes of use, thus increasing
administrative costs for the TRS Fund when corrective action is taken?
Are there changes to the process for recording and submitting requests
for compensation that could help mitigate such risks? Which
registration and verification requirements should users seeking access
to both IP Relay and IP CTS follow? How should the Commission ensure
the Commission or the Fund administrator will be able to fully review
and audit the call detail records and requests for compensation to
ensure the reported minutes align with the service provided?
The Commission seeks comment on whether it should take steps to
ensure that CA-assisted IP Relay does not disappear entirely. Does the
availability of a human CA provide essential assistance for specific
customer segments? Conversely, have ASR and text-to-speech technologies
advanced sufficiently to provide comparable service quality even in
specialized or challenging contexts? The Commission seeks comment on
whether a rule requiring a human-assistance option to be included in
every IP Relay offering would help maintain IP Relay service quality,
or if the current IP Relay environment, which allows consumers to
choose between fully automated and CA-assisted forms of IP Relay (which
may be offered by the same or different providers), sufficiently
protects service quality.
Numbering. Another issue that arises when IP CTS and IP Relay are
provided on the same underlying platform concerns the need for users to
designate a default provider for IP Relay and to use the TRS numbering
directory to route IP Relay calls. Historically, the infrastructure of
IP Relay has involved a live CA converting communications in both
directions between the user's text-based internet connection and the
voice caller via the PSTN, thereby creating a necessary two-legged call
structure. To improve access to emergency service, allow direct dialing
of IP Relay calls, and provide a uniform method for calling IP Relay
users, the Commission adopted rules providing that an IP Relay user's
designated ``default'' provider shall assign (or port) a geographically
appropriate ten-digit NANP number to a IP Relay user and facilitate
call routing by entering routing information in the TRS Numbering
Directory.
Fully automated IP Relay service, which uses automated technology
for both speech-to-text and text-to-speech conversions, eliminates the
need to connect to a human CA intermediary at a call center and allows
IP Relay users to make calls directly to the recipient using an app-
based VoIP connection. Therefore, providers of fully automated service
may no longer need to put an IP Relay user's telephone number in the
TRS Numbering Directory. Further, in relying on existing number
assignment processes for VoIP providers, these IP Relay providers would
be subject to the Commission's porting and numbering rules applicable
to VoIP providers and would no longer need to be identified as default
providers, subject to TRS numbering and porting requirements.
The Commission seeks comment on the continuing need to require all
IP Relay providers to add a designated NANP telephone number and
associated Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for each IP Relay user.
Are IP Relay providers utilizing ASR and automated text-to-speech able
to achieve full connectivity between IP Relay users and voice
communication users without utilizing the TRS Numbering Directory? Are
such providers able to ensure IP Relay users can call emergency
services, including 911 and 988? Is the Commission able to relieve IP
Relay providers of the obligation to provision information in the
Numbering Directory, or do some IP Relay providers still require a
mechanism that maps telephone numbers to a user name, domain name, or
IP address? Should the Commission allow the provision of IP Relay
without assigning the user a designated internet-based TRS phone
number, if a user has the ability to place and receive IP Relay calls
using the number associated with their telephone service? Are there
other impacts to call routing if some, but not all IP Relay numbers are
in the TRS numbering directory? Will it change or affect how some IP
Relay users reach emergency services? If a provider requires the use of
the Directory, would it impede the provision of calls between IP Relay
users if some or all IP Relay users' telephone numbers are not in the
Directory? Do providers have another mechanism to identify IP Relay
calls
[[Page 12739]]
between different providers, to flag such calls as non-compensable from
the TRS Fund? What technical methods could be implemented to prevent IP
Relay providers from submitting compensation requests for such direct
IP Relay-to-IP Relay calls, ensuring accurate Call Detail Records and
compliance with the Commission's TRS rules? Are there other fraud or
security concerns that may arise from no longer requiring IP Relay
providers to provision information in the Numbering Directory? Are
there other policy considerations that would support maintaining a
requirement that all telephone numbers associated with IP Relay be
entered in the TRS Numbering Directory?
RTT compatibility. IP Relay, being a text-based service transmitted
over the internet, shares fundamental characteristics with RTT
technology due to its reliance on text and IP networks. In another
proceeding, the Commission is seeking comment on the development of an
RTT-based TRS to help facilitate the transition from a TTY-based,
analog service to one that can be effectively provided on IP networks.
Here, the Commission seeks to better understand the compatibility and
differences between these two IP- and text-based forms of relay--IP
Relay, as currently configured, and an RTT-based relay service.
The Commission seeks comment on the compatibility and
interoperability of RTT and IP Relay in an IP calling environment. What
standards do IP Relay providers use to carry text conversations across
an IP network? Is the text transmission able to synchronize with voice
or video transmission to allow for multimedia conversation? How does
the connection to a CA in a call center affect the transmission of the
text? How does the use of text-to-speech and ASR technologies affect
the transmission of the text?
The Commission also seeks comment on specific rule changes that
would facilitate improved compatibility between IP Relay and RTT,
including any technical standards or interoperability requirements that
should be adopted or modified. What specific modifications or standards
are necessary for IP Relay access technology (e.g., equipment or
software provided by the IP Relay provider) to natively support RTT
protocols and user interface features, such as displaying text
character-by-character as it is generated, consistent with RTT
standards? Would the features and functions of RTT (full duplex
operation and seamless integration of voice and text) translate into
improved functional equivalence for IP Relay users? The Commission asks
commenters to quantify or describe any expected improvements in pacing,
conversation flow, and overall efficiency. Would switching from current
IP Relay text-typing methods to character-by-character RTT
functionality impact the speed, usability, and accessibility for users
relying on assistive technologies such as refreshable braille displays
or screen readers? Would RTT integration create opportunities for
enhanced interoperability across advanced communication service
platforms? Is further action is needed to ensure support for these
standards and protocol in the provision of IP Relay.
What are the estimated capital and operational costs required for
IP Relay providers to implement RTT compatibility, including necessary
changes to access technology, call handling infrastructure, and
training for CAs or ASR and text-to-speech engines? Which costs are
one-time start-up costs and which are recurring costs? Will integrating
RTT into IP Relay create opportunities for long term cost savings?
If the Commission mandates RTT integration into IP Relay, what is
an appropriate transition period for providers to implement this
change? Should this period be a fixed time (e.g., 18 or 24 months), or
should implementation be tied to milestones related to the ongoing
transition from analog to IP-based networks across the country? Given
that RTT integration is proposed to ensure a seamless transition for
legacy TTY users, are there specific measures to inform these users
about any new RTT-integrated IP Relay options and to assist them in
making the transition?
Metrics. The Commission seeks comment on developing objective,
quantifiable measures and metrics for IP Relay services, particularly
those employing ASR and automated text-to-speech technologies. The
speech-to-text feature of current fully automatic IP Relay services
relies on the same ASR engines as providers' IP CTS offerings, and the
Commission is already engaged in developing quantitative standards for
IP CTS. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which
such future metrics for IP CTS could be directly applied or adapted to
assess the speech-to-text component of IP Relay done using either ASR
or with the assistance of a CA. How should the Commission account for
differences in expected use between IP Relay and IP CTS? For example,
the Commission believes most IP CTS users rely on both captions and
residual hearing for comprehension, while most IP Relay users rely
solely on the resulting text. Should the quantitative metric for
accuracy required for IP Relay be set at a more stringent standard than
an accuracy standard adopted for IP CTS? Does the fact that an IP Relay
user types a response, suggest the quantitative standard for caption
delay for IP Relay should differ from the standard set for IP CTS?
Should such questions be brought to a standards body or designated
working group for further development?
The Commission also seeks comment on whether to consider measures
and metrics for the text-to-speech functionality in IP Relay, beyond
the current qualitative standard requiring CAs to possess clear and
articulate voice communication skills. What process should the
Commission pursue to develop measures and metrics for text-to-speech?
Should the Commission also consider developing measures for CA-assisted
text-to-voice IP Relay? What quantitative measures could effectively
assess text-to-speech accuracy, clarity, and naturalness? How should
the concept of automated text-to-speech ``clarity'' be quantified--for
example, by measuring synthetic voice recognition rates by external
testing panels, or by adopting metrics derived from industry standards
for audio quality, independent of the ASR transcription process? Should
the Commission establish a quantitative standard for the latency or
delay of the text-to-speech component? What would be the appropriate
measures to consider for such conversational latency or delay in IP
Relay?
If the Commission develops metrics and measures for the provision
of IP Relay, how should the Commission perform service quality tests?
Should the Commission require IP Relay providers offering a hybrid
service (ASR and text-to speech alongside human CAs) to report
automated performance metrics separate from CA-assisted performance
metrics? What level of quality is acceptable and what statistical
methods are appropriate for assessing provider performance? How, and
how often, should the information be collected? To ensure the accuracy
and impartiality of data, should the measurement of IP Relay ASR and
text-to-speech quality rely predominantly on testing conducted by an
independent entity chosen and overseen by the Commission, or should
providers also be required to perform and submit self-testing results?
Does the extent to which performance data are self-reported or
collected through a third party affect how the Commission should
analyze or
[[Page 12740]]
understand the results? Should the collection method affect the level
of performance deemed acceptable? What methodology is appropriate for
testing ASR performance in call environments particularly relevant to
IP Relay users, such as those using assistive technology like
refreshable braille displays or screen readers? Are there rule changes
the Commission should consider to facilitate such performance testing?
How frequently should such testing be performed and submitted? Should
the Commission publish the results of such performance testing? Should
it develop a dashboard of performance metrics for IP Relay? What
information would be most useful to publish on the dashboard to convey
IP Relay performance for the public and for users?
Should the Commission adopt specific consequences or remediation
practices for IP Relay providers whose measured performance falls below
the minimum qualitative standards for ASR accuracy or automated text-
to-speech quality? For example, should providers that fail to meet
these metrics be required to develop and submit for Commission approval
a corrective compliance plan detailing steps and timelines for service
improvement? If testing reveals performance disparities (e.g., lower
accuracy or clarity), should compensation be withheld or reduced until
standards are met? Should testing be part of the Commission's
certification and re-certification review processes?
Video Relay Service
ASR Captioning. Automation has transformed the economics of
captioning, making it practicable to offer captioning with most forms
of video communication. Captioning has become a widespread and
commonplace feature across various communication platforms, including
general IVCS platforms, where the Commission has moved to adopt
performance objectives for the provision of captions that are accurate
and synchronous. With the increased availability of captioning to any
person using communications services, the Commission seeks comment on
requiring VRS providers to build in captioning functionality for what
the CA voices when transliterating signs to spoken English. This would
ensure that the VRS user, in addition to seeing the CA's signed
interpretation, would also simultaneously receive a text display of the
CA's spoken output. The Commission assumes that integrating captioning
functionality directly into VRS platforms would be beneficial for
ensuring conversation comprehension between ASL users and hearing
individuals, by providing the ASL user with a secondary check to their
conveyed information, comparable to the ability of hearing individual
to hear their own words in a voice communication. VRS users would be
able to monitor the quality of the CA's interpretation by allowing them
to assess the CA's voiced interpretation of their signs--by comparing
the simultaneously displayed text of that interpretation with what they
originally signed, thereby ensuring the accuracy of their
communication, while also enhancing the transparency and accountability
of the relay service. The Commission seeks comment on these
assumptions.
In addition to captioning the CA's voiced interpretation, the
Commission seeks comment on whether to require VRS providers to build
in captioning functionality for what the hearing caller is saying. Such
options align with communications services currently available to
hearing users in the communications services marketplace. This would
provide the VRS user with direct text of the hearing party's speech,
complementing the CA's signed interpretation. This integration would
provide greater flexibility for the user, allowing them to choose how
they receive and process information during a VRS call, depending on
their individual preferences, communication mode (e.g., residual
hearing combined with visual text), or environmental factors. The
Commission assumes this would offer VRS users a more complete and
redundant visual representation of the conversation, potentially
enhancing comprehension and further facilitating a multi-modal approach
to communication in a manner functionally equivalent to the voice
communication available to hearing individuals. The Commission seeks
comment on this assumption.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether users should be able
to adjust the display of captions on VRS software. The Commission
previously adopted performance objectives for IVCS providers to provide
user interface controls, which permit users to activate and adjust the
display of captions. The Commission seeks comment on adopting a similar
requirement that users be able to activate and adjust the display of
captions, allowing them to alter the size, font, and on-screen location
of captions, and adjust the color and opacity of both the captions and
the caption background. The Commission assumes that this measure aligns
with the Commission's broader goal of empowering individuals with
disabilities through independent user control over accessibility-
related settings, which is essential for managing individual
preferences and needs across various communication platforms.
Additionally, the Commission assumes independent user control of the
display of captions would enhance access for people who use ASL and
have limited vision. By enabling VRS users to optimize caption
readability and have effective communication, such controls would
appear to advance the statutory mandate for functionally equivalent TRS
to be made available in the most efficient manner. The Commission seeks
comment on these assumptions. Are there potential unintended
consequences with allowing simultaneous captioning and signing? For
example, given that there are grammatical differences between written
English and ASL, could the simultaneous display of ASL and text cause
confusion or impede the flow of conversation, if VRS users seek to
verify the ongoing accuracy of CA signing? Are there captioning
settings or best practices available that could help mitigate any
unintended consequences?
The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of
implementing built-in captioning and customizable display settings. Is
it technically feasible for VRS providers to implement built-in
captioning with customizable display settings? Are there potential cost
savings associated with the enhance comprehension that captions may
provide? What are the one-time and ongoing costs that VRS providers
would incur to develop and maintain built-in captioning and
customizable display settings? How should the TRS Fund administrator
categorize those costs? Are there alternative ways VRS providers could
make captioning available, such as, through integration of third-party
applications? The Commission asks that commenters discuss the costs and
benefits of any alternative proposals.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether any captioning
requirements adopted should be applicable to dedicated VRS devices
(i.e., videophones) distributed by providers, as well as the VRS
software made available for use with off-the-shelf devices such as
smart phones, tablets, computers, and laptops, or via web versions of
the VRS platform. Would captioning functionality be most efficiently
provided in the VRS context by attaching it to the service, as with
most IVCS platforms, or by providing it through a VRS user's equipment,
as with the captioning made available through the operating systems of
wireless devices, independently of a voice communications service? The
[[Page 12741]]
Commission seeks comment on the scope of its authority under section
225 of the Act to require manufacturers of VRS access technology
equipment to support captions and customizable display settings. The
Commission often distinguishes between its ability to allow TRS Fund
support for services and service-related software and web-based
applications for off-the-shelf devices and provider build and
provisioned consumer premises equipment (CPE). Is the Commission only
able to adopt such a requirement where it is able to ensure such costs
are compensable through TRS Fund support? To meet the definition of
TRS, must a telephone transmission service, such as VRS, or a
manufacturer of VRS access equipment conform to the requirement that
equipment used for advanced communications service or
telecommunications services is accessible to and usable by individuals
with disabilities, even if the equipment costs are not compensable
through the TRS Fund?
International Dialing while Traveling Abroad. U.S. residents who
are VRS users frequently need to make telephone calls while traveling
abroad. The Commission's current rules allow TRS Fund support (after
notice to the user's default VRS provider) when such users place calls
to the United States, but they do not address compensation for calls
placed to other endpoints. Recently, the United States Department of
State (State Department) asked the Commission to permit TRS Fund
support when VRS users traveling abroad make calls to U.S. embassies
and consulates, which have telephone numbers local to the country where
they are located. In its request, the State Department explains that
its ``dedicated consular teams around the world stand ready to assist,
and our embassies and consulates maintain duty rosters to coordinate
help on a 24/7 basis, for U.S. residents who need assistance due to a
medical emergency, lost passport, death, arrest, or other unanticipated
event.''
To facilitate the safety and security of VRS users traveling
abroad, the Commission proposes to require VRS providers to complete
VRS calls to a designated list of international numbers for U.S.
embassies and consulates. The Commission seeks comment on the technical
feasibility, estimated costs, and potential benefits of mandating VRS
providers to facilitate these types of calls to a pre-approved list of
diplomatic facilities. How would such a requirement impact VRS provider
operations, the TRS Fund, and the functional equivalence of VRS for
users seeking to connect with U.S. government services while abroad?
What safeguards are necessary to ensure appropriate use and prevent
misuse of this service? What technical modifications would be necessary
to be able to facilitate connections between VRS users and U.S.
government services using non-NANP numbers?
The Commission declines to broaden the scope of our international
calling rules beyond the specific requirement proposed today regarding
calls placed to U.S. embassies and consulates. It does not seek to
revisit, the Commission's prior determination that, in general, calls
that originate and terminate outside of the United States are non-
compensable. The Commission limits its proposal to an exception for
calls to U.S. embassies and consulates that we believe are permissible
under section 225 of the Act.
The Commission also seeks comment on its legal authority to allow
TRS Fund support for U.S. residents' use of TRS for calls to U.S.
embassies and consulates. CGB previously determined that VRS calls that
both originate and terminate outside the United States are not
compensable. This determination was based on the text of section 225 of
the Act, which directs the Commission to ensure that TRS are available
to ``hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals in the United
States.'' However, in so directing the Commission, section 225 of the
Act expressly references section 1 of the Act, which establishes the
Commission, ``for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign
commerce in communication by wire and radio,'' so as to make
communication service available ``to all the people of the United
States.'' To interpret section 225 of the Act in harmony with section 1
of the Act, the Commission believes that section 225 of the Act should
not be construed as limiting the Commission's authority to make VRS
available to ``the people of the United States'' (i.e., to U.S.
citizens and legal U.S. residents) when such individuals are
temporarily located outside the United States.
Further, the Commission has previously interpreted section 225 of
the Act as allowing U.S. residents to make calls to the United States
while temporarily located abroad for periods of up to one year. The
Commission believes that supporting VRS calls to U.S. embassies and
consulates by U.S. residents traveling abroad, even where the dialed
number is a foreign end point, is similarly permissible under section
225 of the Act, notwithstanding CGB's prior determination regarding
international calling in general. U.S. embassies and consulates are the
primary way for a U.S. citizen traveling abroad to contact the United
States government for support and assistance. While the U.S government
has chosen to utilize calling numbers assigned to the country where the
U.S. embassy or consulate is located, that does not change the intent
of the VRS caller to reach the United States government. The Commission
notes that, as a strictly legal matter, U.S. embassies and consulates
may not constitute the territory of the United States. However,
international law regards the premises of a foreign mission as
``inviolable,'' such that ``the agents of the receiving State may not
enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.'' In
addition, ``[t]he receiving State is under a special duty to take all
appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any
intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity,'' and ``[t]he premises of the
mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition,
attachment or execution.'' Conversely, embassy and consular staff are
subject to the laws of their home country. Thus, it appears that for
many legal purposes, a U.S. embassy or consulate is treated as if it
were part of the United States. For these reasons, the Commission
believes it is permissible to designate such calls as compensable and
to require VRS providers to ensure that VRS users may complete such
calls. The Commission seeks comment on these beliefs.
In what specific respects are embassies or consulates treated (or
not treated) as if they were part of the United States? In construing
section 225 of the Act in this context, how should the Commission
resolve the seeming incongruity between the Commission's authority
under section 225 of the Act ``to carry out the purposes established
under section 151 of the Act, to make available to individuals in the
United States a rapid, efficient nationwide communication service'' by
ensuring the availability of TRS, and the purpose actually stated under
section 151 of the Act, i.e., ``regulating interstate and foreign
commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so
far as possible to all people of the United States . . . a rapid,
efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication
service . . .''? To the extent that the Commission finds the phrase
``in the United States'' in section 225(b)(1) of the Act refers to the
physical territory of the United States,
[[Page 12742]]
does that preclude the Commission from ensuring that communications
capabilities made available to U.S. residents are also available to
such individuals when they leave the United States? Do the provisions
of section 225 of the Act requiring common carriers to ensure the
availability of TRS throughout the area in which it offers services and
requiring the Commission to ensure the regulations do not discourage or
impair the development of improved technology, permit international
TRS, when technologically feasible and where TRS Fund contributors
offer such world-wide voice communication services? If the people of
the United States can use voice communications services to engage in
communications world-wide regardless of their location, does functional
equivalence necessitate telephone transmission services being available
on the same worldwide scale to meet the definition of TRS?
Cap on VRS at-home minutes. The Commission previously increased the
cap on VRS call minutes that could be handled by CAs working from home
workstations from 50% to 80% of a provider's monthly minutes. This
action implicitly established a 20% minimum requirement for monthly VRS
minutes to be handled within physical call centers. The Commission
seeks comment on whether, based on provider and consumer experience
since the 80% cap became effective, the rationale supporting the 20%
minimum physical call center minute requirement remains valid and
whether the 80% cap should be removed. Does the experience of VRS
providers operating under the 20% mandatory minimum for minutes handled
through physical call centers show that these call centers are still
essential for safeguarding the quality, reliability, and continuity of
VRS? Are the monitoring and oversight rules regarding supervision,
technical requirements, and random inspections adequate to provide
comparable supervision and training remotely, thereby obviating the
need for a fixed 20% minimum call center minute requirement? Given that
no other form of TRS is subject to a mandatory physical call center
threshold, does this requirement for VRS create unnecessary cost
burdens or inefficiencies that hinder VRS providers' ability to utilize
their labor force in the most cost-effective manner? If eliminated,
what benefits (e.g., reduced overhead expenses or improved CA
retention) could be realized and how should the Commission quantify
these savings and benefits?
What is the impact of the current 20% minimum physical presence
requirement on VRS providers' ability to recruit and retain qualified
CAs? Are there any quantitative data on call quality, speed-of-answer
compliance, and consumer complaint rates for minutes handled in
physical call centers versus at-home workstations since the 80% cap
took effect, including any metrics related to CA productivity or
turnover? How has the 20% minimum physical presence requirement
impacted the service experience of VRS users? Is there any empirical
evidence demonstrating a quantifiable degradation of service quality
directly attributable to increased reliance on at-home CAs? Conversely,
absent such evidence, should the minimum physical presence requirement
be removed entirely? If the Commission were to remove the 20% minimum
minute requirement, should it mandate that VRS providers continue to
maintain a minimum number of physical call centers (not related to
minute volume) to ensure infrastructure redundancy and sufficient
resources for staff supervision and technical support?
Should the Commission remove the 20% minimum requirement for
monthly VRS minutes to be handled within physical call centers, then it
may be possible that a VRS provider will no longer have any call
centers. In light of that possibility, the Commission seeks comment on
making conforming changes to several requirements for VRS providers to
provide services at home workstations equivalent to or to the same
extent as those provided at call centers. The Commission seeks comment
on how removing the 20% minimum call center requirement would affect
the current requirements for VRS providers to provide at-home CAs
equivalent support to that provided to CAs working from call centers,
ensure that each home workstation enables the provision of confidential
and uninterrupted service to the same extent as the provider's call
centers, and ensure that off-site supervision approximates the level of
supervision at the provider's call center. Would it be sufficient to
require VRS providers to provide support and supervision to CAs and
require all home workstations to enable the provision of confidential
and uninterrupted service even without a physical call center to serve
as a point of comparison for these standards?
TRS User Registration and Verification Requirements
The Commission seeks comment on unifying and streamlining the
existing user registration and verification requirements, particularly
those currently organized within Sec. 64.611 of its rules, which are
presently grouped by VRS, IP CTS, and IP Relay. The objective of this
streamlining is to create a more coherent and consistent regulatory
framework, while retaining specific provisions where necessary to
address inherent differences between particular forms of TRS, such as
technological capabilities or service delivery models.
Currently, Sec. 64.611 of the Commission's rules delineates
distinct registration requirements for each internet-based form of TRS.
As the Commission moves towards extending user registration and
verification requirements to all forms of TRS, including analog
services and future IP-based services, the need for a unified and
streamlined regulatory framework becomes even more apparent. The
Commission believes such an approach would enhance clarity, reduce
complexity for providers, and ensure consistent application of anti-
fraud measures across the entire TRS program. Are there considerations
that cut against this belief? The Commission seeks comment on how to
best achieve this unification and streamlining within Sec. 64.611 of
its rules. Are there specific rule consolidations the Commission should
consider? Are any distinctions between user registration and
verification requirements for specific forms of internet-based TRS
necessary? What impact, if any, would there be on compliance and
administration as a result of this consolidation and streamlining of
existing user registration and verification requirements?
Building on these considerations, the Commission seeks comment on
the optimal allocation of responsibilities within the user registration
process. Under Commission rules, VRS and IP CTS providers collect user
information and transmit it to the User Database administrator, who
then conducts the identity verification check. Is this division of
labor the most efficient and effective model, or are changes warranted?
Should the User Database Administrator remain the primary entity for
identity verification, or is there a more efficient option? For
example, the Commission seeks comment on the feasibility and
desirability of the administrator establishing a direct user
registration portal. This alternative model would allow users to submit
their registration information directly to the User Database, rather
than through their chosen provider, potentially streamlining the
initial collection process and enhancing neutrality. In addition, this
approach would eliminate
[[Page 12743]]
the need for users to register and obtain identity verification each
time they change to a different TRS provider. What are the operational
implications, costs, benefits, and any associated privacy concerns for
each of these models, including how they might impact user experience,
program integrity, and the overall efficiency of the TRS program? How
would this improve the user experience compared to how user
registration is currently done?
TRS Certification Applications
The Commission seeks comment on how the overall provider
certification process could be streamlined to reduce the amount of
detail the applicant must provide to demonstrate it will meet all
applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards. To what extent are detailed
descriptions essential for determining whether to certify a provider?
How can an applicant provide a detailed description of how the
applicant will meet all applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards in a
way that demonstrates the applicant's eventual ability to actually
comply with these standards? To what extent are detailed descriptions
essential for determining whether to certify a provider? Is there
information the Commission collects unnecessarily, or require providers
to retain beyond its useful period? For example, should the Commission
limit the required listing of employees to those who are CAs,
executives, or officers? Should the Commission reduce the retention
period for employment agreements for employees other than CAs,
executives, or officers? Should the Commission eliminate the
requirement to include in certification applications detailed
descriptions and copies of certain deeds or leases (e.g., for
facilities, their technology and equipment, and automatic call
distribution) for call centers located within the United States, while
requiring these descriptions and copies for call centers located
outside the United States?
What are the potential benefits, drawbacks, and feasibility of
streamlining the certification process in this manner, particularly
concerning its impact on administrative efficiency, regulatory
oversight, and the continued assurance of functional equivalence for
TRS users while preventing waste, fraud, or abuse of the TRS Fund? Is
there any aspect of the certification process, including other relevant
rules, that the Commission should consider as it works to streamline
the certification process for internet-based TRS providers? Are there
other certification processes that the Commission should evaluate as
useful models?
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on how the
recertification process could be streamlined to reduce the amount of
detail the applicant must provide to demonstrate it continues to meet
all applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards. How can the Commission
leverage information collected with the initial application and during
the certification period, while maintaining a robust recertification
process? Would requiring details only when a change has been made since
the initial application meet the goal of ensuring the Commission has
complete and accurate information to consider applications for
recertification? Should the Commission allow internet-based TRS
providers to refer to information previously filed with the Commission
in lieu of including detailed descriptions of how they will meet the
mandatory minimum standards applicable to each form of TRS in their
recertification applications? If the Commission retains requirements to
include detailed descriptions and copies of certain deeds or leases
(e.g., for call center facilities, their technology and equipment, and
automatic call distribution) in initial certification application,
should the Commission eliminate the requirement for recertification
applications? Should the Commission eliminate the requirement to file
copies of sponsorship arrangements?
The Commission also seeks comment on several additional targeted
revisions to the TRS provider certification rule in an effort to
enhance administrative efficiency, remove redundant obligations, and
ensure the accuracy of its regulatory text. The Commission proposes to
correct a cross-reference to ensure that the required certification
documentation, which describes measures taken by IP CTS providers to
prevent seeking compensation for ineligible users, accurately points to
the proper IP CTS registration and certification rules codified under
Sec. 64.611(j) of its rules. To provide greater administrative
flexibility, the Commission proposes deleting unnecessary constraints
regarding the format used by the Commission to issue certification,
recognizing that while these rules may have previously specified a
letter or order, the Commission currently uses various administrative
documents to grant conditional certification, provided the provider is
determined to meet all applicable mandatory minimum TRS standards and
compliance requirements.
Finally, to reduce paperwork burden now that the relevant programs
have matured, the Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement for
internet-based TRS providers to submit an annual compliance report
demonstrating that they are in compliance with Sec. 64.604 of its
rules. The Commission also proposes to eliminate a parallel requirement
that applicants promise to file an annual compliance report. Through
this proposal, the Commission would also eliminate the additional
obligation on VRS providers to submit a compliance plan describing the
provider's policies, procedures, and practices for complying with Sec.
64.604(c)(13) of its rules and submit specific statistics related to
at-home call handling. The Commission believes that annual compliance
reports impose an unnecessary administrative burden on TRS providers.
While the Commission believes that comprehensive annual reporting
on compliance creates unnecessary and burdensome paperwork, the
Commission also maintains a strong commitment to the prevention of
waste, fraud, and abuse in the TRS program. The Commission believes all
TRS providers must have in place, and train their staff to carry out,
clearcut, detailed procedures for compliance with applicable Commission
rules. Therefore, instead of the annual compliance reporting currently
required, the Commission proposes to require that, upon request by the
Commission, a TRS provider must submit a detailed description of its
current practice and future plans for complying with each rule
specified in such request. The Commission proposes that a provider
should be able to complete and submit such a compliance report and plan
within 60 days of receiving a request from the Commission. The new
requirement and timeframe are similar to the Commission's current rule,
under which the Commission may notify a VRS provider if the Commission
determines its compliance plan currently on file is inadequate to
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund and giving the provider
up to 60 days to submit an amended compliance plan. The current
requirement is limited to VRS providers, while the proposed rule would
apply to providers of all forms of TRS. The Commission seeks comment on
these proposals and beliefs.
Notification of Substantive Changes
Section 64.606(f)(2) of the Commission's rules requires VRS and IP
Relay providers to notify the Commission of substantive changes in
[[Page 12744]]
their TRS programs, services, and features within 60 days of when such
changes occur. Providers must also certify that the interstate TRS
program continues to meet federal minimum standards after implementing
the substantive change. While Sec. 64.606(f)(2) of the Commission's
rules mentions only VRS and IP Relay providers, the Commission has
required some IP CTS providers (as a condition of certification) to
promptly report any changes in the information provided to the
Commission during their application and supplemental filings, including
changes in service agreements, suppliers, or the manner in which they
provide service.
In recognition of this inconsistent policy and to ensure clarity
and uniformity across all internet-based relay services, the Commission
proposes to amend Sec. 64.606(f)(2) of its rules to replace the
specific references to ``VRS and IP Relay providers'' with the broader
term ``internet-based TRS providers.'' This proposed modification would
ensure that a uniform notification requirement is applicable to each
internet-based TRS provider. Furthermore, this amendment would
accommodate the emergence of new internet-based relay services, such as
the recently proposed internet Protocol Speech-to-Speech Relay Service
(IP STS), avoiding the need for further rule modifications for each new
service. This approach promotes efficiency and minimizes administrative
burdens for both providers and the Commission by establishing a clear,
overarching requirement for all internet-based TRS offerings. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
The Commission also proposes to adjust the text of the rule to
eliminate any possible doubt regarding the timing of the required
notification. The rule currently requires that ``[s]tates must notify
the Commission of substantive changes in their TRS programs within 60
days of when they occur'' and providers ``must notify the Commission of
substantive changes in their TRS programs, services, and features
within 60 days of when such changes occur.'' The Commission proposes to
replace ``of when'' with ``after'' to emphasize that this notification
does not have to be given in advance of a substantive change. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
Incentives for Use of TRS
The Commission's rules currently prohibit IP CTS and VRS providers
from offering direct or indirect incentives, financial or otherwise, to
encourage registration for or use of these services. These prohibitions
were established to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the TRS program,
in which, due to the per-minute compensation system, providers may be
motivated to encourage unnecessary use of relay services solely for the
purpose of generating additional revenue. Such practices result in
increased costs that are borne by all providers and users of
communication services, impeding the statutory goal of making
functionally equivalent services available in the most efficient
manner.
To protect the long-term sustainability and integrity of the TRS
Fund as new technologies arise, the Commission proposes to amend Sec.
64.604(c)(8) of its rules so that the prohibition on incentives and
inducements applies broadly to all internet-based TRS, including IP
Relay and prospective services such as IP STS, Video-Assisted STS, and
RTT-based relay service. This expansion is intended to strengthen the
integrity and safeguard the TRS Fund from waste, fraud, and abuse
program-wide. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
Calling Party Identification Requirement
Section 64.604(b)(6) of the Commission's rules currently requires
that when a TRS facility is capable of transmitting calling party
identifying information, it must pass through, to the called party, at
least one of three options: the number of the TRS facility, 711, or the
10-digit number of the calling party. This requirement was initially
established to ensure that a called party subscribing to Caller ID
could, at a minimum, identify the incoming call as being from a TRS
facility, which helped prevent the rejection of calls that might
otherwise display as blocked or unavailable. The Commission proposes to
amend this rule by eliminating the phrase, ``the number of the TRS
facility,'' as this option has become superfluous. For TRS providers
that route calls as a part of providing their service the functional
equivalency mandate is best met by transmitting to the called party the
caller's specific 10-digit number, if one is assigned, or (if no number
is assigned to the caller) by providing the universal 711 code. For
call recipients, 711 is easily identified as the number for TRS call
centers, while the telephone number assigned to a TRS facility is often
unadvertised and not readily distinguishable from other 8XX toll-free
telephone numbers. The Commission believes the continued inclusion of
the generic TRS facility number option appears unnecessary and
inconsistent with modern TRS numbering standards, and its removal will
clarify the emphasis on providing the most accurate identification
information possible. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and
belief.
Updating or Deleting Obsolete or Unnecessary Rules
As part of the Commission's efforts to modernize the TRS program,
the Commission proposes to update the TRS rules by deleting or
modifying regulations that are obsolete; create burdensome and
unnecessary record retention, reporting obligations, or disclosures;
govern a time period that has passed; or contain duplicative or
superfluous language. The Commission also proposes to make technical
corrections to correct cross cites to other rules. The Commission seeks
comment on these proposals and the questions, beliefs, and assumptions
stated below.
Automatic Call Distribution Platform. Section 64.604(b)(4)(iv) of
the Commission's rules mandates that if an Automatic Call Distribution
(ACD) platform is leased or licensed between two eligible VRS
providers, the lessee or licensee must locate the ACD platform on its
own premises and utilize its own employees to manage the ACD platform.
The Commission believes retaining this restriction may be unduly
burdensome on operational flexibility. While intended as a safeguard
against the types of unlawful activities seen on the part of many white
label providers, the Commission believes that the current VRS program
structure, which encourages competition among providers, reduces the
need to explicitly require VRS providers to locate the ACD platform on
its premises and utilize its own employees. The Commission believes it
is sufficient to rely on the requirements that VRS providers enter into
a written lease for an ACD platform and that the lease must not include
compensation of the lessor by the lessee related to minutes of use or
revenue sharing agreements between the lessor and the lessee. Thus, the
Commission proposes to delete the last sentence of Sec.
64.604(b)(4)(iv) of its rules. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal. Would it be beneficial to retain this specific restriction?
If so, what are the costs and benefits of doing so?
VRS Access Technology Reference Platform. Section 64.619 of the
Commission's rules provides for the availability and administration of
a ``VRS Access Technology Reference Platform'' (Technology Reference
Platform). Section 64.621(a)(3) of the Commission's rules requires VRS
providers to ensure that their access
[[Page 12745]]
technologies and video communication service platforms are
interoperable with the Technology Reference Platform and prohibits
compensation of VRS providers for minutes of use involving non-
interoperable access technologies or video communication service
platforms that are not interoperable with the Technology Reference
Platform. In March 2020, the Commission suspended the compliance
deadline requiring VRS interoperability with the Technology Reference
Platform pending completion of the standards development process for a
VRS provider-to-user-device communications standard and a rulemaking
proceeding to incorporate such a standard into the rules. Compliance
with requirement remains pending. Following its initial development,
the Technology Reference Platform was decommissioned by its
administrator, and the Commission has not pursued redevelopment of the
platform. The Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement to be
interoperable with the Technology Reference Platform and delete the
related rules for its establishment and administration. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal.
Single URL Address. Section 64.604(d)(1)(ii) of the Commission's
rules requires that VRS service must be offered under the certified
provider's name or clearly identified sub-brand, and specifically
mandates that ``[p]roviders must route all VRS calls through a single
URL address used for each name or sub-brand used.'' This requirement
was initially intended to reinforce provider identity and help maintain
regulatory oversight, in part by preventing the delegation of call
center functions and ensuring calls were not routed through multiple,
potentially unauthorized URLs to mask misuse. The Commission adopted
this rule in part because it found that the complex branding and
commercial relationships that had previously existed between eligible
and ineligible VRS providers hindered consumers from making informed
choices among VRS providers. The Commission proposes to amend this rule
by deleting the phrase, ``Providers must route all VRS calls through a
single URL address used for each name or sub-brand used.'' The
Commission believes this specific routing limitation has become
obsolete and unnecessarily burdensome in the current technical
environment. The Commission now supports the VRS Provider
Interoperability Profile, which enables server-based routing using
provider domain names recorded in the TRS Numbering Directory. This
protocol helps ensure that each NANP telephone number in the TRS
Numbering Database is connected to a unique Uniform Resource Identifier
with a server domain name for the VRS provider, allowing for the
provider to be identified, even if multiple IP addresses are used.
Further, VRS providers only complete calls with domain or IP addresses
that are found in the TRS Numbering Directory. Furthermore, the
Commission's comprehensive suite of measures to prevent waste, fraud,
and abuse provides robust oversight regardless of the specific URL
structure, including user registration and validation requirements and
Call Detail Record reporting requirements that capture critical
technical data necessary for audit purposes, such as IP addresses.
Therefore, retaining this specific phrase appears unnecessary given the
current technical reliance on domain names for routing and the enhanced
accountability provided by other regulatory requirements. The
Commission seeks comment on this belief.
Interoperability with the Neutral Video Communication Service
Platform. Section 64.621(a)(4) of the Commission's rules requires that
all VRS providers ensure their VRS access technologies and video
communication service platforms are interoperable with the Neutral
Video Communication Service Platform (Neutral VRS Platform). This
requirement mandated compatibility with a centralized platform intended
to handle non-core functions like call routing, thereby enabling
efficient competition among providers who would focus primarily on CA
services. The Commission proposes to delete Sec. 64.621(a)(4) of its
rules in its entirety because the underlying technology it governs was
never successfully implemented, making the provision obsolete and
unnecessary. Maintaining a specific requirement to ensure
interoperability with a service platform that does not exist
constitutes mere surplusage and imposes an unnecessary standard that
cannot be met. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
Administrator Requirements. Section 64.623(a) of the Commission's
rules defines the term ``Administrator'' for purposes of that section
by consolidating references to the administrator of the TRS Numbering
Directory, the administrator of the TRS User Registration Database, the
administrator of the VRS Access Technology Reference Platform, and the
provider of the Neutral Video Communication Service Platform. The
Commission proposes to delete the phrases referencing the
``administrator of the VRS Access Technology Reference Platform'' and
the ``provider of the Neutral Video Communication Service Platform''
from paragraph (a) and removing related references in paragraph (b)(4),
as these administrative functions govern platforms that were never
successfully developed. Given that the platforms themselves do not
exist or are not operational, retaining specific regulatory language
that mandates the inclusion of their administrators in this definition
is unnecessary surplusage.
Consumer Complaint Logs. Section 64.604(c)(1) of the Commission `s
rules requires state TRS programs and TRS providers to maintain a
detailed log of consumer complaints alleging violations of federal
mandatory minimum standards. It also requires that providers submit
annual summaries of these logs to the Commission by July 1st of each
year, indicating the number of complaints received. This rule is
intended to assist the Commission in monitoring compliance trends and
whether further inquiry or actions requiring coordinated solutions are
needed. With the growth of internet-based TRS and the availability of
alternative oversight tools, the Commission believes the burden to
state TRS programs and TRS providers in submitting annual summaries of
these logs to the Commission outweighs the benefit from this required
submission. The Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement to
submit summaries of the complaint logs, while retaining the requirement
to maintain complaint logs, and instead require that complaint logs be
provided to the Commission upon request. The Commission seeks comment
on this proposal and belief.
Specific Contact Information. Section 64.604(c)(2) of the
Commission's rules requires state TRS programs, interstate TRS
providers, and TRS providers with state contracts submit specific
contact information to the Commission for handling consumer inquiries
and complaints. The existing rule details this submission through
mandatory subparagraphs requiring, at a minimum, the name and address
of the office receiving complaints; voice, TTY, fax, email, and web
addresses; and the separate physical address for correspondence. The
Commission believes retaining a fixed list of communication methods can
become unnecessarily burdensome when certain formats become obsolete,
such as the mandatory inclusion of a fax number and the Commission
proposes to delete in its entirety the exhaustive list of specific
minimum requirements detailed in paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii)
[[Page 12746]]
of Sec. 64.604(c)(2) of its rules. To streamline this administrative
requirement while preserving consumer access, the Commission proposes
revising the introductory text of paragraph (c)(2) of its rules to
generally require the submission of information necessary for consumer
contact and complaint resolution (e.g., telephone number and email
address), thereby giving providers flexibility to update their
communication channels without adherence to an overly prescriptive
checklist. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and belief.
Public Awareness Methods. Section 64.604(c)(3) of the Commission's
rules establishes requirements for common carriers providing telephone
voice transmission services to ensure that callers in their service
areas are aware of the availability and use of all forms of TRS.
Specifically, this rule requires carriers to assure public awareness
through a prescriptive listing of methods such as publication in their
directories, periodic billing inserts, placement of TRS instructions in
telephone directories, through directory assistance services, and the
incorporation of TTY numbers in telephone directories. The Commission
proposes to delete Sec. 64.604(c)(3) of the Commission's rules because
this provision is largely obsolete and unnecessarily burdensome in
today's rapidly evolving communications environment. Originally adopted
in 1991 to reflect prevailing methods of public information
dissemination, these specific requirements appear outdated now, in
light of the transition to IP-based networks and decline in the use of
analog relay services like TTY-based Relay. Further, the Commission has
previously raised concerns about the effectiveness of such methods as
directories and bill inserts in achieving widespread public awareness
of TRS. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and belief. Are
common carriers best positioned to raise awareness about modern TRS
services? Should the Commission revise Sec. 64.604(c)(3) of its rules
to require common carriers to share information about TRS with their
subscribers in a modern, flexible way that is more aligned with modern
practices? Are common carriers already raising awareness about TRS in
modern ways? If so, how do common carriers ensure public awareness of
TRS?
TRS Advisory Council. Among other provisions, Sec.
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(H) of the Commission's rules directs the
Administrator to establish a voluntary group (known as the TRS Advisory
Council) consisting of diverse stakeholders, to monitor TRS cost
recovery matters. The Commission proposes to delete this requirement.
In adopting its proposal to select the National Exchange Carrier
Association (NECA) as the original TRS Fund administrator, the
Commission also adopted the recommendation to establish an advisory
committee to monitor TRS cost recovery issues. The Commission found
merit in the proposal for an advisory committee to monitor TRS issues
and provide guidance to the Fund administrator and believed it would
help serve as a safeguard (among other requirements) to address
concerns associated with the administrator's association with local
exchange carriers and its alleged inability to control administrative
costs.
The Commission recognizes that since its inception, the TRS
Advisory Council has served an informative role in advising the TRS
Fund administrator, and the Commission benefits from direct
consultation with TRS stakeholders and accessibility community
representatives. The Commission questions, however, whether the same
benefits can be proffered by a less regulated mechanism. Is a direct
regulatory requirement, which is not statutorily mandated and which
limits both the scope of and makeup of the TRS Advisory Council, the
appropriate mechanism for facilitating advisory input by stakeholders?
Further, the process for how the Commission monitors TRS and
establishes compensation has evolved substantially in the 33 years
since the TRS Advisory Council was established. The Commission now
selects the Fund administrator through a competitive procurement
process. Furthermore, the Council's narrow focus on TRS cost recovery,
as written in the rule, is less critical today, given the Commission's
assumption of a more active role in setting TRS compensation and the
various oversight, monitoring, and auditing tools used by the
Commission and the Fund administrator. In using the rulemaking process,
the Commission affords the opportunity for individuals with
disabilities and organizations representing such groups to actively
participate and provide feedback on TRS compensation and how to
structure and change the TRS program to ensure the Commission is
meeting its statutory obligations. The Commission also uses the
statutory Federal Advisory Committee process to procure recommendations
on TRS and other accessibility issues while ensuring transparency,
public involvement, and accountability. The Commission also has
included within the scope of work, for entities working at the
Commission's direction, the ability or requirement to form working
groups or otherwise involve a diverse group of stakeholders to inform
and provide guidance without imposing a specific structure on such
processes. As such, the Commission believes the cost and administrative
burden of maintaining the TRS Advisory Council outweighs its benefits.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and beliefs. Are there
benefits to retaining the TRS Advisory Council? The Commission seeks
comment on how the TRS Advisory Council has benefitted the TRS Fund
administrator and the Commission. Are those benefits distinguishable
from the benefits received from established Federal Advisory Committees
or the Commission rulemaking process? What has been the impact of
explicitly identifying certain groups for membership on the Council?
Has the stated purpose of monitoring ``TRS cost recovery matters''
limited the guidance the Council has been able to provide? Would
allowing or requiring the TRS Fund administrator to maintain an
advisory council within its scope of work, without a separate rule,
sufficiently maintain any identified benefits of the Council?
Call Centers. Section 64.604(d)(2) of the Commission's rules
mandates that VRS providers file detailed written reports for each
physical call center, including centers located outside the United
States, with the Commission and the TRS Fund Administrator on April 1st
and October 1st of every year, detailing information such as the
facility's complete street address, the number of CAs and their
managers, and the managers' contact information. In addition, VRS
providers must notify the Commission and the TRS Fund Administrator at
least 30 days prior to the opening, closing, or relocation of any call
center. The Commission proposes to delete Sec. 64.604(d)(2) of its
rules, eliminating the requirement for call center reports and the 30-
day advance notice requirement. In light of other Commission rules and
measures to ensure effective oversight, fund administration, and
accountability, the Commission believes the requirement for call center
reports may be eliminated without an adverse impact on the Commission's
ability to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund. The
Commission also believes elimination of the 30-day advance notice
period for facility changes would provide operational flexibility
necessary in a
[[Page 12747]]
modern communications industry. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal and these beliefs. Are there aspects of the reporting
requirement the Commission should retain, such as the location of each
call center or just those call centers located outside of the United
States? If so, should the Commission reduce the frequency of reporting
for any retained requirements to once per year? Should the Commission
find that the opening, closing, or relocating of a call center
constitutes a substantive change, and thereby require a provider to
notify the Commission within 60 days after such a change, to ensure
that the Commission is able to maintain a complete and accurate list of
call center locations for each provider, for auditing and other
oversight purposes?
Monitoring of At-Home Workstations. Section 64.604(d)(7)(vi) of the
Commission's rules requires that, with their monthly requests for
compensation, VRS providers report home work station identification
number and full street address; the CA identification number of each
individual handling VRS calls from that home workstation; and the call
center identification number, street address, and name of the
supervisor of the call center responsible for oversight of the
workstation. The Commission proposes to eliminate these monthly
reporting requirements. The Commission believes the data in these
reports is duplicative of the data providers are required to submit in
the monthly call detail records. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal and belief. Are there any data or information collected in
these monthly reports that the Commission should add to the rules
requiring call detail records?
Long-Past Dates. Sections 64.604, 64.611, and 64.621 of the
Commission's rules contain numerous prescriptive references to long-
past implementation dates, compliance deadlines, and transitional
periods that initially governed various elements of the TRS program.
The Commission proposes eliminating this historical information, as it
has become obsolete and constitutes surplusage, detracting from the
clarity of the current regulatory obligations. Specifically, the
Commission proposes deleting foundational and transitional date
language from cost recovery rules found in Sec. 64.604(c)(5) of its
rules: the original TRS implementation date ``Effective July 26,
1993;'' the start date phrases ``(beginning July 1, 2023)'' regarding
the commencement of expanded TRS Fund contributions supporting VRS and
IP Relay; and in Sec. 64.604(c)(7) of its rules the start date phrase
(``Beginning on July 21, 2000, all future''). Similarly, the
transitional compliance phrase ``On or after December 8, 2018,'' which
set the deadline for IP CTS equipment volume controls to be
independently adjustable, is now redundant. The Commission further
proposes deleting the phrase ``Beginning October 17, 2024,'' marking
the effective date for the permanent 80% cap on at-home VRS CA minutes.
Finally, the Commission proposes to update the VRS interoperability
rules by removing the original compliance phrases ``Beginning no later
than December 20, 2017,'' and ``Beginning no later than October 24,
2017'' as these compliance deadlines have passed.
Authorization of At-Home Service. Section 64.604(b)(4)(iii) of the
Commission's rules prohibits VRS providers from allowing CAs to handle
calls from home workstations unless the provider was specifically
authorized by the Commission. The Commission proposes to delete this
rule in its entirety. The Commission believes this provision is now
obsolete and superfluous, as the prohibition and its exception are
entirely superseded by the current regulatory framework governing at-
home VRS call handling. As a conforming change, the Commission also
proposes to delete the language in Sec. 64.604(d)(7)(i) of its rules
that references VRS providers ``authorized by the Commission to employ
at-home CAs.'' The continuous nature of this authorized service means
that the generalized prohibition in Sec. 64.604(b)(4)(iii) of the
Commission's rules is no longer necessary, as authorization and ongoing
oversight are now comprehensively integrated into the provider
certification and compliance requirements. The Commission seeks comment
on this proposal and its underlying rationale.
Duplicative Audit Authority. Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E)(5) of the
Commission's rules grants the Commission authority to audit TRS
providers and ensure access to all data collected by the TRS Fund
administrator, concurrently affirming the Fund administrator's
authority to perform audits of TRS providers reporting data to it. The
Commission proposes to delete this provision in its entirety because
this audit authority is comprehensively provided elsewhere in
Commission regulations, rendering this section unnecessary and
duplicative. Specifically, a different mandate for stringent financial
oversight explicitly grants the Fund administrator, the Commission, and
the Office of Inspector General (OIG) the authority to examine and
verify TRS provider data as necessary to assure the accuracy and
integrity of TRS Fund payments. Further, that same provision mandates
that TRS providers must submit to audits annually or at times
determined appropriate. Since these requirements already ensure that
the Commission maintains robust access and verification authority over
all provider data and audit processes, the continued retention of Sec.
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E)(5) of its rules constitutes surplusage. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
Duplicative Certification Requirement. Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(I)
of the Commission's rules contains a requirement for the certification
of compensation requests or provider reports by a senior executive,
similar to the provision stipulating that the chief executive officer
(CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), or other senior executive must
certify under penalty of perjury that cost and demand data submitted
for reimbursement from the TRS Fund are true and accurate. The
Commission proposes to delete this portion because the requirement for
executive certification regarding the truthfulness, accuracy, and
completeness of financial and operational data already exists within
the immediate administrative subsection detailing data collection and
auditing, Sec. 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(5) of its rules. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal.
Complaint Procedures. Section 64.604I(6)(v) of the Commission's
rules sets forth informal and formal consumer complaint procedures
against TRS providers. The subsequent detailed subparagraphs (A)
through (I) lays out the specific administrative procedures governing
these processes, including the acceptable forms for filing informal
complaints (such as letter, facsimile, telephone (voice/TRS/TTY), or
internet email), the precise content required for formal complaints,
detailed service protocols, and mandated deadlines for filing answers
and replies. These rules overlap with and often conflict with the rules
for handling both informal and formal complaints generally applicable
to all regulated entities, in Part 1, subpart E of the Commission's
rules. Consequently, the Commission proposes to cross reference these
complaint procedures, which would streamline Commission regulations,
reduce administrative burden, and ensure that the process for resolving
TRS complaints aligns efficiently with the unified regulatory and
administrative framework. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
At-Home Call Handling. Section 64.604(d)(7)(iii)(B) and (C) of the
Commission's rules currently mandate
[[Page 12748]]
specific technical and environmental safeguards for at-home VRS call
handling. Specifically, paragraph (B) requires that home workstations
``Allow a CA to use all call-handling technology to the same extent as
call-center CAs'', and paragraph (C) requires that the home workstation
``Be capable of supporting VRS in compliance with the applicable
mandatory minimum standards set out in this section to the same degree
as at call centers.'' The Commission proposes to delete these two
provisions because they are duplicative of the encompassing
requirements already set forth elsewhere in this section and other
mandatory minimum standards. The introductory text already requires VRS
providers to ensure that each home workstation enables the provision of
confidential and uninterrupted service to the same extent as the
provider's call centers and is seamlessly integrated into the
provider's call routing, distribution, tracking, and support systems.
It also requires that each home workstation meet the applicable
mandatory minimum technical and emergency call handling standards ``to
the same degree as these are available at call centers.'' Maintaining
separate provisions that merely reiterate these core performance
expectations constitutes surplusage. The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal.
TRS Numbering Directory and TRS User Registration Database
Administration. Section 64.613(b) of the Commission's rules concerns
the administrative requirements and compensation procedures for the
administrator responsible for maintaining the TRS Numbering Directory.
The Commission proposes to delete this provision in its entirety
because its administrative and compensation requirements are
duplicative of the consolidated rules set forth in Sec. 64.623 of its
rules. The Commission similarly proposes to delete Sec. 64.615(b) of
its rules because the administrative and compensation requirements for
the administrator of the User Registration Database are duplicative of
the consolidated rules set forth in Sec. 64.623 of its rules. Section
64.623 of the Commission's rules defines a unified set of
requirements--including rules governing neutrality, terms of
administration, and compensation--applicable to all designated TRS
administrators, explicitly naming the TRS Numbering and the
administrator of the TRS User Registration Database. Therefore,
retaining separate, dedicated administrative provisions within Sec.
64.613(b) of the Commission's rules constitutes unnecessary surplusage
that needlessly complicates the regulatory structure.
IP CTS Labeling Requirements. Section 64.604(c)(11) of the
Commission's rules contains rules governing IP CTS user devices,
including prohibitions on captions usage by unregistered users and
device labeling requirements. The Commission proposes deleting or
revising Sec. Sec. 64.604(c)(11)(ii)(B), (iii), and (iv) of its rules
to remove transitional language governing passed time periods or
utilizing obsolete cross-references. Specifically, the Commission
proposes to delete paragraph (c)(11)(ii)(B) of its rules in its
entirety, as it contains transitional registration requirements
applicable to IP CTS users existing as of March 7, 2013, and make
conforming changes to paragraph (11)(ii). The IP CTS registration
framework was subsequently consolidated under Sec. 64.611 of the
Commission's rules, rendering the provisional registration language and
cross-reference obsolete. The Commission also proposes deleting the
second sentence of paragraph (c)(11)(iii) of its rules, which set a
non-recurrent compliance date for providers to distribute labels for
previously supplied equipment no later than August 11, 2014. Since this
deadline has long passed, the sentence is surplusage. The Commission
further proposes to delete paragraph (c)(11)(iv) of its rules,
requiring providers to maintain records of provided IP CTS equipment
and stating whether the label was affixed. The Commission believes the
record retention requirement provides minimal benefit towards ensuring
compliance with the labeling requirement. The Commission also proposes
to delete paragraph (c)(11)(v) of its rules requiring providers to
ensure that their informational materials and websites include language
about the limitations on the use of IP CTS. The Commission believes
that IP CTS providers should have more flexibility in their
informational materials and websites to inform consumers and
professionals about IP CTS while meeting their obligations to prevent
misuse of IP CTS. As such, the Commission believes it is unnecessary to
require repetitive labeling information that users will see on their
device or when they log onto the app. Providers have sufficient
incentive to ensure that users know how the service is provided and who
may use the service, without the additional explicit directive. The
Commission seeks comment on these beliefs.
Correcting Cross Cites. The Commission proposes to correct
inaccurate cross-references in the TRS rules. First, Sec.
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E)(3) of the Commission's rules has an outdated cross
reference to ``paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(C) of its rules. The Commission
proposes to amend this rule to correct this cross-reference, to
paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(D) of its rules. Second, Sec.
64.615(a)(4)(ii)(B) of the Commission's rules has an incorrect cross
reference to paragraph (a)(3)(i) of its rules. The Commission proposes
to correct this cross-reference to Sec. 64.615(a)(4)(i) of its rules.
The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
Closing CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 12-38
The Commission seeks comment on closing CG Docket Nos. 10-51,
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service; and 12-38, Misuse
of internet Protocol Relay Service. The Commission previously conducted
proceedings in these dockets in parallel with CG Docket No. 03-123. In
seeking to develop a fresh record on VRS and IP Relay, the Commission
does not see a need to maintain a separate duplicative record, and the
Commission believe closing these dockets eliminates a duplicative
filing requirement that unnecessarily burden commenters, and could lead
to unnecessary confusion. The Commission seeks comment on this belief.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended,
the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM
assessing the possible significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Commission requests written public
comments on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines specified in the item.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. In the NPRM, the
Commission proposes specific enhancements for IP Relay and VRS, along
with administrative reforms to streamline the TRS program. For IP
Relay, the Commission addresses the use of ASR for speech-to-text
conversion and advanced text-to-speech technologies, the need for
metrics for IP Relay quality, and compatibility of IP Relay with RTT
technology. For VRS, the Commission proposes to require VRS providers
to build in captioning functionality and provide VRS providers with
increased operational flexibility by loosening restrictions on
[[Page 12749]]
VRS calls while traveling abroad and adjusting physical call center
requirements. Finally, the Commission proposes to streamline TRS
provider certification processes and update or eliminate obsolete
rules.
Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections
1, 2, 4(i), (4)(j), and 225 of the Act.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Impacted.
The rules proposed in the NPRM will apply to small entities in the All
Other Telecommunications industries. The Commission estimates that the
majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms can be considered
small.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. The changes proposed in the NPRM, if adopted,
could impose new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance obligations on certain small entities that provide VRS and
IP Relay service. Small entities may need to hire professionals such as
attorneys, consultants, and engineers to comply with the proposed
changes in the NPRM. The Commission seeks comment on the impact of
requiring RTT technology compatibility for IP Relay providers, and
requiring VRS providers to provide built-in ASR captioning. The
Commission seeks comment on streamlining existing user registration and
verification requirements, which may involve optimal allocations of
user registration and verification responsibilities between the
provider and the TRS Fund Administrator. The Commission also seeks
comment on reducing certification and re-certification requirements for
applicants to provide TRS, which would reduce the amount of detail the
applicant must provide to demonstrate it will meet all applicable TRS
mandatory minimum standards. The information the Commission receives in
comments will help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant
compliance matters, costs, and other burdens for small entities that
may result from the proposals and inquiries made in the NPRM.
Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities. The proposed changes to the
Commission's TRS rules are designed to ensure that internet-based TRS
align with twenty-first century technological developments and continue
to serve the needs of the disability community. For IP Relay, the
Commission seeks comment of the economic impact of ensuring
compatibility of IP Relay with RTT technology. The Commission also
proposes to revise its rule to facilitate the provision of IP Relay
using ASR and text-to-speech technologies For VRS, the Commission seeks
comment on the potential costs incurred by VRS providers to build in
captioning functionality. The Commission also would provide VRS
providers with increased operational flexibility by loosening
restrictions on VRS calls while traveling abroad and adjusting physical
call center requirements. The item also seeks to reduce the burden of
the certification process on applicants to provide TRS. The item also
inquiries about reducing burdens through updating or deleting obsolete
or unnecessarily burdensome rules.
The NPRM seeks comment from all interested parties, particularly
those of small entities. Small entities are encouraged to bring to the
Commission's attention any specific concerns they may have with the
proposals outlined in the NPRM and suggest alternatives. The Commission
expects to consider alternatives that might minimize the economic
impact of any final rules on small entities in reaching its final
conclusions and taking action in the proceeding.
Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications
equipment, Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 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; Pub.
L. 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156.
0
2. Amend Sec. 64.604 by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4)(iii) and revising paragraphs
(b)(4)(iv) and (b)(6);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and removing and reserving
paragraph (c)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(iii) introductory text,
(c)(5)(iii)(A)(1)(ii), (c)(5)(iii)(E)(3) and removing and reserving
paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(E)(5);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(H), (c)(5)(iii)(I), (c)(6) and (7),
(c)(8) introductory text, (c)(8)(v) and (vi), (c)(10)(ii), and
(c)(11)(ii) and (iii) and removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(8)(i),
(c)(11)(ii)(A) and (B), (c)(11)(iv) and (v);
0
e. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) and removing and reserving paragraphs
(d)(2), (d)(7)(i), (d)(7)(iii)(B) and (C), and (d)(7)(vi).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 64.604 Mandatory minimum standards.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) A VRS provider leasing or licensing an automatic call
distribution (ACD) platform must have a written lease or license
agreement. Such lease or license agreement may not include any revenue
sharing agreement or compensation based upon minutes of use.
* * * * *
(6) Caller ID. When a TRS facility is able to transmit any calling
party identifying information to the public network, the TRS facility
must pass through, to the called party, at least one of the following:
711 or the 10-digit number of the calling party.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Consumer complaint logs. States and interstate providers must
maintain a log of consumer complaints including all complaints about
TRS in the state, whether filed with the TRS provider or the State, and
must retain the log until the next application for certification is
granted. The log shall include, at a minimum, the date the complaint
was filed, the nature of the complaint, the date of resolution, and an
explanation of the resolution.
(2) Contact persons. State TRS Programs, interstate TRS providers,
and TRS providers that have state contracts must submit to the
Commission contact information, including a phone number and email, for
the person or office responsible for TRS consumer information and
complaints about the service provided by the certified State TRS
Program or TRS provider.
(3) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) Cost recovery. Costs caused by interstate TRS shall be
recovered from
[[Page 12750]]
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, 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) Telecommunications Relay Services Fund. An Interstate Cost
Recovery Plan, hereinafter referred to as the TRS Fund, shall be
administered by an entity selected by the Commission (administrator).
(A) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) For the support of IP CTS, VRS, and IP Relay, on the basis of
interstate and intrastate end-user revenues.
* * * * *
(E) * * *
(3) In addition to the data required under paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(D)
of this section, all TRS providers, including providers who are not
interexchange carriers, local exchange carriers, or certified state
relay providers, must submit reports of interstate TRS minutes of use
to the administrator in order to receive payments.
* * * * *
(5) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(H) Administrator reporting, monitoring, and filing requirements.
The administrator shall perform all filing and reporting functions
required in paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(A) through (c)(5)(iii)(K) of this
section. TRS payment formulas and revenue requirements shall be filed
with the Commission on May 1 of each year, to be effective the
following July 1. The administrator shall report annually to the
Commission an itemization of monthly administrative costs which shall
consist of all expenses, receipts, and payments associated with the
administration of the TRS Fund. The administrator is required to keep
the TRS Fund separate from all other funds administered by the
administrator, shall file a cost allocation manual (CAM) and shall
provide the Commission full access to all data collected pursuant to
the administration of the TRS Fund. The administrator shall account for
the financial transactions of the TRS Fund in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles for federal agencies and maintain the
accounts of the TRS Fund in accordance with the United States
Government Standard General Ledger. When the administrator, or any
independent auditor hired by the administrator, conducts audits of
providers of services under the TRS program or contributors to the TRS
Fund, such audits shall be conducted in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. In administering the TRS Fund,
the administrator shall also comply with all relevant and applicable
federal financial management and reporting statutes.
(I) Information filed with the administrator. The administrator
shall keep all data obtained from contributors and TRS providers
confidential and shall not disclose such data in company-specific form
unless directed to do so by the Commission. Subject to any restrictions
imposed by the Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
the TRS Fund administrator may share data obtained from carriers with
the administrators of the universal support mechanisms (see Sec.
54.701 of this chapter), the North American Numbering Plan
administration cost recovery (see Sec. 52.16 of this chapter), and the
long-term local number portability cost recovery (see Sec. 52.32 of
this chapter). The TRS Fund administrator shall keep confidential all
data obtained from other administrators. The administrator shall not
use such data except for purposes of administering the TRS Fund,
calculating the regulatory fees of interstate and intrastate common
carriers and VoIP service providers, and aggregating such fee payments
for submission to the Commission. The Commission shall have access to
all data reported to the administrator, and authority to audit TRS
providers. Contributors may make requests for Commission nondisclosure
of company-specific revenue information under Sec. 0.459 of this
chapter by so indicating on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet
at the time that the subject data are submitted. The Commission shall
make all decisions regarding nondisclosure of company-specific
information.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) Form. An informal complaint may be transmitted to the Consumer
& Governmental Affairs Bureau and shall contain the information
required by Sec. 1.716.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Service; designation of agents. The Commission shall forward
any complaint to the TRS provider named in the complaint. Such TRS
provider shall be called upon to satisfy or answer the complaint within
the time specified by the Commission. Every TRS provider shall file
with the Commission a statement designating an agent to receive
complaints. Such designation shall include a name or department
designation, business address, telephone number, and email address.
(B) * * *
(1) Where it appears from the TRS provider's answer, or from other
communications with the parties, that an informal complaint has been
satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider the matter
closed without response to the complainant or defendant. In all other
cases, the Commission shall inform the parties of its review and
disposition of a complaint filed under this subpart.
* * * * *
(C) Formal Complaints. A formal complaint shall follow the Formal
Complaints process in part 1, subpart E of this title.
(7) Treatment of TRS customer information. Contracts between the
TRS administrator and the TRS vendor shall provide for the transfer of
TRS customer profile data from the outgoing TRS vendor to the incoming
TRS vendor. Such data must be disclosed in usable form at least 60 days
prior to the provider's last day of service provision. Such data may
not be used for any purpose other than to connect the TRS user with the
called parties desired by that TRS user. Such information shall not be
sold, distributed, shared or revealed in any other way by the relay
center or its employees, unless compelled to do so by lawful order.
* * * * *
(8) Incentives for use of internet-based TRS.
(i) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(v) An internet-based TRS provider shall not offer or provide to
any person or entity any form of direct or indirect incentives,
financial or otherwise, for the purpose of encouraging individuals to
register for or use the internet-based TRS provider's service.
(vi) Any internet-based TRS provider that does not comply with this
paragraph (c)(8) shall be ineligible for
[[Page 12751]]
compensation for such service from the TRS Fund.
* * * * *
(10) * * *
(ii) Any volume control or other amplification feature can be
adjusted separately and independently of the caption feature.
(11) * * *
(ii) No person shall use IP CTS equipment or software with the
captioning on, unless such person is registered to use IP CTS pursuant
to 47 CFR 64.611(j).
(A) [Reserved]
(B) [Reserved]
(iii) IP CTS providers shall ensure that any distributed IP CTS
equipment has a label on its face in a conspicuous location with the
following language in a clearly legible font: ``FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS
ANYONE BUT REGISTERED USERS WITH HEARING LOSS FROM USING THIS DEVICE
WITH THE CAPTIONS ON.'' For software applications on mobile phones,
laptops, tablets, computers or other similar devices, IP CTS providers
shall ensure that, each time the consumer logs into the application,
the notification language required by this paragraph appears in a
conspicuous location on the device screen immediately after log-in.
(iv) [Removed]
(v) [Removed]
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) VRS service must be offered under the name by which the
eligible VRS provider offering such service became certified and in a
manner that clearly identifies that provider of the service. Where a
TRS provider also utilizes sub-brands to identify its VRS, each sub-
brand must clearly identify the eligible VRS provider.
* * * * *
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(i) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) [Reserved]
(C) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 64.606 by revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (g) to
read as follows:
Sec. 64.606 Internet-based TRS provider and TRS program
certification.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) States must notify the Commission of substantive changes in
their TRS programs within 60 days after they occur, and must certify
that the state TRS program continues to meet federal minimum standards
after implementing the substantive change.
(2) Internet-based TRS providers certified under this section must
notify the Commission of substantive changes in their TRS programs,
services, and features within 60 days after such changes occur, and
must certify that the interstate TRS provider continues to meet Federal
minimum standards after implementing the substantive change.
Substantive changes shall include, but not be limited to:
* * * * *
(g) An internet-based TRS provider, certified under this section,
must within 60 days of receiving a request from the Commission, submit
a report with a detailed description of its current practice and future
plans for complying with each rule specified in such request.
0
4. Amend Sec. 64.613 by removing and reserving paragraph (b).
Sec. 64.613 Numbering directory for internet-based TRS users.
* * * * *
(b) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 64.615 by removing and reserving paragraph (b) and
revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.615 TRS User Registration Database and administrator.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Any user for which a VRS or IP CTS provider makes a request
under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section
* * * * *
Sec. 64.619 [Removed and Reserved]
0
6. Remove and reserve Sec. 64.619.
0
7. Amend Sec. 64.621 by removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(3) and
(4) and revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.621 Interoperability and portability.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) VRS providers shall ensure that their provision of VRS and
video communications, including their access technology, meets the
requirements of the VRS Provider Interoperability Profile.
(2) VRS providers shall provide a standard xCard export interface
to enable users to import their lists of contacts in xCard XML format,
in accordance with IETF RFC 6351.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 64.623 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 64.623 Administrator requirements.
(a) For the purposes of this section, the term ``Administrator''
shall refer to the TRS Numbering administrator and the administrator of
the TRS User Registration Database. A single entity may serve in one or
more of these capacities.
(b) * * *
(4) Neither the administrator of the TRS User Registration Database
nor any affiliates thereof shall be unduly influenced, as determined by
the Commission, by parties with a vested interest in the outcome of
TRS-related activities.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-05213 Filed 3-16-26; 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 March 17, 2026.
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.