Detailed Information on the
Telecommunications Relay Service Assessment

The FCC should take steps to limit misuse of the Telecommunications Relay Service program, particularly in Internet-based services such as IP-Relay.

The FCC should seek to develop a set of performance measures that provide insight into the Telecommunications Relay Service program.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), codified as Section 225 of Communications Act of 1934, created the Telecommunications Relay Service program (TRS) as an accommodation to enable persons with hearing or speech disabilities to access the telephone system to call voice telephone users. TRS uses specially trained communications assistants (CAs) to relay calls back and forth between persons using some sort of assistive technology (e.g., a TTY or other text device) and voice telephone users. Title IV provides that the purpose of the TRS program is to "ensure that interstate and intrastate telecommunications relay services are available, to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner, to hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals in the United States" so that such persons are no longer precluded from using the nation's telephone system. Title IV also provides that TRS should be "functionally equivalent" to telephone service. Because the purpose of the TRS program is to ensure that persons with hearing and speech disabilities can access the nation's telephone system to call voice telephone users, and have "functionally equivalent" telephone service, the Commission has recognized several forms of TRS that either use different types of technology or address the particularized needs of persons with hearing or speech disabilities. These forms of TRS include: (1) traditional TRS (a text-based form of TRS that uses a TTY and the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) for both legs of the call; (2) Speech-to- Speech (STS) (which is intended for persons with speech disabilities and uses a specially trained CA to revoice what the STS user has said); (3) Internet Protocol Relay (a text-based form of TRS that uses a computer or similar device and the Internet, for one leg of the call and the PSTN for the other); (4) Video Relay Service (VRS) (which uses a video-to-video broadband Internet connection to permit a person to communicate with the CA in American Sign Language (ASL) rather than text; and (5) Captioned Telephone Service (which is used by persons who can speak and have some residual hearing; the device allows the user to hear the other party with whatever residual hearing the user may have, and to simultaneously read text of what the other party is saying). The TRS program reimburses carriers for providing the above services, and does not explicitly provide for the devices or connections that are also necessary for the service. Also, other programs of the Universal Service Fund may subsidize the connection used for TRS, as the High Cost Fund does for rural consumers, and as the Low Income program does for such households. In addition, TRS is intended to benefit not just persons with particular disabilities, but all persons as the availability of TRS eliminates telecommunications barriers that also prevent, for example, hearing individuals from initiating telephone calls to persons with hearing disabilities.

Evidence: Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 401, 104 Stat. 327, 336-69 (adding section 225 to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C § 225; Telecommunication Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Report and Order and Request for Comments, CC Docket No. 90-571, 6 FCC Rcd 4657 (July 26, 1991) (TRS I); Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 5140 (March 6, 2000) (Improved TRS Order & FNPRM); 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 (June 30, 2004) (2004 TRS Report & Order).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The ADA and its legislative history present the problem at which Title IV is directed: millions of Americans cannot use the nation's telephone system because it does not accommodate their hearing, speech, or other disability. The TRS program, therefore, was specifically intended to ensure that persons with hearing and speech disabilities can access the nation's telephone system to call voice telephone users (e.g.?? their doctor, children's teacher, employer, etc). Title IV does this by requiring common carriers offering voice telephone service to also offer TRS so that persons with hearing and speech disabilities can also use the telephone system to communicate with others. The statute allows common carriers to meet their obligation to provide TRS through a competitively selected vendor, or in concert with other carriers. Therefore, every common carrier is not required to individually offer TRS. TRS is now available in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the United States territories for local and long distance calls. As a general matter, states oversee and compensate providers for TRS calls, and the FCC oversees and compensates (through the Interstate TRS Fund) providers of interstate TRS

Evidence: 47 U.S.C. §225; 47 C.F.R. § 64.601 et seq.; 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 (June 30, 2004) (2004 TRS Report & Order).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Prior to the enactment of Title IV, a few states had limited relay programs, but there was no nationwide requirement that this service be offered. Because the vast majority of Americans with hearing and speech disabilities therefore lacked access to the telephone system, Congress included Title IV in the ADA, which requires all common carriers offering voice telephone service -- interstate service or intrastate service -- to also offer TRS. Although the Commission has jurisdiction over both intrastate and interstate TRS, States have the option to exercise primary jurisdiction over the provision of intrastate TRS, contingent on certification of their program by the FCC. This review process facilitates consistency between State and Federal TRS policies. Also, by supporting only the TRS service and not the underlying telecommunications connection, the program avoids duplication of support available through other universal service mechanisms.

Evidence: 47 U.S.C. § 255; 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 (June 30, 2004) (2004 TRS Report & Order).

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Title IV requires the Commission to adopt regulations to govern the provision of TRS, including TRS "mandatory minimum standards" that establish operational, functional, and technical standards and ensure that TRS is functionally equivalent to voice telephone service. The FCC's interpretation of functional equivalency has led it to recognize new forms of TRS to meet the particularized needs of certain subgroups of persons with hearing and speech disabilities. These newer forms of TRS include two Internet-based forms of TRS - IP Relay and Video Relay Service. These services allow for quicker and more meaningful communications than traditional TRS, although they also make up the largest cost associated with TRS. Also, to the extent that these services are not provided by providers of interstate telecommunications, they are exempt from contributing to the TRS fund. Subscribers to interstate telecommunications services subsidize all forms of interstate TRS, including Internet-based TRS services. The introduction of the use of the Internet has had an effect on the implementation of the TRS program in three major areas. First, all Internet-based TRS calls (VRS and IP Relay) are presently considered interstate because there is presently no reliable means of determining the geographic location of the party to the call using the Internet. Therefore, the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund), which generally compensates providers only for interstate TRS calls, compensates VRS and IP Relay providers for all calls. As a result, with the rapid growth in the use of the Internet-based forms of TRS, the size of the Fund has rapidly increased (e.g., from $44 million in FY2000 to $331 million in FY2005). Second, the Internet-based subsidies have attracted new service providers that are not traditional telephone companies. While these companies are required to be familiar with all FCC regulations related to TRS, many have limited experience as common carriers or other entities subject to such regulation. Consequently, the FCC must ensure that its oversight of the program is particularly rigorous. Third, Internet-based services, in particular IP Relay, offer users a degree of anonymity not available with PSTN-based telephone calls, and therefore these services have been used to facilitate improper conduct, such as fraudulent purchases from businesses. The Commission is actively considering amending its rules to make it easier to combat such misuse, and some anecdotal evidence from service providers suggests that misuse has decreased recently. These challenges are an outgrowth of the FCC's decision to expand TRS to Internet-based services, which in the case of VRS, offer faster, more natural, real-time communications. While the Commission has found that such Internet-based services further the statutory goal of "functionally equivalent" telephone service, the expansion of TRS has given rise to fundamental challenges of program management, especially as relates to the misuse and cost associated with these new services.

Evidence: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 5140 (March 6, 2000) (Improved TRS Order & FNPRM); 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 (June 30, 2004) (2004 TRS Report & Order).

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which established TRS, is intended to ensure that persons with hearing and speech disabilities can utilize communications services that enable interaction with individuals who use voice telephone services. As such, the beneficiaries of TRS are not just persons with hearing and speech disabilities, but all Americans. In accommodating such interaction between persons with hearing and speech disabilities and the larger population, the TRS program can be said to have broad benefits. One party to any TRS call is a person with a speech or hearing disability; however there is no specific eligibility criteria for such persons, and TRS users are not asked to verify if they have a disability when placing a call. Such criteria or verification procedures are not critical for traditional TRS mechanisms, since such services are slower and more cumbersome than normal voice telephone service, providing little incentive for misuse. However, Internet-based TRS services are vulnerable to misuse, and some verification procedure may help to ensure legitimate use. The FCC has raised the issue of user registration in several pending proceedings. In Video Relay, the consumer must use American Sign Language to communicate with an intermediary Communications Assistant, which limits the likelihood for misuse in the program to an extent. However, the FCC has identified that in some cases VRS is used as a substitute for in-person interpreters, rather than for functionally equivalent telephone service. IP Relay service is open to misuse by non-disabled persons making fraudulent calls and hiding behind the anonymity that IP Relay provides. This creates opportunities for criminal fraud. In a typical scenario identified by the FCC, a person may place an IP Relay call from outside the United States to a business located within the US, and place an order for goods with a stolen or otherwise fraudulent credit card. Such misuse of the TRS program is harmful for both for merchants and for legitimate IP Relay users, since victimized merchants may choose to no longer accept IP Relay calls. Since IP Relay service is the most widely used TRS mechanism, this flaw in the service is potentially significant. The FCC is working with service providers and the program's administrator to develop auditing methods and other means to prevent this fraudulent usage, and through a recent NPRM the Commission is considering rule revisions to make it easier to combat the misuse of IP Relay and VRS. The recent decrease in IP Relay growth, relative to projected growth, suggests that fraud in IP Relay services may be declining. Also, the Commission has recently released an FNPRM on cost recovery and Fund oversight issues. The Commission's recent steps to enforce its speed of answer rules, and to freeze the VRS compensation rate, indicate that the Commission is taking initial steps to ensure that TRS services are provided in compliance with the rules and at a reasonable cost. The FCC should establish further oversight of the TRS program through its pending regulatory proceeding, to ensure that the program provides benefits to users at a reasonable cost to ratepayers, and minimizes misuse that has the potential to diminish the program's utility.

Evidence: [NECA TRS Procedures Manual -- confidential] See, e.g., Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and speech Disabilities, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 12224 (2004). 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 (June 30, 2004) (2004 TRS Report & Order); 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, 20 FCC Rcd 12237 (June 28, 2005) (2005 TRS Rate Order). See May 8, 2006, FNPRM for FCC actions on combating fraud in IP Relay and VRS: FCC 06-58, TRS Misuse of IP Relay Service and Video Relay Service, on CG Docket NO. 03-123.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program does not have meaningful long-term measures, though it does track several elements of the program that will be useful in the development of measures. Since the TRS program helps to facilitate the integration of persons with hearing and speech disabilities with the larger population, some benefits of the program may be said to be diffuse throughout society. While such diffuse societal benefits may be difficult to measure, the more concentrated impacts of the program on persons with hearing and speech disabilities are more conducive to measurement. While descriptive data on the program is available, this data provides insight only into the output of program activity, rather than the outcome, or ultimate benefit of such activity. Some of the output-related data that is available through the program includes: minutes of use, compensation rates for service provided, the number of service providers, and the service options available to users. The FCC sets mandatory minimum standards of service that could provide insight into the program's performance, which are tracked by the Fund administrator, the FCC, and the states. Providers must meet these standards to be eligible for compensation. Standards such as the speed of answer (timeliness of communications), mandatory emergency call access (911), and number of carriers (market competition), should be leveraged by the FCC in developing measures. The Commission does not track the number of users, although such data would be useful in determining the take-up rate of the program among the target population. No precise count of the number of persons with hearing and speech disabilities is available, though some estimates do exist. The program is expected to continue to grow both in terms of minutes of use and compensation rates, as the program becomes more widely used and the Internet-based services continue to expand. In light of this anticipated increased burden on ratepayers, the FCC will pursue meaningful long-term performance measures to ensure that it can gauge the benefits of the program.

Evidence: 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, 20 FCC Rcd 12237 (June 28, 2005) (2005 TRS Rate Order); http://www.neca.org/MEDIA/1104TRSSTATUSREPORT.DOC; http://www.neca.org/MEDIA/1104TRSSTATUSREPORT.DOC. For a discussion on measuring the hearing-impaired population, see: Mitchell, Young, Bachleda, and Karchmer, "How Many People Use ASL in the United States? Why Estimates Need Updating", Sign Language Studies, Vol.6, No.3, pp.306-335, Spring 2006.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Since the program does not have meaningful long-term measures, the answer to this question must be "no". As the FCC seeks to develop long-term measures, ambitious targets for such measures can help to encourage continuous program performance. Since the diffuse societal benefits of the program may be difficult to quantify, the FCC might focus on measuring the benefits that are concentrated on persons with hearing and speech disabilities. The FCC does periodically re-evaluate that the program is providing service that is "functionally equivalent" to voice telephone service. This has resulted in the recognition of new forms of TRS to meet the identified needs of certain subgroups of persons with hearing and speech disabilities (e.g., Captioned Telephone service for the hard of hearing who can speak), as well as by the adoption of new mandatory minimum standards that providers must meet in providing service (e.g., by supporting 900 call services, 3-way calling, speed dialing, and other services). This periodic expansion of the TRS program has led to an increasing size of the Fund, which is projected to continue to increase, as the size of Fund is reviewed and determined annually. Therefore, the FCC should establish measures by which the utility of these new services can be assessed against the cost of providing them.

Evidence: 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, FCC 06-58 (May 8, 2006) (seeking comment on ways to curtail misuse of VRS);

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Except for descriptive data such as minutes of use, the program does not have a set of annual performance measures that provide insight into the benefits of the program. Program stakeholders and advocates often note in FCC proceedings and elsewhere that the TRS program has had a significant positive impact on persons with hearing and speech disabilities. Validating such accolades through measurement would be beneficial in determining the program's progress in meeting it statutory and societal aims. In addition, measurement of potential misuse of TRS services would help the FCC to establish their magnitude, and measure progress in combating program fraud.

Evidence: As an anecdotal example of the benefits of TRS, see for example: Academy Award Winning Actress Marlee Matlin, Capitol Hill, 10/14/03 "Before VRS it was cumbersome for deaf persons to have truly meaningful conversations over the phone," Matlin said. "We were able to do things like make appointments or order out for pizza, but VRS enables us to have heart-to-heart talks with people and communicate better with employers and businesses. Thirteen years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) promised equal access to telecommunications for people with disabilities. Today, VRS is furthering that commitment, and I have faith that this is just the beginning." http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/oct03/10-14ESAssistiveTechPR.mspx

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program does not have an established set of annual measures of program performance, though the FCC is working toward this goal. Several output-based data points are tracked through the administration of the program, but no targets are set for these potential measures. On occasion, program data serves to inform the periodic review of the program. For example, the FCC may examine the number of TRS providers in order to determine if any changes are required to facilitate consumer choice. However, such reviews are not regular, and generally occur following a petition on the part of an interested party. The FCC does review TRS data on a regular basis with the program's administrator, particularly in the context of annual compensation rate setting reviews. The development and use of more meaningful performance measures will facilitate more active program management.

Evidence: 47 U.S.C. § 225; 47 C.F.R. § 64.604; 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 (June 30, 2004) (2004 TRS Report & Order);

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Since the program does not have an established set of annual or long-term performance measures, the program cannot therefore assess the manner in which partners contribute to the program, and the answer to this question must be "no". In addition, the program is administered by a non-Federal entity that operates without a contract or memorandum of understanding, and no measures of its administrative performance have been adopted. TRS rules require providers to engage in "outreach" to make the public - both voice telephone users and those with speech and hearing disabilities - aware of these services. Providers may submit the reasonable costs of outreach to the Fund administrator as part of the annual rate setting process. This outreach helps to make the target population aware of the service, though no measure of take-up among the target population is available. In addition, quality-of-service parameters (e.g., minimum speed of answer times) are required by the ADA and by the Commission's rules. These standards help to ensure a basic level of service quality, and could be leveraged by the FCC by setting ambitious targets for such standards, thereby pursuing continuous program performance.

Evidence: 47 U.S.C. § 225; 47 C.F.R. § 64.604; 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 (June 30, 2004) (2004 TRS Report & Order).

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The FCC has not identified regular independent evaluations of the TRS program. The FCC has established a TRS Advisory Council that meets at least twice a year. The Council is primarily charged with monitoring rates and costs; however, the Council is made up of TRS providers. As a result, the council lacks objectivity. The Commission is drafting an order that will address the authority of the TRS Advisory Council. Also, the Commission's Consumer Advisory Council (CAC) includes a TRS sub-group that meets three-times a year to evaluate the effectiveness of the TRS program and to make recommendations for improvements, though this Advisory Council is also primarily comprised of beneficiaries of the program. The FCC's Office of Inspector General engaged an independent auditing firm to perform a risk assessment of the TRS program that has made recommendations on program management.

Evidence: 47 U.S.C. § 225; 47 C.F.R. § 64.604; http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/cac/

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The TRS program is not subject to the annual budget process, since it is funded through mandatory charges on telephone revenue. The level of these charges is determined annually based on projected costs and minutes of use. In setting the annual compensation rates, the FCC reviews information provided by service providers for their consistency with the program's rules, and disallows costs that are inconsistent with the rules or are otherwise unreasonable. This annual process provides an opportunity for the program to review progress against goals and measures and adjust the level of the program accordingly. The use of performance measures in the annual compensation rate review process could add rigor to the FCC's oversight of the program. In light of significant projected growth in TRS, a quantifiable understanding of the benefits of these increasing expenditures is needed. In a pending rulemaking, the FCC is examining means to increase transparency in the annual rate-setting process.

Evidence: See, e.g., FCC Annual Budget Request, available at http://intranet.fcc.gov/omd/fo/finance/budget_process.html.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The FCC has identified risks of fraud and abuse of the TRS program, particularly as relates to IP Relay and VRS services, though such misuse may be declining. Recently, the Commission initiated a regulatory proceeding addressing this and other issues including: (1) how to curtail the misuse of VRS and IP Relay (including using IP Relay to make telephone purchases from merchants using stolen, fake, or otherwise invalid credit cards, or improperly using VRS as a substitute for in-person interpreters); (2) how to ensure that VRS and IP Relay consumers can make emergency calls that reach the appropriate emergency personnel; (3) requiring VRS service and equipment to be interoperable so consumers can use any provider's service with the equipment they have; and (4) making it easier for new VRS providers to offer service (thereby increasing competition). The FCC will continue to address these issues, and the development of performance measures, through the regulatory process.

Evidence: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Declaratory Ruling and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 06-57 (May 9, 2006) (requiring VRS equipment and service to be interoperable); 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, FCC 06-58 (May 8, 2006) (seeking comment on ways to curtail misuse of VRS); Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Access to Emergency Services, CG Docket No. 03-123, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-196 (Nov. 30, 2005) (2005 TRS 911 NPRM) (seeking comment on rules for access to emergency services for the Internet-based forms of TRS); 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 (June 30, 2004) (2004 TRS Report & Order).

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: The TRS regulations address what covered entities (i.e., providers of "telephone voice transmission services") must do to comply with their obligation under Title IV to make TRS available to persons with hearing and speech disabilities. Most of the regulations address the performance standards ("mandatory minimum standards") and the compensation framework for TRS services. Recent orders have also expanded on three performance standards (e.g., the VRS interoperability order, VRS speed of answer, VRS 24/7 availability). The rules are continually reviewed and modified through the rulemaking process and with regular input from providers and consumers. The FCC has identified shortcomings in the program's structure, and has initiated a regulatory proceeding to resolve these issues. In particular, it is important that the FCC address the potential for fraud and abuse in the program, ensure that users have access to emergency services, and encourage the interoperability of devices.

Evidence: 47 U.S.C. § 225; 47 U.S.C. § 161; 47 C.F.R. § 64.604.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Though FCC regularly collects data from a variety of sources on trends related to the TRS program (such as minutes of use and the speed of service), it has not established a set of measures through which it might use such data to gauge the results of the program. It therefore cannot take steps to improve program performance based on quantitative analysis, or set targets that would demonstrate the satisfaction of the program's statutory guidance. However, the Fund Administrator provides program data to the FCC monthly and annually, and trend analyses are made available to the TRS Advisory Council and are available to the public. Also, TRS consumers regularly provide input regarding provision of TRS, including filing petitions for declaratory rulings and for rulemakings. User advocacy groups routinely participate in commission rulemakings, including rate-setting proceedings.

Evidence: 47 U.S.C. § 225; 47 C.F.R. § 64.604; http://www.neca.org/MEDIA/1104TRSSTATUSREPORT.DOC http://www.neca.org/MEDIA/1104TRSSTATUSREPORT.DOC

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The TRS program is administered by a private entity, entitled the National Exchange Carriers Association (NECA). NECA operates with no contract or memorandum of understanding with the FCC, and with no measures against which to judge its performance. NECA does not collect robust performance information from carriers, although it does collect data related to the operation of the program. Data collected is generally used to administer the program, rather than to judge performance or results. Some information provided by carriers permits the FCC to determine if they are meeting mandatory minimum standards of service, and recent actions have been taken to help ensure compliance with those standards. The FCC can leverage this process by setting continuous improvement targets, and developing a more robust set of performance measures that provide insight into the service providers' contributions toward the program's goals.

Evidence:

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: The FCC has identified that there is a risk of improper payments in TRS, associated with fraud and abuse in the IP Relay and VRS mechanisms. The Commission is addressing this issue by meeting with service providers and through a pending regulatory proceeding.

Evidence: 47 CFR 54.501 et seq.;http://www.neca.org/MEDIA/1104TRSSTATUSREPORT.DOC http://www.neca.org/MEDIA/1104TRSSTATUSREPORT.DOC

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Monthly reports displaying the status of the TRS Fund are provided to the Commission and are made available to the public on the fund administrator's web site. These reports reveal that the rate per minute of service provided in the traditional TRS mechanisms has fallen over time. However, the rate per minute for VRS service (approximately $6.60 per minute) is over four times higher than any other mechanism, although the speed of communication is enhanced. As the use of this service grows over time, the program as a whole becomes more expensive to administer. While users of VRS generally find it to be superior to other TRS services, the FCC has not undertaken an analysis of the costs and benefits of providing VRS, the use of which is likely to increase over time as use of the Internet expands and more consumers become familiar with the service. The FCC is presently undertaking a rulemaking on a broad range of cost-related issues to ensure that service provider compensation is appropriate and that services are offered efficiently.

Evidence: http://www.neca.org/MEDIA/1104TRSSTATUSREPORT.DOC

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The TRS program is the only Federal program that provides for the telecommunications services to the hearing and speech impaired. However, other elements of the Universal Service Fund support the connections that are necessary for the service. Also, all States have implemented a similar program that subsidizes the intrastate portion of traditional TRS service. The Federal program is targeted at interstate and international communications. Commission staff works with state officials overseeing the provision of intrastate TRS through the TRS Advisory Council, meetings with state officials, review of user complaints, and through implementation of the state certification process (which takes place every five years). In addition, the Commission's web site contains information on TRS programs and related services for persons with hearing and speech disabilties as an element of the program's outreach strategy.

Evidence: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The FCC has identified that there is a significant risk of improper payments in TRS, associated with fraud and abuse in the IP Relay and VRS mechanisms. The Commission is addressing this issue through a regulatory proceeding, and some data suggest that misuse of TRS has decreased recently. The TRS Administrator is audited annually by both an independent auditor and by the Commission's independent auditor. Audits are conducted pursuant to generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS). In addition, the program recently was subject to an independent risk assessment audit, and is seeking to improve its financial management practices.

Evidence: See FCC Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report at: (http://www.fcc.gov/omd/strategicplan/) Federal Communications Commission Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report.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 (June 30, 2004) (2004 TRS Report & Order).

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The FCC has identified deficiencies in the financial management and regulatory structure of the program, and has taken initial steps toward addressing them through the regulatory process. The most recent FCC Financial Audit performed by independent auditors made four recommendations concerning the financial management of the TRS Fund. They included ensuring that accounts were properly reconcilied, that the US General Leger accounting practices were used, and that the financial reporting process be improved. The program's administrator has indicated that several recommendations have been implemented, and the FCC is in the process of verifying that these corrections have been or are being made. Also, recently the Commission initiated a regulatory proceeding addressing these and other program issues including: (1) how to curtail the misuse of VRS and IP Relay (including using IP Relay to make telephone purchases from merchants using stolen, fake, or otherwise invalid credit cards, or improperly using VRS as a substitute for in-person interpreters); (2) how to ensure that VRS and IP Relay consumers can make emergency calls that reach the appropriate emergency personnel; (3) requiring VRS service and equipment to be interoperable so consumers can use any provider's service with the equipment they have; and (4) making it easier for new VRS providers to offer service (thereby increasing competition).

Evidence: See FCC Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report at: (http://www.fcc.gov/omd/strategicplan/) Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Declaratory Ruling and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 06-57 (May 9, 2006) (requiring VRS equipment and service to be interoperable); 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, FCC 06-58 (May 8, 2006) (seeking comment on ways to curtail misuse of VRS); Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Access to Emergency Services, CG Docket No. 03-123, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-196 (Nov. 30, 2005) (2005 TRS 911 NPRM) (seeking comment on rules for access to emergency services for the Internet-based forms of TRS); 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 (June 30, 2004) (2004 TRS Report & Order).

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: The rules governing the TRS program are adopted in notice and comment proceedings consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. Further, all data collections related to the program are implemented consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires public notice and comment on collection burdens. The annual compensation rate determination is also subject to public comment. In addition, the Commission established a TRS Advisory Council, made up of consumers, State and local government representatives, and large and small businesses to interact with the Commission and the Fund administrator on cost issues. Finally, The Commission established the Consumer Advocacy Council, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Council Act (FACA), that has a TRS sub-group. While these groups help the FCC in understanding stakeholder's interests in the TRS program, they often serve as program advocates.

Evidence: 47 U.S.C. § 225; 47 C.F.R. § 64.604; http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/cac/bylaws.html http://wireless.fcc.gov/publicsafety/ncc/Faca2.html

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: FCC regulations are not subject to E.O. 12866 or the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, though they are subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA. The order initiating the program rules, and subsequent implementing decisions, complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. OMB reviews FCC rules under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The FCC does consider the costs of implementing regulations for small businesses in the course of rulemaking proceedings in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Evidence: See, e.g., Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 06-58 (May 8, 2006) (seeking comment on misuse of VRS and IP Relay); Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Declaratory Ruing and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket no. 03-123, FCC 06-57 (May 9, 2006) (requiring VRS service and equipment to be interoperable).

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: The FCC has periodically expanded the program to cover new services, particularly Internet-based services. Program stakeholders have generally supported this action, as Internet-based services have the potential to enhance the quality of TRS communications. Generally, the agency considers the "functional equivalency" of a service with the voice telephone network, when deciding to include it in TRS. The FCC does not use cost-benefit analysis as their primary criteria in expanding the program, and has not quantified the societal costs of such action. As a result, it cannot determine if the present structure of TRS maximizes net benefits.

Evidence: 47 U.S.C. § 225; 47 CFR § 64.601

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Though the program tracks some program data for administrative purposes, it does not have a set of meaningful measures or long-term goals in order to judge results. The FCC is in the process of developing long-term measures for the program.

Evidence:

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Though the program tracks some program data for administrative purposes, it does not have a set of meaningful measures or annual goals in order to judge results. The FCC is in the process of developing annual measures for the program. In addition, the program is administered by a non-Federal entity that operates without a contract or memorandum of understanding with the FCC, and without measures against which to judge its administrative performance.

Evidence:

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The most direct measurement of efficiency in the TRS program is the individual rates established each year for each TRS service, which are expressed on a per-minute basis. In general, the rates, including the VRS and IP Relay rates, have declined in recent years. The rate for traditional TRS has increased slightly since 1998, but is still below the initial 1993 rate. Therefore, on a per-unit basis, TRS has demonstrated some improvement in efficiency. During this time the demand for TRS services has increased substantially. Due to the growing use of VRS, which is more expensive than other TRS mechanisms, the size of the program has increased substantially in recent years (from $44 million in 2000 to $331 million in 2005). Therefore, the FCC's interpretation of "functional equivalency" as necessitating Internet-based services has resulted in increased overall TRS costs. In addition, since the number of users of TRS service is not known, the cost per user of providing TRS cannot be determined.

Evidence: http://www.neca.org/MEDIA/090805NASRAPRESENTATION.PDF

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Though several States have adopted programs similar to the Federal TRS program, no comparison between the Federal and State programs has been undertaken. Since the State programs rely on the Federal program for regulatory guidance, it is unlikely that such a comparison would yield significant differences in results. The FCC is considering the effect of competitive bidding between providers for TRS subsidies, which some States have implemented on a limited basis. Such efficiency-maximizing procedures may positively impact the program in terms of compensation rates, service quality, and market competition.

Evidence: 47 U.S.C. § 225; 47 CFR § 64.601; 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, 20 FCC Rcd 12237 (June 28, 2005) (2005 TRS Rate Order).

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The FCC is not aware of any studies that indicate the effectiveness of the program. There is, however, anecdotal evidence from stakeholders attesting to the benefits of the program. In addition, program stakeholders often comment on particular aspects of the program through regulatory proceedings, however, such evaluations are not independent and do not serve to demonstrate program results.

Evidence:

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: The FCC has periodically expanded the program to cover new services, particularly Internet-based services. Program stakeholders have generally supported this action, as Internet-based services have the potential to enhance the quality of TRS communications. Generally, the agency considers the "functional equivalency" of a service with the voice telephone network, when deciding to include it in TRS. The FCC does not use cost-benefit analysis as their primary criteria in expanding the program, and has not quantified the societal costs of such action. As a result, it cannot determine if the present structure of TRS maximizes net benefits.

Evidence: