Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay 
Service Program
)
)
)
)
)                
)        
CG Docket No. 10-51
DECLARATORY RULING, ORDER AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  May 24, 2010 Released:  May 27, 2010
Comment Date:  14 days after publication in the Federal Register for Issues V. A. , V.B., 
and V.E.5.; 21 days after publication in the Federal Register for all other issues.  
Reply Comment Date:  10 days after the Comment Date for Issues V. A. , V.B., and V.E.5.; 
14 days after the Comment Date for all other issues.
By the Commission:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................3
III. DECLARATORY RULING .....................................................................................................9
IV. ORDER....................................................................................................................................11
V. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ...........................................................................17
A. Location of VRS Call Centers...........................................................................................17
B. VRS CAs Working from Home and Compensation..........................................................19
C. Procedures for the Suspension of Payment .......................................................................22
D. Specific Call Practices.......................................................................................................27
1. International VRS Calls...............................................................................................27
2. VRS Calls in Which the Caller’s Face Does not Appear on the Screen; Use of 
Privacy Screens; Idle calls...........................................................................................30
3. Calls Involving Remote Training ................................................................................33
E. Detecting and Stopping the Billing of Illegitimate Calls ..................................................36
1. Automated Call Data Collection..................................................................................36
2. Data Filed with the Fund Administrator to Support Payment Claims.........................38
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
2
3. Requiring Providers to Submit Information about New and Existing Call 
Centers.........................................................................................................................42
4. Requiring Service to be Offered in the Name of the Provider Seeking 
Compensation from the Fund; Revenue Sharing Schemes .........................................45
5. Whistleblower Protections for VRS CAs and Other Provider Employees..................49
6. Transparency and the Disclosure of Provider Financial and Call Data.......................51
7. Provider Audits............................................................................................................55
8. Record Retention .........................................................................................................56
9. Provider Certification Under Penalty of Perjury .........................................................58
VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS..................................................................................................59
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES ........................................................................................................68
APPENDIX A:  Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification
APPENDIX B:  Interim Rule
APPENDIX C:  Proposed Rules
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Declaratory Ruling (Declaratory Ruling), we reiterate that Interstate 
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund payments may be suspended to providers that do 
not submit to audits.  In the accompanying Order (Order), we adopt an interim rule addressing 
the certification of provider information for Video Relay Service (VRS)1 calls.  Finally, in the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), we seek comment on ways to amend our rules to detect 
and prevent fraud and misuse in the provision of VRS.  Taken together, our actions today are 
strong steps toward ensuring that VRS will continue as a vibrant service for persons who are deaf 
or hard and hearing.
2. Today’s actions follow the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau’s 
(Bureau) VRS Declaratory Ruling released on February 25, 2010, addressing the compensability 
from the Fund of certain types of calls using VRS.2 We recognize that the use and availability of 
VRS has revolutionized TRS service and, in turn, the lives of many persons who are deaf and 
hard of hearing.3 We are therefore committed to ensuring that it remains a sound and robust 
  
1 As discussed further below, VRS is a form of TRS that enables the VRS user to access the nation’s telephone 
system and communicate in American Sign Language (ASL) by using a video-to-video link with a communications 
assistant (CA); the CA relays the call between a voice telephone user and the VRS user.  See 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(17) 
(defining VRS).  Although this item is being released in docket number CG 10-51, which specifically relates to 
VRS, sections III.B., IV., and many of the issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking apply to all forms of 
TRS.
2 See Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, Declaratory Ruling, DA 
10-314 (CGB Feb. 25, 2010) (VRS Declaratory Ruling).
3 As a result, VRS quickly became the most popular form of TRS; in 2008, for example, there were over three 
million more minutes of VRS use than the combined minutes of use of all five of the other Internet Protocol (IP)-
based and interstate forms of TRS.  See National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. (NECA), Interstate 
Telecommunications Relay Services Fund Payment Formula and Fund Size Estimate, CG Docket No. 03-123, at Ex. 
2 (filed May 1, 2009) (NECA 2009 TRS Rates Filing).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
3
service, consistent with Congress’ mandate that TRS be made widely available and incorporate 
new technologies.4 At the same time, VRS has been used by some to generate illegitimate 
minutes and seek reimbursement from the Fund for their personal gain.  For example, in 
November 2009, 26 people were indicted for allegedly defrauding the Fund, many of whom have 
now pleaded guilty.5 We therefore reiterate and adopt rules, and seek comment on a broad array 
of possible changes, in order to further detect and deter the misuse of VRS and the billing of 
illegitimate minutes to the Fund.  
II. BACKGROUND
3. Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act, codified at section 225 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), requires the Commission to ensure that TRS is 
available, to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner, to persons with hearing or 
speech disabilities in the United States.6 The statute requires that TRS offer persons with hearing 
and speech disabilities access to a telephone system that is “functionally equivalent” to voice 
telephone service.7 When section 225 was enacted and implemented, TRS calls were being 
placed using a TTY connected to the public switched telephone network (what we now call 
“traditional TRS”).8 In March 2000, the Commission recognized several new forms of TRS, 
including VRS.9 VRS requires the use of a broadband Internet connection between the VRS user 
and the Communications Assistant (CA), which allows users to communicate in sign language 
via a video link.  The CA, in turn, places an outbound telephone call to a hearing person.  During 
the call, the CA communicates in American Sign Language (ASL) with the deaf person and by 
voice with the hearing person.  As a result, the conversation between the deaf and hearing end 
users flows in near real time.  VRS therefore provides a degree of “functional equivalency” that 
  
4 See 47 U.S.C. § 225 (b)(1) & (d)(2).
5 See Twenty-six Charged in Nationwide Scheme to Defraud the FCC’s Video Relay Service Program, United States 
Department of Justice (DOJ) (Nov. 19, 2009) at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/November/09-crm-1258.html; 
see also Two Former Executives of Indicted Relay Services Company Plead Guilty to Defrauding FCC Program,
DOJ (Jan. 13, 2010) at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/January/10-crm-031.html; Two Former Executives of 
Video Relay Services Company Plead Guilty to Defrauding FCC Program, DOJ (Feb. 18, 2010) at 
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/February/10-crm-157.html; Four Former Owners and Employees of Three 
Video Relay Service Companies Plead Guilty to Defrauding FCC Program, DOJ (March 5, 2010) at 
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/March/10-crm-229.html; Three Former Owners and Employees of Two Video 
Relay Service Companies Plead Guilty to Defrauding FCC Program, DOJ (March 9, 2010) at 
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/March/10-crm-237.html. 
6 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1); see Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 401, 104 Stat. 327, 
336-69 (1990).  
7 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).  
8 See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, CC Docket Nos. 90-571 & 98-67, CG Docket 03-123, Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 12475, 12479, para. 3 n.18  (June 30, 2004) (2004 TRS Report 
& Order) (describing how a traditional TRS call works).
9  Telecommunications Relay 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. 21-27 (March 6, 
2000) (2000 TRS Order). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
4
is not attainable with text-based TRS by allowing those persons whose primary language is ASL 
to communicate in ASL, just as a hearing person does with, e.g., spoken English.    
4. VRS, like all forms of TRS, is intended to operate so that when a VRS user wants 
to make a call, a CA is available to handle the call.10 Therefore, “the obligation placed on TRS 
providers is to be available to handle calls consumers choose to make, when they choose to make 
them.”11 For this reason, our rules generally require, for example, that VRS be available 24 
hours a day, seven days a week, and that CAs answer calls within a specific period of time.12  
Moreover, in describing a TRS call, the Commission has often explained that the CA serves as a 
“transparent conduit” between two people communicating in different ways (e.g., text and voice, 
or ASL and voice).13 It is because of this limited, transparent role of the CA that the 
Commission has frequently stated that completion of the call to the CA is the equivalent of 
receiving a dial tone.14
5. The statute and regulations provide that TRS users cannot be required to pay for 
the costs associated with relaying a call.15 Therefore, TRS users are not strictly “consumers” or 
purchasers of a service; rather, they are the principal beneficiaries of a federal program that gives 
access to the telephone system.  The cost of relay is imposed, in the first instance, on either the 
states16 (for most intrastate traditional TRS calls) or the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) (for 
interstate traditional TRS calls and all calls made via Internet-based forms of TRS, including 
VRS).17 These costs, in turn, are generally passed on to all consumers of telecommunications 
  
10 Federal Communications Commission Clarifies that Certain Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) 
Marketing and Call Handling Practices are Improper and Reminds that Video Relay Service (VRS) May Not be 
Used as a Video Remote Interpreting Service, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Public Notice, 20 FCC 
Rcd 1471 (Jan. 26, 2005) (2005 TRS Marketing Practices PN).
11 Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Declaratory Ruling, 20 FCC Rcd 1466, at 1469, para. 8 
(Jan. 26, 2005) (2005 Financial Incentives Declaratory Ruling).
12 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.604(b)(2) (“speed of answer” requirements), & (b)(4) (requiring that certain TRS services, 
including VRS, be offered twenty four hours a day, seven days a week).
13 2004 TRS Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12536, para. 160; see also id. at 12572, para. 256.  
14 See, e.g., 2005 Financial Incentives Declaratory Ruling, 20 FCC Rcd at 1469, para. 8.
15 See 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(1)(D) (regulations must “require that users of [TRS] pay rates no greater than the rates 
paid for functionally equivalent voice communication services with respect to such factors as the duration of the 
call, the time of day, and the distance from point of origination to point of termination”); 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(4) 
(same).
16 No specific funding method is required for intrastate TRS or state TRS programs.  States generally recover the 
costs of intrastate TRS either through rate adjustments or surcharges assessed on all intrastate end users, and 
reimburse TRS providers directly for their intrastate TRS costs.  Most states presently select one provider to offer 
TRS within the state.
17 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) (implementing 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)).  There are two aspects to the cost 
recovery framework set forth in the regulations for interstate TRS service and, presently, all VRS calls:  (1) 
collecting contributions from common carriers providing interstate telecommunications services to create a fund 
from which eligible TRS providers may be compensated; and (2) compensating eligible TRS providers from the 
Fund for the reasonable costs of providing eligible TRS services.  In creating the Fund, the Commission enacted a 
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
5
services as an extra charge on their monthly service bills.  Providers of compensable TRS 
services are entitled to their reasonable costs of providing service in compliance with the 
Commission’s service rules.18 Providers submit to the Fund administrator on a monthly basis the 
number of minutes of service provided, and the Fund administrator compensates them based on 
per-minute compensation rates.19 The compensation rates are a settlement mechanism to ensure 
that providers are reimbursed for their reasonable costs of providing service in compliance with 
our rules, and are presently set annually by the Commission.20  
6. Although VRS has proven to be extremely popular, the service has also been 
subject to fraud and abuse.  Thus, on several occasions we have addressed call handling and 
other practices by providers that generate minutes of use and are inconsistent with section 225 
and our rules.21 Further, in November 2009, 26 people were indicted for allegedly manufacturing 
and billing the Fund for illegitimate calls, and many of these individuals have now pleaded 
guilty.22 In addition, VRS providers and others have filed various petitions and other documents 
seeking changes to the service rules, including rules addressing provider call handling practices 
and the legitimacy of certain kinds of calls.23 Finally, in the recent Declaratory Ruling the 
Bureau addressed certain call practices or categories that are not compensable from the Fund.24
  
(Continued from previous page)
shared funding mechanism based on contributions from all carriers (and now also all interconnected VoIP service 
providers) who provide interstate telecommunications services.  All contributions are placed in the Fund, which is 
administered by the TRS Fund administrator, currently NECA.  The Fund administrator uses these funds to 
compensate “eligible” TRS providers for their reasonable costs of providing TRS.
18 Id.; see also 2004 TRS Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12543-45, paras. 179-82
19 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E).
20 See, e.g., Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and 
Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, 24 FCC Rcd 8628 (June 26, 2009) (2009 TRS Rate Order) 
(annual rate order adopting compensation rates for the various forms of TRS, the Fund size, and the carrier 
contribution factor).
21 See, e.g., 2005 TRS Marketing Practices PN; 2005 Financial Incentives Declaratory Ruling; see also
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, 20 FCC Rcd 12503 (July 28, 2005) (stating that the offering of free or 
discount long distance service to TRS consumers as an incentive for a consumer to use a particular TRS provider's 
relay service, or as an incentive for a consumer to make more or longer TRS calls, constitutes an impermissible 
financial incentive in violation of Section 225 of the Act); Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Providers 
Must Make all Outbound Calls Requested by TRS Users and May Not "Block" Calls to Certain Numbers at the 
Request of Consumers, CG Docket No. 03-123, Public Notice, CG Docket No. 03-123, 20 FCC 14717 (Sept. 21, 
2005).  
22 See note 5, supra.   Those indicted include call center managers, paid callers, and VRS CAs.  Two primary 
sources of fraud were illegitimate minutes to podcasts and calls ostensibly made for the purpose of marketing and 
outreach.  This fraud resulted in tens of millions of dollars of payments from the Fund.  
23 See, e.g., National Association of the Deaf, et al., Petition to Initiate a Notice and Comment Rulemaking 
Proceeding, CG Docket No. 03-123, CC Docket No. 98-67 (filed Jan. 27, 2010) (requesting that the Commission 
initiate a rulemaking proceeding on the restriction of certain types of VRS calls); CSDVRS, LLC, Petition for 
Rulemaking on Internal VRS Calls and VRS Conference Calls, CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-196 
(filed Nov. 17, 2009) (requesting that the Commission seek comment on rules addressing VRS calls, including 
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
6
7. In this Declaratory Ruling, we clarify that that Fund payments may be suspended 
to providers that do not submit to audits.  In the Order we take the next steps to ensure that the 
Fund compensates only VRS calls that are consistent with section 225 and conform to the TRS 
rules.  To this end, we adopt an interim rule requiring the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief 
Financial Officer (CFO), or other senior executive of a provider submitting minutes to the Fund 
administrator for compensation to certify, under penalty of perjury, that the minutes were 
handled in compliance with section 225 and the Commission’s rules and orders, and to certify 
under penalty of perjury that cost and demand data submitted to the Fund administrator are true 
and correct.  As discussed below, we find good cause to adopt this emergency interim rule 
without notice and comment, and to make it effective upon publication in the Federal Register 
rather than 30 days afterwards subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB).25 In the accompanying Notice, we seek comment on making this requirement a 
permanent rule.
  
(Continued from previous page)
conference calls, by VRS provider employees ); Ex Parte Notice of Snap Telecommunications, Inc., CG Docket No. 
03-123 (Oct. 30, 2009) (urging the Commission to take enforcement actions against illegitimate call practices); 
Sorenson Communications, Inc., Petition for Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 03-123 (filed Oct. 1, 2009) (Sorenson 
VRS Call Practices Petition) (requesting that the Commission propose and seek comment on rules that will ensure 
that the Fund compensates only legitimate VRS calls); CSDVRS, LLC, Request for Expedited Clarification on 
Marketing Practices, CG Docket No. 03-123 (filed Sept. 1, 2009) (seeking clarification on the compensability of 
VRS calls placed by VRS providers for marketing and outreach);  CSDVRS, LLC, Petition for Rulemaking or 
Regulation of Provider Representations, CG Docket No. 03-123 (filed Aug. 24, 2009) (seeking rulemaking to adopt 
rules that provide for monetary penalties for VRS provider misrepresentations); Purple Communications, Inc., 
Petition for Rulemaking to Clarify Relay Rules (filed Aug. 12, 2009) (seeking rules that make clear that multi-party 
deaf-to-deaf calls are compensable VRS calls and that address other provider marketing and call handling practices); 
Reply Comments of the United States Telecom Association, CG Docket No. 03-123 (filed July 20, 2009) (arguing 
that the Commission must increase efforts to stop waste, fraud, and abuse, and clarify all practices that are not 
reimbursable); Letter to Acting Chairman Copps from Ed Bosson, CG Docket No. 03-123 (filed May 28, 2009) 
(suggesting FCC enforcement action for certain call practices, including manufactured minutes); CSDVRS, LLC, 
Petition for Clarification or Rulemaking on Automated Data Collection, CG Docket No. 03-123 (filed May 22, 
2009) (Automated Call Data Petition) (seeking clarification that the TRS rules require automated record keeping of 
TRS minutes submitted to the Fund for reimbursement); Ex Parte Notice of Snap Telecommunications, Inc., CG 
Docket No. 03-123 (May 12, 2009) (urging the Commission to take enforcement actions against illegitimate call 
practices; Ex Parte Notice of Sorenson Communications, Inc. (Sorenson), CG Docket No. 03-123 (filed May 12, 
2009) (requesting that the Commission identify certain call practices as impermissible); Sorenson., Comments and 
Petition for Declaratory Ruling of Sorenson Communications, Inc., CG Docket No. 03-123 (Filed April 24, 2009) 
(addressing provider revenue sharing agreements and possible revisions to the provider certification rules); 
GoAmerica, Inc., Petition for Rule Making, CG Docket No. 03-1234 (filed Jan. 26, 2009) (seeking rulemaking to 
revise the provider certification rules and prohibit “white label” providers) (GoAmerica VRS Certification Petition); 
CC Docket No. 98-67 (filed May 27, 2004) (requesting that VRS be made a “mandatory” form of TRS); Ex Parte 
Comments of the National Association for State Relay Administration (NASRA), CG Docket No. 03-123 (filed 
Nov. 10, 2008) (seeking clarification on the permissibility of certain call practices).
24 See VRS Declaratory Ruling; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals 
with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, 24 FCC Rcd 11985 (2009) (reiterating that 
calls not involving a hearing person are not compensable from the Fund).
25 See 5 U.S.C. §§ 553(b)(3)(B) (notice and comment not required “when the agency for good cause finds ... that 
notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest”), 553(d)(1) 
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
7
8. Further, in the Notice we seek comment on a range of other issues affecting the 
provision of VRS and ways to detect and prevent fraud and misuse.  Our goal is to ensure that 
VRS continues to thrive as a highly functionally equivalent form of TRS, that it remains readily 
available to consumers (deaf and hearing alike), and that it continues to offer consumers high 
quality service.  To reach this goal, however, we must also ensure the integrity of the program. 
To that end, we must make sure that our service and compensation rules do not result in or 
perpetuate unjustifiable payments to providers at American ratepayers’ expense, the provision 
and billing of illegitimate calls, and the provision of service by unqualified providers or that is 
not in compliance with the service rules.
III. DECLARATORY RULING
9. The TRS mandatory minimum standards expressly provide that the “Commission 
shall have the authority to audit providers and have access to all data, including carrier specific 
data, collected by the Fund administrator.”26 The rules also state that the “[F]und administrator 
shall have authority to audit TRS providers reporting data to the administrator.”27 Further, the 
rules state that “the administrator shall establish procedures to verify payment claims, and may 
suspend or delay payments to a TRS provider if the TRS provider fails to provide adequate 
verification of payment upon reasonable request, or if directed by the Commission to do so.”28  
Finally, the rules state that the “Fund administrator shall make payments only to eligible TRS 
providers operating pursuant to the mandatory minimum standards as required in [section] 
64.604.”29 These rules are intended to protect the integrity of the Fund and to deter and detect 
waste, fraud, and abuse.30
10. We note that the Commission and the TRS Fund administrator have conducted 
some audits, but that not all providers have submitted to the auditing process.  Therefore, we take 
this opportunity to remind providers that the above-cited rules, which provide for the suspension 
or delay of payments to TRS providers who do not provide verification of payment upon 
reasonable request, authorize the Commission to withhold payment from providers who do not 
submit to audits, whether requested by the Commission or the Fund administrator.
IV. ORDER
11. The TRS Fund administrator had projected that the Fund would have reached a 
funding requirement of $891 million for the 2009-2010 Fund year, of which VRS comprised 
  
(Continued from previous page)
(exception to 30-day waiting period for a rule's effectiveness where agency finds good cause and publishes finding 
with the rule).
26 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E).
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 See also 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(C) (“The administrator and the Commission shall have the authority to 
examine, verify and audit data received from TRS providers as necessary to ensure the accuracy and integrity of 
TRS Fund payments”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
8
$780 million, or approximately 88 percent.31 Further, the Fund’s explosive growth in recent 
years has been driven largely by VRS.  The TRS Fund administrator reported that VRS minutes 
of use were 27.2 million in calendar year 2005 and would grow to an estimated 123.8 million for 
the 2009-2010 Fund year,32 a demand increase over that period in excess of 350 percent.  
Although the TRS Fund administrator subsequently proposed revised VRS demand and fund size 
projections based on actual demand data for the 2009-10 fund year in the wake of the 
indictments referenced above, these revised projections would nevertheless yield a 173 percent 
increase in VRS demand over the same period.33 Similarly, the TRS Fund administrator recently 
proposed VRS demand and fund size projections for the 2010-11 Fund year, which would yield a 
261 percent increase in VRS demand as compared to 2005.34 This rapid growth within a five 
year span requires the Commission to take immediate steps in preserving the Fund to ensure the 
continued availability of TRS.  Indeed, we have a fiduciary duty to ensure that the Fund operates 
efficiently, and to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse.  We take steps in this Order to uphold 
that duty.
12. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act requires that agencies provide 
notice of and an opportunity for public comment on their proposed rules except, inter alia, 
“when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of 
reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, 
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”35 Notice and comment have been excused in 
emergency situations or where delay could result in serious harm.36 Additionally, agencies, 
including this Commission, have been afforded “substantial deference” when imposing interim 
regulations with or without prior notice and comment, particularly where such regulations have 
  
31 See NECA 2009 TRS Rates Filing Exh. 2.  
32 Id. at Exh. 3-7.   We use calendar year for 2005 and Fund year for 2009-2010 because the administrator reports 
minutes on those bases.  Both reflect twelve month periods, and are thus comparable for purposes of measuring 
growth in VRS minutes.
33 See NECA, Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, CG Docket Nos. 03-123 & 10-51, Interstate Telecommunications Relay 
Service Fund Supplement to Annual Filing for TRS Contribution Factor Decrease (filed March 30, 2010).  The 
administrator proposed revised funding requirements from $891 million to approximately $702 million, and revised 
VRS minutes from 123.8 million to 74.2 million.  Id. at 1, 4.
34 See NECA, Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, CG Docket No. 03-123, Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services 
Fund Payment Formula and Fund Size Estimate, at Exh. 2 (filed April 30, 2010).  The administrator projects 2010-
11 VRS demand of 98.2 million minutes, and proposes funding requirement projections ranging from $280.8 million 
to $673.3 million, depending on the VRS rates that the Commission ultimately adopts for the 2010-11 Fund year.  
Id.
35 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(B).
36 Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. S.E.C., 443 F.3d 890, 908 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (also stating that the exception 
excuses notice and comment “when the very announcement of a proposed rule itself could be expected to precipitate 
activity by affected parties that would harm the public welfare”) (internal citations omitted).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
9
been shown to be necessary to prevent irreparable harm and the agency is seeking comment on 
the matter in a rulemaking proceeding.37
13. In this case, we find good cause to adopt the interim rule below to make providers 
more accountable by requiring senior executives to certify compliance with our regulations under 
penalty of perjury.  By requiring providers to be more accountable for their submissions, we take 
necessary, affirmative steps to preserve the TRS Fund.  We adopt an interim rule to require the 
Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO), or other senior executive of a 
relay service provider to certify, under penalty of perjury, that:  (1) minutes submitted to the 
Fund administrator for compensation were handled in compliance with section 225 and the 
Commission’s rules and orders, and are not the result of impermissible financial incentives, or 
payments or kickbacks, to generate calls, and (2) cost and demand data submitted to the Fund 
administrator related to the determination of compensation rates or methodologies are true and 
correct.38 In the Notice below, we seek additional comment on whether we should make this rule 
permanent.
14. The TRS rules currently require providers to “submit reports of … TRS minutes 
of use to the [Fund] administrator in order to receive payments.”39 The rules further require 
providers to submit minutes on a form fashioned by the Fund administrator and the administrator 
to “establish procedures to verify payment claims.”40 Additionally, providers are required to 
certify on their monthly minutes of use submissions that the data being reported are “true and 
accurate.”41 Therefore, providers are already required to certify as to the truth and accuracy of 
the monthly data they submit to the administrator. Accurate call data are essential to ensuring the 
integrity of the Fund; thus, to ensure that we can adequately detect fraud against the Fund, we 
conclude that additional safeguards are necessary to ensure that minutes billed to the Fund are 
legitimate.  Although both the Commission and the Fund administrator have the authority to 
audit providers,42 we believe that we can ensure greater accountability by requiring CEOs, CFOs, 
or other senior executives of providers to submit minutes of use for payment and to certify under 
penalty of perjury the legitimacy of the minutes.  We also expect that this interim rule will lead 
  
37 See, e.g., Rural Cellular Ass’n v. FCC, 588 F.3d 1095, 1105-06, para. 10 (2009) (acknowledging that “the FCC 
should be given ‘substantial deference’ when acting to impose interim regulations,” and that courts “have deferred to 
the Commission’s decisions to enact interim rules based on its predictive judgment that such rules were necessary to 
preserve universal service”) (citations omitted).
38 See Appendix B, infra. This rule constitutes a new information collection subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995, and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  It will become effective upon the 
Commission’s publication in the Federal Register of a notice announcing approval of the collection by OMB.
39 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E).
40 Id.
41 See NECA form at https://www.neca.org/cms400min/NECA_Templates/TRSInterior.aspx?id=1265 (visited April 
16, 2010).
42 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) & (I).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
10
to greater scrutiny by providers of their minutes before they submit them to the Fund 
administrator for payment.43
15. The TRS rules also require providers to “provide the administrator with true and 
adequate data, and other historical, projected and state rate related information reasonably 
requested by the administrator, necessary to determine TRS Fund revenue requirements and 
payments.”44 Providers are also required to certify on their yearly submission forms as to the 
truth and accuracy of the data being submitted.45 We similarly believe that to ensure that 
accuracy of this information, including, the information requested on the Relay Services Data 
Request (RSDR) Form submitted annually, our rules should require CEOs, CFOs, or other senior 
executives of providers to certify under penalty of perjury that this information is true and 
correct.
16. We adopt this interim rule without notice and comment, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 
553(b)(3)(B).  In light of the explosive growth in the TRS Fund in recent years and evidence of 
fraud against the Fund, as evidenced by the recent indictments and guilty pleas from call center 
managers and employees admitting to defrauding the Fund of tens of millions of dollars, the fact 
that minutes are submitted for payment on a monthly basis, and the expectation that providers 
seeking compensation from the Fund are doing so in compliance with our rules, we find that it is 
unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to delay adoption of this interim rule.  We find 
that an immediate interim rule is necessary and consistent with the public interest.  In this case, 
we find good cause to adopt an interim rule to make providers more accountable by requiring 
senior executives to certify compliance with our regulations under penalty of perjury.  By 
requiring providers to be more accountable for their submissions, we take necessary, affirmative 
steps to preserve the TRS Fund.   
V. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
A. Location of VRS Call Centers
17. We recognize that some providers have established VRS call centers that are 
located outside the United States.  ASL is generally not the primary form of sign language used 
in countries outside North America.  We are concerned, therefore, that VRS providers may not 
be able to find qualified ASL interpreters46 to staff these call centers.  For instance, of the over 
15,000 members of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, the national membership 
organization for professional sign language interpreters in the United States, only 188 members 
are located outside the United States and its territories.47 Moreover, there are approximately 600 
  
43 We note that the Commission’s rules require similar certifications in other contexts.  See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 
43.11(b) (filing of local exchange competition data); id. § 51.333(c)(5) (related to objections to network changes).
44 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(C).
45 See NECA form at https://www.neca.org/cms400min/NECA_Templates/TRSInterior.aspx?id=1265 (visited April 
16, 2010). 
46 64.601(a)(16) (A VRS CA must be a qualified interpreter “who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and 
impartially, both receptively and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary”).
47 2009 Annual Report of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), at 53 
(http://www.rid.org/UserFiles/File/2009RIDAnnualReport.pdf.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
11
members of the Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada (AVLIC), which is 
Canada's national professional association representing interpreters whose working languages are 
English and ASL.48 We are also concerned that VRS call centers outside the United States may 
lack appropriate supervision and otherwise not operate in compliance with our rules, and that 
these call centers may be (or have been) a source of fraud and or otherwise may not be handling 
legitimate VRS calls.  
18. For these reasons, we tentatively conclude that we will amend our rules to require 
that all VRS call centers be located in the United States.49 Because of our concerns about fraud, 
we also tentatively conclude that this rule should become effective immediately upon publication 
of the summary of the order adopting it in the Federal Register.  We seek comment on these 
tentative conclusions and any other issues relating to this issue.  
B. VRS CAs Working from Home and Compensation
19. We recognize that some VRS providers allow their CAs to work from home, and 
recognize the benefits that come with the flexibility of these arrangements.  At the same time, we 
note that both the Act50 and the Commission’s rules,51 specifically safeguard the confidentiality 
of calls, and the practice of CAs working from home raises concerns about whether the 
confidentiality of calls can be guaranteed under that arrangement. This practice also raises 
concerns about whether CAs working from home can meet other mandatory minimum standards 
applicable to the provision of relay.  Specifically, it is unclear whether VRS CAs working from 
home have the ability to handle emergency calls in accordance with our rules,52 or to transfer a 
call to another CA if the CA cannot continue to handle the call.53  
20. We seek comment on how we can balance the goals of allowing CAs the 
convenience and flexibility that comes with working from home with the need to ensure the 
confidentiality of calls and that our mandatory minimum standards are met.  Are there new 
technologies that would allow for appropriate supervision of CAs who work from home?  Are 
there other solutions that would advance both our goals in this area?  We ask commenters to 
provide any specific examples of successful solutions that could serve as a model for any future 
rules.  We also seek comment on whether, if CAs may work from home, providers should be 
required to treat the homes of CAs who work from home as “call centers” for purposes of TRS 
administration, as discussed in section V.E.3., below.
  
48 AVLIC Mission Statement found at http://www.avlic.ca/index.php (visited April 13, 2010); AVLIC News 
Fall/Winter 2009 at 14, http://www.avlic.ca/files/pdf/newsletters/2009_avlic_fall_winter.pdf.
49 See Appendix C, infra.
50 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(1)(F).
51 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(2).
52 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.605(b)(ii) (requiring a VRS providers to transmit all 911 calls to “the PSAP, designated 
statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority”).
53 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(v)(2) (requiring a VRS CA to stay with a call for a minimum of ten minutes before 
transferring).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
12
21. Relatedly, we seek comment on CA compensation schemes that could provide 
incentives to place calls for the purpose of generating minutes for the employer provider.   We 
believe that most VRS CAs are salaried or paid by the hour and thus will get paid an amount 
irrespective of the number of minutes they relay.  We understand, however that some CAs have 
in the past been paid bonuses for working through scheduled breaks or working overtime in 
order to relay more minutes.  We understand that this may have resulted in schemes by CAs to 
initiate or participate in fraudulent VRS calls in order to receive such bonuses while still 
receiving necessary breaks.  While we believe the vast majority of CAs do not engage in this 
type of minute-pumping, we seek comment on whether such bonus schemes or any other type of 
compensation arrangement exist, and, if so, whether they incent CAs to arrange or cause to be 
arranged calls that would not otherwise be made.  If such arrangements do exist, what types of 
safeguards can be adopted to deter and prevent use of them?  We seek comment on how VRS 
CAs are typically compensated. We seek comment on whether working from home makes any 
such arrangements easier to carry out and, if so, possible solutions to prevent this type of abuse.
C. Procedures for the Suspension of Payment
22. In the past year, the Fund administrator, in consultation with the Bureau, has 
suspended payments to various VRS providers for certain minutes pending further review of the 
legitimacy of the minutes.  These actions follow the Fund administrator’s increased scrutiny of 
the providers’ call data records, in coordination with the Commission, that support the minutes 
submitted for payment, and the revision of the dates for the submission of minutes and payment 
to give the Fund administrator more time to review the call data records before making payment.  
The Fund administrator has noted that providers do not always provide sufficient support to 
justify compensability in their initial submissions to NECA.  
23. Delay or suspension of payment is expressly authorized by the TRS rules, which 
state that the Fund administrator “may suspend or delay payments to a TRS provider if the TRS 
provider fails to provide adequate verification of payment upon reasonable request, or if directed 
by the Commission to do so.”54 The rules do not, however, set forth in greater detail procedures 
for the suspension of payment and the resolution of whether certain minutes are legitimate and 
should be paid.  We therefore seek comment on the adoption of new rules addressing the 
procedures for the suspension or withholding of payments to providers in circumstances where 
the Fund administrator reasonably believes that the minutes may not be legitimate or otherwise 
were not submitted in compliance with the TRS rules. 
24. As a general matter, such rules must afford the providers due process.  Therefore, 
we tentatively conclude that the rules must, at a minimum:  (1) give timely notice to the 
providers of the minutes for which payment is being withheld, as well as the reason(s) for the 
withholding; (2) afford providers an opportunity to show why they believe the withheld minutes 
are in fact compensable; and (3) require that providers be given, in a timely fashion, a final 
determination of whether payment will be made for the disputed minutes with a supporting 
explanation.  We also tentatively conclude that the rules should place the burden on the provider 
  
54 47 C.F.R. 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
13
to show that the minutes in question are compensable and were handled in accordance with our 
rules.  
25. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.  We also seek comment on the 
nature of the showing providers should be required to make to establish that minutes submitted 
for payment are legitimate.  Further, we seek comment on the contents and scope of rules the 
Commission might adopt in this regard, taking into consideration the providers’ reasonable 
expectation that they will be paid for the compensable minutes they provide and the 
Commission’s obligation to ensure the integrity of payments from the Fund.  Commenters should 
also address the timing of this process that would both ensure prompt resolution of disputed 
minutes and give the Fund administrator and/or Commission reasonable time to analyze the 
underlying call record data and make its final determination.  Finally, we seek comment on any 
other issues relating to the adoption of specific rules setting forth the procedures for the 
withholding of payment for minutes submitted to the Fund administrator and the resolution of 
whether such minutes are compensable and should be paid.
26. Relatedly, we seek comment on whether we should adopt new rules or modify 
existing rules to provide the TRS Fund administrator with the tools necessary to execute its 
administrative and auditing responsibilities, and if so, what rules.  For example, are there 
additional duties and responsibilities the TRS Fund administrator should be given to ensure the 
integrity of the Fund and Fund payments?  Are there other types of information that providers 
should be required to submit to the TRS Fund administrator so that the administrator can 
efficiently and effectively oversee the Fund?  
D. Specific Call Practices  
1. International VRS Calls  
27. In the VRS Declaratory Ruling, the Bureau confirmed that, consistent with section 
225, VRS calls compensable from the Fund must involve at least one endpoint located in the 
United States.55 In other words, VRS calls that both originate and terminate outside the United 
States are not compensable.56
28. Based on our review of VRS providers’ monthly call data records, we are aware 
that some providers submit a large volume of calls each month that terminate overseas.   We are 
concerned that, notwithstanding the new registered location requirements, some of these calls 
may both originate and terminate overseas, and therefore be non-compensable.57 We are also 
  
55 VRS Declaratory Ruling at para. 9; see also 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1) (TRS is to be available to persons with hearing 
and speech disabilities in the United States and is intended to provide access to the United States’ telephone system).
56 Given the ten-digit numbering and registered location rules that became effective for VRS on November 12, 2009, 
providers should now be able to determine the geographic location of both parties to a VRS call.  See 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, WC Docket No. 05-196, 
Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 24 FCC Rcd 791 (June 24, 2008).
57 As the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau noted in the VRS Declaratory Ruling, analysis of the iTRS 
Numbering Directory suggests that some ten-digit numbers appear to have been assigned to non-United States 
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
14
concerned that, in light of the evidence of VRS fraud and misuse noted above,58 the large volume 
of calls terminating overseas may reflect schemes to create calls for the purpose of receiving 
payment from the Fund.  Finally, we are concerned that some such calls may be VCO VRS calls 
involving two voice telephone users that are made to avoid the long distance charges associate 
with overseas calls.59
29. For these reasons, we seek comment on ways to address fraud and misuse 
associated with international VRS calls.  At the same time, we seek comment from VRS 
consumers on how to do so without undermining the use of VRS to make legitimate international 
calls.  We note that the Fund does not currently compensate IP Relay calls that terminate 
overseas.60 Nevertheless, we also seek comment on the role of ten-digit numbering, registered 
locations, or other potential solutions (e.g., particular software) to help ensure that VRS calls that 
terminate overseas are, in fact, legitimate TRS calls.  In this regard, if VRS calls that originate or 
terminate overseas continue to be compensable from the Fund, we seek comment on other ways 
in which we can ensure that only legitimate VRS calls that originate or terminate overseas are 
compensated. 
2. VRS Calls in Which the Caller’s Face Does not Appear on the Screen; 
Use of Privacy Screens; Idle calls
30. Some VRS providers and VRS equipment permit a deaf or hard of hearing VRS 
caller to use a “privacy screen” during a call that will prevent the VRS CA from viewing the 
caller during the call.  We recognize that a VRS user may have a legitimate need for a privacy 
screen in certain circumstances, analogous to a voice telephone caller using a speakerphone and 
pressing the mute button.  In some instances, however, a privacy screen is in use for an extended 
period of time.  In these circumstances, it is possible that the call has been terminated, but the 
CA does not know that and continues to accrue call minutes that are billed to the Fund, or that 
the caller never intended to make a legitimate relay call and instead is simply facilitating a 
provider in generating minutes that can be billed to the Fund.  Some VRS provider platforms 
also allow the VRS CA to use a privacy screen so that they cannot be seen.61 Although there 
may be legitimate reasons for a VRS CA to briefly use a privacy screen, in some instances it may 
be used to facilitate a call solely intended to generate minutes.  
  
(Continued from previous page)
residents.  See VRS Declaratory Ruling at para. 9 n.24.  Furthermore, in its October 2009 petition suggesting rules 
and policies that the Commission could adopt to combat malfeasance related to IP-based relay services, Sorenson 
suggests that the registered location requirements, even coupled with verification requirements, still may be 
insufficient to combat the efforts of some users to cloak their true identities or locations. Sorenson VRS Call 
Practices Petition at note 43. 
58 See note 5, supra.
59 See VRS Declaratory Ruling at paras. 7-8.
60 See, e.g., Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and 
Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 12224, 12242, at para 48, n.121 (June 30, 2004).   
61 We note that when both parties communicating via video use a privacy screen (i.e., the CA and the caller using 
ASL), communication is no longer possible, and therefore the call is no longer a TRS call and should be terminated.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
15
31. We therefore seek comment on how we might amend the TRS rules to address the 
use and misuse of privacy screens.  We note that Sorenson has proposed that “[w]hen the CA is 
confronted with only a blank screen, or a screen that otherwise does not display the face of the 
video caller (including when the caller is using a privacy screen), the CA may disconnect the call 
if the caller’s face does not reappear on the screen within two minutes.”62 We tentatively 
conclude a requirement to this effect is appropriate, consistent with section 225 and the TRS 
rules, and is warranted to prevent the creation of illegitimate calls.  We seek comment on this 
tentative conclusion and, specifically, the appropriate time period a privacy screen may be used 
before the call is terminated.  We also seek comment generally on any other issues relevant to the 
use and misuse of privacy screens, including ways to ensure that VRS users or providers, 
including CAs do not use privacy screens to perpetuate illegitimate calls.  
32. Relatedly, we also tentatively conclude that this rule should apply in situations 
where a party to the call leaves the call or becomes unavailable or unresponsive so that the call is 
“idle” for more than two minutes.  Therefore, if either party to the call is away from the call or 
unresponsive for longer than two minutes, the CA should disconnect the call.63 We seek 
comment on this tentative conclusion and, specifically, the appropriate time period a call may be 
idle before the call is disconnected.64  
3. Calls Involving Remote Training
33. A significant number of VRS minutes submitted for compensation in recent 
months are attributable to remote training.  According to the TRS Fund administrator, TRS 
providers sought compensation for approximately 232,000 minutes for remote training for the six 
month period from July 2009 through December 2009. These minutes represent nearly $1.4 
million in compensation from the Fund, using the lowest applicable per-minute compensation 
rate.65 We emphasize that these totals represent only those remote training calls the administrator 
has been able to identify to date, without additional scrutiny.
34. To the extent that VRS calls that enable a person to participate in remote training 
using a VRS communications assistant are, in fact, being used as a substitute for in-person 
interpreting or Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)66 services, the Commission has already made 
  
62 Sorenson VRS Call Practices Petition at App. A, page 17; see also id. at 21.
63 A VRS call placed on hold by a business, such as an insurance company or computer technical support, would not 
be considered “idle,” even if the hold time exceeds two minutes. 
64 See Appendix C for proposed rule.
65 That rate is $6.23. See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with 
Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, 24 FCC Rcd 8628, 8632, para. 11. (CGB June 26, 
2009).
66 Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) is a service that is used when an interpreter cannot be physically present to 
interpret for two or more persons who are together at the same location.  This service uses a video connection to 
provide access to an interpreter who is at a remote location.  As with “in-person” interpreters, VRI services are 
generally contracted and paid for on a fee-for-service basis.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
16
clear that this would be an improper use of VRS.67 Moreover, in the VRS Declaratory Ruling,
the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau emphasized that “VRS calls made or arranged, 
in whole or in part, for the purpose of generating compensable minutes of use as a source of 
revenue for the providers, because they do not support or further the purposes of TRS, are not 
and have never been compensable from the TRS Fund.”68 Thus, to the extent that providers are 
themselves initiating or promoting the use of VRS for remote training or otherwise generating 
minutes, the Commission has already determined that such calls are not compensable.   
35. We seek comment on whether the Commission should establish a rule specifically 
providing that provider-involved VRS calls that enable a person to participate in remote training 
using a VRS communications assistant are not compensable from the Fund.  We tentatively 
conclude that, despite the Commission’s prior finding that calls made for the purpose of 
generating compensable minutes as a source of provider revenue are not compensable from the 
Fund, a rule specifically barring compensation for remote training calls initiated or promoted by 
or on behalf of a provider would serve as an additional deterrent against fraud and misuse of the 
fund.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
E. Detecting and Stopping the Billing of Illegitimate Calls
1. Automated Call Data Collection
36. On May 22, 2009, CSDVRS filed a petition for clarification requesting that the 
Commission clarify that the TRS rules require automated record keeping of TRS minutes 
submitted to the Fund for payment or, in the alternative, that the Commission initiate a 
rulemaking proceeding to ensure that TRS minutes are tracked through automated systems.69  
  
67 TRS (including VRS) is intended to give persons with a hearing or speech disability access to the telephone 
system to call voice telephone users (or vice versa).  VRS, therefore, is not properly used in any situation as a 
substitute for an in-person interpreter or VRI.  See Reminder that Video Relay Service (VRS) Provides Access to the 
Telephone System Only and Cannot Be Used As A Substitute For “In-Person” Interpreting Services or Video 
Remote Interpreting (VRI), Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 14528 (Sept. 7, 2005) (internal footnote omitted) (2005 VRS 
Public Notice ); see also Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with 
Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 4054, at 4058, 
para. 10 (June 5, 2000);  See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals 
with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket Nos. 90-571 & 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Report and Order, 
Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 12475, at 12537 n.466 (June 
30, 2004); Federal Communications Commission Clarifies That Certain Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) 
Marketing and Call Handling Practices are Improper and Reminds That Video Relay Service (VRS) May Not Be 
Used As A Video Remote Interpreting Service, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Public Notice, 20 
FCC Rcd 1471 (Jan. 26, 2005);  Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals 
with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket. No. 03-123, Order on Reconsideration, 20 
FCC Rcd 13140, at 13154, n.109 (July 19, 2005); Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service and 
Video Relay Service, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 5478, 5482-83, para. 10 (May 8, 2006).  
See also 2005 VRS Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 14529 (“VRS cannot be used as a substitute for using an in-person 
interpreter or VRI in situations that would not, absent one of the parties’ hearing disability, entail the use of the 
telephone”).
68 VRS Declaratory Ruling at 4.
69 See Automated Call Data Petition at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
17
CSDVRS asserts that some TRS providers permit their CAs to manually record the session and 
conversation times of TRS calls, which leads to inaccurate record keeping and billing of 
minutes.70 CSDVRS notes that our current rule, 47 C.F.R. §64.604(c)(5)(iii)(c),71 requires "true 
and adequate data," and asserts that such data can only be collected through an automated 
process.72 CSDVRS further asserts that the Commission should either issue the requested 
clarification, or initiate a rulemaking, to "preserve the integrity of the Fund.73 Sorenson similarly 
asserts that we should adopt a rule that requires “[f]or each Internet-based TRS call, providers 
must automatically record compensable conversation time to at least the nearest second, with 
more accurate recordings permitted.”74  
37. We tentatively conclude that the TRS rules should be modified to make clear that 
providers must automatically capture the conversation time, to the nearest second, for each call 
submitted for payment from the Fund.75 We expect that automated call data collection reduces 
opportunities for fraud and the erroneous submission of minutes for payment.  We seek comment 
on this tentative conclusion.  In this regard, we also seek comment generally on how TRS 
providers (particularly VRS providers) presently record session and conversation times, and 
other call data that they report to the administrator, for the TRS calls they handle.  For those 
providers who do not use an automated system to track their minutes, we seek comment on why 
they do not and what impediments, if any, may have prevented them from doing so.  We also 
seek comment on any other issues relating to the recording of compensable conversation time for 
minutes submitted to the Fund for payment.
2. Data Filed with the Fund Administrator to Support Payment Claims
38. In 2008, the Fund administrator, at the direction of the Bureau, instructed VRS 
providers that, beginning with the May 2008 minutes, monthly minutes of use submitted for 
payment must be supported by call data records that include the following information:  (1) the 
call record ID sequence; (2) Communications Assistant ID; (3) session start and end times; (4) 
conversation start and end times; (5) incoming telephone number or IP address; (6) outbound 
  
70 See id. at 1-2.
71 The rule states:  “Data collection from TRS providers. TRS providers shall provide the administrator with true and 
adequate data, and other historical, projected and state rate related information reasonably requested by the 
administrator, necessary to determine TRS Fund revenue requirements and payments. TRS providers shall provide 
the administrator with the following: total TRS minutes of use, total interstate TRS minutes of use, total TRS 
operating expenses and total TRS investment in general accordance with part 32 of this chapter, and other historical 
or projected information reasonably requested by the administrator for purposes of computing payments and revenue 
requirements. The administrator and the Commission shall have the authority to examine, verify and audit data 
received from TRS providers as necessary to assure the accuracy and integrity of TRS Fund payments.”  47 C.F.R. 
§64.604(c)(5)(iii)(c).
72 See Automated Call Data Collection Petition at 2.  
73 See id. at 3-4.
74 Sorenson VRS Call Practices Petition at App. A., page 5; see also id. at 18.
75 See Appendix C for proposed rule.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
18
telephone number or IP address; (7) total conversation minutes; and (8) total session minutes.76  
This information was requested as part of the Commission’s and Fund administrator’s efforts to 
detect and deter fraud and the billing of illegitimate minutes.  Previously, VRS and IP Relay 
providers were required to submit to the Fund administrator speed of answer77 compliance data 
with their monthly requests for payment.
39. We tentatively conclude that we should amend the TRS rules to specifically 
require the filing of the call data information noted above as a functional TRS mandatory 
minimum standard78 that providers must meet to be eligible for compensation from the Fund.79  
We believe that review of this information is essential to detecting and deterring fraud and the 
billing of illegitimate calls.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  We also seek 
comment on any other call record information we should require providers to submit to the Fund 
administrator to support their claims for payment.  
40. We also tentatively conclude that we will amend the functional TRS mandatory 
minimum rules to require to VRS and IP Relay providers to submit speed of answer compliance 
data.  Although the providers have been submitting such data for the past several years, we 
believe that this obligation should be reflected in our rules to make clear that such data must be 
submitted to be compensated from the Fund.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and 
any other issues relating to the filing of speed of answer compliance data to support claims for 
payment from the Fund.
41. Finally, we tentatively conclude that our rules should be amended to require that 
the call record and speed of answer data discussed above be submitted electronically and in a 
standardized format.  We seek comment on that tentative conclusion and, specifically, on what 
the standardized format should be.  Our goal is both to lessen the burden on providers associated 
with compiling and filing this data, and to ensure that the Commission and the Fund 
administrator can efficiently and meaningfully analyze the data.  
3. Requiring Providers to Submit Information about New and Existing 
Call Centers
42. We recognize that most VRS providers operate numerous call centers (i.e., the 
physical locations at which CAs receive and handle TRS calls).  We also recognize that many 
VRS providers subcontract call handling to other entities, which may in turn hire other entities to 
run call centers.  Although some of this information is reported to the Fund administrator in the 
providers’ annual rate filings, or pursuant to periodic requests from the Fund administrator, we 
are concerned that we may not always have up to date information on those entities actually 
handling relay calls for the providers that are compensated from the Fund.  This information will 
enable the Commission and Fund administrator to better oversee compliance with Commission 
  
76 See generally Letter from Cathy Seidel and Kris Monteith to NECA (Nov. 26, 2008) (providers were also directed 
to submit this information for the period January 2008 through April 2008).
77 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(b)(2)(iii).
78 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c).
79 See Appendix C for proposed rule.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
19
rules to ensure the compensability of submitted minutes as well as to ensure that sub-contractors 
are providing the quality of service our rules require.
43. As a result, we tentatively conclude that we should amend the TRS mandatory 
minimum standards to require VRS providers eligible for compensation from the Fund that 
submit minutes for payment to file with the Commission and Fund administration on a quarterly 
basis a statement detailing the name and address of each call center the provider owns or controls 
(this would include subcontractors operating call centers and entities operating calls centers for a 
subcontractor), the number of CAs and CA managers at the call center, and the name and contact 
information for the managers of the call center.  We also tentatively conclude that we will 
require VRS providers to file an amendment to their most recent quarterly filing each time they 
open a new call center, close a call center, or the ownership or management of a call center 
changes, or changes to the list of providers whose calls are processed through the call center.  
We propose that such amendments be required to be filed within 30 days of such an event.80  
44. We seek comment on this proposed rule.  We also seek comment, specifically, on 
any other or different information that should be required to be filed in connection with the 
ownership and operation of a provider’s call centers, or the opening or closing of call centers.    
4. Requiring Service to be Offered in the Name of the Provider Seeking 
Compensation from the Fund; Revenue Sharing Schemes
45. Our rules permit entities seeking to offer VRS and receive compensation from the 
Fund to apply for Commission certification.81 In addition, as noted above, our rules permit 
eligible providers to subcontract with other entities for actual provision of service.82 One 
unintended consequence of these rules has been the proliferation of arrangements whereby an 
entity that is not eligible for payment from the Fund, but desires to offer VRS service and market 
its own service, enters into subcontracting agreement with an eligible provider so that the eligible 
provider can submit the entity’s minutes to the Fund administrator for payment. In these 
circumstances, the eligible provider that seeks payment from the Fund simply acts, as a practical 
matter, as the billing agent for the entity that actually relays the calls, keeping a portion of the 
revenues paid from the Fund and giving the remainder to the entity that actually handled the 
calls.  Although the eligible provider is responsible for ensuring that such calls billed to the Fund 
are legitimate, in some cases it is possible that the eligible provider exercises very little oversight 
over the call handling operations.  In other cases, arrangements have been made in order to 
facilitate fraud.83 Moreover, because the entity actually relaying the calls usually markets its 
service under its own brand name, consumers are generally unaware that the entity relaying their 
calls is not itself a certified or eligible provider.  Further, consumers also generally do not know 
  
80 See Appendix C for proposed rule.
81 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.606 (provider certification rules); see generally 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 (Dec. 12, 2005).
82 See generally 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F).
83 See note 5, supra.   
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
20
which eligible provider the relay center is affiliated with.  GoAmerica (now Purple) has coined 
such arrangements “white labeling.”84
46. Similarly, we recognize that some certified or eligible providers often market their 
services under a variety of brand names or websites.  In these circumstances, a consumer placing 
a VRS call will go to the website of a particular “brand” of VRS, but the call will be routed to an 
eligible provider’s call center.  The consumer generally will not know that the “brand” or service 
through which he or she is making a call is really just a marketing name linked to an eligible 
provider.  Therefore, the consumer will likely not know which eligible provider is actually 
handling his or her call.85  
47. Sorenson asserts that these schemes facilitate ”minute-pumping and other illicit 
schemes” because the entities actually handling the relay calls are not accountable to the 
Commission and the consumer will likely not know “which entity should be subject to a 
complaint to the Commission.”86 Sorenson therefore proposes that we adopt a rule stating that 
providers cannot be compensated from the Fund unless the provider seeking compensation 
“clearly identified itself to the calling parties at the outset of the calls as the TRS provider for 
those calls.”87 GoAmerica asserts that we should “prohibit the practice of providing ‘white-
label’ services by uncertified entities billing the TRS Fund through certified providers.”88  
GoAmerica asserts that “all Internet-based TRS providers should be subject to FCC certification 
requirements and oversight” so that we end this “grey market of Internet-based relay.”89  
  
84 See GoAmerica VRS Certification Petition at 2 (“white-labeling” is the “process where entities that are not 
certified relay providers offer Internet-based relay (generally VRS), and bill for the service through certified 
providers”).
85 See generally Sorenson VRS Call Practice Petition at 15 (addresses these two kinds of “revenue sharing schemes 
that deviate from the traditional subcontracting practice”).
86 Id.
87 Id. at App. A, page 9.
88 See GoAmerica VRS Certification Petition at 1. On March 25, 2009, the Commission released a Public Notice 
seeking comment on GoAmerica’s petition.  The majority of commenting providers filed in opposition to the 
petition in full. Four commenters specifically oppose GoAmerica’s proposed prohibition of the practice of white 
labeling because, generally, such white labeling arrangement facilitates competition as it allows new entrants in the 
market.  One provider believes that this arrangement “has the effect of improving services and reducing prices.”
Two other providers support GoAmerica’s proposal on prohibiting the practice of white labeling on the ground that 
uncertified subcontractors are not subject to effective Commission oversight and regulation. Comments were filed 
by American Network, Inc. (April 24, 2009); Communications Access Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. 
(CAC) (April 24, 2009); Hamilton Relay, Inc. (Hamilton) (April 24, 2009); Healinc Telecom, LLC. (Healinc) (Feb. 
6, 2009); Sorenson Communications, Inc. (Sorenson) (April 24, 2009) (Sorenson submitted Petition for Declaratory 
Ruling in its comments); Viable Communications, Inc. (Viable) (April 23, 2009). Reply Comments were filed by 
CSDVRS, LLC. (May 8, 2009); Healinc (May 13, 2009); Purple Communications, Inc. (Purple) (formerly 
GoAmerica, Inc.) (May 11, 2009); Sorenson (May 11, 2009); Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of 
Hearing, Inc.; Association of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc.; National Association of the Deaf; Deaf and Hard of 
Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network; California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing; 
American Association of the Deaf-Blind; and Hearing Loss Association of America (TDI Coalition) (May 11, 
2009); Viable (May 8, 2009).
89 Id. at 2 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
21
48. We seek comment on Sorenson and GoAmerica’s proposals, and on other ways 
we can ensure both that the entities that actually relay calls are accountable for compliance with 
our rules, and that consumers know, on a call-by-call basis, which eligible provider is 
responsible for the call.90 For example, should any entity receiving payments from the Fund, 
either directly or indirectly, be required to register with the Commission?  To the extent we 
might prohibit “white-labeling,” but allow subcontracting, we seek comment on the precise 
nature and scope of such a prohibition.  For example, should we adopt rules requiring that any 
subcontractor be disclosed to the Fund administrator before calls generated by that subcontractor 
are compensable, and that all subcontractors or entities actually handling calls be identified in a 
provider’s monthly submission of minutes for payment?  We seek comment generally on how we 
might amend our rules to address the issues noted above.
5. Whistleblower Protections for VRS CAs and Other Provider 
Employees
49. We recognize that CAs and other employees of providers are often in the best 
position to detect possible fraud and misconduct by the provider.  At the same time, we 
recognize that employees are often reluctant to report possible wrongdoing because they fear
they may lose their job or be subject to other forms of retaliation.  For this reason, there are 
numerous federal and state whistleblower laws that protect employees who report misconduct by 
their employers.91  
50. Given recent evidence of fraud and the billing of illegitimate VRS minutes,92 we 
tentatively conclude that we should adopt a specific whistleblower protection rule for the 
employees and subcontractors of TRS providers.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion 
and, specifically, on the scope and contents of such a rule.93 We tentatively conclude that such a 
rule should not be limited to Internet-based TRS providers but should protect any employee or 
subcontractor of any TRS provider who reports possible wrongdoing to his or her employer or to 
the Commission, the Fund administrator, or any federal or state law enforcement entity.  We also 
tentatively conclude that the rule should require providers to inform their employees that they 
can report fraud and misuse to the Commission’s Office of Inspector General.  Further, we 
tentatively conclude that given the importance of detecting and deterring fraud, this rule should 
become effective immediately upon adoption.  We seek comment on these tentative conclusions, 
as well as on any other issues relating to the adoption of a whistleblower protection rule for 
employees or subcontractors of TRS providers.
  
90 See Appendix C for proposed rule.
91 See, e.g., Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, P.L. 101-12, 103 Stat. 16 (1989).
92 See note 5, supra.
93 Sorenson proposes the following rule:   “Providers shall permit any employee, agent, or contractor to disclose to a 
designated manager any known or suspected violations of FCC rules, or any other activity that the reporting person 
believes to be unlawful, wasteful, fraudulent, or abusive, or that otherwise could result in the improper billing of 
minutes to the Interstate TRS Fund.  Providers must make available at least one means by which such disclosure 
may be made anonymously.  Providers must promptly investigate any report of wrongdoing and, when warranted, 
take appropriate corrective action.  Providers may not discipline any employee, agent, or contractor solely for 
reporting under this provision.”  Sorenson VRS Call Practice Petition at App. A, page 9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
22
6. Transparency and the Disclosure of Provider Financial and Call Data
51. In the 2006 TRS Cost Recovery FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
whether providers’ cost and demand data should be made public so that consumers and others 
can more meaningfully comment on the Fund administrator’s proposed compensation rates.94
The Commission stated that “[h]istorically, the Commission has honored requests by providers 
submitting projected cost and demand data to treat that information as confidential.  As a result, 
the Commission addresses such data only in the aggregate or in some other way that does not 
reveal the individual data of a particular provider.  We recognize, however, that this approach 
makes it difficult for providers and the public (including entities that pay into the Fund) to 
comment on the reasonableness of the rates.”95 The Commission therefore sought comment on 
whether “the providers’ projected (and/or actual) cost and demand data, or particular categories 
of the cost and demand data, should be made public,” and whether there were “other ways to 
make the rate setting process under the current methodology more transparent.”96 In the 2007 
TRS Rate Methodology Order, the Commission concluded that because it was adopting tiered 
VRS rates for a three year period, it was not necessary to resolve this issue at that time.97  
52. More recently, however, as a result of the 2009 VRS Rates NPRM seeking 
comment on whether the VRS rates should be modified for the 2009-2010 Fund year,98 a 
consumer group filed a Motion for Protective Order seeking access to the VRS providers’ cost 
data relevant to the calculations of VRS rates for 2009-2010 based on providers’ actual and/or 
projected costs.99 The consumer group argued that, absent access to the underlying cost data, 
they could not meaningfully comment on the appropriateness of any particular VRS rates.100  
Several providers filed oppositions to the motion, arguing that there is no way to guarantee that 
sensitive proprietary data could be sufficiently protected by a protective order that grants access 
  
94 Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 8379, 8398-99, paras. 
43-44 (July 20, 2006).
95 Id. at 8398, para. 43 (internal footnote omitted).
96 Id. at 8399, para. 44.
97 See 2007 TRS Rate Methodology Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 20140, 20172-73, paras. 87-88.
98 See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Public Notice and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 6029 (May 
14, 2009) (2009 VRS Rate NPRM ). 
99 Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI), Motion for Protective Order, CG Docket No. 
03-123 (May 20, 2009).  Specifically, the consumer group proposed that it have access to the cost data associated 
with the VRS compensation rates noted in the 2009 VRS Rate NPRM, subject to a protective order, so that it could 
more meaningful comment on the appropriate VRS rate.
100 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
23
to their data to consumers.101  Other commenters, however, asserted that the Commission should 
allow greater access to the underlying cost data on which VRS rates may be based.102
53. The present Fund size is nearly one billion dollars, and these monies are paid to 
providers to subsidize services Congress has mandated that voice telephone companies offer to 
persons with hearing and speech disabilities.  Congress also mandated that TRS users cannot be 
required to pay for the service.  As a result, the Commission has made clear that the 
compensation rates are intended to compensate providers for their marginal costs of providing 
this service.  In this context, therefore, it may not be consistent with public policy to allow 
provider specific cost and demand data to be kept confidential, notwithstanding the present 
existence of some competition in the provision of service.  We also remain concerned that 
consumers and other stakeholders, as they have previously asserted, cannot meaningfully 
comment on the appropriateness of the compensation rates without access to the underlying cost 
and demand data.  Further, it is reasonable to consider whether the ratepayers who pay for the 
costs of VRS should have a right to know the actual costs of providing this service.  Finally, all 
providers are subject to the same service rules, and if all providers are also subject to the same 
disclosure rules, there may be little disadvantage to any particular provider(s).    
54. For these reasons, we seek additional comment on the need for transparency in the 
costs of providing VRS service that is compensated from the Fund.  Specifically, we seek 
comment on whether we should require that all VRS provider cost and demand data be made 
available to the public and, if so, how such a requirement should be implemented.  We seek 
comment on how we might balance the legitimate need for transparency of provider costs with 
any legitimate interest in keeping that information (or some portion of it) confidential.  We 
request that commenters favoring disclosure specifically address the scope of such requirement, 
how the data should be made public, and any exceptions or limits to a rule requiring disclosure of 
provider specific cost and demand data. 
7. Provider Audits
55. As noted in the Declaratory Ruling above,103 the Commission is authorized to 
suspend payment to providers who do not submit to audits.  We seek comment on whether we 
should amend the TRS mandatory minimum standards to include more specific and stringent 
auditing rules in order to better safeguard the integrity of the Fund.  Commenters favoring such 
rules should address the scope and frequency of such audits.  For example, should we perform or 
contract for annual audits of all providers?  We seek comment on any other issues related to the 
auditing of providers to ensure both that the compensation rates are based on legitimate data, and 
that the minutes submitted for payment were handled in compliance with our rules.
  
101 See, e.g., Sorenson Communications, Inc., Opposition of Sorenson Communications, Inc. CG Docket No. 03-123 
(June 1, 2009); AT&T, Inc. et al., Opposition to Motion for a Protective Order (June 1, 2009).
102 See, e.g., TDI, Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. et al., CG Docket No. 03-123, at 5-7 
(June 6, 2009).  
103 See Section III, supra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
24
8. Record Retention
56. The TRS rules do not address how long providers must preserve their call detail 
and other records that support their claims for payment from the Fund.  We seek comment on 
whether we should amend our rules to specifically address this issue.  We recognize that to 
detect and deter fraud or other call or billing irregularities we must have access to the underlying 
call data.  We note that the Commission’s rules require common carriers that offer or bill toll 
telephone services to retain for 18 months billing information for such calls.104  
57. We tentatively conclude that we will amend the TRS rules to require Internet-
based TRS providers to retain their call detail records, other records that support their claims for 
payment from the Fund, and those records used to substantiate the costs and expense data 
submitted in the annual relay service data request form, for five years.105 We seek comment on 
this tentative conclusion, and how we might define more specifically the scope of the records 
subject to this rule.106
9. Provider Certification Under Penalty of Perjury
58. In the Order above, we adopt interim rule requiring the CEO, CFO, or other 
senior executive of a relay service provider to certify, under penalty of perjury, that:  (1) minutes 
submitted to the Fund administrator for compensation were handled in compliance with section 
225 and the Commission’s rules and orders, and are not the result of impermissible financial 
incentives, or payments or kickbacks, to generate calls, and (2) cost and demand data submitted 
to the Fund administrator related to the determination of compensation rates or methodologies 
are true and correct.  We tentatively conclude that we should adopt these rules permanently, and 
seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  We also seek comment on whether there are any 
additional elements that should be covered by these proposed certifications, and, in general, 
whether there are any additional safeguards that we should adopt as rules to ensure the veracity 
and completeness of provider submissions, and to help ensure that providers comply with the 
Commission’s TRS rules and policies.
VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
59. Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document.  Comments 
may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing 
paper copies.  See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 
(1998).
  
104 See generally 47 C.F.R. 42.1 & 42.6 (preservation of records of communications common carrier); see e.g., 47 
C.F.R. § 54.516(a) (requiring a five year record retention time period for the Universal Service Fund School and 
Libraries). 
105 Five years is the amount of time E-Rate eligible entities are required to retain records in accordance with 
section 54.516 of the Commission’s rules.  47 C.F.R. § 54.516.  We find these entities to be similarly situated to 
VRS providers seeking compensation from the Fund, and therefore tentatively conclude that we should adopt an 
analogous document retention time requirement.
106 See Appendix C for proposed rule.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
25
· Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet 
by accessing the ECFS:  http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.  Filers should 
follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments.  
· ECFS filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for CG 
Docket No. 10-51.  In completing the transmittal screen, filers should 
include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket number.  Parties may also submit an electronic 
comment by Internet e-mail.
· Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and 
four copies of each filing.  Filings can be sent by hand or messenger 
delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight 
U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail due to security measures).  All filings 
must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
· All hand-delivered and/or messenger-delivered paper filings for the 
Commission’s Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.  All hand 
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.  Any 
envelopes 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 9300 East Hampton Drive,
Capitol Heights, MD  20743.
· U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be 
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554.
60. Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission’s copy contractor, Best 
Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, 
D.C. 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via email to fcc@bcpiweb.com.  Documents in GC Docket No. 
10-43 will be available for public inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, 
D.C. 20554.  The documents may also be purchased from BCPI, telephone (202) 488-5300, 
facsimile (202) 488-5563, TTY (202) 488-5562, e-mail fcc@bcpiweb.com. 
61. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the 
substantive discussion and questions raised in the Notice.  We further direct all interested parties 
to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments
and reply comments.  We strongly encourage that parties track the organization set forth in this 
Notice in order to facilitate our internal review process.  Comments and reply comments must 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
26
otherwise comply with Section 1.48 and all other applicable sections of the Commission’s 
rules.107  
62. To request materials in accessible formats (such as Braille, large print, electronic 
files, or audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).  This document can also be 
downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format at <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro>. 
63. Ex Parte Rules. This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.108 Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain 
summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects 
discussed.  More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is 
generally required.109 Other requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set 
forth in Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules.
64. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  The interim rule adopted in this Order is 
being adopted without notice and comment, and therefore are not subject to Regulatory 
Flexibility Act analysis under 5 U.S.C. § 604(a).  We will perform appropriate regulatory 
flexibility analyses for any permanent rules we adopt at a later date.
65. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification.  With respect to this Notice, an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Certification (IRFC) is contained in the Appendix A.  As required by 
Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an IRFC of the 
expected impact on small entities of the proposals contained in the Notice.  Written public 
comments are requested on the IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFC 
and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice specified in paragraph 59 above.  
The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including the IRFC, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.110  
66. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document contains 
proposed or modified information collection requirements.  The Commission, as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements 
contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 
104-13.  Public and agency comments are due 60 days after date of publication of this Notice in 
the Federal Register.  Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, 
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
  
107 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.48.
108 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.200 et seq.
109 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).
110 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).  In addition, the NPRM and IRFC (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-88
27
the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we 
might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.”
67. Congressional Review Act.  The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a 
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act.  See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).  The interim rule contained in this 
Order shall take effect upon publication of a summary of the Order in the Federal Register for 
the reasons stated therein.  See id. § 808(2).
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES 
68. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 225, 
303(r), 403, 624(g), and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 
154(i) and (o), 225, 303(r), 403, 554(g), and 606, this Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.
69. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED  that this Order shall be effective upon publication 
of a summary in the Federal Register, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(d)(3)  and section 1.427(b) of 
the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.427(b), subject to OMB approval for new information 
collection requirements.
70. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED  that the Commission's Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Order, Declaratory 
Ruling, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch  
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission                                FCC 10-88
28
APPENDIX A
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification
1. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 requires that an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, 
unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.”2 The RFA generally defines the term “small 
entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and 
“small governmental jurisdiction.”3 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning 
as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.4 A “small business concern” 
is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; 
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).5
2. In the Notice, the Commission reaches tentative conclusions on a range of issues 
affecting the provision of VRS and ways to detect and prevent fraud and misuse in the VRS 
program.  Specifically, the Commission tentatively concludes that: all VRS call centers must be 
located in the United States; VRS CAs must work in a centralized call center where other 
personnel are present, including other CAs and supervisors; the Commission should adopt new 
rules, affording providers due process, addressing procedures for the suspension or withholding 
of payments to providers in circumstances where the Fund administrator reasonably believes that 
the minutes may not be legitimate or otherwise were not submitted in compliance with the TRS 
rules, but placing the burden on the provider to show that the minutes in question are 
compensable and were handled in accordance with the TRS rules; VRS calls that originate or 
terminate overseas shall not be compensable from the Fund; a CA should disconnect a VRS call 
in which the caller’s face does not appear on the screen (including when the caller is using a 
“privacy screen”), or where the call is “idle,” for more than two minutes; a rule specifically 
barring compensation for remote training calls initiated or promoted by or on behalf of a 
provider would serve as an additional deterrent against fraud and misuse of the Fund; providers 
must use automated, rather than manual, methods to capture a TRS call’s conversation time, to 
the nearest second, for each call submitted for payment from the Fund; the TRS rules should 
specifically require that providers file certain call data information in order to eligible for 
compensation from the Fund, and providers must file it electronically and in a standardized 
format; providers must file with the Commission and Fund administrator on a quarterly basis a 
  
1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601–612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
3 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
4 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
5 15 U.S.C. § 632.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 10-88
29
statement detailing the name address of each call center the provider owns or controls (including 
subcontract arrangements), as well as various information concerning the management of such 
call centers; the Commission should adopt a permanent rule requiring the CEO, CFO, or other 
senior executive of a provider submitting data to the Fund administrator to make various 
certifications under penalty of perjury; the Commission should adopt specific whistleblower 
protection rules for the employees and subcontractors of TRS providers; and Internet-based TRS 
providers must retain their call detail records, and other records to support their claims for 
payment from the Fund, for five years.
3. The Notice also seeks comment on whether the Commission should prohibit 
“white-label” Internet-based TRS services -- where non-certified providers offer service and bill 
the Fund through certified providers -- and on other ways that the Commission can ensure that 
the entities that actually relay calls are accountable for compliance with the Commission’s rules.  
In addition, it seeks comment on whether -- and if so, how -- VRS provider cost and demand data 
should be made available to the public, and whether the Commission should adopt more specific 
and stringent auditing rules in order to better safeguard the integrity of the Fund.
4. With regard to whether a substantial number of small entities may be affected by 
the requirements proposed in this Notice, the Commission notes that, of the fourteen providers 
affected by the Notice, no more than five meet the definition of a small entity.  The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists 
of all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.6 Currently, fourteen providers receive 
compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund for providing any form of TRS.  Because no more 
than five of the providers that would be affected by this Notice, if adopted, are deemed to be 
small entities under the SBA’s small business size standard, the Commission concludes that the 
number of small entities potentially affected by our proposed rules is not substantial.  Moreover, 
given that all providers potentially affected by the proposed rules, including those deemed to be 
small entities under the SBA’s standard, would be entitled to receive prompt reimbursement for 
their reasonable costs of compliance, the Commission concludes that the Notice, if adopted, will 
not have a significant economic impact on these small entities.
5. Therefore, we certify that the proposals in this Notice, if adopted, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
6. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including a copy of this Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.7 This initial 
certification will also be published in the Federal Register.8
  
6 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.  According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,225 firms in 
this category which operated for the entire year.  U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 5, NAICS code 513310 
(issued Oct. 2000).  Of this total, 2,201 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 24 
firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.  Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be 
considered small.  (The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have 
employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is “Firms with 1,000 employees or more.”)
7 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
8 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 10-88
30
APPENDIX B
Interim Rule
Part 64 of Title 47 of the Code of Regulations is amended 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, 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2)(B), (C), Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56.  
Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
2.  Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(I)  is revised to read as follows:
§ 64.604 Mandatory minimum standards.
(a) * * *
(b) * * *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) ***
(I) Information filed with the administrator.  The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief 
Financial Officer (CFO), or other senior executive of a provider submitting minutes to the Fund 
for compensation must, in each instance, certify, under penalty of perjury, that the minutes were 
handled in compliance with section 225 and the Commission’s rules and orders, and are not the
result of impermissible financial incentives or payments to generate calls.  The CEO, CFO, or 
other senior executive of a provider submitting cost and demand data to the TRS Fund 
administrator shall certify under penalty of perjury that such information is true and correct.  The 
administrator shall keep all data obtained from contributors and TRS providers confidential and 
shall not disclose such data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the 
Commission. Subject to any restrictions imposed by the Chief of the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, the TRS Fund administrator may share data obtained from carriers with the 
administrators of the universal support mechanisms (See 47 CFR 54.701 of this chapter), the 
North American Numbering Plan administration cost recovery (See 47 CFR 52.16 of this 
chapter), and the long-term local number portability cost recovery (See 47 CFR 52.32 of this 
chapter). The TRS Fund administrator shall keep confidential all data obtained from other 
administrators. The administrator shall not use such data except for purposes of administering the 
TRS Fund, calculating the regulatory fees of interstate common carriers, and aggregating such 
fee payments for submission to the Commission. The Commission shall have access to all data 
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 10-88
31
reported to the administrator, and authority to audit TRS providers. Contributors may make 
requests for Commission nondisclosure of company-specific revenue information under § 0.459 
of this chapter by so indicating on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet at the time that 
the subject data are submitted. The Commission shall make all decisions regarding nondisclosure 
of company-specific information.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 10-88
32
APPENDIX C
Proposed Rules
Part 64 of Title 47 of the Code of Regulations is amended 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, 254 (k); secs. 403 (b)(2) (B), (C), Public Law 104-104, 
110 Stat. 56.  Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 225, 226, 228, and 254 (k) unless otherwise 
noted. 
* * * * *
2.  Section 64.604(a) is revised to add paragraphs (a)(3)(ix), (a)(6) and (a)(7) to read as follows:
§ 64.604 Mandatory minimum standards.
(a) * * *
* * * * *
(3) * * *
* * * * *
(ix) Relay calls that enable a person with hearing or speech disability to participate in a remote 
training program, made available to the public or to an entity’s employees, do not fall within the 
scope of this Subpart.
* * * * *
(6) In addition to those standards set forth above, Internet-based TRS providers shall be subject 
to the following standards:
(i) Automated call data collection.  For each Internet-based TRS call, providers must 
automatically record session and conversation time to the nearest second.
(ii) Revenue sharing agreements.  The administrator shall not compensate for minutes resulting 
from an Internet-based TRS call unless the entity seeking compensation from the Fund for such 
minutes clearly identified itself to the calling parties at the beginning of the call as the TRS 
provider for the call.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 10-88
33
(iii) Whistleblower protections. Providers shall permit any employee, agent, or contractor to 
disclose to a designated manager any known or suspected violations of FCC rules, or any other 
activity that the reporting person believes to be unlawful, wasteful, fraudulent, or abusive, or that 
otherwise could result in the improper billing of minutes to the Interstate TRS Fund.  Providers 
must make available at least one means by which such disclosure may be made anonymously.  
Providers must promptly investigate any report of wrongdoing and, when warranted, take 
appropriate corrective action.  Providers may not discipline any employee, agent, or contractor 
solely for reporting under this provision.  Providers shall also inform all employees, agents, and 
contractors that they may directly contact the Commission’s Office of Inspector General to 
report wrongdoing.
(iv) Record retention. Providers shall retain their call detail records for five years from the date 
of service, and shall make such records available to the Commission or administrator upon 
request.
(7)  In addition to those standards set forth above, Video Relay Service providers shall be subject 
to the following standards:
(i) Idle time or no face on screen.  If either party to a VRS call is away from the call, or 
otherwise unavailable or unresponsive, for more than two minutes the CA may disconnect the 
call, except when the call has been placed on hold by a business.  If at any time during a VRS 
call a VRS CA is confronted with only a blank screen (e.g., a privacy screen), or a screen that 
does not display the face of the video caller, the CA may disconnect the call if the video caller’s 
face does not reappear within two minutes.
(ii) Call center information.  VRS providers shall file quarterly reports with the Commission and 
the administrator by March 31, June 30, September 20, and December 31 each year stating the 
name and address of each call center the provider owns or controls (including call centers owned 
or operated by subcontractors or entities operating calls centers for a subcontractor), the number 
of CAs and CA managers at each call center, and the name and contact information for the key 
managers at each call center.  VRS providers shall file an amendment to their most recent 
quarterly filing within 30 days of opening a call center, closing a call center, or the changing the 
ownership or management of a call center.  
3.  Section 64.604(b)(4) is revised to add paragraph (iii) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
* * * * *
(iii) Location of call centers.  VRS call centers must be located in the United States.
4.  Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) is revised to read as follows:
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 10-88
34
§ 64.604 Mandatory minimum standards.
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
* * * * *
(E) Payments to TRS providers.  TRS Fund payments shall be distributed to TRS providers based 
on formulas approved or modified by the Commission. The administrator shall file schedules of 
payment formulas with the Commission. Such formulas shall be designed to compensate TRS 
providers for reasonable costs of providing interstate TRS, and shall be subject to Commission 
approval. Such formulas shall be based on total monthly interstate TRS minutes of use. TRS 
minutes of use for purposes of interstate cost recovery under the TRS Fund are defined as the 
minutes of use for completed interstate TRS calls placed through the TRS center beginning after 
call set-up and concluding after the last message call unit. In addition to the data required under 
paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(C) of this section, all TRS providers, including providers who are not 
interexchange carriers, local exchange carriers, or certified state relay providers, must submit 
reports of interstate TRS minutes of use to the administrator in order to receive payments.  These 
reports shall include the call record ID sequence, CA ID, session start and end times, 
conversation start and end times, incoming telephone number or IP address for Internet-based 
TRS service not subject to the numbering requirements under § 64.611 , outbound telephone 
number or IP address for Internet-based TRS service not subject to the numbering requirements 
under § 64.611, total conversation minutes, and total session minutes.  In addition, VRS and IP 
Relay providers shall include in their reports speed of answer compliance data.  The 
administrator shall establish procedures to verify payment claims, and may suspend or delay 
payments to a TRS provider if the TRS provider fails to provide adequate verification of 
payment upon reasonable request, or if directed by the Commission to do so. The administrator 
shall make payments only to eligible TRS providers operating pursuant to the mandatory 
minimum standards as required in § 64.604, and after disbursements to the administrator for 
reasonable expenses incurred by it in connection with TRS Fund administration. TRS providers 
receiving payments shall file a form prescribed by the administrator. The administrator shall 
fashion a form that is consistent with parts 32 and 36 procedures reasonably tailored to meet the 
needs of TRS providers. The Commission shall have authority to audit providers and have access 
to all data, including carrier specific data, collected by the fund administrator. The fund 
administrator shall have authority to audit TRS providers reporting data to the administrator. The 
formulas should appropriately compensate interstate providers for the provision of VRS, whether 
intrastate or interstate.