Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33899 

subject to the ROSS program from state 

construction and operating permit 

requirements, and the ROSS program is 

not part of the federally-approved SIP. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

revisions to Title 35 of Illinois 

Administrative Code Part 201: Permits 

and General Provisions, sections 

201.103, 201.104 (except for 201.104(b)), 

201.146 (except for 201.146(mmm)), 

201.500, 201.505, 201.510, 201.515, 

201.520, 201.525, 201.530, 201.535, 

201.540, 201.600, 201.605, 201.610, 

201.615, 201.620, 201.625, 201.630, and 

201.635; and Part 211: Definitions and 

General Provisions, section 211.4720; 

effective March 24, 2017. EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 5 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 9, 2018. 

Cathy Stepp, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15252 Filed 7–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket Nos. 13–24 and 03–123; FCC 

18–79] 

IP CTS Modernization and Reform 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) proposes measures to 

ensure that internet Protocol Captioned 

Telephone Service (IP CTS) remains 

sustainable for those individuals who 

need it by reducing waste and thereby 

bringing under control the exponential 

growth of the program. The Commission 

seeks comment on measures to ensure 

fair and efficient provider 

compensation, including compensation 

for the provision of IP CTS using fully 

automated speech recognition (ASR); 

move the compensation rate closer to 

reasonable cost; expand the IP CTS 

contribution base; and reduce the risk of 

providers signing up ineligible 

customers and encouraging IP CTS 

usage regardless of a consumer’s need 

for the service. The Commission also 

seeks comment on IP CTS performance 

goals and metrics to ensure service 

quality for users. 

DATES: Comments on the Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking are due 

September 17, 2018; reply comments on 

the Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking are due October 16, 2018. 

Comments on the Notice of Inquiry are 

due October 16, 2018; reply comments 

on the Notice of Inquiry are due 

November 15, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CG Docket Nos. 03–123 

and 13–24, by either of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the Commission’s Electronic 

Filing System (ECFS): https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

website for submitting comments. For 

ECFS filers, in completing the 

transmittal screen, filers should include 

their full name, U.S. Postal service 

mailing address, and CG Docket Nos. 

03–123 and 13–24. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Scott, Consumer and 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
33900 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 

418–1264, or email Michael.Scott@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Notice of Inquiry (Further Notice and 

NOI), document FCC 18–79, adopted on 

June 7, 2018, released on June 8, 2018, 

in CG Docket Nos. 03–123 and 13–24. 

The Report and Order and Declaratory 

Ruling, FCC 18–79, adopted on June 7, 

2018 and released on June 8, 2018, was 

published at 83 FR 30082, June 27, 

2018. The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection and 

copying via the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), and during regular business 

hours at the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (844) 432–2272 

(videophone), or (202) 418–0432 (TTY). 

Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, 

interested parties may file comments 

and reply comments on or before the 

dates indicated in the DATES section. 

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). 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th Street SW, Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

• 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 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

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 rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 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. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

The Further Notice and NOI in 

document FCC 18–79 seek comment on 

proposed rule amendments that may 

result in modified information 

collection requirements. If the 

Commission adopts any modified 

information collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish another 

document in the Federal Register 

inviting the public to comment on the 

requirements, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. Public Law 

104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. In 

addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

the Commission seeks comment on how 

it might further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

Public Law 107–198; 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

1. IP CTS is a form of TRS that 

permits an individual who can speak 

but who has difficulty hearing over the 

telephone to use a telephone and an 

internet Protocol-enabled device via the 

internet to simultaneously listen to the 

other party and read captions of what 

the other party is saying. Generally, IP 

CTS employs two network paths: A 

connection via the public switched 

telephone network (PSTN) or a Voice 

over internet Protocol (VoIP) service for 

the voice conversation between the 

parties to the call, and a separate 

internet connection that transmits the 

other party’s voice from the IP CTS 

user’s phone to a communications 

assistant (CA) and transmits captions 

from the CA back to the IP CTS user. 

2. When an IP CTS user places or 

receives a call, he or she is 

automatically connected to a CA at the 

same time that the parties to the call are 

connected. In the most widely used 

version of IP CTS, the CA then revoices 

everything the hearing party says into a 

speech recognition program, which 

automatically transcribes the words into 

captions. In a second version, the CA 

uses stenography to produce the 

captions, typing the speech content 

directly into captions. Today, five 

providers have certification from the 

Commission to provide IP CTS. All IP 

CTS minutes are compensated from the 

interstate telecommunications relay 

services (TRS) fund (TRS Fund), and, 

like other forms of internet-based TRS, 

IP CTS is entirely administered by the 

Commission. 

3. IP CTS growth has been 

exponential in recent years. From 2011 

to 2017, annual IP CTS minutes have 

grown from approximately 29 million to 

363 million. According to the TRS Fund 

administrator, in 2018–19, IP CTS will 

represent approximately 78 percent of 

the total minutes of TRS compensated 

by the TRS Fund and about 66 percent 

of total TRS Fund payments to TRS 

providers. At the same time, the enduser telecommunication revenue base 

from which IP CTS and other forms of 

TRS are supported is steadily declining, 

raising the threat that over the long 

term, ever-increasing levels of 

contribution may not be sustainable. 

4. One reason for greater usage of IP 

CTS over other forms of TRS may be the 

ease and convenience of using IP CTS, 

including the absence of direct 

interaction between the parties to the 

call and the CA. For example, during an 

IP CTS call, the presence of a CA is not 

announced to the hearing party, and 

communication with the CA by the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33901 

person who has hearing loss takes place 

in only one direction. While such ease 

and convenience facilitate use of the 

service by people with hearing loss who 

need it for effective communication, 

these characteristics also create a risk 

that IP CTS will be used even when it 

is not needed. 

5. Further, a large portion of the 

recent growth in IP CTS may be 

attributable to perverse incentives for 

providers to market this service to 

individuals who do not need it and the 

consequent wasteful use of IP CTS by 

individuals who could derive equal or 

greater benefit from less costly 

alternatives, such as high-amplification 

phones. Providers engage in a number of 

marketing practices that likely 

contribute to waste in the IP CTS 

program. These include (1) touting the 

usefulness of IP CTS to anyone with 

hearing loss—regardless of their level of 

hearing loss or need for captioning (over 

other types of assistive or auxiliary 

devices); (2) linking together 

amplification and captioning features on 

IP CTS devices, which causes waste 

(e.g., when the phone is used by others 

in a household who may not need 

captions); (3) failing to effectively assess 

each individual’s need for IP CTS 

through neutral and independent thirdparty evaluations before permitting use 

of the service; (4) engaging in 

preestablished and sometimes exclusive 

or joint arrangements with third-party 

professionals that compromise the 

objectivity of such assessments; and (5) 

routinely giving out free IP CTS devices 

with features, such as added 

amplification and the ability to create a 

transcript of the call, that make these 

products attractive to consumers who 

may not need captions for functionally 

equivalent telephone communication. It 

is the Commission’s goal to eliminate 

provider practices and incentives to 

promote use of IP CTS by individuals 

who do not need it, and to ensure that 

this service remains sustainable for 

those who actually need it. 

IP CTS Compensation 

6. From 2011 to 2017, under the 

Multistate Average Rate Structure Plan 

(MARS Plan), the IP CTS compensation 

rate increased from $1.763 to $1.9467 

per minute, while average allowable IP 

CTS expenses dropped from $2.0581 to 

$1.2326 per minute. In part because of 

this excessive compensation rate, 

payments to IP CTS providers from the 

TRS Fund are putting ever-increasing 

pressure on a declining TRS Fund 

contribution base—pressure that sooner 

or later, if unchecked, will threaten the 

viability of the TRS program itself. 

7. To address this widening gap 

between compensation and reasonable 

costs, the Commission, in the Report 

and Order, ends reliance on the MARS 

Plan methodology and takes interim 

steps to move the compensation rate 

closer to average costs, reducing 

compensation over a two-year period. 

Here, the Commission seeks comment 

on how to set IP CTS compensation 

rates following this interim period, to 

allow recovery of reasonable provider 

costs and ensure that IP CTS is provided 

in the most efficient manner. 

8. The Commission proposes to use 

average provider costs to set per-minute 

compensation rates for a multi-year rate 

period for IP CTS. Such an approach 

can simplify the rate-setting process, 

facilitate TRS provider planning and 

budgeting, and provide incentives for 

providers to increase their efficiency 

through innovation and cost reduction. 

The Commission seeks comment on the 

costs and benefits of this proposal, 

including comments on: (1) The 

reasonableness and allowability of 

certain provider costs; (2) the specifics 

of setting a cost-based rate, including 

issues concerning extension of the 

‘‘glide path’’ towards a cost-based rate, 

the use of rate tiers, the duration of the 

rate period, and within-period rate 

adjustments; (3) alternative approaches; 

and (4) compensation for IP CTS using 

full ASR. 

Identifying Eligible IP CTS Costs 

9. The Commission seeks comment on 

the reasonableness of the costs currently 

reported by IP CTS providers. Do these 

reported costs, in the aggregate, 

accurately reflect the actual average 

costs of providing this service? Below, 

the Commission discusses whether it 

should consider placing caps on 

allowable costs for outreach and 

marketing. Should the Commission 

consider placing caps on any other cost 

categories? Further, should the 

Commission refine these categories in 

any way, for example, by requiring 

providers to provide more detail 

regarding their indirect expenses? 

Providers currently report average 

expenses to the TRS Fund 

administrator, Rolka Loube, for the 

following categories of IP CTS costs: 

Facilities; CA Related; Non-CA Relay 

Center; Indirect; Depreciation; 

Marketing; Outreach; and Other. 

10. Subcontractor Expenses. Expenses 

reported in the ‘‘Other’’ category consist 

mainly of undifferentiated 

‘‘subcontractor expenses.’’ The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the Commission has the authority to, 

and should, require subcontractors to 

submit directly to the TRS Fund 

administrator their underlying cost data 

for the fees charged to certified IP CTS 

providers, in accordance with the 

administrator’s instructions and TRS 

cost categories, to ensure that the 

reported costs can be reviewed for their 

accuracy, appropriateness, and 

reasonableness. As an alternative, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to amend its rules to provide that, in the 

event that a subcontractor accounts for 

more than a certain threshold 

percentage of a certified IP CTS 

provider’s total costs, the subcontractor 

itself shall be deemed a TRS provider 

and be required to submit an 

application for certification showing its 

qualifications to provide service 

meeting the Commission’s minimum 

standards. The Commission also seeks 

comment on what the appropriate 

threshold percentage should be for such 

a requirement. The Commission invites 

providers and subcontractors to submit 

information in this proceeding about the 

specific subcontractor services provided 

or received and the basis on which fees 

for specific services provided by 

subcontractors should or should not be 

deemed reasonable costs of providing IP 

CTS. 

11. Licensing Fees. The Commission 

believes a significant portion of 

subcontractor payments represent 

licensing fees charged to providers for 

the use of patents and other intellectual 

property. As background, when PSTNbased captioned telephone service (CTS) 

was first authorized in 2003, the 

Commission recognized that the service 

was offered at that time solely by 

Ultratec, Inc. (Ultratec), using its 

proprietary technology. In authorizing 

IP CTS in 2007, the Commission 

continued to express concern about the 

consequences of a single company 

having control of CTS technology and 

conditioned its approval of the 

proposed IP CTS offering on Ultratec’s 

representation that it would continue to 

license its captioned telephone 

technologies, including technologies 

relating to IP CTS, at reasonable rates. 

12. The Commission seeks comment 

on the circumstances under which 

license fees paid for technology used to 

provide IP CTS should be included in 

allowable costs, and on what method 

the Commission should use to 

determine whether license fees for such 

technology are ‘‘reasonable.’’ Should the 

Commission cap ‘‘reasonable’’ licensing 

fees for such technology, and at what 

level? In deciding on a method or cap 

for reasonable license fees, should the 

Commission consider that this 

technology is used for a service that is 

paid for through an FCC fund, and for 

which there is no bargaining by users as 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
33902 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

to its price? Should the Commission 

also consider the extent to which a 

single company controls intellectual 

property that is needed for certain forms 

of IP CTS, effectively compelling 

providers to use a proprietary 

technology, as well as the extent to 

which there are economic barriers that 

prevent providers from easily switching 

technologies—such as providers being 

locked into proprietary user devices and 

servers, or having long-term supply 

contracts with the owner of the 

technology? To aid this inquiry, the 

Commission invites parties to submit 

quantitative data (which may be 

accompanied by a request for a 

protective order) on the license fees they 

currently pay for specific types of IP 

CTS technology. 

13. The Commission also seeks 

comment on a proposal by Sorenson 

Communications, Inc. (Sorenson) that 

allowable IP CTS costs should include 

the imputed value of intellectual 

property developed by the IP CTS 

provider itself. Given that the 

Commission currently allows TRS 

providers to recover as an allowable 

expense the research and development 

costs incurred to ensure that a relay 

service meets minimum TRS standards, 

is it ever appropriate to permit a 

provider to also recover the imputed 

value of the resulting intellectual 

property? Would such a rule be 

consistent with using a methodology 

that is based on compensating providers 

for their actual reasonable costs? 

Sorenson also contends that license 

fees, based on imputed value and paid 

by an IP CTS provider to its own 

affiliate for intellectual property 

developed by the IP CTS provider and 

then transferred to the affiliate, should 

be deemed reasonable IP CTS expenses. 

Should the Commission’s Part 32 rule 

on affiliate transactions of common 

carriers continue to apply in such cases? 

Is there any valid reason why the carrier 

affiliate transaction rule should not 

apply to a TRS provider, given the 

potential incentives for self-dealing and 

the difficulties of objective valuation? 

14. Outreach Expenses. Commission 

rules require common carriers to 

conduct TRS outreach to assure that 

callers in their service areas are aware 

of the availability and use of all forms 

of TRS. For many years, however, the 

Commission has raised concerns about 

the effectiveness of outreach efforts on 

the national level. In 2013, the 

Commission terminated the allowed 

recovery of outreach expenses by VRS 

and IP Relay, intending to centralize the 

outreach function at the national level. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether it should allow outreach 

expenses to be compensable from the 

TRS Fund as part of an IP CTS 

provider’s reasonable expenses. The 

Commission invites IP CTS providers to 

describe the specific types of activities 

for which they report expenses in this 

category. In light of the tenfold growth 

of IP CTS minutes in the last six years, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether TRS-Fund supported outreach 

to potential new IP CTS users is 

currently needed to further the goals of 

section 225 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended (the Act). 

Moreover, considering that unlike VRS 

and IP Relay, IP CTS calls tend to not 

immediately be identifiable as relay 

calls to the non-caption-using party, is 

outreach to the public needed to 

encourage hearing individuals to place 

or accept IP CTS calls to the same extent 

as for other forms of TRS? If the 

Commission concludes that some 

outreach should be supported by the 

Fund, should it limit allowable outreach 

expenses to a specified percentage or 

amount, and, if so, what percentage or 

amount should that be? 

15. Marketing Expenses. Marketing 

has been defined as branded advertising 

and other promotional activity aimed at 

encouraging the use of a particular 

provider’s service. Marketing expenses 

are currently allowable costs. The 

Commission invites IP CTS providers to 

describe the specific types of activities 

for which they report expenses in that 

category. Given the history of 

inappropriate IP CTS marketing and the 

susceptibility of this service to being 

used regardless of need, the 

Commission is concerned about having 

the TRS Fund support marketing 

activities that have the potential to 

promote widespread use of the service 

by individuals who may not need it to 

obtain functionally equivalent 

telephone service. Therefore, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

compensation for marketing expenses 

should be disallowed or, in the 

alternative, limited. For example, 

should the Commission cap such 

expenses at a specific level, and if so, 

what would be the maximum 

percentage of expenses or amount (e.g., 

per minute) that should be recoverable? 

16. Definitions. In the event that the 

Commission decides to treat marketing 

and outreach differently in terms of 

allowability, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether and how to 

provide more precise definitions of 

these two expense categories. In general, 

should the TRS Fund administrator’s 

current definitions of ‘‘outreach’’ and 

‘‘marketing’’ as defined in the Provider 

Data Collection Form & Instructions, be 

modified, and if so, in what respects? 

17. Operating Margin. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the operating-margin approach and zone 

of reasonableness established in 2017 

for VRS and used in the Report and 

Order of document FCC 18–79 in 

establishing interim IP CTS 

compensation rates is appropriate for 

the purpose of setting an IP CTS rate for 

2020–21. Are there any material 

differences between VRS and IP CTS 

that would justify a different zone than 

the 7.6%–12.35% range? Have there 

been changes in capital markets that 

would support moving the end-points of 

the range up or down? The Commission 

also seeks comment on where to set a 

specific allowed operating margin 

within the zone of reasonableness. 

18. Historical vs. Projected Costs. The 

Commission used a weighted average of 

providers’ historical and projected perminute costs to set compensation rates 

in setting interim IP CTS rates in the 

Report and Order in document FCC 18– 

79. The Commission seeks comment on 

whether it should continue to use a 

weighted average of historical and 

projected costs in setting compensation 

rates for IP CTS. Should the 

Commission take into account the 

extent to which projections line up with 

the historical cost trend, and whether 

there is an adequate explanation when 

projections deviate significantly from 

the historical trend? 

19. Further Adjustment of Interim 

Rates. In the Report and Order in 

document FCC 18–79, the Commission 

set interim compensation rates for 

2018–19 and 2019–20 based on 

previously approved categories of 

allowable TRS costs and on the 

information currently available 

regarding actual costs in the IP CTS 

context, with the goal of striking a 

reasonable balance between the need to 

bring rates in line with costs and reduce 

the TRS Fund contribution burden, on 

the one hand, and avoiding rate shock 

and potential service disruption, on the 

other. If the Commission determines, 

based on the record compiled in this 

rulemaking, that some costs have been 

incorrectly reported or are otherwise not 

‘‘reasonable’’ for TRS Fund recovery, 

should the interim rates should be 

adjusted to take account of such 

determinations? 

Moving to a Cost-Based Rate 

20. In the Report and Order in 

document FCC 18–79, the Commission 

reduced the per-minute compensation 

rate for IP CTS by 10 percent annually, 

to interim levels of $1.75 for 2018–19 

and $1.58 for 2019–20, in order to begin 

a ‘‘glide path’’ toward a cost-based level, 

using as a reference point the TRS Fund 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33903 

administrator’s current estimate of 

historical and projected IP CTS 

expenses for calendar years 2017 and 

2018, which average $1.28 per minute. 

According to the historical cost trend, 

however, IP CTS costs have been 

consistently declining over time. 

Further, the Commission may decide 

that some previously reported costs 

should not be recoverable from the TRS 

Fund. 

21. Need for an Extended Glide Path. 

To limit the short-term potential for 

undesirable loss of competitive 

alternatives and disruption of service to 

consumers, should the Commission 

extend the interim-rate ‘‘glide path,’’ 

and if so, what should the extended 

glide path look like? In setting the 

interim rates the Commission found that 

a 10 percent reduction provided a 

reasonable ‘‘glide path’’ toward a costbased rate. If IP CTS providers’ 

reasonable costs, as determined based 

on the record to be compiled, are not 

substantially lower than the cost 

estimate the Commission used for the 

purpose of setting interim rates, it 

would appear that no extension of the 

glide path would be needed. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

view. On the other hand, if reasonable 

provider costs prove to be substantially 

lower than the current estimate, what 

transition to a cost-based rate level 

would be appropriate to ensure a 

reasonable level of certainty and 

predictability for IP CTS providers 

while also ensuring the most efficient 

use of the TRS Fund? Would the fact 

that costs have been substantially lower 

than previously thought mitigate in 

favor of a longer or shorter glide path? 

22. Tiered Rates. Some parties have 

previously expressed concern that, even 

if costs do not change, setting a 

compensation rate based on average cost 

may force some above-average cost 

providers out of the IP CTS market. In 

order to encourage smaller competitors 

to remain in the market, while still 

narrowing the gap between total 

compensation and total IP CTS costs, 

would it be appropriate to adopt a tiered 

rate structure for IP CTS? In the past, the 

Commission has found that the use of a 

single rate based on weighted average 

costs is appropriate for TRS. Although 

the Commission has deviated from this 

principle in setting VRS rates, there are 

a number of underlying reasons specific 

to VRS that have justified maintaining a 

tiered rate structure. The Commission 

seeks comment on the extent to which 

unique factors are present in the IP CTS 

market that would make a tiered rate 

structure more appropriate than 

averaged compensation rates. For 

example, are there barriers to a smaller 

provider’s ability to expand its share of 

the IP CTS market, despite the 

unusually fast growth in IP CTS 

demand? How would tiered rates affect 

provider incentives to operate more 

efficiently, improve service quality, or 

invest in new technology, such as ASR? 

Are there scale economies in IP CTS 

that would help identify where to set 

tier boundaries? In the event that the 

Commission does adopt tiered rates, 

how should the tiers be structured to 

reflect any such scale economies in IP 

CTS and avoid limiting a provider’s 

incentive to increase their minutes 

above the next tier boundary? How 

should a tier structure be updated as the 

market evolves? How are the economies 

of scale different for IP CTS using ASR? 

Finally, how should a tiered structure 

take account of subcontracted 

operations? 

23. Emergent Provider Rate. For VRS, 

the Commission adopted a special 

‘‘emergent provider’’ rate, applicable on 

a temporary basis for newly certified 

providers and certain other very small 

providers, in order to encourage new 

entry and provide appropriate growth 

incentives. Factors contributing to that 

decision included a desire to maintain 

VRS competition in an unbalanced 

market, the incompleteness of VRS 

reforms intended to support full 

interoperability, the extremely wide perminute cost differentials among VRS 

providers, and the potential role of 

smaller providers in offering service 

features designed for niche VRS market 

segments. Are these or other factors 

present in the IP CTS context to justify 

the adoption of an emergent rate to 

encourage or assist competitive entry? If 

so, how should such a rate be designed 

and implemented? 

24. Rate Period. The Commission also 

seeks comment on the appropriate 

duration of the next rate period. Should 

the duration be governed solely by the 

time it will take to reach a cost-based 

compensation rate—i.e., strictly based 

on the length of the ‘‘glide path’’ that 

the Commission deems appropriate for 

transitioning to a cost-based level? Or 

should other factors be given weight, 

and if so, what rate period duration 

would appropriately balance the needs 

for administrative efficiency, rate 

certainty, and cost-reduction incentives 

with the need for a timely review of 

how IP CTS costs may change in the 

future, e.g., with the use of ASR? 

25. Price Cap Adjustments. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

price-cap factors should be used, and on 

the appropriate indices to use to reflect 

inflation and productivity, once a costbased level has been reached. To what 

extent should the Commission follow 

the price cap approach used for IP 

Relay, or approaches proposed to the 

Commission for IP CTS? 

26. Exogenous Costs. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether to allow 

adjustment of the compensation rate 

during the rate period based on 

exogenous costs. Specifically, should IP 

CTS providers be permitted to seek 

compensation for well-documented 

exogenous costs that (1) belong to a 

category of costs that the Commission 

has deemed allowable, (2) result from 

new TRS requirements or other causes 

beyond the provider’s control, (3) are 

new costs that were not factored into the 

applicable compensation rates, and (4) if 

unrecovered, would cause a provider’s 

current allowable-expenses-plusoperating margin to exceed its IP CTS 

revenues? Would such allowance for 

exogenous cost adjustments sufficiently 

address provider concerns regarding 

compensation for unforeseeable cost 

increases? 

Alternative Approaches 

27. Alternatives to Averaging Costs. 

While the Commission generally has 

viewed an average-cost approach to ratesetting as beneficial because it 

encourages higher-cost providers to 

become more efficient, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether a different 

approach could better ensure that 

functionally equivalent IP CTS is 

provided in the most efficient manner. 

For example, should the Commission 

encourage greater efficiency by setting 

the compensation rate equal to the costs 

of the lowest-cost provider—or, to 

ensure that users have a choice of at 

least two providers, should the 

Commission set the rate equal to the 

costs of the second-lowest-cost 

provider? To the extent that competition 

is beneficial to ensuring functional 

equivalence for IP CTS, what is the 

optimal number of competitors to 

ensure that this is achieved ‘‘in the most 

efficient manner’’? 

28. Alternatives to Setting Cost-Based 

Rates. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on other approaches to IP CTS 

compensation that can successfully 

align the rates for this service with 

actual provider costs and enable the 

Commission to provide IP CTS in the 

most efficient manner. To the extent 

that commenters wish to suggest 

alternative market-based approaches 

that could simplify or otherwise 

improve the IP CTS compensation ratesetting process, the Commission invites 

the submission of specific proposals, 

along with an explanation of how each 

proposal would successfully align the IP 

CTS compensation rate with actual 

provider costs and otherwise advance 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
33904 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

the objectives of section 225 of the Act. 

For example, Sorenson has suggested 

consideration of holding a reverse 

auction to set a multi-year 

compensation rate for IP CTS. How 

should a reverse auction operate in this 

context? For example, how many 

providers should be selected in an 

auction to serve the IP CTS market, and 

why? If multiple providers are to be 

selected, how should bidders’ market 

shares be determined? What would be 

the costs and benefits of using a reverse 

auction to set rates, compared to cost-ofservice ratemaking? 

Setting Compensation for ASR 

29. The Commission seeks comment 

on setting a compensation rate for IP 

CTS calls using full ASR. First, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to set separate rates for ASR-only IP CTS 

and CA-assisted IP CTS, or a single rate 

applicable to both. Would applying a 

single compensation rate to both forms 

of IP CTS appropriately encourage 

migration to a more efficient technology, 

or would it create an undesirable 

incentive for providers to overuse ASR 

where it is not the best choice for a 

particular call? How can the 

Commission ensure that a single rate 

does not end up significantly over- or 

under-compensating providers? 

30. If separate rates are applied, 

should compensation for ASR-only IP 

CTS calls be based on per-minute 

intervals, as is done now for IP CTS and 

for CA-assisted TRS generally, or would 

it be more consistent with cost 

causation principles to compensate 

providers on a one-time or monthly peruser basis—or a combination of the two? 

If the Commission maintains separate 

rates, when should an ASR-only IP CTS 

rate become effective? Should the same 

rate methodology and rate period for 

ASR-only IP CTS and CA-assisted IP 

CTS be used? Should the Commission 

establish cost-based rates that use an 

operating margin? Would tiered or 

emergent-provider rates be appropriate 

for ASR-only IP CTS? Should the 

Commission apply price cap 

adjustments? Would any of the 

alternative approaches discussed be an 

appropriate rate methodology for ASR? 

What additional information, beyond 

that already required in annual provider 

cost reports, would be useful in 

determining an appropriate ASR-only IP 

CTS rate? How should the Commission 

compensate IP CTS calls that use both 

ASR and human intervention? For 

example, should the Commission limit 

application of the CA-assisted IP CTS 

rate to the portion of the call when a CA 

is actively involved in generating 

captions? The Commission also seeks 

comment on how to amend the data 

requirements for call detail records 

submitted with requests for 

compensation, to ensure that the TRS 

Fund administrator has all of the 

information necessary to apply the 

appropriate rate for calls involving ASR. 

31. If separate rates are applied, 

which categories of provider costs are 

relevant to setting a rate for ASR? In its 

annual rate report for 2018, Rolka Loube 

recommends that the Commission 

establish a separate ASR compensation 

rate for IP CTS of $0.49 per minute. 

Rolka Loube arrives at this rate by first 

disaggregating fixed IP CTS costs, 

projected for 2018–19 to average 

$0.3659 per minute, from variable costs, 

which, for the same period, are 

projected to average $0.9564 per minute. 

Rolka Loube then multiplies $1.75 

(Rolka Loube’s recommended interim 

rate for CA-assisted IP CTS) by the ratio 

of fixed IP CTS costs to total IP CTS 

costs, and rounds up the result to $0.49 

per minute. The Commission seeks 

comment on this rate recommendation 

and methodology, and invites 

commenters to suggest alternative ratesetting methods and compensation rates 

for ASR-based IP CTS. 

32. How should overhead and other 

common costs be allocated between CAassisted and IP CTS provided using 

ASR? To what extent would it be 

appropriate to set the ASR-only IP CTS 

compensation rate higher than a costbased level, to create incentives for 

providers to integrate ASR into their IP 

CTS platforms where functional 

equivalence can be achieved? For 

example, should the Commission allow 

a higher operating margin in relation to 

underlying costs for ASR than for 

human-assisted IP CTS, and what would 

be an appropriate amount for such 

additional margin? Conversely, to 

prevent use of ASR where it might 

compromise service quality, should the 

Commission limit the allowance of a 

higher margin? Or should such an extra 

margin be diminished over time, based 

on an expectation of a reduced future 

need for special incentives to adopt this 

technology? If the Commission provides 

a higher margin for ASR as an incentive, 

should it also make a corresponding 

downward adjustment in the operating 

margin for CA-assisted IP CTS, to avoid 

overcompensation for average costs? 

33. Finally, to what extent would it 

serve the purposes of section 225 of the 

Act to modify the definition of 

allowable research and development 

expenses in order to ensure that ASR 

development costs are subject to 

compensation even if such research is 

not strictly necessary to ensure that a 

provider complies with the 

Commission’s minimum TRS standards? 

Alternatively, to the extent that ASR 

development costs and other ASR startup costs are not captured in the 

applicable compensation rate, should 

the Commission treat such costs as 

exogenous costs, which may be 

reimbursed in the same manner and 

under the same criteria as other 

exogenous costs? What other factors 

should the Commission consider in 

determining compensation for ASR-only 

IP CTS? 

Restructuring the Funding of IP CTS 

34. To ensure effective cost recovery 

for TRS, Congress directed the 

Commission to prescribe TRS 

regulations governing the jurisdictional 

separation of the associated costs, which 

shall ‘‘generally provide that costs 

caused by interstate 

telecommunications relay services shall 

be recovered from all subscribers for 

every interstate service and costs caused 

by intrastate telecommunications relay 

services shall be recovered from the 

intrastate jurisdiction.’’ 47 U.S.C. 

225(d)(3)(B). In 2007, however, to 

encourage nationwide IP CTS 

competition that could enhance 

consumer choice, service quality, and 

available features, the Commission 

determined that, on an interim basis, all 

IP CTS minutes, both interstate and 

intrastate, would be supported by TRS 

Fund contributions from carriers’ 

interstate (and international) end-user 

revenues. 

35. Expanding the TRS Fund Base. In 

light of the changes to the IP CTS 

landscape described above, and to 

conform the funding of IP CTS to the 

requirements of section 225 of the Act, 

the Commission proposes to expand the 

contribution base for IP CTS to include 

a percentage of annual intrastate 

revenues from telecommunications 

carriers and VoIP service providers, for 

several reasons. 

36. First, the goal of nationwide 

availability has been fully achieved. IP 

CTS is offered by five competing 

providers (as compared to only two 

providers under a single vendor in 

2007) and the service is used 

extensively nationwide. The burgeoning 

growth of this service offers evidence 

that the special arrangement of treating 

all IP CTS costs as interstate costs is no 

longer necessary as an ‘‘interim’’ 

measure to spur the development of this 

service. 

37. Second, expanding the TRS Fund 

contribution base for support of IP CTS 

to include intrastate revenues would 

reduce the inequitable TRS support 

burden borne by those voice service 

providers whose traffic is primarily 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33905 

interstate and ensure that a reasonable 

share of support for IP CTS is obtained 

from those voice service providers with 

mostly intrastate traffic. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

beliefs, and on any other benefits or 

costs that would result from expanding 

the contribution base for IP CTS to 

include intrastate voice service 

revenues. 

38. Implementation. As the initial 

step in implementing this proposal— 

which assumes that, at least for the near 

term, the total IP CTS revenue 

requirement (RR) continues to be paid 

out of the TRS Fund—the TRS Fund 

administrator would aggregate the total 

end-user revenue data reported by TRS 

Fund contributors on Forms 499–A and 

499–Q. With approximately 40% of total 

TRS Fund contributors’ end-user 

revenues classified as interstate and 

approximately 60% classified as 

intrastate, the TRS Fund revenue base 

available to support IP CTS would 

increase by approximately 150% (60%/ 

40%). Next, the TRS Fund administrator 

would calculate an IP CTS revenue 

requirement sufficient to compensate IP 

CTS providers for their reasonable costs 

of providing IP CTS. A separate 

contribution factor or factors would 

then be developed for the purpose of 

determining the contributions needed 

from each TRS Fund contributor for 

support of IP CTS. 

39. Under one possible approach, the 

TRS Fund administrator could compute 

a single contribution factor for IP CTS, 

which would be applied in the same 

manner to all end-user revenues, both 

interstate and intrastate, in effect 

treating the IP CTS revenue requirement 

as a single pool to which all TRS Fund 

contributors would pay the same 

percentage of their total end-user 

revenues. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether this approach is 

reasonable, equitable to all providers, 

and consistent with the requirements of 

section 225 of the Act. 

40. Under an alternative plan, the IP 

CTS revenue requirement would be 

divided into interstate and intrastate 

portions, based on an estimate of the 

proportion of IP CTS costs and minutes 

that are interstate and intrastate, 

respectively. Separate contribution 

factors would then be determined for (1) 

interstate IP CTS, by dividing the 

interstate IP CTS revenue requirement 

by total interstate end-user revenues of 

all TRS contributors, and (2) intrastate 

IP CTS, by dividing the intrastate IP 

CTS revenue requirement by total 

intrastate end-user revenues of all TRS 

contributors (minus intrastate revenues 

attributable to states that do not selfadminister IP CTS). Under this 

alternative approach, the contribution 

factors for interstate and intrastate IP 

CTS, respectively, would not be the 

same because the IP CTS revenue 

requirement would be allocated 

between the separate jurisdictions based 

on the percentage of IP CTS minutes 

and provider costs attributed to each 

jurisdiction, while the contribution base 

would be allocated based on the 

percentage of end-user revenues 

allocated to each jurisdiction. 

41. Implementation of this second 

alternative approach would be more 

complicated, and might involve some 

additional delay, because it would 

require the TRS Fund administrator (or 

the Commission) to estimate the 

proportions of IP CTS minutes and 

provider costs that are interstate and 

intrastate. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether such a calculation 

is necessary to ensure that the burden of 

TRS Fund contributions is distributed 

equitably among voice service providers 

and consistently with section 225 of the 

Act. If so, how should such separation 

of IP CTS costs and minutes be 

determined? Are the current separations 

rules adequate to separate intrastate and 

interstate IP CTS costs, or would it be 

necessary to refer this issue to the 

Federal-State Joint Board on 

Separations? To the extent that some IP 

CTS calls cannot currently be identified 

as either intra- or interstate, should the 

Commission permit a percentage 

classification based on traffic studies? 

Alternatively, should the Commission 

establish a default proxy allocation, and 

if so, what should the proxy allocation 

be? The Commission also seeks 

comment on any other implementation 

alternatives that the Commission should 

consider. 

Statutory Authority To Require 

Intrastate Support of IP CTS 

42. Statutory authority. The 

Commission believes it has ample 

authority to collect contributions from 

telecommunications carriers’ and VoIP 

service providers’ intrastate end-user 

revenues to support the provision of 

intrastate IP CTS calls, including in 

situations where the state does not 

assume funding responsibility. First, 

section 225(d)(3) of the Act requires the 

Commission to prescribe regulations 

that ‘‘generally’’ provide that TRS costs 

caused by interstate and intrastate 

jurisdictions are each recoverable from 

the subscribers of their respective 

jurisdictions. The Commission 

consistently has ruled that by use of the 

term ‘‘generally,’’ Congress intended for 

the Commission to have broad authority 

to determine how TRS costs will be 

recovered. It was this authority on 

which the Commission relied to permit 

recovery of the costs of intrastate IP 

CTS, as well as intrastate VRS and 

intrastate IP Relay calls, from the TRS 

Fund. Further, section 225(b)(2) of the 

Act states that ‘‘the Commission [has] 

the same authority, power, and 

functions with respect to common 

carriers engaged in intrastate 

communication as the Commission has 

in administering and enforcing the 

provisions of this subchapter with 

respect to any common carrier engaged 

in interstate communication.’’ Finally, 

under section 225 of the Act, where a 

state does not establish a Commissioncertified TRS program, the provision of 

intrastate TRS must be directly 

supervised by the Commission. The 

Commission asks commenters whether 

they agree that these legislative sources 

provide ample statutory authority for 

the Commission to address the support 

for intrastate IP CTS calls. 

43. The Commission also believes 

section 225 of the Act authorizes the 

classification of some IP CTS calls as 

jurisdictionally intrastate. Unlike other 

forms of internet-based TRS, where one 

‘‘leg’’ of the end-to-end communication 

between the parties to the call 

necessarily takes place via IP facilities, 

the end-to-end voice communication 

between the calling party and the called 

party on an IP CTS call uses the same 

ten-digit telephone numbers as ordinary 

voice traffic and is routed via traditional 

PSTN telephone lines or interconnected 

VoIP, like any other voice call. Further, 

the Commission has previously found 

that the definition of TRS includes 

transmission using any technology, 

including internet Protocol, and is 

‘‘constrained only by the requirement 

that such service provide a specific 

functionality.’’ Accordingly, as with a 

number of other forms of TRS, the 

Commission believes that when both 

parties to an IP CTS call are located 

within the same state, the call should be 

classified as an intrastate call under 

section 225 of the Act. The Commission 

seeks comment on these views. 

State Role in the Administration of IP 

CTS 

44. The Commission seeks further 

comment on whether certified state TRS 

programs should be allowed or required 

to take a more active role in the 

administration of IP CTS. Under section 

225(c) of the Act, common carriers may 

fulfill their obligation to offer TRS 

throughout the areas in which they offer 

telephone service ‘‘individually, 

through designees, through a 

competitively selected vendor, or in 

concert with other carriers,’’ or by 

complying with the requirements of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
33906 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

state TRS programs certified by the 

Commission. Currently, all 50 states 

plus six U.S. territories have TRS 

programs certified by the Commission 

that offer the two forms of TRS currently 

required for state program certification: 

TTY-voice and speech-to-speech TRS. 

Additionally, all TRS state programs 

offer, oversee, and support a non-IP 

version of CTS on a voluntary basis. 

45. Given their responsibility for 

administering other forms of TRS 

(including CTS) and their greater 

proximity to residents using IP CTS 

within their jurisdiction, the 

Commission believes that state TRS 

programs have the expertise, 

demonstrated skills, and on-the-ground 

experience to assume administrative 

functions with respect to IP CTS. In an 

earlier phase of this proceeding, 

however, at least some commenters 

questioned whether it would be 

desirable for states to take on IP CTS 

funding and administration before 

issues related to user eligibility, 

uncontrolled growth of IP CTS demand, 

and standards of service have been 

addressed at the federal level. 

Additionally, for some states, it appears 

that state legislative authority may be 

needed to allow such a transition. The 

Commission seeks to update the record 

on the extent to which states continue 

to have these various concerns, or 

whether they would have an interest in 

voluntarily assuming an administrative 

role for IP CTS operations. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how much discretion states that are 

willing to take on such a role should 

have in designing their IP CTS 

programs. In general, a state IP CTS 

program would remain subject to 

certification by the Commission, and 

would be expected to comply with any 

mandatory minimum TRS standards 

established by the Commission. 

46. To the extent that state TRS 

programs remain reluctant to assume all 

obligations associated with operating a 

TRS program, a more modest approach 

would be to allow or require state 

entities to take on particular roles in the 

administration of IP CTS. 

47. Intrastate Funding. If the 

Commission adopts its proposal for IP 

CTS to be supported in part by intrastate 

end-user revenues, as proposed above, 

should state TRS programs be required 

or permitted to administer intrastate 

funding for the costs of IP CTS to their 

residents (i.e., to ‘‘opt out’’ of having 

revenues from their intrastate carriers 

contributed to the TRS Fund, so that 

they can handle such funding on their 

own)? In addition to the jurisdictional 

separations issues discussed above, if 

any state chooses to assume 

responsibility for funding intrastate IP 

CTS, the TRS Fund’s IP CTS revenue 

requirement would need to be adjusted 

to reflect that intrastate IP CTS need no 

longer be supported for that state, by 

excluding from the intrastate end-user 

revenues subject to TRS Fund 

contribution all intrastate revenues 

attributable to voice service provided in 

that state. The Commission seeks 

comment on how this adjustment 

should be calculated. For example, 

should the Commission require each 

TRS Fund contributor to calculate and 

report their own state-by-state allocation 

of end-user revenues? Alternatively, 

should the TRS Fund administrator 

attribute a portion of some or all 

contributors’ end-user revenues to states 

based on the most recent state-by-state 

USF contribution percentages for 

various categories of 

telecommunications service, as 

calculated by the Federal-State Joint 

Board on Universal Service? 

48. Provider Certification. Next, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

state TRS programs should be required 

or permitted to certify IP CTS providers 

that are allowed to deliver IP CTS 

services to the residents of their states. 

Presently, such provider certifications 

are handled exclusively by the 

Commission. If states handle such 

certifications, to what extent should 

states be required to offer consumers a 

choice of providers, given that most 

state TRS programs presently have a 

single TRS vendor? Further, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

criteria that states should use for 

approving certification, and whether 

this should be consistent across all state 

programs. 

49. If either the funding or 

certification functions—or the broader 

function of administering IP CTS—is 

transferred to state TRS programs, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

amount of time state TRS programs will 

need to secure the necessary resources 

and regulatory changes at the local level 

for their implementation. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether and how to define a time 

‘‘window’’ within which each state that 

intends to participate in these functions 

must notify the Commission of such 

intention. 

Ensuring Independent Assessments 

50. Information in the record suggests 

that only a portion of the millions of 

Americans who have some level of 

hearing loss require IP CTS to achieve 

functionally equivalent telephone 

communication. Because of IP CTS’s 

ease of use and the absence of any direct 

interaction between the calling parties 

and the CA, compared with other forms 

of TRS, it appears more likely that 

individuals who do not have a disability 

or who do not require this form of TRS 

may use it as a convenience, rather than 

a necessary means to achieve 

functionally equivalent 

communications. The Commission is 

concerned that this trend and the 

exponential growth in IP CTS have been 

exacerbated by the failure of user 

assessments to be sufficiently complete 

and objective. 

51. First, the record indicates that, as 

currently conducted, user assessments 

are unlikely to accurately determine 

whether an individual’s hearing loss 

warrants their use of IP CTS. 

Specifically, the extent to which an 

individual’s hearing loss affects that 

person’s ability to understand 

telephonic speech—and, therefore, 

necessitates the use of IP CTS to 

communicate by phone—can depend on 

a number of factors, including the 

individual’s specific decibel levels of 

hearing loss as affected by different 

sound frequencies, environmental and 

background noises, and device 

distortion. This suggests that an 

effective assessment of an individual’s 

need for IP CTS should be based on a 

more specific evaluation than a 

generalized hearing test or a previously 

recorded audiogram, and should 

consider whether an individual’s 

communications needs can be met by 

other assistive technologies. 

52. In order to prevent the waste of 

TRS Fund resources, the Commission 

therefore proposes that assessments of 

IP CTS user need must be specifically 

focused on the consumer’s ability to 

hear and understand speech over the 

telephone and on whether the 

consumer’s communications needs can 

be met by other assistive technologies. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal and invites parties to submit 

documentation or other evidence 

confirming whether the assessments 

currently conducted by health 

professionals for potential IP CTS users 

actually include these specific elements. 

53. Second, there is evidence that 

current assessments of users’ need for IP 

CTS are unlikely to be objective. 

Evidence indicates that third-party 

professional assessments of need have 

become an integral part of some 

providers’ marketing plans, such that 

some third-party professionals—through 

pre-established and sometimes 

exclusive arrangements with certain IP 

CTS providers—have been helping to 

promote these providers’ IP CTS 

offerings at the same time as they 

purportedly provide an objective 

certification of their clients’ need for IP 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33907 

CTS. In light of the benefits derived 

from such arrangements (i.e., 

opportunities to sell professional 

services and hearing aids to new or 

existing customers), the Commission is 

concerned that professionals have an 

incentive to acquiesce to their 

customers’ requests for IP CTS 

eligibility certification, rather than 

thoroughly and objectively evaluate 

their need for IP CTS—even when 

alternatives to IP CTS often may provide 

a more cost-efficient and effective 

means of enabling telephone 

communication for these individuals. 

54. To ensure that eligibility screening 

of IP CTS users is both neutral and 

complete, the Commission proposes to 

amend its rules to require that each 

prospective IP CTS user undergo an 

objective assessment by a qualified and 

independent entity that will determine 

whether the individual has a hearing 

loss that necessitates use of captioned 

telephone service. To ensure that 

screenings specifically assess the need 

for IP CTS, the Commission further 

proposes that each assessment include a 

functional assessment of each 

applicant’s communication needs, 

including the extent to which the 

individual would be able to achieve 

functionally equivalent telephone 

service by using an amplified telephone 

or other assistive technology. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

proposals and rationale. In addition, the 

Commission seeks comment on two 

alternative approaches. 

55. Assessments by State Programs. 

Having state TRS programs handle IP 

CTS user eligibility assessments could 

be an effective means of ensuring that 

such evaluations are sufficiently 

thorough and not biased toward the use 

of IP CTS. These programs often work 

in conjunction with state EDPs and 

other state agency programs that have 

expertise and experience in assessing 

the types of communication 

technologies needed by individuals 

with hearing loss. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether state TRS 

programs should be required (as a 

condition of FCC certification under 

section 225(f) of the Act) to fulfill this 

user eligibility obligation—whether on 

their own, through state equipment 

distribution programs (EDPs), or 

through contracting entities. 

56. If this approach is adopted, the 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how user screenings can be most 

effectively and efficiently conducted. 

Should all such assessments comport 

with certain standards and practices 

established by the Commission for 

nationwide application, or should states 

each be permitted to establish their own 

eligibility criteria and processes for IP 

CTS screenings? The Commission also 

seeks information, if available, on the 

number of users that each state program 

likely will be able to screen in a given 

period of time, such as on a monthly 

basis. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on the current capacity of 

state programs to take on this task, and 

what amount of time may be needed to 

obtain the necessary resources and 

begin conducting such assessments. 

57. The Commission asks commenters 

to share information about the costs and 

benefits of having state programs 

assume this function, based on state 

CTS screenings that have taken place to 

date. Regarding costs, the Commission 

estimates that the likely cost for state 

entities to conduct an appropriate 

evaluation of every new IP CTS user 

would total approximately $9 million 

annually. According to some sources, 

estimates of the cost of a comprehensive 

hearing evaluation for the purpose of 

determining whether an individual 

needs a hearing aid range from $54 to 

more than $224. The type of evaluation 

needed to establish eligibility for IP 

CTS, however, need not include all the 

elements of a general hearing 

evaluation—for example, a physical 

examination of the ear—and therefore 

may not cost as much as the upper range 

of a general hearing evaluation. 

Recently, TEDPA conducted a survey of 

state equipment distribution programs 

seeking information on the cost incurred 

by such agencies in assessing and 

evaluating a new applicant’s 

qualifications for program services and 

equipment. Respondents’ estimates of 

the average cost of such assessments or 

evaluations ranged from $50 at the low 

end to $250 at the high end. Estimates 

varied significantly based on whether 

assessments were conducted at an 

office, for which the median cost 

estimate was approximately $100, or at 

the applicant’s home, for which the 

median cost estimate was approximately 

$200. Based on the assumption that the 

majority of assessments would be 

conducted at an agency’s offices, as a 

preliminary estimate, the Commission 

estimates the average cost of such an 

evaluation to be approximately $125 per 

new user. Assuming no change in the 

current rate at which new users are 

being added (i.e., approximately 6,000 

new IP CTS users per month), and 

multiplying that rate by the estimated 

average cost (i.e., $125 per user), the 

cost of evaluating new users can be 

estimated at approximately $750,000 

per month, or $9 million per year. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

estimate and the underlying 

assumptions. 

58. To the extent private professional 

assessments are currently being 

conducted, the Commission invites 

providers to submit estimates of how 

many of their new users currently 

undergo such evaluations, and it invites 

parties generally to submit estimates of 

the costs currently incurred by users, 

hearing health professionals, and others 

to complete such evaluations. The 

Commission estimates that these 

currently incurred evaluation costs will 

be saved to the extent that state agencies 

take over the evaluation function, 

because such private evaluations will 

not be necessary. 

59. Consistent with the requirement of 

section 225 of the Act for the costs of 

providing intrastate TRS ‘‘generally’’ to 

be recovered from each intrastate 

jurisdiction, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether states should be 

permitted to recover expenses 

associated with such screenings from 

their intrastate telephone subscribers, 

much along the same lines that they 

now recover other costs associated with 

the provision of intrastate TRS. The 

Commission further seeks comment on 

whether a share of the costs of providing 

these assessments, proportionate to the 

interstate minutes of use by each state’s 

residents, should be reimbursed to the 

states by the TRS Fund. 

60. Next, the Commission seeks 

comment on how to ensure that 

independent screenings are conducted 

in nonparticipating states that do not 

have EDPs. For example, should the 

Commission enter into contracts with 

third parties, on a national, regional, or 

local basis, that have the necessary 

expertise to fill this gap? If so, what 

qualifications should such parties 

possess, in terms of administrative 

capabilities, professional staffing, and 

experience? The Commission invites 

state equipment programs and hearing 

health professionals who have 

performed assessments of need for CTS 

or IP CTS to describe what assessment 

tools they have used to determine 

whether these services are necessary in 

addition to or in lieu of other assistive 

technologies. The Commission further 

proposes that assessments conducted by 

such independent contractors adhere to 

the same criteria and standards as will 

apply to state programs taking on this 

function. Additionally, to ensure the 

neutrality of any screening entity—be it 

a state program or independent 

contractor—the Commission proposes 

that any personnel conducting 

assessments not have any business, 

family, or social relationships with any 

IP CTS provider or personnel. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
33908 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Alternatively, should the Commission 

allow assessments by third-party 

professionals, as outlined below, in 

states without equipment distribution 

programs? The Commission seeks 

comment on these proposals. 

61. Assessments by Third-Party 

Professionals. An alternative to having 

state programs conduct IP CTS 

screenings is to require IP CTS 

providers to obtain from each potential 

IP CTS user a certification from an 

independent, third-party hearing health 

professional affirming the user’s 

eligibility to use IP CTS. The 

Commission continues to be concerned, 

however, about the difficulties 

associated with relying on this 

gatekeeping function, especially when it 

is conducted by professionals who may 

be subject to the enticements of free 

phones for their clients and other 

marketing promotions that can interfere 

with their impartial judgment about a 

client’s eligibility. For this reason, if the 

Commission adopts this approach, it 

believes that strict safeguards should be 

put into place to improve the objectivity 

and accuracy of these professional 

assessments, so that only individuals 

who actually need IP CTS will be 

permitted to register for this service. For 

this purpose, the Commission seeks 

comment on the following measures, 

and further asks commenters to share 

any other requirements they believe to 

be necessary to ensure the 

independence, expertise, and objectivity 

of certifying entities. 

62. First, to ensure that a certifying 

third-party professional is qualified to 

assess a consumer’s need for IP CTS, the 

Commission proposes to require that 

providers only be permitted to accept 

user assessment certifications signed by 

physicians specializing in 

otolaryngology, audiologists, or other 

state certified or licensed hearing health 

professionals qualified to evaluate an 

individual’s hearing loss in accordance 

with applicable professional standards. 

Under this proposal, a person whose 

profession does not ordinarily 

encompass evaluating hearing loss 

would not be permitted to provide a 

third-party certification. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal and any other qualifications 

needed for such professionals. To 

ensure compliance with this 

requirement, and to prevent the possible 

emergence of ‘‘third-party certification 

mills,’’ the Commission also seeks 

comment on whether to require IP CTS 

providers to report annually to the 

Commission the names and 

qualifications of professionals that 

certify multiple users annually, and the 

number of individuals each professional 

certifies for IP CTS in each Fund year. 

63. Second, to provide assurance that 

a third-party professional’s certification 

of a consumer’s need for IP CTS is not 

directly or indirectly influenced by IP 

CTS providers through compensation, 

opportunities for meeting potential 

clients, or other provider enticements, 

the Commission proposes to prohibit an 

IP CTS provider from accepting a 

certification from any professional that 

has a business, family, or social 

relationship with the IP CTS provider or 

with any officer, director, partner, 

employee, agent, subcontractor, 

sponsoring organization, or affiliated 

entity (collectively, ‘‘affiliate’’) of the IP 

CTS provider. The Commission 

proposes that this prohibition 

specifically include situations where the 

professional, the professional’s 

organization, or a colleague within that 

organization has been referred to the 

consumer, either directly or indirectly, 

by the IP CTS provider or any affiliate. 

The Commission also proposes to 

prohibit IP CTS providers from 

facilitating or otherwise playing a role 

in the acquisition of professional 

certifications by arranging, sponsoring, 

hosting, conducting, or promoting 

seminars, conferences, meetings, or 

other activities in community centers, 

nursing homes, apartment buildings, or 

any other location where hearing health 

professionals offer free hearing 

screenings. Generally, then, providers 

would be prohibited from soliciting, 

facilitating, or collecting user 

certifications directly from hearing 

health professionals. Rather, in order to 

become registered for IP CTS, the 

Commission believes that consumers, 

rather than providers on their behalf, 

should initiate the process of obtaining 

a third-party certification. The 

Commission believes that these 

neutrality requirements would impose 

minimal costs on IP CTS providers and 

hearing health professionals. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

view and on the costs and benefits of 

adopting this proposal (including its 

impact on consumers), as well as 

whether there are other types of 

relationships or interactions between 

providers and hearing health 

professionals that should be prohibited 

to ensure the latter’s neutrality. 

64. Third, the Commission proposes 

that before signing a certification as to 

a consumer’s need for IP CTS, the 

certifying professional be required to: 

(1) Conduct functional assessments that 

evaluate the individual’s need for IP 

CTS to achieve functionally equivalent 

telephone communication (as compared 

to a general determination of hearing 

loss) and (2) assess whether an 

amplified telephone or other services or 

devices would be sufficient to provide 

functionally equivalent telephone 

service for the applicant. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

proposed requirements and their costs 

and benefits, including whether an 

assessment that considers multiple 

options can enable professionals to 

more objectively determine a 

consumer’s need for IP CTS. The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

extent to which the proposed 

certification requirement would impose 

additional costs beyond those already 

incurred by IP CTS users, providers, 

hearing health professionals, and others 

in connection with such assessments. In 

addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on how the costs and benefits 

of user assessments, which are 

discussed in more detail above, differ 

based on whether such assessments are 

conducted by or under the supervision 

of state entities or by third-party 

professionals without supervision by 

state entities. The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether the 

Commission or contracting entities 

should establish an appeals process that 

would allow potential IP CTS users to 

contest the results of such assessment 

and, if so, what form such process 

should take. 

65. Fourth, the Commission proposes 

to require IP CTS providers to accept 

only third-party professional 

certifications that are in writing, 

submitted under penalty of perjury, and 

include an attestation from the 

professional that he or she has 

conducted an evaluation of the 

individual in accordance with 

applicable professional standards and 

the Commission’s rules, and that in the 

professional’s opinion, the applicant has 

a hearing loss that necessitates use of IP 

CTS for the individual to achieve 

effective telephone communication. The 

Commission further proposes that such 

attestation state that the professional 

understands, and has explained to the 

consumer, that (1) the captions used for 

IP CTS may be generated by a CA who 

listens to the other party on the line and 

provides the captions received by the IP 

CTS subscriber; and (2) there is a perminute cost to provide captioning on 

each IP CTS call, which is funded 

through a federal program. This 

requirement will ensure that both the 

third-party professional and the 

consumer understand the nature of IP 

CTS, and help eliminate confusion 

between the costs associated with 

television captioning, which is not 

based on usage, and telephone 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33909 

captioning, for which there are ongoing, 

measured costs. The Commission 

proposes application of these 

certification requirements to all new 

users other than those who are able to 

document that they have obtained IP 

CTS devices from a state program 

administering this function. 

66. Additionally, to assist with 

enforcement of these rules, the 

Commission proposes that each IP CTS 

provider be required to maintain a copy 

of each third-party professional 

certification for a minimum of ten years 

after termination of service to the 

consumer, and to make such records 

available to the TRS Fund administrator 

or the Commission upon request. The 

Commission further proposes that 

failure to provide such records may 

result in denial of compensation for 

minutes incurred by that user, and may 

be grounds for termination of a 

provider’s certification to provide IP 

CTS. Finally, the Commission proposes 

that IP CTS providers be prohibited 

from disclosing users’ certification 

information in a personally identifiable 

form, except upon request of the 

Commission or the TRS Fund 

administrator or as otherwise required 

by law. 

67. The Commission believes that 

such attestation and record storage 

requirements would impose minimal 

costs on IP CTS providers. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

view and on the costs and benefits of 

adopting these proposals. 

68. Costs and Benefits of Ensuring 

Independent Assessments of IP CTS 

User Eligibility. The Commission seeks 

comment on the costs and benefits of 

both approaches. The Commission 

tentatively concludes that significant 

additional benefits, in the form of 

savings to the TRS Fund, will result if 

evaluations are more objective and 

better focused on an individual’s ability 

to effectively communicate by telephone 

than the evaluations that are currently 

conducted. 

69. Usage data provided by Rolka 

Loube indicates that the average new IP 

CTS user adds approximately 1,250 

minutes in the first year after initiating 

service. Accordingly, the Commission 

estimates that the approximately 72,000 

new users added in the course of a year 

will generate approximately 90 million 

minutes of IP CTS in their first year of 

service. If, in the future, 10 percent of 

the IP CTS usage generated by new 

users results from registration of users 

who do not need IP CTS, then the 

Commission estimates that improved 

screening of new users has the potential 

to save the Fund, in the first year, the 

cost of 9 million minutes (10 percent × 

90 million), at a rate of $1.58 per 

minute, or approximately $14.2 million. 

If 20 percent of such usage is 

unnecessary, the potential first year’s 

savings would be approximately $28.4 

million. 

70. The Commission notes that 

benefits to the Fund of ensuring 

appropriate usage accrue cumulatively 

over time. In the second year, a 

comparable amount of unnecessary 

usage from new users would be saved, 

and there would be continued savings 

from the users screened out in the first 

year. According to usage data provided 

by Rolka Loube, in a user’s second year, 

the minutes of use for an average user 

drop to approximately 66 percent of the 

user’s first-year minutes. Thus, the 

minutes saved in the second year would 

be approximately 1.66 times those saved 

in the first year. If there is a further 10 

percent reduction of the IP CTS 

compensation rate in Fund Year 2020– 

21, savings of unnecessary minutes and 

Fund expenditures in the second year 

would total approximately 14.9 million 

minutes and approximately $21.1 

million if 10 percent of usage is 

unnecessary, and approximately 29.8 

million minutes and approximately 

$42.2 million if 20 percent of usage is 

unnecessary. In the third and 

subsequent years, because of the 

continued savings from the screenings 

conducted in the first two years, the 

Commission believes the amounts saved 

would continue to multiply. The 

Commission seeks comment on its 

tentative conclusion and the 

assumptions underlying these estimates. 

Communications and Messaging on IP 

CTS 

71. In response to concerns raised in 

the record about what has been 

perceived as aggressive IP CTS 

messaging, some of which may be 

misleading or lacking complete 

information, the Commission seeks 

comment on measures to ensure that 

accurate information about IP CTS is 

being imparted by providers to 

consumers, service providers and other 

members of the public. The importance 

of ensuring the accuracy of marketing 

information is heightened by use of IP 

CTS predominantly by seniors, as they 

may be particularly vulnerable to 

schemes that could result in fraud and 

abuse. 

72. Written Marketing Materials. The 

Commission proposes to require that all 

provider-distributed online, print, and 

orally delivered materials used to 

market IP CTS be complete and 

accurate. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether such a 

requirement would ensure that 

marketing materials make clear that IP 

CTS may not be necessary for everyone 

and that to qualify for IP CTS use, 

consumers with hearing loss must be 

able to certify that captioning is needed 

to enable them to understand telephone 

conversations. The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether and to what 

extent this proposed rule change, which 

may require reprinting of previously 

produced marketing materials, would 

impose a significant cost or 

administrative burden on providers. 

73. Free Phone Offers. The 

Commission also continues to be 

concerned about advertised offers of a 

free phone for anyone with hearing loss 

who wants to subscribe to this service, 

which could both encourage consumers 

to sign up for IP CTS (just to obtain the 

phone) even if they do not need it and 

give such individuals the misimpression 

that the associated IP CTS services are 

also free. In addition to enticing 

consumers, the Commission believes 

that the incentive of a free phone can 

sway the opinion of third-party 

professionals, whose certification may 

become more of a stamp of approval on 

a decision made by the consumer in 

response to provider marketing efforts, 

rather than an independent evaluation 

of the consumer’s need for IP CTS. 

Would a requirement to eliminate from 

promotional materials, including print 

materials and websites, promises of a 

free phone for anyone with hearing loss, 

without specifying that this service (and 

the associated phones) are only 

intended for individuals who have a 

hearing loss that makes it difficult to use 

the phone, remove such improper 

incentives and reduce the number of 

consumers who sign up for IP CTS 

without a specific need for this service? 

The Commission seeks comment on the 

merits of taking this measure and how 

the First Amendment might apply in 

this context. 

74. Equipment Installer Notifications. 

To ensure that consumers are given full 

information about the nature and costs 

of IP CTS prior to allowing providers to 

install these devices in their homes, the 

Commission proposes that whenever 

there is a home installation of an IP CTS 

device by a provider’s employee, agent, 

or contractor, such installer must 

explain to the consumer, prior to 

conducting such installation: (1) The 

manner in which IP CTS works, (2) the 

per-minute cost of providing captioning 

on each call (i.e., the applicable rate of 

provider compensation), and (3) that the 

cost of captioning is funded through a 

federal program. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. 

75. Incentives to Caretakers and 

Service Providers for Seniors. The 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
33910 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Commission proposes to amend its rules 

to expressly prohibit providers from 

offering or providing any form of direct 

or indirect incentives, financial or 

otherwise, to any person or entity for 

the purpose of encouraging referrals of 

potential users, registrations, or use of 

IP CTS. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. 

76. The Commission tentatively 

concludes that compliance with these 

requirements regarding marketing 

materials, notifications by equipment 

installers, and prohibition of certain 

incentives would impose minimal costs 

on IP CTS providers. The Commission 

seeks comment on this tentative 

conclusion and on the costs and benefits 

of adopting this proposal. 

77. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether there are any other 

components of an IP CTS provider’s 

public relations, marketing, media 

planning, product pricing and 

distribution, or sales strategy that could 

lead to waste, fraud, and abuse in the IP 

CTS program, and what rules the 

Commission should adopt to halt such 

practices. 

IP CTS Registration Renewal and Phone 

Reclamation 

78. The Commission seeks comment 

on what rules are needed to prevent the 

unauthorized use of a registered user’s 

IP CTS device after the authorized user 

ceases to use the service. In light of the 

reportedly high level of attrition among 

IP CTS users, the Commission believes 

there is a risk that providers may not be 

notified when the registered user of an 

IP CTS device discontinues use, and 

that such users’ IP CTS devices may end 

up in the possession of others who are 

not properly registered to use IP CTS. 

To minimize the risk of inappropriate IP 

CTS use, the Commission proposes to 

require that IP CTS providers biennially 

obtain from their users a selfcertification of their continuing need to 

use IP CTS to achieve functionally 

equivalent telephone communication, 

and retain copies of each selfcertification, as well as other 

registration information, for a period of 

ten years. Further, the Commission 

proposes to prohibit such providers 

from receiving compensation for IP CTS 

provided to any such individual who 

fails to re-certify within the specified 

interval or for calls associated with any 

device for which such certification was 

required. At present, the Commission 

does not see the need to apply these 

new requirements to web and wireless 

IP CTS because the use of log-in 

credentials will reduce the likelihood of 

unauthorized use of such services upon 

their discontinuation by consumers who 

have been registered to use them. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

belief. 

79. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether to require IP CTS 

providers to notify each individual who 

receives an IP CTS device, at the time 

of such receipt and initial registration, 

that the user has an obligation to ensure 

that the provider is notified if such user 

discontinues use of the captioning 

service. If this proposal is adopted, the 

Commission further proposes that 

recipients of IP CTS devices be 

permitted to fulfill such obligation 

either on their own or through a 

designated representative, at which time 

the provider would be required to 

terminate the provision of IP CTS via 

that device. The Commission further 

seeks comment on whether to adopt a 

rule requiring the provider to either 

disable the IP CTS capability of an enduser device or ensure that the consumer 

(or his or her designee) returns the 

device to the provider, after notification 

that the authorized user is no longer 

using the device for IP CTS. Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on other 

steps that IP CTS providers should take 

to ensure that the person who initially 

registers for a captioning service 

remains the exclusive user of the 

captioning service provided on that 

user’s device. 

80. The Commission believes that 

compliance with these registration 

renewal and phone reclamation 

requirements would impose minimal 

costs on providers and seeks comment 

on this view and on the costs and 

benefits of adopting these proposals. 

Requiring an Easy Way To Turn 

Captions On or Off 

81. The Commission proposes to 

require providers to ensure that their IP 

CTS equipment provides an easy way to 

turn captions on or off, either before 

placing a call or while a call is in 

progress, and to prohibit provider 

practices designed to induce an 

individual to turn captions on, or leave 

them on, when that person otherwise 

would not do so. 

82. Accordingly, the Commission 

proposes to require both (1) an easily 

operable button, icon, or other 

comparable feature that requires a single 

step for consumers to turn captioning on 

or off, and (2) a prohibition against the 

installation of features in providerdistributed services or devices that have 

the foreseeable effect of encouraging IP 

CTS users to turn on captions even 

when they are not needed. The 

Commission believes that compliance 

with these requirements would impose 

minimal costs on IP CTS providers and 

seeks comment on this view and on the 

costs and benefits of adopting these 

proposals as a means of reducing waste 

and improving the efficiency of IP CTS. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

the amount of time that would be 

needed to effect their implementation. 

Additional Measures 

83. The Commission also seeks 

comment on additional steps it could 

take to help prevent waste, fraud, and 

abuse in the provision of IP CTS. What 

other measures could the Commission 

implement to better ensure that limited 

program dollars are used to support the 

use of IP CTS by eligible individuals 

with hearing loss? For instance, do IP 

CTS providers currently have processes 

in place to enable or require call takers 

to identify individual calls or patterns of 

calls that may suggest noncompliance 

with program rules? Should the FCC 

impose requirements on providers that 

they enable or require CAs to flag 

individual calls that may suggest that IP 

CTS functionality is being used 

improperly? For example, some 

consumers in a household may use 

captioning features who do not actually 

need them. Should any steps the 

Commission takes focus on individual 

calls or identified patterns? Should IP 

CTS providers have an obligation to 

report any such flags to the TRS Fund 

administrator or the FCC? Should the 

Commission take steps to ensure that 

any particular calls where IP CTS is 

improperly used are not compensated 

out of program dollars? Are there 

auditing procedures that the FCC, the 

TRS Fund administrator, or IP CTS 

providers should take to identify any 

such calls and to ensure providers are 

offering IP CTS only to eligible 

consumers? 

84. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it should consider 

additional measures to ensure call 

quality for 911 calls made using IP CTS. 

Given the important and often exigent 

circumstances associated with 911 calls, 

the Commission previously adopted 

rules requiring IP CTS providers to 

transfer emergency calls to 911, to 

prioritize emergency calls, and to 

communicate essential information to 

first responders answering 911 calls. 

Are these requirements sufficient to 

ensure proper emergency call handling 

by IP CTS providers? Are IP CTS 

providers taking sufficient steps to 

detect and remedy 911 call failures? 

Have callers encountered technical 

difficulties or call quality issues when 

making 911 calls? To what extent 

should the Commission adopt standards 

for the accuracy and synchronicity of 

captions on 911 calls handled by IP CTS 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33911 

providers, to enable the effective and 

timely exchange of information in an 

emergency? Are there other minimum 

criteria that should be established for 

such calls? Are there unique challenges 

with respect to relaying calls to 911 

associated with any of the methods used 

to generate IP CTS captions (i.e., fully 

automated ASR, CA-assisted ASR or 

stenographic supported captions)? 

Finally, are additional auditing 

requirements, beyond those already 

governing TRS providers, necessary to 

ensure compliance with the 

Commission’s 911 IP CTS call handling 

requirements? For example, should the 

Commission conduct regular testing to 

ensure such compliance? The 

Commission asks commenters to 

address the costs and benefits associated 

with any proposed measures. 

Technological Advances 

85. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the extent to which 

alternative communication services and 

applications, which are not funded 

through the TRS program, can 

complement or reduce reliance on IP 

CTS. For example, to what extent can 

amplified telephones, high definition 

VoIP services (HD voice) over wired and 

wireless networks, video over 

broadband and cellular networks, noisecanceling techniques, audio 

personalization, and various forms of 

text-based communications—for 

example, real-time text (RTT), email, 

short messaging services, instant 

messaging, and online chat sessions— 

meet the communications needs of 

people with hearing and speech 

disabilities? To the extent that these 

mainstream technologies enable 

functionally equivalent access to voice 

telephone services for some individuals, 

the Commission believes they may 

reduce reliance on IP CTS and thereby 

help preserve the TRS Fund for others 

for whom IP CTS is essential for 

telephone communication. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

belief, and whether there are registered 

IP CTS users who only use their IP CTS 

devices in certain situations, but rely on 

more direct alternatives, such as phone 

amplification, in other situations. The 

Commission further seek comment on 

how it can collect data on the potential 

markets for these off-the-shelf 

technologies, as well as their usage by 

individuals who are current or potential 

users of IP CTS. 

Notice of Inquiry 

Performance Goals 

86. The Commission seeks comment 

on appropriate performance goals for 

the IP CTS program. The Commission’s 

objective here is to state these goals in 

terms that lend themselves to evaluating 

progress toward achieving the 

Congressional objectives set forth in 

section 225 of the Act. 

87. The Commission believes that the 

primary goals for the IP CTS program 

should be: (1) To make communications 

services available to individuals with 

communications disabilities that are 

functionally equivalent to 

communications services used by 

individuals without such disabilities; 

(2) to keep up with technological 

changes and advances in the 

telecommunications industry; and (3) 

consistent with the concepts of good 

government and proper stewardship of 

the Fund, to improve the efficiency of 

IP CTS, and reduce the incidence of 

waste, fraud, and abuse. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

these or other goals are appropriate for 

assessing the IP CTS program and IP 

CTS provider performance. 

88. Goal #1: Functional Equivalence. 

Given the requirement in section 225 of 

the Act for the Commission to ensure, 

to the extent possible, the availability of 

TRS for people with hearing or speech 

disabilities that is functionally 

equivalent to voice telephone services 

used by people without such 

disabilities, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether it should set as its 

first goal that communications services 

used by these populations be 

comparable to communications services 

used by the general public, including 

communications that take place over the 

PSTN, cellular networks, and VoIP 

transmissions. In April 2011, consumer 

groups suggested that functional 

equivalence be defined as enabling 

‘‘[p]ersons receiving or making relay 

calls . . . to participate equally in the 

entire conversation with the other party 

or parties and . . . experience the same 

activity, emotional context, purpose, 

operation, work, service, or role 

(function) within the call as if the call 

is between individuals who are not 

using relay services on any end of the 

call.’’ The Commission seeks comment 

on the extent to which this is an 

appropriate definition of functional 

equivalence for the purpose of defining 

this performance goal. 

89. Goal #2: Technological Advances. 

Section 225 of the Act directs the 

Commission to adopt regulations that 

encourage the use of existing technology 

and . . . do not discourage or impair the 

development of improved technology. 

The Commission therefore asks whether 

the second goal of the IP CTS program 

should be to ensure that this program 

utilizes technological changes and 

advances in the telecommunications 

industry to the greatest extent possible, 

as needed to achieve functionally 

equivalent communication for this 

population. This goal would not be 

limited to current technological 

capabilities, but rather would seek to 

ensure that people with communication 

disabilities are able to take full 

advantage of innovative communication 

technologies, such as ASR, as these 

continue to be developed. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

goal, and more specifically, on how the 

use of mainstream and off-the-shelf 

technologies can provide functional 

alternatives to, or supplement, IP CTS in 

meeting the needs of individuals who 

are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or 

have speech disabilities. For example, to 

what extent can individuals who use IP 

CTS also be able to communicate 

directly with others through the use of 

amplified telephones, high definition 

VoIP services over wired and wireless 

networks, video over broadband and 

cellular networks, and text-based 

communications (i.e., electronic 

messaging services, such as email, short 

messaging service, instant messaging, 

and online chat sessions)? The 

Commission asks commenters to 

address the types of circumstances 

when these or other emerging 

technologies can be used to provide 

functionally equivalent telephone 

communication for people with 

communications disabilities. What 

steps, if any, should the Commission be 

taking to foster such direct 

communication solutions? 

90. Goal #3: Provision of Service in 

the Most Efficient Manner. Section 225 

of the Act directs that TRS be made 

available ‘‘in the most efficient 

manner.’’ To this end, the Commission 

asks whether the third program goal 

should be to improve the efficiency of 

the IP CTS program and to reduce this 

program’s incidence of waste, fraud, and 

abuse. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether efficiency can be 

measured solely in terms of the cost 

incurred to achieve a certain level of 

functional equivalence, or whether there 

are additional factors, such as timeliness 

and effectiveness, that should go into 

this determination. The Commission 

further seeks comment on how this goal 

should be balanced against the 

performance goal of ensuring the 

provision of a functionally equivalent 

conversational experience through IP 

CTS. 

Performance Measures 

91. To ensure that its performance 

goals are being met, the Commission 

must define measurements that can 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
33912 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

provide valuable empirical evidence to 

objectively assess these goals. In 

addition to enabling the Commission to 

track the progress and success of the IP 

CTS program, these measurements will 

provide valuable empirical evidence for 

Commission policy makers to craft rules 

for effective implementation and 

oversight of the IP CTS program, as well 

as to ensure that consumers are 

provided with the information they 

need to make informed choices in their 

selection of provider services. 

92. Some of these metrics may be 

observed automatically, e.g., by call 

processing logs or other measurement 

tools, while others may require 

evaluation by IP CTS users or human 

subject matter experts. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether the 

derivation of data used to measure IP 

CTS service quality should be overseen 

by the TRS Fund administrator or 

otherwise developed through 

contractual or similar arrangements 

with independent third parties selected 

by the Commission. The Commission 

believes that calculations resulting from 

IP CTS performance measures will have 

greater efficacy if they are conducted 

independently (i.e., not by the regulated 

entities). 

93. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it should publish 

the metrics achieved for each provider, 

as it appears likely that making these 

results available to the public in a 

standard format will aid users in their 

selection of IP CTS providers. If shared 

publicly, the Commission seeks 

comment on the merits of developing a 

system by which IP CTS users can rate 

the quality and performance of IP CTS 

calls (based on the metrics discussed 

below) to increase competition. Finally, 

the Commission seeks comment on how 

such information should be presented to 

users, and whether there are concerns 

with such information being utilized in 

outreach or marketing materials. 

94. Functional Equivalence. The 

Commission seeks comment on use of 

the following metrics to measure IP CTS 

service quality: (1) Transcription 

accuracy; (2) transcription 

synchronicity; (3) transcription speed; 

(4) speed of answer; (5) dropped or 

disconnected calls; (6) service outages; 

and (7) usage data. How frequently 

should such testing or data gathering be 

performed and how should the 

information from such testing be 

reported? 

95. Transcription Accuracy. The 

Commission believes that standard 

measurements of captioning accuracy 

(using either CA-assisted and ASR 

versions) are needed to effectively 

measure functional equivalence on a 

regular basis, and seeks comment on 

this belief, as well as on the appropriate 

components that should go into such 

assessments. The Commission notes that 

it has defined accuracy in the context of 

closed captioning for video 

programming as including (in relevant 

part) considerations for the order of the 

words, proper spelling and punctuation, 

and correct tense. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether these 

guidelines are appropriate for IP CTS, 

and if so, how they should be measured. 

Should the Commission adjust accuracy 

measurements or standards to take 

account of the type of call measured, 

e.g., calls to 911 or calls for services that 

use a specialized vocabulary, such as 

calls pertaining to medical, legal, or 

technical computer support? 

96. What methods do providers 

currently use to evaluate the accuracy of 

IP CTS transcription? Are there metrics 

used to assess the accuracy of computerassisted real-time translation (CART) or 

court reporting that could be effectively 

applied to IP CTS? The Disability 

Advisory Committee (DAC) suggests 

evaluating accuracy by calculating 

major errors (i.e., errors that change the 

meaning of a transcription) and minor 

errors (i.e., errors that while technically 

incorrect, do not substantively change 

the meaning of the transcription). The 

MITRE Corporation (MITRE), a 

contractor for the Commission, suggests 

differentiating between transcription 

completeness and accuracy. It defines 

completeness as a measure of all the 

words transcribed, whether correctly or 

incorrectly as a percentage of the total 

words spoken, and accuracy as the 

percentage of words from the 

conversation that are correctly 

transcribed on the screen. Another way 

of assessing accuracy may be to examine 

the semantic error rate, which, 

according to one source, considers ‘‘the 

fraction of utterances in which we 

misinterpret the meaning.’’ 

Additionally, should transcription 

readability, which can be affected by 

correct punctuation and capitalization, 

be a component of accuracy? The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

and how these various factors should be 

used to measure IP CTS accuracy, 

whether CA-assisted or entirely 

automated through ASR, and any other 

metrics that the Commission should use 

for this purpose. 

97. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on the tools that should be 

used to evaluate transcription accuracy 

given that its rules prohibit TRS 

providers from retaining records of the 

content of any conversation beyond the 

duration of a call. Are there real-time or 

other methods that can be used to 

measure the accuracy of calls consistent 

with this prohibition? For example, 

should the Commission use anonymous 

callers to make and record call 

interactions for later analysis by 

experts? Alternatively, should the 

Commission have independent third 

parties test transcription accuracy using 

test call scripts? 

98. Transcription Synchronicity. 

Should the Commission measure the 

synchronicity of communications 

during an IP CTS call as a measure of 

functional equivalency. The 

Commission seeks comment on use of 

synchronicity as an appropriate metric, 

and how best to assess it, reminding 

commenters of its past suggestion to 

calculate the lag time between the 

hearing party’s response and the time 

when the captions appear. MITRE 

proposes a slight variation, to define 

transcription delay as the time elapsed 

from when an IP CTS user hears the 

other party’s voice on a caption phone 

to when captions of that speech are 

displayed on the phone’s screen. The 

Commission seeks comment on each of 

these approaches. 

99. The Commission also seeks 

comment on methods that may be 

available to evaluate the synchronicity 

of captions. Should providers be 

required to collect and report the 

amount of transcription delay on each 

IP CTS call? Alternatively, should the 

Commission have independent third 

parties test for this delay using test 

scripts? How should the information 

from the testing be reported and how 

frequently should such testing and data 

gathering be performed? To the extent 

that a delay occurs, the Commission 

seeks comment on how a performance 

measure should factor in its causes, be 

they technical, network- or equipmentrelated, or dependent on the speech of 

the party whose conversation is being 

captioned. 

100. Transcription Speed. The 

Commission seeks comment on the need 

to measure the speed of IP CTS 

transcription. The DAC proposes 

defining transcription speed by 

calculating the number of words 

transcribed divided by the time needed 

to transcribe those words (measured in 

seconds) and multiplied by 60. 

Suggesting that speed cannot be 

accurately measured for live calls 

because the speaking speed of the noncaptioned telephone user is unknown 

and there may be ‘‘silence gaps’’ during 

conversations, the DAC instead 

proposes to rely on test scripts to 

measure compliance with speed 

requirements. The Commission seeks 

comment on the feasibility of measuring 

the speed of live calls, as well as the use 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33913 

of test scripts versus other methods to 

assess this metric. Are there 

environmental or other factors that may 

affect whether a speed test using a test 

script accurately reflects transcription 

speed on a live call? The Commission 

also seeks comment on whether the TRS 

Fund administrator or an independent 

third-party contracted by the 

Commission should conduct speed tests 

and the frequency with which these 

tests should be performed. 

101. Speed of Answer. Commission 

rules require that 85 percent of all IP 

CTS calls be answered within ten 

seconds. Providers must include data 

that enables tracking of their speed of 

answer in their CDRs and related filings 

submitted to the TRS Fund 

administrator. The Commission 

currently measure speed of answer for 

IP CTS calls by the time it takes for CAs 

to establish the connection between an 

IP CTS user’s request for captioning and 

the start of captioning services. The 

collection of this data enables the 

Commission to monitor the extent to 

which provider connection time for IP 

CTS users is comparable to the 

connection time for voice telephone 

users. The Commission seeks comment 

on inclusion of this metric to assess 

functional equivalency, and how it can 

best be measured. Should the 

Commission rely on IP CTS providers to 

measure and report their connection 

delay, or use independent third parties 

for this purpose? How frequently should 

the Commission test and require the 

reporting of connection delays? 

102. Dropped or Disconnected Calls. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether to track and measure the 

percentage and frequency of ‘‘dropped’’ 

or disconnected calls, and to compare 

these results with the various telephone 

communication technologies used by 

the hearing community. The 

Commission believes that to achieve 

functional equivalency, the number of 

dropped or disconnected IP CTS calls 

should be comparable to the number of 

dropped or disconnected voice calls 

placed by the hearing public. It seeks 

comment on use of this metric for this 

purpose, and how such data should be 

compared with dropped or 

disconnected telephone calls made over 

mainstream voice networks. Should 

such data be collected through user 

feedback, test calls, by analyzing 

provider logs or by a combination of 

these measures? The Commission 

further seeks comment on how such 

data should be presented to IP CTS 

users, if made publicly available. 

103. Service Outages. Commission 

rules require all internet-based TRS 

providers to notify the Commission in 

the event of an unplanned service 

outage of any duration or a voluntary 

service interruption of less than 30 

minutes, and to seek advance approval 

for voluntary interruptions of longer 

duration. In addition, redundancy of 

facilities is a requirement for all forms 

of TRS. In general, to achieve functional 

equivalence, the Commission believes 

that the frequency and extent of IP CTS 

service outages and interruptions 

should not exceed that of outages and 

interruptions occurring on transmission 

services used by hearing people. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

belief and use of this metric to measure 

the goal of functional equivalency. 

104. Usage Data. One measure of 

determining the extent to which IP CTS 

is successfully providing functionally 

equivalent communication is the extent 

to which this service is being used by 

people with hearing disabilities who are 

in need of this service. While the 

Commission generally gathers data on 

minutes of use, at present, the 

Commission lacks conclusive 

information about the number of eligible 

individuals using IP CTS in the United 

States. However, this data could be 

obtained through collection in the TRSUser Registration Database (TRS–URD). 

After measures are implemented to 

prevent individuals from using this 

service if they do not need it, when 

measured against demographic statistics 

regarding various kinds and levels of 

hearing loss, this metric may help to 

assess the program’s success and 

determine whether functionally 

equivalent communication via IP CTS 

has been made available ‘‘to the extent 

possible,’’ as mandated by section 

225(b) of the Act. The Commission also 

seeks comment from IP CTS providers 

on what kind of information they collect 

about the demographics of their users, 

and invite them to submit summaries of 

such information. 

105. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether there are other metrics that 

the Commission should consider for 

measuring the extent to which IP CTS 

call quality achieves functional 

equivalency for its users. 

106. Technological Advances. The 

Commission seeks comment on ways to 

measure the extent to which evolving 

communications technologies can 

provide functionally equivalent 

communications services for people 

with disabilities who cannot use 

traditional voice telephone options. For 

example, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether and how it should 

assess the extent to which these 

alternative technologies can improve the 

accuracy, synchronicity, speed of 

answer, frequency of dropped or 

disconnected calls, and frequency of 

service outages of telephone calls placed 

by such individuals. The Commission 

asks commenters who have made such 

measurements to submit their data. 

107. The Commission believes that, 

consistent with section 225(d)(2) of the 

Act, it should encourage the use of offthe-shelf or assistive technologies to 

achieve direct calling arrangements, so 

long as the service quality afforded by 

these technologies represents at least the 

same level as, or is an improvement 

over, the level of quality realized by 

using IP CTS, and seeks comment on 

this belief. In this regard, the 

Commission notes that whether an 

individual’s use of any off-the-shelf or 

assistive technology creates a 

functionally equivalent direct calling 

experience will always be unique to the 

individual. Is there some minimum 

level of service quality below which the 

use of off-the-shelf or assistive 

technologies to achieve direct calling 

arrangements should not be 

encouraged? 

108. The Commission further seeks 

comment on how it can collect data on 

the potential markets for these off-theshelf technologies, as well as their usage 

by individuals who are current or 

potential users of IP CTS. The 

Commission believes it can better 

achieve its goal of ensuring that 

individuals with disabilities make use 

of technological advances with a more 

complete understanding of who uses IP 

CTS as compared to alternative means 

of communication. For example, are 

there registered IP CTS users who only 

use their IP CTS devices in certain 

situations, but rely on more direct 

alternatives, such as phone 

amplification, in other situations? What 

measures should be used to evaluate the 

extent to which alternatives to IP CTS 

are being used by people with hearing 

or speech disabilities? For example, 

should the Commission contract for a 

survey of deaf and hard of hearing 

individuals to collect such information? 

109. In addition, the Commission 

seeks comment and data on the extent 

to which any existing TRS regulations 

‘‘discourage or impair the development 

of improved technology.’’ The 

Commission asks commenters to 

specifically identify such regulations 

and whether they should be amended. 

110. Program Efficiency. Data on 

potential and existing IP CTS users can 

help ensure that waste, fraud, and abuse 

of the TRS program are kept to a 

minimum. Accurate information about 

the number of users and the frequency 

and duration of their calls will assist the 

Commission in protecting program 

integrity and ensuring that this program 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
33914 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

is being used properly in accordance 

with Congress’s goal of ensuring 

effective telecommunications access to 

people with communication disabilities. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

metrics that would be appropriate to 

ensure the efficiency of the IP CTS 

program. 

111. Other Measures. The 

Commission seeks comment on other 

metrics it could employ to measure the 

performance goals for IP CTS. 

Commenters should address, with 

specificity, what should be measured, 

how it should be measured, and how 

often it should be measured, along with 

any estimated costs and benefits of such 

measurements. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

112. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this 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 the 

Further Notice. Written public 

comments are requested on this IRFA. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadline for comments on the 

Further Notice specified in the DATES

section. The Commission will send a 

copy of the document 18–79 to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

113. In the Further Notice, the 

Commission proposes to adopt a multiyear cost-based compensation rate 

methodology for IP CTS. 

114. The Commission proposes 

several different methods to restructure 

the funding and administration of IP 

CTS: (1) Expanding the Interstate 

Telecommunications Relay Services 

(TRS) Fund base to include intrastate 

revenues; (2) permitting or requiring 

states to assume responsibility for the 

funding and administration of intrastate 

IP CTS and how to address the funding 

and administration of intrastate IP CTS 

for states that choose not to assume 

these duties; and (3) having assessments 

of user need for IP CTS performed under 

the purview of state TRS programs so 

that the assessments can be neutral, 

objective and independent from 

provider influence, or allowing or 

requiring IP CTS providers to obtain 

from new and existing IP CTS users a 

certification from an independent, thirdparty professional affirming the user’s 

eligibility to use IP CTS. 

115. The Commission proposes to 

include caregivers and other 

professionals within the scope of the 

prohibition of provider incentives to use 

IP CTS, and to include organizations 

along with individuals in the 

prohibitions of provider incentives. 

116. The Commission proposes 

measures to ensure that accurate 

information about IP CTS is being 

imparted by providers to consumers, 

service providers and other members of 

the public. 

117. The Commission proposes to 

require IP CTS providers to biennially 

obtain from each user a self-certification 

of the user’s continuing need to use IP 

CTS to achieve functionally equivalent 

telephone communications and to 

prohibit such providers from receiving 

compensation for IP CTS provided to 

any such individual who fails to 

recertify within the specified interval or 

for calls associated with any device for 

which such certification was required. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether to require providers to reclaim 

or disable any IP CTS devices that are 

no longer associated with registered 

users. 

118. Finally, the Commission 

proposes to require providers to ensure 

that their IP CTS equipment provides an 

easy way to turn captions on or off, 

either before placing a call or while a 

call is in progress. 

Legal Basis 

119. The authority for this proposed 

rulemaking is contained in sections 1 

and 225 of the Act, as amended, 47 

U.S.C. 151, 225. 

Small Entities Impacted 

120. The rules proposed in document 

FCC 18–79 will affect obligations of: 

Wired telecommunications carriers; 

telecommunications resellers; wireless 

telecommunications carriers (except 

satellite); and all other 

telecommunications. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

121. The proposed expansion of the 

TRS Fund base may require common 

carriers that provide only intrastate 

telecommunications service that are not 

currently registered with the TRS Fund 

administrator to register with the 

administrator and submit contribution 

payments to the TRS Fund. 

122. The proposal to require or allow 

states to administer the IP CTS program 

or oversee IP CTS user eligibility may 

require states to provide additional 

information in their applications for 

certification to the Commission to 

indicate the role the state will undertake 

and include information concerning the 

state’s ability to take on this additional 

role. 

123. The proposed third-party 

certification of IP CTS user eligibility 

would require IP CTS providers to 

obtain a copy of such certification from 

the user and retain the copy while the 

user is receiving IP CTS and for a 

minimum of ten years after the user has 

discontinued use of IP CTS. 

124. The proposed marketing rules 

may require IP CTS providers to include 

specific information in IP CTS 

informational materials and on their 

websites. The proposal regarding 

biennial self-certification of IP CTS 

users would require providers to again 

collect and retain these selfcertifications from the users. The 

proposal to require IP CTS providers to 

reclaim or disable IP CTS devices no 

longer associated with registered users 

may require IP CTS providers to notify 

users of the need to return the devices 

when no longer using them and may 

require the providers to keep records 

associated with the device reclamation 

or disabling process. 

125. The proposal to require providers 

to ensure that their IP CTS equipment 

provides an easy way to turn captions 

on or off, either before placing a call or 

while a call is in progress would not 

create direct reporting, recordkeeping or 

other compliance requirements. 

Minimize Significant Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

126. The Commission seeks comment 

from all interested parties on 

alternatives to its proposals. Small 

entities are encouraged to bring to the 

Commission’s attention any specific 

concerns they may have with the 

proposals outlined. The Commission 

expects to consider the economic 

impact on small entities, as identified in 

comments filed in response to the 

document FCC 18–79, in reaching its 

final conclusions and taking action in 

this proceeding. 

Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With, the 

Commission’s Proposals 

127. None. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Individuals with disabilities, 

Telecommunications, Telephones. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33915 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 64 as follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 218, 

222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 251(e), 254(k), 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401–1473, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 64.604 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (c)(8)(ii), 

(c)(9)(x), (c)(10)(i), and (c)(11)(v); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(8)(v) as 

paragraph (c)(8)(vi) and paragraph 

(c)(10)(ii) as paragraph (c)(10)(iii); and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (c)(8)(v), 

(c)(9)(iii)(E), (c)(10)(ii), and (c)(11)(vi). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 64.604 Mandatory Minimum Standards. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(8) * * * 

(ii) An IP CTS provider shall not offer 

or provide to any other person or entity 

any direct or indirect incentives, 

financial or otherwise, to encourage 

referrals of potential users, registrations, 

or use of IP CTS. Where an IP CTS 

provider offers or provides IP CTS 

equipment, directly or indirectly, to a 

hearing health professional, or any other 

person or entity, and such person or 

entity makes or has the opportunity to 

make a profit on the sale of the 

equipment to consumers, such IP CTS 

provider shall be deemed to be offering 

or providing a form of incentive to 

encourage referrals of potential users, 

registrations or use of IP CTS. 

* * * * * 

(v) IP CTS providers, and their agents 

and contractors, may not discuss the 

availability of a free IP CTS device in 

marketing presentations and 

promotional materials unless such 

presentations and materials also clearly 

and prominently state that IP CTS and 

IP CTS devices are only intended for 

individuals who have a hearing loss that 

makes it difficult to use the phone. 

(vi) Any IP CTS provider that does not 

comply with this paragraph (c)(8) shall 

be ineligible for compensation for such 

IP CTS from the TRS Fund. 

(9) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(E) Within two years after obtaining a 

consumer’s self-certification, or within 

two years of the effective date of this 

paragraph (c)(9)(iii)(E), whichever is 

later, and within every two years 

thereafter, an IP CTS provider shall 

obtain a new self-certification from the 

consumer in accordance with the 

requirements of this paragraph 

(c)(9)(iii). Minutes of use of any 

consumer who has not provided a new 

self-certification by the end of the twoyear period shall be deemed noncompensable, the provider shall be 

required to re-register the consumer for 

IP CTS service in accordance with the 

requirements of this paragraph (c)(9), 

and the IP CTS provider shall not be 

compensated for minutes of use 

associated with that consumer during 

the period of such lapsed registration. 

* * * * * 

(x) Each IP CTS provider shall 

maintain records of any registration and 

certification information for a period of 

at least ten years after the consumer 

ceases to obtain service from the 

provider and shall maintain the 

confidentiality of such registration and 

certification information, and may not 

disclose such registration and 

certification information or the content 

of such registration and certification 

information except as required by law or 

regulation. 

* * * * * 

(10) IP CTS Settings. Each IP CTS 

provider shall ensure that, for each IP 

CTS device it distributes, directly or 

indirectly: 

(i) The device includes a button, key, 

icon, or other comparable feature that is 

easily operable and requires only one 

step for the consumer to turn captioning 

on or off; 

(ii) The device shall not include any 

features that have the foreseeable effect 

of encouraging IP CTS users to turn on 

captions when they are not needed for 

effective communication; and 

(iii) Any volume control or other 

amplification feature can be adjusted 

separately and independently of the 

caption feature. 

* * * * * 

(11) * * * 

(v) IP CTS providers shall ensure that 

their informational materials and 

websites used to market, advertise, 

educate, or otherwise inform consumers 

and professionals about IP CTS includes 

the following language in a prominent 

location in a clearly legible font: 

‘‘FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS ANYONE 

BUT REGISTERED USERS WITH 

HEARING LOSS FROM USING 

INTERNET PROTOCOL (IP) 

CAPTIONED TELEPHONES WITH THE 

CAPTIONS TURNED ON. IP Captioned 

Telephone Service may use a live 

operator. The operator generates 

captions of what the other party to the 

call says. These captions are then sent 

to your phone. There is a cost for each 

minute of captions generated, paid from 

a federally administered fund. IP 

CAPTIONED TELEPHONE SERVICE IS 

NOT FOR EVERYONE WITH HEARING 

LOSS. In order to use captioning, a 

consumer must be able to certify that 

captioning is needed to hear telephone 

conversations. Other technologies, such 

as amplified telephones, may better 

serve a consumer’s need to hear 

telephone conversations.’’ For IP CTS 

provider websites, this language shall be 

included on the website’s home page, 

each page that provides consumer 

information about IP CTS, and each 

page that provides information on how 

to order IP CTS or IP CTS equipment. 

IP CTS providers that do not make any 

use of live CAs to generate captions may 

shorten the notice to leave out the 

second, third, and fourth sentences. 

(vi) If an IP CTS provider knows or 

should have known that a user is 

deceased or no longer eligible to use IP 

CTS, including, but not limited to, a 

user failing to provide a new selfcertification in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (9)(c)(iii)(E), 

the IP CTS provider shall either 

deactivate the captioning feature on the 

IP CTS equipment distributed to that 

consumer or reclaim the equipment, and 

minutes of use associated with the 

equipment shall not be compensable. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–15336 Filed 7–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[WC Docket No. 13–39; Report No. 3098] 

Petitions for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petitions for Reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: Petitions for Reconsideration 

(Petitions) have been filed in the 

Commission’s Rulemaking proceeding 

by Michael R. Romano, on behalf of 

NTCA—The Rural Broadband 

Association (‘‘NTCA’’), and Kevin G. 

Rupy, on behalf of USTelecom—The 

Broadband Association. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must 

be filed on or before August 2, 2018. 

Replies to an opposition must be filed 

on or before August 13, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Zach Ross, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, at: (202) 418–1580; email: 

Zachary.Ross@fcc.gov. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1