Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116 Before the

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-

to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing

and Speech Disabilities

Structure and Practices of the Video Relay

Services Program

Petition for Rulemaking and Interim Waiver of

Convo Communications, LLC

)

CG Docket No. 03-123

CG Docket No. 10-51

REPORT AND ORDER AND ORDER

Adopted: December 19, 2023 Released: December 20, 2023

By the Commission:

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

1. Today, the Commission continues its work of promoting improvement in the efficacy and

quality of relay services supported by the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services Fund (TRS Fund

or Fund).

By increasing video relay service (VRS) providers’ flexibility to hire communications

assistants from a wider pool of qualified sign-language interpreters, we enhance their ability to offer high-

quality services despite the current shortage of skilled labor in this sector. In the Report and Order, we

modify our rules for VRS to: (1) increase from 50% to 80% the portion of monthly VRS minutes that may

be handled by communications assistants (CAs) working at home;

(2) modify the amount of prior

interpreting experience required of VRS CAs who work at home;

and (3) allow VRS providers to use

Telecommunications relay services (TRS) are telephone transmission services that enable people with speech or

hearing disabilities to communicate by wire or radio in a manner that is functionally equivalent to communication

using voice services. 47 CFR § 64.601(a)(43).

See id. § 64.604(b)(8)(i) (2023). As a housekeeping matter, we consolidate in one location, within section 64.604

of our rules, a number of existing provisions that relate specifically to VRS, including the VRS-specific rule

provisions amended by this Report and Order. As of the effective date, these provisions are now located in section

64.604(d). See infra Appendix B (also renumbering the existing section 64.604(d) as 64.604(e)). The provisions

affected by this change are those relating to eligibility for reimbursement from the TRS Fund (moved from section

64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1) to section 64.604(d)(1)), call center reports (moved from section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(2) to

section 64.604(d)(2)), compensation of CAs (moved from section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(3) to section 64.604(d)(3)),

remote training session calls (moved from section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(4) to section 64.604(d)(4)), visual privacy

screens / idle calls (moved from section 64.604(a)(6) to section 64.604(d)(5)), international calls (moved from

section 64.604(a)(7) to section 64.604(d)(6)), and discrimination and preferences (moved from section 64.604(c)(12)

to section 64.604(d)(8)). Thus, the cap on at-home minutes is moved from section 64.604(b)(8)(i) to section

64.604(d)(7)(i). See infra Appendix B.

See 47 CFR § 64.604(b)(8)(ii)(A) (2023). This provision is moved to section 64.604(d)(7)(ii)(A). See infra

Appendix B.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

contract CAs, subject to conditions, for up to 30% of their monthly call minutes.

We also modify our

rules to ensure that registered VRS users can easily place calls to the United States while traveling

abroad.

In the Order, we extend the previously granted, partial waivers of certain rules amended by the

Report and Order until the dates specified herein.

II. BACKGROUND

2. Under section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), the

Commission must ensure that TRS is available “to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner”

to persons “in the United States” who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind, or who have speech

disabilities, so that they can communicate by telephone in a manner that is functionally equivalent to

voice communication service.

VRS, a form of TRS, enables people with hearing or speech disabilities

who use sign language to communicate with voice telephone users over a broadband connection using a

video communication device.

The video link allows a CA to view and interpret the party’s signed

conversation and relay the conversation back and forth with a voice caller.

Providers of VRS are

compensated from the TRS Fund for service provided in accordance with applicable rules.

To be

eligible to receive payment from the TRS Fund, a VRS provider must be granted certification by the

Commission.

To allow consumers a choice of service, the Commission has authorized multiple VRS

providers.

3. Anti-Fraud Rules. More than ten years ago, a wave of fraud and abuse “plagued the

[VRS] program and threatened its long-term sustainability.”

Numerous uncertified entities were

providing VRS or purporting to do so, without effective supervision, while using certified VRS providers

as billing agents to obtain payment––sometimes fraudulently—from the TRS Fund.

In response, the

Commission prohibited or restricted a number of VRS provider practices that it found had increased the

likelihood of fraud and abuse.

See 47 CFR § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(iii) (2023). This provision is moved to section 64.604(d)(1)(iii). See infra

Appendix B.

See 47 CFR § 64.604(a)(7) (2023). This provision is moved to section 64.604(d)(6). See infra Appendix B.

See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech

Disabilities; Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP)

Captioned Telephone Service; Petition for Rulemaking and Interim Waiver of Convo Communications, LLC, CG

Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, and 13-24, Report and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order, and Declaratory

Ruling, FCC 22-51, para. 61 (June 30, 2022) (Notice, June 2022 Order, or June 2022 Ruling).

47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3), (b)(1).

47 CFR § 64.601(a)(51).

Id.

See id. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E), (F).

Id. § 64.606.

See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech

Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd

5140, 5152-54, paras. 22-26 (2000) (2000 VRS Authorization Order); Telecommunications Relay Services and

Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Report

and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 20577, 20588, para. 21 (2005).

Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, Report and Order and Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 5545, 5546, para. 1 (2011) (2011 VRS Call Practices Order).

See generally id. at 5570-76, paras. 47-63.

Id. at 5546-48, para. 1.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

4. In 2011, along with other anti-fraud measures, the Commission amended its rules to

prohibit the handling of VRS calls by CAs working at home.

Due to lack of direct supervision, the

Commission found that allowing CAs to work at home increased the risk of VRS fraud and compromised

the protection of confidentiality, service reliability, and service quality.

In addition, the Commission

prohibited an eligible (i.e., FCC-certified) VRS provider from “contract[ing] with or otherwise

authoriz[ing] any third party to provide interpretation services or call center functions (including call

distribution, call routing, call setup, mapping, call features, billing, and registration) on its behalf, unless

that authorized third party also is an eligible [VRS] provider.”

In light of the proliferation of

unauthorized “white label” entities providing VRS with insufficient supervision, via revenue-sharing

arrangements with FCC-certified providers, the Commission found this rule necessary “to reduce fraud[,]

establish better oversight of the VRS program, and address [such] unauthorized revenue sharing

arrangements.”

5. Also in 2011, the Commission restricted compensation of VRS providers for calls to the

United States from foreign locations.

The Commission found that a large number of VRS calls were

placed from IP addresses indicating a non-U.S. location and that “many of these minutes are likely

attributable to fraudulent or abusive activities.”

Therefore, the Commission adopted a rule prohibiting

TRS Fund compensation for such VRS calls—except for calls placed during travel by “a U.S. resident

who has pre-registered with his or her default provider prior to leaving the country, during specified

periods of time while on travel and from specified regions of travel, for which there is an accurate means

of verifying the identity and location of such callers.”

In a footnote to the 2011 VRS Call Practices

Order, the Commission added that “this exception is not intended to apply to calls made by individuals

who remain outside the U.S. for extended periods of time, which we define as more than four weeks.”

6. Subsequent Reauthorization of At-Home VRS Call Handling. In 2017, recognizing that

anti-fraud safeguards and advances in network technology appeared to have reduced the fraud and abuse

risks associated with CAs working at home, the Commission authorized a pilot program whereby

participating VRS providers could permit some CAs to work at home, so long as the provider complied

with specified personnel, technical, and environmental safeguards, as well as monitoring, oversight, and

reporting requirements.

In 2020, the Commission further amended its rules to allow at-home call-

handling on a permanent basis, subject to safeguards similar to those of the pilot program.

Among other

Id. at 5610, Appx. E (adopting 47 CFR § 64.604(b)(4)(iii) (2012)).

Id. at 5556-59, paras. 16-20.

Id. at 5612, Appx. E (adopting 47 CFR § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(iii)).

Id. at 5574, para. 57; see also id. at 5574, para. 58.

Id. at 5609, Appx. E (adopting 47 CFR § 64.604(a)(7)). This restriction applies to VRS calls placed by video

users located outside the United States to voice users in the United States but does not apply to VRS calls placed by

voice users located outside the United States to video users in the United States. Id.

at 5564, para. 32.

Id. at 5564, para. 32.

Id. at 5609, Appx. E (adopting 47 CFR § 64.604(a)(7)); see also 2011 VRS Call Practices Order, 26 FCC Rcd at

5564, para. 32.

2011 VRS Call Practices Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5564, para. 32 n.105.

Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-

Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123, Report

and Order, Notice of Inquiry, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 2436, 2455-61,

paras. 46-54 (2017) (2017 VRS Improvements Order); 47 CFR § 64.604(b)(8) (2019) (pilot program rules).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

military services, or is employed by a federal government agency or federal contractor, and is temporarily

stationed outside the United States. This exception will apply for the duration of the user’s (or family

member’s) foreign assignment plus an additional time period following the end of such assignment to

allow the user additional time to travel abroad and return to the United States. If the foreign assignment is

extended or a change in the foreign assignment adds another international region, the user must notify his

or her default provider of the new end date or new region of the assignment to continue making VRS calls

during such extension or new region (plus the permitted additional time period). Further, if the intended

end date of the foreign assignment is not known or otherwise unavailable as of the time of notification to

the default VRS provider, the notification may specify, as the end date, a date that is one year from the

date of departure from the United States, or, for extensions beyond one year, in one-year intervals from

the prior specified end date. We also apply this exception to individuals placing calls to the United States

from U.S. military and government organizations with enterprise VRS registrations.

139

37. However, we decline to expand this exception to include U.S. private-sector employees

who are asked to work abroad by their U.S. employers, as well as the accompanying family members of

such employees, as requested by Convo.

140

As noted above, one year is long enough to cover most

reasons why U.S. residents would be traveling abroad, other than U.S. military and government workers

for which extended time abroad is not uncommon. Further, enforcement of this limit with respect to U.S.

military personnel, federal government employees, and federal contractors is relatively straightforward

due to their official roles and well-documented assignments. Extending the exception to include private-

sector employees and their family members is likely to pose more significant enforcement challenges,

potentially increasing the risk of misuse or exploitation of the exception by individuals who are no longer

U.S. residents by virtue of their extended time abroad.

D. Technical Correction to TRS Rules

38. We adopt a technical amendment of the Commission rules, proposed in December 2022,

to clarify the inflation adjustment factor for IP Relay compensation.

141

No comments were received

regarding this proposed correction.

39. The annual inflation adjustment factor for IP Relay compensation, adopted in June 2022,

is based on the Employment Cost Index compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of

Labor, for total compensation for private industry workers in professional, scientific, and technical

services.

142

The Commission directed the TRS Fund administrator to specify in its annual TRS Fund

report “the index values for each quarter of the previous calendar year and the last quarter of the year

before that.”

143

The Commission also directed the TRS Fund administrator to propose the IP Relay

compensation level for the next TRS Fund year by adjusting the compensation level from the previous

year by a percentage equal to the percentage change in the index between the fourth quarter of the

calendar year ending before the filing of its annual report and the fourth quarter of the preceding calendar

year.

144

139

See 47 CFR § 64.611(a)(6) (allowing enterprise registration for VRS users).

140

Convo Comments at 7, 10-11.

141

Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service Compensation; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-

to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned

Telephone Service, CG Docket Nos. 22-408, 03-123, 13-24, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order on

Reconsideration, FCC 22-97, paras. 47-48 (2022).

142

Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech

Disabilities; Petition for Rulemaking of Sprint Corporation, CG Docket No. 03-123, RM-11820, Report and Order,

FCC 22-48, at 16, para. 41 (June 30, 2022).

143

Id. at 17, para. 43.

144

Id.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

VRS provider. Providers must route all VRS calls through a single URL address used for each name or

sub-brand used.

(iii)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (iii), an eligible VRS provider shall not contract

with or otherwise authorize any third party to provide call center functions (including call distribution,

call routing, call setup, mapping, call features, billing, and registration) on its behalf, unless that

authorized third party also is an eligible provider.

(B) An eligible VRS provider may contract with third parties to provide interpretation services for up to a

maximum of the greater of:

(1) Thirty percent (30%) of a VRS provider’s total minutes for which compensation is paid in that month;

(2) Thirty percent (30%) of the provider’s average projected monthly conversation minutes for the

calendar year, according to the projections most recently filed with the TRS Fund administrator.

(iv) To the extent that an eligible VRS provider contracts with or otherwise authorizes a third party to

provide any other services or functions related to the provision of VRS other than interpretation services

or call center functions, that third party must not hold itself out as a provider of VRS, and must clearly

identify the eligible VRS provider to the public. To the extent an eligible VRS provider contracts with or

authorizes a third party to provide any services or functions related to marketing or outreach, and such

services utilize VRS, those VRS minutes are not compensable on a per minute basis from the TRS fund.

(v) All third-party contracts or agreements entered into by an eligible provider must be in writing. Copies

of such agreements shall be made available to the Commission and to the TRS Fund administrator upon

request.

(2) Call center reports. VRS providers shall file a written report with the Commission and the TRS Fund

administrator, on April 1st and October 1st of each year for each call center that handles VRS calls that

the provider owns or controls, including centers located outside of the United States, that includes:

(i) The complete street address of the center;

(ii) The number of individual CAs and CA managers; and

(iii) The name and contact information (phone number and e-mail address) of the manager(s) at the

center. VRS providers shall also file written notification with the Commission and the TRS Fund

administrator of any change in a center's location, including the opening, closing, or relocation of any

center, at least 30 days prior to any such change.

(iv) [Reserved]

(3) Compensation of CAs. VRS providers shall not compensate, give a preferential work schedule to, or

otherwise benefit a CA, or an agency or other entity with which a VRS provider contracts for

interpretation services, in any manner that is based upon the number of VRS session or conversation

minutes or calls that a CA relays, either individually or as part of a group.

(4) Remote training session calls. VRS calls to a remote training session or a comparable activity will not

be compensable from the TRS Fund when the provider submitting minutes for such a call has been

involved, in any manner, with such a training session. Such prohibited involvement includes training

programs or comparable activities in which the provider or any affiliate or related party thereto, including

but not limited to its subcontractors, partners, employees or sponsoring organizations or entities, has any

role in arranging, scheduling, sponsoring, hosting, conducting or promoting such programs or activities.

(5) Visual privacy screens/idle calls. A VRS CA may not enable a visual privacy screen or similar

feature during a VRS call. A VRS CA must disconnect a VRS call if the caller or the called party to a

VRS call enables a privacy screen or similar feature for more than five minutes or is otherwise

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

the proposed increase in VRS minutes handled by CAs at home.

The four VRS providers supported

elimination or modification of the three years of ASL interpreting experience rule, while AARO opposed

that change.

AARO and Convo supported removing the ban on contract interpreters, while the other

three VRS providers opposed its removal.

Commenters universally supported the proposed change in

the international calling rule.

III. REPORT AND ORDER

A. CAs Working at Home

1. Cap on At-Home Minutes

11. We adopt the Commission’s proposal to increase from 50% to 80% the percentage of a

VRS provider’s monthly minutes that may be handled by CAs working at home.

Raising the cap on at-

home call handling will allow VRS providers to continue hiring from an expanded pool of interpreters

when the current waivers expire. Such increased flexibility allows VRS providers to operate more

efficiently and maintain or improve service quality.

12. Benefits. The Commission allows CAs to work at home because this option lets VRS

providers hire CAs from an expanded, nationwide pool of ASL interpreters, and thereby improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of their services.

Providers can “attract and retain qualified CAs for whom

working at the companies’ call centers is not a practical option,” and there is evidence that working at

home “can reduce CA stress and improve productivity and performance.”

13. Based on the comments and our three years of experience with waivers of the at-home

call handling cap, we conclude that these benefits can be increased by continuing to allow VRS providers

more flexibility to let their CAs work at home.

Such hiring flexibility has taken on enhanced

importance due to the continuing shortage of sign language interpreters willing to work as VRS CAs.

Sorenson Comments at 2-3; Convo Comments at 5; GlobalVRS Comments at 4-8; AARO Comments at 2-3; ZP

Reply at 1-2; Stellato Comments at 1; Miles Express Comment.

Sorenson Comments at 5-7; Convo Comments at 5-6; GlobalVRS Comments at 8-11; AARO Comments at 5-7;

ZP Reply at 4-7.

AARO Comments at 7-9; Convo Comments at 5; Sorenson Comments at 7-8; GlobalVRS Comments at 12-17; ZP

Reply at 7-9.

Convo Comments at 7-11; Sorenson Comments at 8-9; GlobalVRS Comments at 17-18; ZP Reply at 9-10;

Stellato Comments at 1.

See Notice, para. 27; 47 CFR § 64.604(b)(8)(i) (2023); infra Appx. B (adding section 64.604(d)(7)).

See Sorenson Comments at 2-3; Convo Comments at 5; GlobalVRS Comments at 4-8; AARO Comments at 2-3;

ZP Reply at 1-2.

2020 VRS At-Home Call-Handling Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 833-34, para. 7.

Id.

See GlobalVRS Comments at 5 (providers have been able to employ interpreters that would not otherwise have

considered employment either due to the interpreter’s geographic or personal circumstances that would have made

working from a company call center full time impossible); Sorenson Comments at 3; Convo Comments at 5; ZP

Reply at 1-2.

See Convo Comments at 4; GlobalVRS Comments at 1, 3; ZP Reply at 4 n.12; see also Notice, para. 26 n.96;

Rolka Loube, Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and

Speech Disabilities, Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Interstate Telecommunications

Relay Services Fund, Payment Formula and Fund Size Estimate, CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, at 13 (filed May 1,

2023) (2023 TRS Report) (noting that, according to provider cost reports, CA-related costs are projected to increase

by an average of 26.22% between 2022 and 2023); Sorenson Ex Parte, CG Docket No. 10-51, at 2 (filed April 10,

2023) (hourly wages for sign language interpreters increased from 2021 to 2022 to “address the pressing need to

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

addition, the comments confirm that, post-pandemic, many VRS CAs have become acclimated to working

at home and are reluctant to return to call centers.

14. Cost. We conclude that additional costs resulting from this rule will be minimal. We

note that, because TRS Fund compensation is set for multi-year periods, providers generally have an

incentive to avoid or reduce unnecessary costs, as the increased profits that result can be kept and no

offsetting rate reduction is likely before the end of the compensation period.

Therefore, VRS providers

generally are unlikely to increase their reliance on CAs working at home unless doing so enables a net

reduction in cost.

Further, as noted above, allowing more minutes to be handled by such CAs will

expand the pool of potential job candidates and help alleviate the shortage of qualified interpreters

available for VRS work. In addition, an expanded labor supply also would tend to limit the wages and

benefits that VRS providers must offer to recruit qualified CAs.

We also conclude that the safeguards

of our at-home rules are sufficient to prevent adverse effects on call confidentiality and service quality,

and reduce the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse.

The anecdotal incidents cited by AARO and others in

this regard,

which can be addressed through enforcement of the existing safeguards,

do not justify

reimposing a cap that could constrict the available supply of qualified VRS CAs.

(Continued from previous page)

fairly compensate video interpreters and keep them working in the VRS Program”); Convo Ex Parte at 5 (filed May

10, 2023) (“express[ing] its deep concern about the state of the pipeline for new interpreters”). See also National

Deaf Center, The ASL Interpreter Shortage and Its Impact on Accessibility in College Settings (Dec. 2, 2022) (“the

national shortage of American Sign Language interpreters has been especially challenging”),

https://nationaldeafcenter.org/news-items/the-asl-interpreter-shortage-and-its-impact-on-accessibility-in-college-

settings/; Vanessa Ontiveros, Yakima Herald-Republic, Deaf students are entitled to an education, but there’s a

shortage of people qualified to teach them (Feb. 19, 2023) (the shortage of sign language interpreters is a nationwide

issue), https://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/education/deaf-s

tudents-are-entitled-to-an-education-but-there-s-

a-shortage-of-people-qualified/article_a76039e4-ae28-11ed-9cb3-fb9e753b7e50.html.

See Convo Comments at 5 (increasing the at-home cap will enable VRS providers to retain CAs who may not

wish to return to call centers); Sorenson Comments at 3 (reporting that many video interpreters have expressed a

preference to continue working from home);

ZP Reply at 1-2 (asserting that forcing CAs to commute to an office

location would cause some CAs to opt for other employment opportunities); see also Notice, para. 28 & n.105.

Cf. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech

Disabilities; Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51,

Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-78 at 16-17, para. 33 (Sept. 28, 2023)

(finding that, with multi-year compensation periods, providers can retain profits from reducing costs and are

unlikely to spend money on wasteful or unnecessary research).

See 2020 VRS At-Home Call-Handling Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 835, para. 9 (“To the extent that the provision of at-

home call handling does not result in cost savings or revenue-enhancing benefits such as increased customer loyalty,

it is less likely that VRS providers will choose to continue or expand this practice.”).

See Sorenson Comments at 3 (“At a time when it is already difficult to entice interpreters to commit time to VRS

when community interpreting offers greater pay with more control over the work, the flexibility to offer video

interpreters a work from home option has been important.”) (footnote omitted).

See 47 CFR § 64.604(b)(8) (2023); infra Appx. B (moving the at-home rule to section 64.604(d)(7)); Sorenson

Comments at 2-3; Convo Comments at 5; GlobalVRS Comments at 4-8; AARO Comments at 2-3; ZP Reply at 1-2.

AARO Comments at 3-4 (citing reports from consumers of alleged violations of the requirement that each home

workstation reside in a separate, secure workspace); Miles Express Comment (alleging multiple privacy violations

by interpreters working at home); Stellato Comments at 1 (stating that some interpreters who work at home do not

have an absolutely private space).

See AARO Comments at 4-5. The Commission enforces at-home VRS call handling safeguards through

complaints, review of reports, audits, and other actions.

A consumer expressed concerns that raising the cap would reduce the availability of in-person interpreting

services in the community. Miles Express Comment. The Commission’s mandate under the Act is to ensure that

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

15. Alternative Proposal. While we agree that, for the most part, VRS providers are unlikely

to add more at-home CAs if doing so will detract from service quality,

we are unpersuaded that

unlimited at-home interpreting should be allowed, as proposed by three VRS providers.

In light of past

and present concerns in this area, we conclude the safer course is to require a minimum level of call

center staffing.

Requiring that at least 20% of monthly minutes be handled in a call center provides

assurance that each provider will continue to maintain sufficient call center staffing so that newly hired or

inexperienced CAs can benefit from in-person supervision or mentoring by CAs with VRS experience.

Further, an 80% cap allows VRS providers ample flexibility to hire from an expanded pool of candidates

and honor CAs’ work preferences.

Indeed, the record provides no persuasive evidence that an 80% cap

will adversely affect any provider’s ability to hire qualified CAs or to provide high-quality service.

the future, if such evidence emerges, this issue may be revisited.

16. We also decline GlobalVRS’s suggestion that the rule should continue to apply a 50%

cap to newly certified VRS providers pending their achievement of a record of compliance.

New

applicants are required to demonstrate that they will comply with all applicable minimum TRS

standards.

Any compliance concerns that the Commission may have regarding a particular applicant for

(Continued from previous page)

relay services are available to eligible users. 47 U.S.C. § 225. Expanding the opportunities for sign-language

interpreters to work at home as VRS CAs will further that mandate. Further, such opportunities can encourage more

entry into the field of sign-language interpreters—and encourage more qualified interpreters to continue in the

profession—by enabling them to combine part-time work as VRS CAs with community interpreting assignments.

ZP Better Together, for example, emphasizes on its recruitment website for new CAs that interpreters “can work a

combination of VRS and Community assignments.” See https://www.purplevrs.com/jointheteam

(last visited Oct.

17, 2023). In addition, Convo, in its Petition, stated that many interpreters only want a short assignment or want to

supplement their community-interpreting income by working limited shifts as a VRS CA. Convo Petition at 11.

See Sorenson Comments at 4 (“The Commission’s mandatory minimum standards already set the baseline for

proper handling of VRS calls, and competition among providers further ensures that providers make staffing choices

that enable them to handle calls appropriately.”).

GlobalVRS Comments at 8-11; Sorenson Comments at 2-5; ZP Reply at 2-4 (arguing that there is no empirical

need to impose an artificial cap given there is no potential risk of service quality degradation).

AARO Reply at 2-3 (supporting a cap because of past violations, and complexity of compliance does not mean

the cap is not a proper safeguard for VRS quality); see also 2011 VRS Call Practices Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5556-

5559, paras. 16-20.

See Sorenson Comments at 5 (“Sorenson intends to continue operating and relying on traditional call centers”);

ZP Reply at 3 (“there are a good number of Vis who must, or would prefer, to work at a call center for various

reasons, commonly due to not having a room at their residence suitable for at-home workstation use, or simply a

matter of personal preference”). Although the cap has been waived for several years, no provider has relied

exclusively on at-home CAs. Thus, arguments that service quality would be unaffected by complete removal of the

cap, ZP Reply at 2-4, have not been empirically tested.

Cf. Sorenson Comments at 2-5 (urging elimination of the cap to allow providers flexibility in managing their

workforce).

GlobalVRS claims that retention of a cap will introduce new challenges for balancing call distribution between at-

home and call center interpreters. GlobalVRS Comments at 5-6. However, GlobalVRS provides no detail

indicating the nature of such challenges, or why they would be any more difficult to address than the daily staff

scheduling and call distribution challenges VRS providers routinely face. We note that the rule allows two

alternative methods for calculating the at-home minutes cap, making compliance easier to achieve when total

minutes cannot be accurately predicted for a given month. See 47 CFR § 64.604(b)(8)(i)(A), (B) (2023); infra

Appx. B (amending and moving this provision to 47 CFR § 64.604(d)(7)(i)).

See GlobalVRS Comments at 19-20; Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Second Report

and Order, CG Docket No. 10-51, 26 FCC Rcd 10898, 10914-15, para. 37 (2011) (2011 TRS Certification Order).

47 CFR § 64.606(a)(2), (b)(2).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

new or renewed certification as a VRS provider may be addressed by adding appropriate conditions for

the certification of that applicant.

17. Transitioning. Given that the cap has been entirely waived since the onset of the

COVID-19 pandemic, and that the current waivers are extended through the compliance date of this rule

amendment,

we understand that some providers may currently have more than 80% of their CAs

working at home.

Ending the current waiver immediately upon the effective date of the amended rule

could require such VRS providers to immediately terminate the employment of some CAs for whom

working at a call center may be impractical. In light of the shortage of CAs, we determine that a

transition period of six months is needed to allow those VRS providers that currently exceed the cap an

opportunity to bring their work forces into compliance with the 80% cap without terminating the

employment of any CAs. We therefore establish a compliance date of six months after the effective date

of this rule change.

2. Experience Requirement for CAs Working at Home

18. We modify the prior experience requirement for VRS CAs working at home, reducing the

required amount of ASL interpreting experience from three years to one year.

The year of experience

may be acquired through professional ASL interpreting, either full-time or equivalent part-time, whether

in a community, business, VRS, or other context.

19. The record persuades us that this modification—in conjunction with increasing the cap on

at-home minutes—will help ensure a sufficient supply of qualified VRS CAs after the current waivers

expire.

Further, notwithstanding the concerns raised by AARO,

the record does not show that this

change will significantly affect the quality of VRS. The rule will continue to require that any VRS CA

allowed to work at home “has the experience, skills, and knowledge necessary to effectively interpret

VRS calls without in-person supervision, has learned the provider’s protocols for at-home call handling,

and understands and follows the TRS mandatory minimum standards.”

Further, VRS providers must

provide at-home CAs with the same support and supervision as CAs in call centers.

These rules,

coupled with the technical requirements for effective supervision,

provide assurance that teleworking

See, e.g., 2011 TRS Certification Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 10914-15, para. 37.

See infra Part IV (Order).

See Letter from Amanda Montgomery, Chief Legal Officer, Convo Communications, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch,

Secretary, FCC, CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, at 1 (filed June 1, 2023) (Convo June 2023 Ex Parte).

The effective date of this rule change is 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. See

infra para. 52.

See Notice, para. 34 (proposing to amend 47 CFR § 64.604(b)(8)).

2020 VRS At-Home Call-Handling Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 836-37, para. 14.

See Convo Comments at 5-7; GlobalVRS Comments at 8-11; Sorenson Comments at 5-7; ZP Reply at 4-7; see

also supra para. 13 (discussing the shortage of CAs).

AARO Comments at 5-7.

See infra Appx. B (moving this provision to 47 CFR § 64.604(d)(7)(ii)(A)); see also 47 CFR § 64.604(a)(1),

(1)(iv) (requiring VRS providers to ensure that their CAs are “able to interpret effectively, accurately, and

impartially, both receptively and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary”); Sorenson Comments at

47 CFR § 64.604(b)(8)(ii)(B) (2023); see also infra Appx. B (moving this provision to 47 CFR §

64.604(d)(7)(ii)(B)).

See 47 CFR § 64.604(b)(8)(iii) (2023); see also infra Appx. B (moving this provision to 47 CFR §

64.604(d)(7)(iii)).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

CAs will handle calls efficiently and effectively in the home environment.

In addition, retaining a one-

year experience requirement provides a metric for further assurance that CAs working at home have a

baseline level of practical field experience.

While AARO asserts that remote supervision does not

provide “the same experience as in-person . . . supervision,”

providers’ reports of their practices over the

last three years, while the at-home experience requirement was waived,

support our belief that

competition will help ensure that VRS providers continue to prioritize training and screening of CAs,

including those they allow to work at home.

AARO does not convincingly explain its contrary view

that providers have insufficient incentive to hire the most qualified applicants.

Finally, for the same

reasons discussed above regarding the percentage cap on at-home minutes,

we find it unlikely that

allowing providers more flexibility in hiring CAs will cause a net increase in the cost of VRS.

20. On the other hand, we share to some extent the concerns raised by AARO that, when

interpreters are still learning their craft, training and supervision are generally more effective when

conducted in person, rather than remotely.

Therefore, notwithstanding providers’ arguments that a

specific experience requirement is unnecessary,

we retain a requirement that CAs working at home have

at least one year of interpreting experience. Retaining a one-year experience requirement ensures that

CAs with very limited interpreting experience are subject to in-person supervision.

See Convo Comments at 5-6 (Convo agrees that other safeguards currently in the Commission’s rules will ensure

service quality and thereby further obviate the need for the three-year experience requirement).

Cf. AARO Comments at 6 (“While flexible safeguards may be necessary so that they may evolve with

technology, there should be an objective, easy-to-measure safeguard as well to preserve VRS quality.”).

AARO Comments at 6.

See, e.g., GlobalVRS Comments at 9 (explaining its practice of hiring CAs on the basis of the candidate’s skills,

experience, attitude, and professionalism, and then engaging in extensive initial and ongoing training of all CAs – all

of which the CAs then apply when working at home); ZP Reply at 5; id. at 7 (“Years of experience in the VRS

industry demonstrates that in-person supervision is not necessary and that remote teaming and supervision on

demand has proven to be as effective as in-person supervision.”); Letter from Gregory Hlibok, Chief Legal Officer,

ZVRS Holding Company, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51, at 3-4 (filed

Mar. 15, 2022) (ZP March 15 Ex Parte) (ZP has an extensive onboarding process for new CAs, engages the deaf

community and leaders in interpreting training to assess all candidates’ skills, and employs an extensive training

curriculum and call quality monitoring assessment.).

See Notice, para. 36; ZP Reply at 5 (“It is the competition among providers that inherently further ensures they

make staffing choices that enable them to handle calls appropriately just as they did throughout the pandemic”). We

note that the VRS program is structured to promote service quality competition among VRS providers. See 2017

VRS Compensation Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 5907, para. 31 (“The Commission has consistently sought to encourage

and preserve the availability of a competitive choice for VRS users, because it ensures a range of service offerings

analogous to that afforded voice service users and because it provides a competitive incentive to improve VRS

offerings.”); id. at 5908-09, paras. 33-35.

AARO Comments at 7 (asserting that “[i]f each provider is drawing from a similar pool of less-qualified

applicants, there would not necessarily be competitive pressure to improve”).

See supra para. 14.

AARO Comments at 5-7.

See Sorenson at 6 (contending that the experience rule “is unnecessary because the Commission already has rules

designed to ensure that interpreters are qualified”);

ZP Reply at 7 (“Years of experience in the VRS industry

demonstrates that in-person supervision is not necessary and that remote teaming and supervision on demand has

proven to be as effective as in-person supervision.”).

Cf. AARO Comments at 6 (“While flexible safeguards may be necessary so that they may evolve with

technology, there should be an objective, easy-to-measure safeguard as well to preserve VRS quality.”); see also

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

21. We recognize that providers have allowed CAs with less than three years’ experience to

work at home while this requirement has been waived, and some of those CAs may not meet the one-year

experience requirement as of the date the new rule goes into effect.

As proposed by Convo and to

prevent disruption of the VRS industry and CAs’ personal lives, we grandfather in those CAs working at

home as of the effective date of this rule amendment, as long as they meet all other interpreter

qualification and at-home requirements.

22. We decline to convert the experience requirement into an equivalent number of minutes

of calls handled, as AARO suggests.

The prior experience requirement can be met via full-time or

equivalent part-time experience,

and part-time experience is typically quantified in hours. Timing a

CA’s prior experience in minutes would place an unnecessary burden on applicants for CA employment.

We also decline to require that prior experience be acquired solely from in-person interpreting.

Because

it is gained in a remote context analogous to VRS, VRI experience is relevant to a CA’s qualifications to

provide VRS, whether at-home or in a call center.

3. Other Issues

23. In the 2020 VRS At-Home Call-Handling Order, in response to a request for clarification

of the home inspection requirements,

the Commission explained that the rule does not specify how

home workplace inspections must be conducted, as long as such inspections are consistent with the

provider’s at-home compliance plan and are effective in determining whether the CA’s home workstation

and workspace are in compliance with the at-home safeguards.

Commenters on the Notice requested

additional clarification whether these inspections should be conducted in-person or virtually.

further clarify that such inspections may be conducted either in-person or virtually.

24. We do not require that CAs annually self-certify that they have complied with the FCC’s

at-home rules, as AARO recommends.

While AARO alludes to “gaps in implementation” of our

existing rules governing at-home CAs and says, “it seems that certain CAs are either not properly

informed of their responsibilities or do not have sufficient incentive to comply,”

100

AARO does not

provide evidence or examples to substantiate these concerns. In 2020, the Commission deleted a rule

requiring that, before working at home, CAs sign written certifications as to their understanding of and

(Continued from previous page)

Convo June 2023 Ex Parte at 2 (recognizing “the need to provide a measure of competency in response to consumer

concerns regarding a screening process before interpreters handle calls in an at-home environment”).

See Convo June 2023 Ex Parte at 2.

See id. The effective date of this rule amendment is 30 days after publication of the amended rule in the Federal

AARO Comments at 7.

2020 VRS At-Home Call-Handling Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 836-37, para. 14.

See AARO Comments at 7.

See 2020 VRS At-Home Call-Handling Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 836-37, para. 14.

47 CFR § 64.604(b)(8)(iv)(A), (E) (requiring VRS providers to inspect each home workstation and its home

environment before activating the workstation for use, and to conduct random and unannounced inspections of at

least five percent (5%) of all home workstations, including their home environments, in each 12-month period);

infra Appx. B (moving this provision to 47 CFR § 64.604(d)(7)(iv)(A), (E)).

2020 VRS At-Home Call-Handling Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 840, para. 23.

See Sorenson Comments at 9-10; ZP Reply at 10-11.

AARO Comments at 4-5.

100

Id. at 4.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

commitment to comply with the Commission’s TRS rules.

101

The Commission stated:

VRS providers are required to effectively train and supervise at-home

CAs and are responsible for their CAs’ compliance with the minimum

TRS standards. In light of the resulting incentives for VRS providers to

ensure CA quality and rule compliance, additional regulation of

providers’ internal processes appears unnecessary.

102

For the same reasons, we find that a retrospective CA certification of compliance would not significantly

improve on the requirements already in place.

B. Contracting for CAs

25. The Commission adopts its proposal to modify the TRS rules’ restriction on contracting

for CA services, to allow VRS providers to contract for interpretation services for up to 30% of their

monthly call minutes.

103

26. The record confirms our belief that this change, like others adopted in this Report and

Order, will help maintain efficient, effective relay service despite the continuing shortage of VRS CAs.

Authorizing contractual CA service will allow providers flexibility to continue retaining the services of

qualified ASL interpreters who prefer not to sign up as VRS provider employees.

104

Contract CAs also

can help providers respond to short term fluctuations in both demand and CA availability.

105

By contrast,

reinstating the ban on contract CAs, as several commenters urge,

106

may decrease the flexibility of VRS

providers to meet demand, for example, when a weather event causes both a spike in traffic and the

closing of a call center, potentially compromising the overall quality of service for many VRS users.

107

27. In the three years during which the CA contracting restriction has been waived, the

Commission has not received any evidence of resulting fraud, waste, or abuse. We conclude that, by

limiting the percentage of a VRS provider’s traffic handled by contractors and by adopting the safeguards

discussed below, we can safely authorize limited use of contractors while preventing a recurrence of “the

troubled history of subcontracting video interpreters from uncertified providers.”

108

We also conclude

that, as with the less restrictive at-home rules adopted herein,

109

the provider economic incentives inherent

in a multi-year compensation plan make it unlikely that less restrictive contracting rules will result in

higher VRS cost.

101

See 2020 VRS At-Home Call-Handling Order, para. 16.

102

Id. (footnotes omitted).

103

Notice, para. 40. The current rules prohibit VRS providers from contracting for interpretation services with any

party who is not also a certified VRS provider. 47 CFR § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(iii) (2023).

104

Convo Petition at 11 (many of the VRS interpreters it hires through a contractor “only want a short assignment or

want to supplement their community-interpreting income by working limited shifts as a [VRS CA]”).

105

Convo Comments at 5 (“the ability to fall back on contract [CAs] can ensure adequate staffing levels in the event

of a dramatic shift in demand”); AARO Comments at 8 (“contracting for CAs is a reasonable action to address the

CA shortage”); see also Notice, paras. 42-43.

106

GlobalVRS Comments at 12-17; Sorenson Comments at 7-8; ZP Reply at 7-9.

107

AARO Reply at 2; Convo Reply at 9.

108

Sorenson Comments at 2; see also Notice, para. 45; AARO Comments at 8 (agreeing that allowing contracting

for CAs is a reasonable action if accompanied by registration and accountability requirements).

109

See supra paras. 14, 19.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

28. We find that adopting the following safeguards will enable the Commission to effectively

oversee the use of contract CAs.

110

First, we require VRS providers to maintain and allow inspection by

the Commission and TRS Fund Administrator of all records describing CA services provided under

contract (in addition to the contracts themselves and any amendments),

111

including any invoices and

correspondence regarding such services. Second, we require a VRS provider to identify, in its monthly

call data reports, each entity with which it has contracted for interpretation services and the number of

conversation minutes handled by each, as well as the CAs working on a contract basis.

112

Third, we

require VRS providers, in their annual reports, to identify each entity with which it has contracted for

interpretation services and the number of conversation minutes handled by each in the year covered by the

report.

113

29. To reduce incentives for fraud and abuse, a provision of our current rules prohibits VRS

providers from providing compensation or other benefits to CAs in any manner that is based upon the

number of VRS minutes or calls that the CA relays, “either individually or as part of a group.”

114

amend this provision to clarify that this prohibition applies to compensation or other benefits provided to

an agency or other entity with which a VRS provider contracts for CA services. We also amend the rule

to expressly prohibit VRS providers from paying contractors based on session or conversation minutes.

115

30. We emphasize that current rules require that VRS must be offered in the name of —and

billed to the TRS Fund by—the certified VRS provider, in a manner that clearly identifies that entity as

the provider of the service.

116

Further, the Commission’s rules governing CAs who work at home remain

applicable when contract CAs are working at home.

117

If a VRS provider allows contract CAs to work at

home, it is the VRS provider’s responsibility to ensure compliance with each provision of paragraph

(d)(7) of section 64.604 of this chapter, as well as all other applicable minimum TRS standards. To the

extent that a VRS provider wishes to delegate certain oversight tasks to an agency that employs such CAs,

it may do so, but the VRS provider must ensure compliance with the Commission’s rules, whether by

including specific oversight provisions in its contract with the agency, or otherwise.

110

See Notice, paras. 46, 49; see also Convo Reply to Convo Petition Public Notice, at 9 (Aug. 3, 2021) (“If the

Commission has concerns about permitting limited contract interpreting on a permanent basis …, Convo is

amenable to the adoption of additional safeguards”); AARO Comments at 7-8 (“conditions could be imposed to

limit the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse”).

111

See infra Appx. B (adding 47 CFR § 64.604(d)(1)(v)). The Commission’s rules currently require that VRS

providers’ contracts with third parties be in writing and be made available to the Commission and the TRS Fund

administrator upon request. 47 CFR § 64.604

(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(v) (2023).

112

See infra Appx. B (adding 47 CFR § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(8)).

113

See infra Appx. B (adding 47 CFR § 64.604(d)(2)(iv)). We also note that a VRS provider must notify the

Commission within 60 days after contract CAs begin handling calls in a facility operated by a contracting agency.

See 47 CFR § 64.606(f)(2).

114

47 CFR § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(3).

115

See infra Appx. B (adding 47 CFR § 64.604(d)(3)). Convo Petition Reply at 9. That is, a CA who contracted to

work four hours on each of two days would receive a flat rate for each hour of availability, without regard to call

minutes actually handled during those eight hours.

116

See 47 CFR § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(ii) (2023); infra Appx. B (moving this provision to 47 CFR §

64.604(d)(1)(ii)).

117

For example, the monitoring and oversight obligations of the at-home rules also apply to home workstations of

contract CAs, and these home workstations are subject to a VRS provider’s obligation to conduct random and

unannounced inspections of at least five percent of all home workstations, including their home environments, in

each 12-month period. 47 CFR § 64.604(b)(8)(iv)(E) (2023). As another example, a VRS provider must ensure that

each contract CA working at home “has learned the provider's protocols for at-home call handling, and understands

and follows the TRS mandatory minimum standards set out in this section.” Id. § 64.604(b)(8)(ii)(A).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

31. We do not believe it is necessary for our rules to address the speculative concerns raised

by GlobalVRS regarding potential disclosure by contractors of a provider’s trade secrets and the

application of tax law to contract CAs.

118

We do not require any VRS provider to use contract CAs, and

we agree with Convo and AARO that VRS providers are responsible for complying with all federal and

state laws on taxation or other matters affecting contracted CAs, as with their own employees.

119

C. International Calling Restrictions

32. We adopt the proposed modification of the Commission’s rule on VRS calls originating

from international IP addresses and terminating in the United States.

120

As modified, the rule permits

compensation for such international VRS calls during a travel period of up to one year, if the user’s

default VRS provider has been notified of the user’s travel at any time prior to placing such calls.

121

The

content of the required notification must include the specific regions of travel, the date of departure from

the United States, and the approximate date when the individual intends to return to the United States.

Commenters are universally in support of these revisions to the international calling restrictions.

122

33. By allowing users to notify their providers any time before making the first compensable

call from abroad (rather than before leaving the United States, as required by the current rule), this

amendment aligns better with functional equivalence.

123

The current requirement to notify before leaving

the country may unnecessarily restrict users from calling the United States while traveling abroad, for

example, in unforeseen circumstances or emergencies when the user may not have anticipated needing to

make a call.

124

The record does not indicate that the less restrictive approach we adopt will impose

additional costs on VRS providers or users. By reducing the unnecessarily broad application of the

international calling rule, our amendment may reduce administrative costs incurred by providers, the TRS

Fund administrator, and Commission staff to implement the rule. Further, this change will not increase

any risk of waste, fraud, or abuse, given the effective anti-fraud measures currently in place, as described

below.

125

34. This amendment also codifies the declaratory ruling issued by the Commission in June

2022, which interpreted the existing rule to allow compensation for international calls placed by a

registered user who is traveling for up to one year.

126

As explained in the June 2022 Ruling, the prior

interpretation of the rule, under which a VRS user’s travel period could not exceed four weeks, imposed

unnecessary restrictions on VRS use by consumers who are traveling internationally.

127

That

interpretation was adopted at a time when the VRS program was plagued by fraud and abuse.

128

Since

then, the Commission’s anti-fraud measures, including requirements for call validation and user

118

GlobalVRS Comments at 14-15.

119

Convo Reply at 9; see also AARO Reply at 4-5.

120

See Notice, paras. 51-60.

121

See infra Appx. B (adding 47 CFR § 64.604(d)(6)(ii)). In other words, a VRS provider may request

compensation for any such call placed after receiving the required notice from the user. The required notice need

only be given once for each period of travel.

122

Sorenson Comments at 8-9; Convo Comments at 7-10; GlobalVRS Comments at 17-18; ZP Reply at 9-10;

Stellato Express Comment.

123

Convo Comments at 8-9; Sorenson Comments at 9; ZP Reply at 10.

124

See Convo Comments at 9.

125

See id. at 8-9; Sorenson Comments at 9; ZP Reply at 10.

126

See Notice, paras. 51-54; June 2022 Ruling, paras. 67-70.

127

Notice, para. 53; June 2022 Ruling, para. 68.

128

Notice, para. 53; June 2022 Ruling, para. 68.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116

verification in the TRS User Registration Database,

129

appear to have been effective in suppressing illegal

VRS calling.

130

We also note that, prior to the June 2022 Ruling and pursuant to the pandemic waiver

orders, the prohibition on calling the United States from abroad was largely waived;

131

in the three years

since the outbreak of the pandemic, we have not received evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse resulting

from this waiver.

35. No commenter disputes that one year is an appropriate maximum period for international

travel and is consistent with section 225, which directs the Commission to ensure the availability of TRS

to persons with hearing or speech disabilities “in the United States.”

132

The Commission requires that

compensable calls must either originate or terminate in the United States,

133

and that, to register for

Internet-based TRS, a consumer must establish that he or she is a U.S. resident, at least on a temporary

basis.

134

As explained in the June 22 Ruling, one year is long enough to cover most reasons why U.S.

residents would be traveling abroad and is a reasonable “default” time limit to prevent the use of TRS

funds to support VRS calls by persons who can no longer be considered U.S. residents.

135

36. We further adopt the proposed exception to the one-year maximum time period for calls

to or from the United States by registered VRS users who are U.S. military personnel, federal government

employees, or federal contractors (or their accompanying immediate family members) temporarily

stationed outside the United States.

136

Three VRS providers support this exception, describing

circumstances in which such VRS users may need to be abroad for longer durations.

137

Under this

exception, the content of the required notification to the default provider must include the specific regions

of foreign assignment, the date of departure from the United States, the contemplated end date for the

foreign assignment,

138

and confirmation that the user (or a family member of the user) is a member of the

129

47 CFR § 64.615(a)(1) (call validation); 47 CFR § 64.615(a)(6) (user verification).

130

Notice, para. 53; June 2022 Ruling, para. 68.

131

June 2022 Ruling, para. 68.

132

47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1) (“the Commission shall ensure that interstate and intrastate telecommunications relay

services are available, to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner, to hearing-impaired and speech-

impaired individuals in the United States.”).

133

Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, Declaratory Ruling, 25 FCC

Rcd 1868, 1872, para. 9 (CGB 2010); Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, CG Docket No.

10-51, Declaratory Ruling, Order, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 6012, 6024, para. 27 (2010).

In this context, “United States” includes U.S. Territories. See 47 U.S.C. § 153(58).

134

See Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and

Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-

123, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 4806 (CGB 2015) (2015 Bureau VRS Order) (waiving the requirement that VRS providers

obtain the last four digits of a user’s Social Security Number for persons in the United States without such

identification);

Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned Telephone Service; Telecommunications Relay Services

and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 1093,

1098-1100, paras. 13-14 (CGB 2015). Persons who may use TRS in the United States include temporary residents,

such as foreign students attending colleges and universities in the United States.

135

See June 2022 Ruling, para. 69.

136

See Notice, para. 59. A family member would be eligible for this exception even if the federal military person,

employee, or contractor does not use VRS.

137

Convo Comments at 10; GlobalVRS Comments at 18; ZP Reply at 10. No commenters oppose the proposed

exemption.

138

If the user’s foreign assignment does not contain an end date, the user may specify an end date that is one year

after the date of departure. If the assignment lasts longer, the user may follow the extension procedures discussed

herein.