Video Relay Service Compensation
| Published date | 14 March 2024 |
| Record Number | 2024-05461 |
| Citation | 89 FR 18586 |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
| Section | Proposed rules |
Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 51 (Thursday, March 14, 2024)
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 51 (Thursday, March 14, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18586-18589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05461]
[[Page 18586]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51; FCC 23-78; FR ID 206954]
Video Relay Service Compensation
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission)
seeks comment on amending its rules on compensation from the
Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund for providers of Video
Relay Service (VRS) to address a number of special situations. The
Commission proposes to allow VRS providers additional compensation for
responding to a consumer's justified request that a Deaf Interpreter be
added to a call. The Commission believes that providing additional
compensation for such calls will advance the statutory objective to
make functionally equivalent TRS available. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the TRS Fund should support: other methods of
communication with eligible TRS users, such as cued language, as a
specialized form of VRS; the routing of VRS calls to a Communication
Assistant (CA) with a particular skill set or knowledge of a specific
subject matter; calls between a VRS user who is deafblind and another
VRS user; and, voice carry over (VCO) calls between a TRS user who is
deafblind and a hearing user.
DATES: Comments are due April 15, 2024. Reply comments are due April
29, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 03-123
and 10-51 by the following method:
Federal Communications Commission's website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Mendelsohn, Disability Rights
Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at 202-559-7304, or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 23-78, adopted on
September 22, 2023, released on September 28, 2023, in CG Docket Nos.
03-123 and 10-51. The full text of document FCC 23-78 is available for
public inspection and copying via the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS).
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the
internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express
Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and
Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC
20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission
no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a
temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of
individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a
brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary
of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
Synopsis
Background
Section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
Act), requires the Commission to ensure the availability of TRS to
persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind or who have speech
disabilities, to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner.
47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1). TRS are defined as telephone transmission services
enabling such persons to communicate by wire or radio in a
[[Page 18587]]
manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of a hearing
individual who does not have a speech disability to communicate using
voice communication services. 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3). VRS, a relay service
that allows people with hearing or speech disabilities who use sign
language to communicate with voice telephone users through video
equipment, is supported entirely by the TRS Fund. VRS providers are
compensated for the reasonable costs of providing VRS in accordance
with payment formulas approved by the Commission.
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In document FCC 23-78, the Commission seeks further comment on
whether, and under what circumstances, the Commission should provide
additional compensation for specific types of specialized service
identified by commenters, and how such compensation should be
structured.
Deaf Interpreters. The Commission seeks comment on whether VRS
providers should receive additional compensation for responding to a
consumer's justified request that a Deaf Interpreter be added to a
call. According to the Registry for Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.
(RID), a Certified Deaf Interpreter is a holder of a certification that
the individual is deaf or hard of hearing, possesses native or near
native fluency in American Sign Language (ASL), has demonstrated
knowledge and understanding of interpreting, deafness, the deaf
community, and deaf culture, and has specialized training or experience
in the use of tools to enhance communication. RID adds that Certified
Deaf Interpreters are recommended for assignments where an interpreter
who is deaf or hard of hearing would be beneficial, such as when the
communication mode of an individual who is deaf is so unique that it
cannot be adequately accessed by interpreters who are hearing. The
record indicates that such interpreters are sometimes needed on VRS
calls to enable functionally equivalent communication in ASL. For
example, a commenter states that Deaf Interpreters provide necessary
support to consumers with limited English or ASL proficiency, or
cognitive or motor disabilities. It is also apparent that providing a
Deaf Interpreter adds significantly to the cost of handling a VRS call
where such interpreters are required. The Commission therefore believes
that providing additional compensation for such calls will advance the
objective of section 225 to make functionally equivalent TRS available.
The Commission also believes such additional compensation can be
implemented relatively efficiently, without adding administrative
burdens disproportionate to the resulting benefits. The Commission
seeks comment on its proposal and these underlying assumptions.
As a threshold matter, the Commission seeks comment on the extent
to which Deaf Interpreters (whether ``Certified'' or not) are currently
being used in VRS. What percentage of a VRS provider's calls and
minutes involve the provision of such additional assistance? How often
are Certified Deaf Interpreters requested, and how often are such
requests granted? Is there evidence that VRS providers are failing to
provide a Certified Deaf Interpreter when such assistance is warranted?
If so, what concerns lead VRS providers to withhold such assistance--
given that the Commission's allowable cost criteria do not exclude the
costs of such assistance from allowable costs that may be subject to
TRS Fund support?
If additional compensation is provided for the use of Certified
Deaf Interpreters, what criteria should be applied to determine when
such additional compensation is paid? Should the Commission adopt RID's
description as a definition for Certified Deaf Interpreter? Should that
definition be modified or supplemented with other pertinent
information? Should the Commission require that persons providing such
assistance be certified, and if so, what bodies should be deemed
qualified to issue such certifications? How should the Commission
define the occasions when a Certified Deaf Interpreter is needed for a
VRS call? For example, should the Commission adopt a commenter's
suggested criterion, authorizing additional compensation when a
Certified Deaf Interpreter is needed to provide necessary support to
consumers with limited English or ASL proficiency, or cognitive or
motor disabilities, or should different or more specific criteria be
applicable? The Commission also seeks comment on the costs of providing
this additional service, and how additional compensation should be
determined. What additional amount, if any, would be necessary to
incentivize providers to make this service available when needed?
Alternatively, should the provision of Certified Deaf Interpreters when
needed be mandatory for all VRS providers? The Commission also seeks
comment on any changes to the call detail reporting requirements that
may be needed to facilitate reporting calls that include Deaf
Interpreters and to allow the TRS Fund administrator to validate those
calls for compensation.
Interpreting Other Than ASL. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether other methods of communication with eligible TRS users, such as
cued language, should be authorized for compensation as a specialized
form of VRS. How many people currently use cued language? To what
extent could such a service be effectively offered by VRS providers,
and what are the relevant additional costs that would be incurred to
provide such a service? If authorized, how should the additional
reasonable costs of such a service be determined for the purpose of
setting an appropriate amount of additional compensation?
Skills-based Interpreting. The Commission further seeks comment on
whether VRS providers should receive additional compensation for
responding to a VRS user's request to have a call routed to a CA with
particular skill sets--such as particular spoken-language abilities,
interpreting, transliteration, and signing styles and skills, or
knowledge of specific subject matters, such as medicine, law, or
technology. To what extent would the provision of skills-based
interpreting enable functionally equivalent communications? To what
extent could such a service be effectively offered by VRS providers,
and what are the relevant additional costs that would be incurred to
provide such a service? Would costs vary depending on the type of skill
set? How should the costs for differing skill sets be determined for
setting an appropriate amount of additional compensation? How could the
additional costs be verified?
If additional compensation is provided, what criteria should be
applied to determine when such compensation is paid? What criteria
should be met to determine that a CA has a particular skill set, and
how should the Commission verify that such CAs provided such skills
during a call? How should the Commission verify that the skills-based
interpreting improved the call quality beyond what the user would have
received from an interpreter without the identified skill set? The
Commission also seeks comment on any changes to the call detail
reporting requirements that may be needed to facilitate reporting calls
that include skills-based interpreters and to allow the TRS Fund
administrator to validate those calls for compensation.
Compensable Calls for VRS Users Who Are Deafblind. The Commission
seeks comment on whether the TRS Fund should support calls between a
[[Page 18588]]
VRS user who is deafblind and another VRS user. Do such calls require
the participation of a CA for functionally equivalent communication?
The Commission believes that during such a call, the VRS user who is
deafblind would be signing to the other VRS user on the call and would
receive a typed communication from the CA of the signed communication
from the other VRS user. What are the costs and benefits of allowing
such calls to be compensable from the TRS Fund? What changes, if any,
would need to be implemented to a VRS provider's platform, to the TRS
Numbering database, and to call details records to allow such calls to
be compensated when a CA is needed? Should the Compensation Additive
for calls from individuals who are deafblind apply to such calls? Or
should an alternative compensation rate be considered for such calls?
What rules, if any, would need to be revised or adopted to permit such
calls to be compensable?
Voice Carry Over Calls. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether voice carry over (VCO) calls between a TRS user who is
deafblind and a hearing user should be compensable from the TRS Fund.
In such a call, where the individual who is deafblind is using their
voice, rather than ASL, the role of the CA is limited to typing the
voiced communications of the other party to the call. The Commission
seeks comment on how to classify such calls within the TRS program. On
its face, such a call does not seem to be classifiable as VRS because
no party is using ASL or other form of sign language. Should such a
call be classified as an internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service
(IP CTS) call or a VCO IP Relay call? What are the costs and benefits
to finding such calls to be compensable? Would permitting such calls
allow individuals who are deafblind that use ASL, their own voice, and
Braille to complete all of their calls to hearing individuals on one
TRS platform? Would it be an inefficient use of available VRS CAs, if
no ASL is used on the call? Are there technological alternatives
available on VRS platforms, such as voice-to-Real Time Text (RTT) or
captioning using automatic speech recognition that would allow the
other party to the call to have their voice transcribed and converted
to braille without the presence of a VRS CA? If so, should such calls
be considered point-to-point video calls on a VRS platform or should it
be considered a compensable relay call, and if so, what compensation
rate should apply to such calls?
Digital Equity and Inclusion. Finally, the Commission, as part of
its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural
or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues
discussed. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how these
proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity,
inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's
relevant legal authority.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended,
the Commission has prepared the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this
document. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadline for comments provided in this document.
Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules. Under section 225
of the Communications Act, as amended, the Commission is tasked with
ensuring that TRS are available to the extent possible and in the most
efficient manner to individuals with disabilities. The Commission seeks
comment on additional compensation for VRS specialized services,
including the use of Certified Deaf Interpreters, other methods of
communications, such as cued speech, and skills-based interpreting. The
Commission proposes adding an incentive per minute compensation amount
to the compensation levels to provide these services and seeks comment
on alternative approaches for providing additional compensation. The
incentive would be added to the per-minute compensation rate that the
provider is eligible to receive for the provisioning of VRS. In
considering these proposals, the Commission seeks to ensure the
availability of functionally equivalent VRS, provided in the most
efficient manner, and ensure that the Commission's regulations
encourage the use of existing technology and do not discourage or
impair the development of improved technology. Providing compensation
for VRS specialized services with added per-minute rates, the
Commission expects to encourage the provisioning of these services to
help ensure that individuals who need services beyond traditional VRS
have access to the communications network in a manner that is
functionally equivalent. The compensation proposal would allow
providers to offer and improve the availability of these specialized
services over time. The proposed limitations on the amount of
compensation and the conditions for receiving the compensation would
ensure that VRS with specialized services is offered in the most
efficient manner.
The Commission also seeks comment on the need for rule changes to
allow communications assistants (CA) to be present on calls between VRS
users who are deafblind and another VRS user, as well as the
compensability of voice carry over calls for VRS users who are
deafblind. Addressing these contours of compensability and eligibility
will help ensure that the provision of services to individuals who are
deafblind are functionally equivalent and offered in the most efficient
manner.
Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections
1, 2, and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
151, 152 and 225.
Small Entities Impacted. The proposals will affect obligations of
VRS providers. These services can be included within the broad economic
category of All Other Telecommunications.
Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements. In assessing the cost of compliance for small entities,
at this time the Commission is unable to quantify the cost of
compliance with any of the potential rule changes that may be adopted.
Additionally, the Commission is currently not in a position to
determine whether, if adopted, the proposals and matters upon which the
Commission seeks comment will require small entities to hire
professionals to comply. However, as the proposed rules are essentially
an expansion of an existing framework used by VRS providers, the
Commission does not anticipate that small entities will be required to
hire professionals to comply with any rule modifications the Commission
ultimately adopts. The Commission expects the information received in
comments, including any requested cost information, will help the
Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance issues, including
costs, that may impact small entities.
Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered. The
[[Page 18589]]
Commission is taking steps to minimize the economic impact on small
entities and is considering significant alternatives by proposing and
seeking alternative proposals for providing compensation for VRS
specialized services. The Commission will consider these proposals to
maintain and improve choice among suppliers for VRS users using
specialized services; help maintain functionally equivalent service;
and maintain an efficient VRS market over the long term in accordance
with the Commission's statutory obligations. For example, in
considering the proposal to allow additional compensation for
specialized services, the Commission's intent is to help ensure that
VRS is provided in a manner that would allow all individuals with
disabilities to have the ability to engage in functionally equivalent
communications while recognizing the additional costs small and other
providers will encounter to provision these services. Further, allowing
such compensation is an alternative to adopting and imposing a specific
requirement for VRS providers to provide such services and would help
ensure specialized services are voluntarily offered and minimize the
cost to providers by allowing providers the opportunity to recover
costs incurred in the provision of such services beyond the cost of
providing traditional VRS. In the alternative, the Commission could
adopt a specific mandate for the provision of these VRS specialized
services or decline to allow additional compensation, but continue to
allow providers to offer specialized services at the prevailing VRS
compensation level. The Commission seeks comment on the effect these
proposals will have on VRS providers that provision these specialized
services.
The Commission seeks comment from all interested parties. Small
entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any
specific concerns they may have with the proposals. The Commission
expects to more fully consider the economic impact on small entities,
based on any comments received, prior to reaching its final conclusions
and adopting final rules in this proceeding.
Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission's Proposals. None.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document contains proposed modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the OMB to
comment on the information collection requirements proposed in this
document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C.
3501-3520. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, the Commission seeks comment on how it might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees. Public Law 107-198; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-05461 Filed 3-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
