Supporting Statement OMB 3060-1089 (Sept 2009)

3060-1089 September 2009

Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196, FCC 08-151 and FCC 08-275

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

A. Justification

1. With this submission, the Commission revises information collection 3060-1089: Telephone Numbering System and E911 Requirements for Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service Providers.

Between 2005 and 2008, the Commission issued four separate notices proposing rules to ensure numbering and E911 services to users of two forms of Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) — specifically, Video Relay Service (VRS) and Internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay).¹ Those notices proposed several information collections, which the Office of Management and Budget reviewed and approved as part of Control Number 3060-1089.

History:

First Numbering Order. On June 11, 2008, the Commission adopted the First Numbering Order setting forth rules requiring VRS and IP Relay providers to supply numbering and E911 capabilities to their users. The First Numbering Order requires seven separate collections of information, which were approved, for a period of three years by OMB on November 14, 2008.² These information collections include the following:

(A) Routing Information. VRS and IP Relay providers must obtain current routing information, including IP addresses or domain names and user names, from their registered users and must maintain such information in their internal databases.

(B) Provision of Routing Information. VRS and IP Relay providers must provision their registered users’ routing information to the TRS Numbering Directory and must maintain such information in that database.

(C) Registered Location. As of December 31, 2008, VRS and IP Relay providers must obtain from each newly registered user, prior to the initiation of service, the physical location at which the service will be utilized and keep that information in their own databases. If the VRS or IP Relay is capable of being used from more than one location, the providers must offer their registered users one or more methods of updating their physical location, including at least one option that requires use only of the customer premises equipment necessary to access the VRS or IP Relay. Any method utilized must allow a registered user to update his or her Registered Location at will and in a timely manner.

(D) Provision of Registered Location. As of December 31, 2008, each VRS and IP Relay provider must place its registered users’ Registered Location, the provider’s name, and the communications assistant’s (CA) identification number into, or make that information available through, Automatic Location Information (ALI) databases³ across the country.

(E) User Notification.⁴ Every VRS or IP Relay provider must include an advisory on its website and in any promotional materials addressing numbering or E911 services for VRS or IP Relay. At a minimum, the advisory must address the following issues: (i) the process by which VRS or IP Relay users may obtain ten-digit telephone numbers, including a brief summary of the numbering assignment and administration processes adopted herein; (ii) the portability of ten-digit telephone numbers assigned to VRS or IP Relay users; (iii) the process by which persons using VRS or IP Relay may submit, update, and confirm receipt by the provider of their Registered Location information; and (iv) an explanation emphasizing the importance of maintaining accurate, up-to-date Registered Location information with the user’s default provider in the event that the individual places an emergency call via an Internet-based relay service.

(F) Affirmative Acknowledgements. VRS and IP Relay providers must obtain and keep a record of affirmative acknowledgement from each of their registered users of having received and understood the user notification.

(G) Interstate TRS Fund Submission. Each VRS and IP Relay provider must submit its actual reasonable costs to implement the numbering and emergency call handling requirements set forth in the First Numbering Order to the Interstate TRS Fund Administrator for reimbursement from the Interstate TRS Fund.

Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires the creation of a nationwide TRS program to allow persons with hearing and speech disabilities access to the nation’s telephone network.⁵ Title IV requires that TRS be available to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner,⁶ and that relay services offer access to the telephone system that is “functionally equivalent” to voice telephone services, as reflected in the TRS mandatory minimum standards.

VRS and IP Relay users have not previously had a reliable or consistent means by which others can identify or reach them because these services have not been linked to a uniform telephone numbering scheme. The First Numbering Order remedies this problem by, among other things, integrating VRS and IP Relay users into the ten-digit numbering system known as the North American Numbering Plan.

To complete a telephone call to an Internet-based TRS user, a provider must have some method of logically associating the telephone number dialed by the caller to the Internet-based TRS user’s device. That method, known as the TRS Numbering Directory, is a central database that maps each user’s telephone number to routing information needed to find that user’s device on the Internet. The First Numbering Order requires VRS and IP Relay providers to collect and maintain the routing information from their registered users and to provision that information to the TRS Numbering Directory so that this mapping can occur.

The Commission is also obligated to promote “safety of life and property”⁷ and to “encourage and facilitate the prompt deployment throughout the United States of a seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable end-to-end infrastructure” for public safety.⁸ Enhanced 911 service — a critical part of the nation’s public safety infrastructure — enables all citizens to reach emergency services directly and efficiently, irrespective of technology.⁹ E911 works by routing emergency calls to the appropriate emergency answering authority over a dedicated, redundant, highly-reliable wireline network that is interconnected with but largely separate from the public switched telephone network (the Wireline E911 Network). E911 relies on Automatic Location Information (ALI) databases.

Because there previously has been no reliable means for VRS and IP Relay providers, unlike wireline carriers, to automatically know the physical location of their users, the First Numbering Order requires VRS and IP Relay providers to collect and maintain the Registered Location of their registered users. And to ensure that authorities can retrieve a user’s Registered Location (along with the provider’s name and CA’s identification number for callback purposes), the First Numbering Order requires VRS and IP Relay providers to provision that information into, or make that information available through, ALI databases across the country.

To ensure that Internet-based TRS users are aware of their providers’ numbering and E911 service obligations and to inform them of their providers’ E911 capabilities, the First Numbering Order requires VRS and IP Relay providers to post an advisory on their websites and in any promotional materials addressing numbering or E911 services for VRS or IP Relay and to obtain and keep a record of affirmative acknowledgement from each of their registered users of having received and understood the user notification.

Revised Information Collection Requirement Which Requires OMB Review and Approval:

Second Numbering Order. On December 19, 2008, the Commission adopted the Second Numbering Order, further addressing the duties of VRS and IP Relay providers to supply numbering and E911 capabilities to their users, as established in the First Numbering Order.¹⁰ The Second Numbering Order revises the “User Notification” information collection requirement adopted in the First Numbering Order to add additional requirements to the requirement as follows:

(E) User Notification (revision). In addition to the information that the Commission instructed VRS and IP Relay providers to include in the consumer advisories required by the First Numbering Order, VRS and IP Relay providers must include certain additional information in their consumer advisories under the Second Numbering Order. Specifically, the consumer advisories must explain that: (1) the consumer may obtain a telephone number from, and register with, his or her provider of choice; (2) the consumer may change default providers while retaining the same telephone number by porting that number to the new default provider; (3) the consumer may make calls through, and receive calls from, any provider; and (4) the provider cannot condition the ongoing use or possession of equipment, or the receipt of different or upgraded equipment, on the consumer continuing to use the provider as his or her default provider.

New Information Collection Requirements Which Require OMB Review and Approval:

The Second Numbering Order adds five new information collection requirements (“H” through “L” below) to the seven adopted in the First Numbering Order (“A” through “G” above):

(H) Message Notifying Callers of User’s New North American Numbering Plan (NANP) Number. Once a VRS or IP Relay user with a “proxy” or “alias” number obtains a NANP telephone number, the VRS or IP Relay provider must provide a message notifying callers of the user’s new NANP telephone number and advising callers that, after November 12, 2009, the user may only be reached by the NANP telephone number.¹¹

(I) Ascertaining Registration Status of VRS or IP Relay User. Every VRS and IP Relay provider must verify whether a dial around user is registered with another provider. The provider may do so by requesting a user’s ten-digit NANP number and querying the Numbering Directory using that number.

(J) Verifying Registration and Eligibility Information. Every VRS and IP Relay provider must institute procedures to verify the accuracy of registration information, including the consumer’s name and mailing address, and include a self certification component requiring consumers to verify that they have a medically recognized hearing or speech disability necessitating their use of TRS.

(K) Commission Approval for the Pass Through of Numbering Costs. Each VRS or IP Relay provider wishing to pass through numbering-related costs to its users must obtain Commission approval to do so.

(L) Information Sharing After a Change in Default Providers. Each VRS provider that provisions equipment to a consumer must make available to other VRS providers enough information about that equipment to enable another VRS provider selected as the consumer’s default provider to perform all of the functions of a default provider.

Statutory authority for the First and Second Numbering Orders is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 225, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 251, 303(r). The statutory provisions and regulations authorizing the information collections are attached as Appendix A.

2. The responses listed below address how, by whom, and the purpose of the information collection requirements adopted in the First Numbering Order (“A” – “G” below) and in the Second Numbering Order (“H” – “L” below).

(A) Routing Information. Each VRS or IP Relay provider collects its registered users’ routing information from their communications devices so that such routing information can be provisioned into the TRS Numbering Directory.

(B) Provision of Routing Information. A VRS or IP Relay provider provisions its registered users’ routing information into the TRS Numbering Directory so that other providers can access that routing information to complete a call to a particular Internet-based TRS user.

(C) Registered Location. Each VRS or IP Relay provider collects its registered users’ Registered Locations using the same equipment the provider uses to provide service or any other methods the provider chooses to offer. A VRS or IP Relay provider, along with the entity that operates the Wireline E911 Network and public safety officials, uses the Registered Location to deliver 911 calls to the appropriate emergency answering point.

(D) Provision of Registered Location. A VRS or IP Relay provider, along with the entity that operates the Wireline E911 Network and public safety officials, provisions the Registered Location along with other callback information to public safety officials through ALI databases maintained by local exchange carriers (and, in at least one case, a state government) across the country. The VRS or IP Relay provider, the entity that operates the Wireline E911 Network, and public safety officials can then use this information to facilitate emergency response.

(E) User Notification. Every VRS and IP Relay provider must post an advisory on its website and in any promotional materials addressing numbering or E911 services for VRS or IP Relay so that customers understand the capabilities, limitations, and obligations of providers.¹²

(F) Affirmative Acknowledgements. Every VRS or IP Relay provider must obtain and keep a record of affirmative acknowledgement from each of their registered users of having received and understood the user notification to facilitate the Commission’s review and, if necessary, enforcement of these rules.

(G) Interstate TRS Fund Submission. Each VRS and IP Relay provider must submit its actual reasonable costs to implement the numbering and emergency call handling requirements to the Interstate TRS Fund Administrator to be reimbursed by the Interstate TRS Fund. Submitted costs may include those additional costs incurred by a provider that directly relate to: (1) ensuring that database information is properly and timely updated and maintained; (2) processing and transmitting calls made to ten-digit numbers assigned pursuant to the First Numbering Order; (3) routing emergency calls to an appropriate public safety answering point (PSAP); (4) other implementation related tasks directly related to facilitating ten-digit numbering and emergency call handling; and (5) consumer outreach and education related to the requirements and services adopted in the First Numbering Order. These costs are separate from the providers’ other costs presently encompassed by the per-minute compensation rates.

(H) Message Notifying Callers of User’s New NANP Number. Once a VRS or IP Relay user with a “proxy” or “alias” number obtains a NANP telephone number, the VRS or IP Relay provider must provide a message notifying callers of the user’s new NANP telephone number and advising callers that, after November 12, 2009, the user may only be reached by the NANP telephone number. This requirement is intended to smooth the transition of VRS and IP Relay users to NANP telephone numbers by ensuring that a VRS or IP Relay user can be reached by a calling party who may not yet know the user’s new number.

(I) Ascertaining Registration Status of VRS or IP Relay User. To verify whether a user is registered with another provider, a VRS or IP Relay provider may request a user’s ten-digit NANP number and query the Numbering Directory using that number. Providers will use this information to distinguish a new user who has not yet registered from an existing user who is dialing around the default provider with which he or she is registered.

(J) Verifying Registration and Eligibility Information. Every VRS and IP Relay provider must institute procedures to verify the accuracy of registration information, including the consumer’s name and mailing address, and include a self certification component requiring consumers to verify that they have a medically recognized hearing or speech disability necessitating their use of TRS. These measures will be used by VRS and IP Relay providers to ensure that their services are not used for fraudulent or other purposes not authorized by the statute or by the Commission’s rules.

(K) Commission Approval for the Pass Through of Numbering Costs. A VRS or IP Relay provider wishing to pass through numbering-related costs to its users must obtain Commission approval to do so. This requirement will be used by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, acting on delegated authority, to ensure that only customer-specific, actually incurred costs are passed on to VRS and IP Relay users.

(L) Information Sharing After a Change in Default Providers. Every VRS provider that provisions equipment to a consumer must make available to the consumer’s newly selected default provider certain information about that equipment. This information will be used by the new default provider to perform the functions required of a default provider, including enabling point-to-point (non-relay) communications between VRS users, when a user switches providers but wishes to use equipment supplied by another default provider.

3. The Commission encourages VRS and IP Relay providers to use information technology to whatever extent possible to reduce the burden of the information collections adopted in the First Numbering Order, (A)–(G), and in the Second Numbering Order, (H)–(L).

(A) Routing Information. The Commission expects that a VRS or IP Relay provider’s collection of routing information will be automatically done over the Internet.

(B) Provision of Routing Information. VRS and IP Relay providers must provision a registered user’s updated routing information to the TRS Numbering Directory by electronic means.

(C) Registered Location. If a VRS or IP Relay provider’s service is capable of being used from more than one location, the provider must offer its registered users one or more methods of updating their Registered Location, including at least one option that requires use only of the customer premises equipment necessary to access the VRS or IP Relay. The Commission expects that many VRS and IP Relay providers will also allow their registered users to update their Registered Location via a webpage.

(D) Provision of Registered Location. VRS and IP Relay providers must use electronic means to provide information in or through ALI databases.

(E) User Notification. Every VRS and IP Relay provider must use electronic means, i.e., a webpage, to disseminate the advisory. Providers must also include the advisory whenever they disseminate promotional materials addressing numbering or E911 services for VRS or IP Relay using whatever method they choose, electronic or otherwise.¹³

(F) Affirmative Acknowledgements. The record of affirmative acknowledgements can be obtained and stored electronically, likely via a webpage and in an electronic database.

(G) Interstate TRS Fund Submission. The VRS and IP Relay providers’ actual reasonable costs to implement the numbering and emergency call handling requirements may be submitted to the Interstate TRS Fund Administrator electronically.

(H) Message Notifying Callers of User’s New NANP Number. VRS and IP Relay providers may choose to use an automated method to provide a message notifying callers of a user’s new NANP telephone number.

(I) Ascertaining Registration Status of VRS or IP Relay User. VRS and IP Relay providers must use electronic means to query the Numbering Directory using a VRS or IP Relay user’s ten-digit number in order to determine whether a user is registered with another provider.

(J) Verifying Registration and Eligibility Information. VRS and IP Relay providers may use electronic means to verify the accuracy of registration information and to allow a consumer to certify that he or she has a medically recognized hearing or speech disability necessitating his or her use of TRS.

(K) Commission Approval for the Pass Through of Numbering Costs. VRS and IP Relay providers may submit to the Commission in electronic format a request to pass through numbering-related costs to their users.

(L) Information Sharing After a Change in Default Providers. A VRS provider that provisions equipment to a consumer can make available to a newly selected default provider, in an electronic format, certain information about that equipment.

4. None of the information collected as a result of the First and Second Numbering Orders will be duplicative of other information. The Commission has also taken the affirmative step of requiring VRS and IP Relay providers to cease acquiring routing information from any registered user that ports his or her number to another VRS or IP Relay provider.

5. In the First Numbering Order, (A)–(G), and in the Second Numbering Order, (H)–(L), the Commission has attempted to balance the economic interests of small businesses with the significant public interest in access to numbering and E911 services when using VRS and IP Relay, and has taken several steps to minimize the information collection burden for small business concerns, including those with fewer than 25 employees.

(A) Routing Information. In requiring that VRS and IP Relay providers obtain routing information for their registered users, the First Numbering Order requires that providers that have issued, leased, or otherwise provided customer premises equipment (usually larger providers) must ensure that such equipment delivers routing information to each user’s default provider.

(B) Provision of Routing Information. Once a provider has automatically received that information, it can provision the TRS Numbering Directory with that information electronically.

(C) Registered Location. In requiring that VRS and IP Relay providers obtain their registered users’ Registered Location, the First Numbering Order allows providers to comply with this requirement directly or by utilizing the services of a third party.

(D) Provision of Registered Location. In requiring that VRS and IP Relay providers provision Registered Location information along with callback information to public safety officials through ALI databases, the First Numbering Order allows providers to comply with this requirement directly or by utilizing the services of a third party.

(E) User Notification. In requiring VRS and IP Relay providers to provide their users with an advisory about numbering and E911 services, the First and Second Numbering Orders only require posting on provider websites and in any promotional materials addressing those services.

(F) Affirmative Acknowledgements. Additionally, affirmative acknowledgements of having received the advisory by registered users can be received electronically through a provider’s website. The Commission believes that these requirements should entail minimal burden on small entities.

(G) Interstate TRS Fund Submission. The VRS and IP Relay providers’ actual reasonable costs to implement the numbering and emergency call handling requirements set forth in the First Numbering Order may be submitted to the Interstate TRS Fund Administrator electronically.

(H) Message Notifying Callers of User’s New NANP Number. Each VRS or IP Relay provider, including small entities, are likely to use an automated method to provide a message notifying callers of a user’s new NANP telephone number. In addition, any burden associated with this requirement will be time limited to the extent that the requirement applies only during the period of transition to ten-digit numbering.

(I) Ascertaining Registration Status of VRS or IP Relay User. To the extent that VRS and IP Relay providers will use electronic means to query the Numbering Directory using a VRS or IP Relay user’s ten-digit number, the Commission believes that this requirement should entail minimal burden on small entities.

(J) Verifying Registration and Eligibility Information. The Second Numbering Order does not mandate the use of specific verification procedures and requires only that providers implement a reasonable means of verifying registration and eligibility information that is not unduly burdensome to the consumer. Allowing VRS and IP Relay providers to establish their own verification procedures should minimize the burden on small entities.

(K) Commission Approval for the Pass Through of Numbering Costs. The Second Numbering Order allows VRS and IP Relay providers to submit to the Commission in electronic format any request to pass through numbering-related costs to users, which should minimize any burden on small entities.

(L) Information Sharing After a Change in Default Providers. A VRS provider that provisions equipment to a consumer can make available to a newly selected default provider, in an electronic format, the information about that equipment that is required by the Second Numbering Order. This requirement should reduce the burden on small entities that are selected to be the default provider of a consumer who previously received equipment from another provider.

Two further measures should minimize the impact on small businesses of the information collections adopted in the First and Second Numbering Orders. First, the Commission gave VRS and IP Relay providers, large and small, from approximately six to ten months (depending upon the requirement) to implement the bulk of the numbering and E911 requirements, including the information collections contained therein. Second, the Commission has authorized the Interstate TRS Fund to compensate VRS and IP Relay providers for the reasonable costs of complying with the numbering and E911 requirements of the First and Second Numbering Orders. These measures should substantially alleviate any burdens on small businesses, including those with fewer than 25 employees.

6. First Numbering Order. If a VRS or IP Relay provider did not collect a registered user’s routing information whenever that information changed, or did not provision any updated routing information to the TRS Numbering Directory, individuals and businesses trying to contact that registered user using his or her telephone number would be unable to complete the call. And if the contacting entity were a public safety official trying to reestablish contact after an interrupted call, less frequent information collection could hamper and threaten the integrity of a public safety response.

If a VRS or IP Relay provider did not collect a registered user’s Registered Location whenever that user sought to change it or did not provision a registered user’s Registered Location and other callback information through the ALI databases as needed, emergency calls could be routed to geographically inappropriate emergency authorities, and public safety officials would be stripped of the benefits of E911 service.

Posting a consumer advisory on a VRS or IP Relay provider’s website is a one-time collection and users may not realize the capabilities and obligations of those providers absent such an advisory. Requiring the inclusion of an advisory whenever a VRS or IP Relay provider disseminates promotional materials regarding numbering or E911 services ensures that every user who may rely on those services will know the provider’s capabilities and obligations.

The affirmative acknowledgements by registered users of having received the consumer advisory is a one-time collection. Without it, the Commission’s ability to review and enforce its advisory requirements would be hampered.

Second Numbering Order. The requirement that VRS and IP Relay providers provide a message notifying callers of a user’s new NANP telephone number is a time-limited collection and, absent this requirement, individuals and businesses trying to contact a VRS or IP Relay user via the user’s former proxy number may be unable to complete the call to the user.

The requirement that VRS and IP Relay providers ascertain the registration status of VRS and IP Relay users encourages users to register with a default provider. Without such a requirement, fewer users may undertake the registration process. An emergency VRS or IP Relay call placed by an unregistered user could be routed to geographically inappropriate emergency authorities and emergency personnel may lack information needed to ascertain the location of the emergency.

Requiring VRS and IP Relay providers to verify registration and eligibility information helps to reduce the fraudulent use of these services. Absent this requirement, the use of VRS and IP Relay by individuals or entities not authorized to use these services would likely increase.

VRS and IP Relay providers must obtain Commission approval to pass through numbering-related costs to their users. Absent this requirement, users might be charged costs exceeding those that the Commission has determined may be passed on to the user.

When a VRS consumer switches default providers, a VRS provider that has issued equipment to a consumer must make available to the consumer’s newly selected default provider certain information about the equipment. Absent this requirement, provider-supplied equipment may not operate properly, or at all, following the change of default providers.

7. A VRS or IP Relay provider may retain the affirmative acknowledgements by registered users of having received the advisory for more than three years to the extent users remain registered with that provider for more than three years.

8. Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1320.8(d), the Commission placed 60-day notices in the Federal Register soliciting comments on the information collections adopted in the Second Numbering Order respectively. See 74 FR 38016, dated July 30, 2009. The Commission received no comments in response to the notice.

9. Section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, creates a cost recovery regime whereby the Interstate TRS Fund compensates TRS providers for the reasonable costs of providing service in compliance with TRS regulations.¹⁴ Here, the Commission has authorized the Interstate TRS Fund to reimburse respondents for the actual reasonable costs of complying with the new requirements adopted in the First and Second Numbering Orders, including costs for ensuring that the routing information in the TRS Numbering Directory is properly and timely updated and maintained; for routing emergency calls to the appropriate emergency authority and provisioning Registered Location information to the ALI databases; for disseminating the consumer advisory to users; for retaining the affirmative acknowledgements of registered users; for providing a message notifying callers of a user’s new telephone number; for ascertaining the registration status of a dial around user; for verifying registration and eligibility information; and for sharing information with a new default provider concerning equipment supplied by the consumer’s former default provider.

10. The First Numbering Order requests comment on whether and how the Commission’s customer proprietary network information (CPNI) and other privacy protections should be extended to VRS and IP Relay providers and their collections of information required in the order.¹⁵ The Second Numbering Order prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of a VRS or IP Relay user’s personal information and notes that the Commission anticipates adopting rules more specifically addressing this prohibition in a future order.

The Commission takes several steps to specifically protect registered users’ routing information and the provision of that information to the TRS Numbering Directory. First, VRS and IP Relay providers “must ensure that all [equipment] they have issued . . . to VRS or IP Relay users delivers routing information or other information only to the user’s default provider, except as is necessary to complete or receive ‘dial around’ calls on a case-by-case basis.”¹⁶ Second, VRS and IP Relay providers must “[t]ake such steps as are necessary to cease acquiring routing information from any VRS or IP Relay user that ports his or her number to another VRS or IP Relay provider or otherwise selects a new default provider”¹⁷ and they must stop provisioning that information to the TRS Numbering Directory.¹⁸ Third, access to the routing information in the TRS Numbering Directory is limited to VRS and IP Relay providers and an administrator.¹⁹

The Commission also requires VRS and IP Relay providers to “[e]nsure” that gathering a registered user’s Registered Location and provisioning that information along with callback information into or through ALI databases “is limited to that needed to facilitate 911 services, is made available only to emergency call handlers and emergency response or law enforcement personnel, and is used for the sole purpose of ascertaining a user’s location in an emergency situation or for other emergency or law enforcement purposes.”²⁰

This information collection affects individuals or households, and thus there are impacts under the Privacy Act. However, a third party, the individual or household’s VRS or IP Relay provider, collects the information that is related to individuals or households; and the Commission has no direct involvement in this collection. As such, the Commission is not required to complete a privacy impact assessment. Further, VRS and IP Relay providers generally have written privacy policies governing the treatment of information collected from their users, and the Commission expects that much of the information collected here would fall under those policies.

11. This information collection does not address any private matters of a sensitive nature.

12. Twelve entities are currently certified to provide VRS and/or IP Relay services to an estimated 265,000 users.²¹ The Commission expects that the availability of numbering and E911 services, beginning December 31, 2008, will increase the approximate number of VRS and IP Relay users as follows: 265,000 in 2009; 295,000 in 2010; and 310,000 in 2011. Attached as Appendix B is a set of charts detailing how the various burden estimates reported below were calculated and attached as Appendix D are notes on the assumptions underlying those burden estimates.

First Numbering Order. Information collections (A) through (G) below were approved by OMB on November 14, 2008.²² The Commission has reevaluated the burdens associated with those information collections due to an increase in the total number of VRS and IP Relay providers (from eleven to twelve providers), and due to the recent certification of two new providers (among the current twelve providers).

(A) Routing Information. Each of the twelve currently certified VRS and IP Relay providers will need to obtain updated routing information and to provision that routing information to the TRS Numbering Directory whenever a registered user’s routing information changes. Two recently certified providers of the twelve currently certified providers also will need to develop, test, and deploy a system to obtain, retain, and provision this routing information automatically (the remaining ten providers fulfilled this requirement in 2008). In addition, when any of the VRS and IP Relay providers register new users, those users will have to configure their devices to notify their default provider whenever their routing information changes. VRS and IP relay providers will likely need to follow up with those registered users who are unable to configure their devices for this purpose. Although the burden for each VRS and IP Relay provider will vary based on the number of its registered users and customer churn, the Commission estimates on an industry-wide basis that the annual hour burden of obtaining, retaining, and provisioning routing information will be:
120,500 hours in 2009,
34,540 hours in 2010, and
31,120 hours in 2011.

The average burden will therefore be 62,053 hours per year. The annual “in-house” cost burden to the respondents is thus estimated to be:
$2,555,276 in 2009,
$853,202 in 2010, and
$784,199 in 2011.

The average “in-house” cost burden will therefore be $1,397,559 per year.

(B) Provision of Routing Information. The costs for provisioning the routing information to the TRS Numbering Directory are included in the calculations above for collecting routing information.

(C) Registered Location. Once VRS and IP Relay providers started registering users on December 31, 2008, they were required to obtain and retain a Registered Location for each registered user. The Commission expects that the two recently certified providers will design systems with in-house staff that will fulfill this requirement and that will also notify users of the advisory and obtain from registered users affirmative acknowledgment of having read and understood the advisory. VRS and IP Relay providers will need to register a user anytime the user receives a number from the provider and when the user ports his or her number from another provider. The Commission expects that most users will complete this registration process online, although some will prefer to speak with a service representative. The Commission also expects that a registered user may, on occasion, need to update his or her Registered Location, and that doing so will require less time because of his or her familiarity with the registration process. Although the burden for each VRS and IP Relay provider will vary based on the number of its registered users and customer churn, the Commission estimates on an industry-wide basis that the annual hour burden of obtaining and retaining Registered Location information and notifying users of the advisory will be:
66,491 hours in 2009,
25,553 hours in 2010, and
24,254 hours in 2011.

The average burden will therefore be 38,766 hours per year. The annual “in-house” cost burden to respondents is thus estimated to be:
$1,390,281 in 2009,
$624,294 in 2010, and
$599,611 in 2011.

The average “in-house” cost burden will therefore be $871,395 per year.

(D) Provision of Registered Location. VRS and IP Relay providers must place Registered Location and other callback information into, or make that information available through, ALI databases each time one of their registered users makes an emergency call. To do so, the VRS and IP Relay industry will need to hire on their staff software developers to develop, test, and deploy a provisioning system in 2008, and to maintain that system thereafter. The Commission estimates this burden will be:
8,000 hours in 2009,
4,800 hours in 2010, and
4,800 hours in 2011.

The average burden will therefore be 5,867 hours per year. With these costs amortized over three years, the Commission expects the average “in-house” cost burden per year to be $360,037.

(E) User Notification. In the Supporting Statement submitted to OMB in connection with the First Numbering Order, the Commission determined that provider decisions to incorporate consumer advisory information into promotional materials regularly sent by providers would not subject those providers to additional annual burden or “in-house” cost burden. In that same Supporting Statement, the Commission incorporated into 12(C) above the hour burden and “in-house” cost to providers of posting consumer advisory information on provider web sites.²³

(F) Affirmative Acknowledgements. VRS and IP Relay providers must store a record of affirmative acknowledgement for each registered user. To the extent those records are stored electronically, the Commission estimates that annual, industry-wide burden will be 144 hours per year, and an average annual “in-house” cost burden of $8,837.

(G) Interstate TRS Fund Submission. Each VRS and IP Relay provider must submit its actual reasonable costs to implement the numbering and emergency call handling requirements set forth in the First Numbering Order to the Interstate TRS Fund Administrator for reimbursement from the Interstate TRS Fund. The Commission estimates that annual, industry-wide burden will be 1,152 hours per year, for an average annual “in-house” cost burden of $70,698.

Second Numbering Order. The Second Numbering Order clarified and expanded upon the information that providers must include in the consumer advisories required by information collection (E), the User Notification requirement, which was originally adopted in the First Numbering Order. Accordingly, the Commission revises the burden estimates for information collection (E) as reported below. The Commission also sets out the costs of information collections (H) through (L), newly adopted in the Second Numbering Order.

(E) User Notification (Revised). In addition to the information that the Commission instructed VRS and IP Relay providers to include in the consumer advisories required by the First Numbering Order, the Second Numbering Order requires VRS and IP Relay providers to revise the consumer advisories that they previously posted to their websites and to include the additional information in any promotional materials they elect to send to users.²⁴ Although the burden for each VRS and IP Relay provider and user will vary based on the number of promotional materials each provider sends to users, the Commission estimates on an industry-wide basis that the annual burden associated with modifying the consumer advisory information will be:
13,730 hours in 2009,
1,500 hours in 2010, and
750 hours in 2011.

The average burden will therefore be 5,327 hours per year. The annual “in-house” cost burden to respondents, amortized over three years, is thus estimated to be:
$240,502 in 2009,
$35,934 in 2010, and
$22,877 in 2011.

The average “in-house” cost burden will therefore be $99,771 per year.

(H) Message Notifying Callers of User’s New NANP Number. Once a VRS or IP Relay user with a “proxy” or “alias” number obtains a NANP telephone number, the VRS or IP Relay provider must provide a message notifying callers of the user’s new NANP telephone number and advising callers that, after November 12, 2009, the user may only be reached by dialing the NANP telephone number. To do so, providers will likely create, using in-house staff, an automated prerecorded message that will be provided to hearing persons who dial the user’s former proxy or alias number. This collection will remain in effect only until November 12, 2009. Although the burden for each VRS and IP Relay provider will vary based on the number of each provider’s registered users who formerly used a proxy or alias number, the Commission estimates on an industry-wide basis that the annual hour burden of providing this notification will be:
18,000 hours in 2009,
0 hours in 2010, and
0 hours in 2011.

The average burden will therefore be 6,000 hours²⁵ per year. The “in-house” cost burden to the respondents, amortized over three years, is thus estimated to be:
$174,540 in 2009,
$174,540 in 2010, and
$174,540 in 2011.

The average “in-house” cost burden will therefore be $174,540 per year.

(I) Ascertaining Registration Status of VRS or IP Relay User. When a dial-around call is placed with a VRS or IP Relay provider, the provider must verify that the caller is registered with another provider to ensure that, after November 12, 2009, all eligible consumers using VRS or IP Relay are registered with a default provider. The provider may do so by requesting the caller’s ten-digit NANP number and querying the Numbering Directory using that number. Although the burden for each VRS and IP Relay provider and user will vary based on the number of dial-around calls handled by each provider and placed by each user, the Commission estimates on an industry-wide basis that the annual hour burden of ascertaining dial-around callers’ registration status will be:
47,700 hours in 2009,
53,100 hours in 2010, and
55,800 hours in 2011.

The average burden will therefore be 52,200 hours per year. The “in-house” cost burden to the respondents is thus estimated to be:
$1,109,025 in 2009,
$1,234,575 in 2010, and
$1,297,350 in 2011.

The average “in-house” cost burden will therefore be $1,213,650 per year.

(J) Verifying the Accuracy of Registration Information. Every VRS and IP Relay provider must institute procedures to verify the accuracy of registration information, including the consumer’s name and mailing address, and include a self certification component requiring consumers to verify that they have a medically recognized hearing or speech disability necessitating their use of TRS. Although the burden for each VRS and IP Relay provider and user will vary depending on the specific verification procedure utilized by each provider, the Commission estimates on an industry-wide basis that the annual hour burden of verifying the accuracy of users’ registration information will be:
61,122 hours in 2009,
16,633 hours in 2010, and
14,830 hours in 2011.

The average burden will therefore be 30,862 hours per year. The “in-house” cost burden to the respondents is thus estimated to be:
$1,527,959 in 2009,
$415,823 in 2010, and
$370,727 in 2011.

The average “in-house” cost burden will therefore be $771,503 per year.

(K) Commission Approval for the Pass Through of Numbering Costs. Each VRS or IP Relay provider wishing to pass through numbering-related costs to its users must obtain Commission approval to do so. VRS or IP Relay providers wishing to pass through numbering-related costs to consumers may submit such a request to the Commission for review by the Commission’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (“CGB”). The Commission anticipates that providers electing to pass through numbering costs to their registered customers will submit for CGB review a quarterly filing containing proposed pass-through costs for the preceding quarter. Although the actual “in-house” burden hours will vary depending on, among other things, whether a provider elects to pass through numbering costs at all, and on the number of registered customers a provider has, the Commission estimates on an industry-wide basis that the annual hour burden and cost of preparing a filing of the proposed pass-through of numbering costs will be:
768 hours in 2009,
768 hours in 2010, and
768 hours in 2011.

The average burden will therefore be 768 hours per year. The “in-house” cost burden to the respondents is thus estimated to be:
$47,132 in 2009,
$47,132 in 2010, and
$47,132 in 2011.

The average “in-house” cost burden will therefore be $47,132 per year.

(L) Information Sharing After a Change in Default Providers. Each VRS provider that provisions equipment to a consumer must make available to other VRS providers enough information about that equipment to enable another VRS provider selected as the consumer’s default provider to perform all of the functions of a default provider. This requirement encompasses two separate cost burdens: (1) development work by providers’ “in-house” software developers, in conjunction with “in-house” software developers of other default providers, to devise a technical solution that will ensure the proper functioning of equipment after a user changes default providers but retains the same equipment; and (2) the exchange of technical information between providers’ service representatives to apply this solution when a user seeks to change default providers and retains equipment issued by a former default provider.
4,960 hours in 2009,
1,802 hours in 2010, and
2,006 hours in 2011.

The average burden will therefore be 2,923 hours per year. The “in-house” cost burden to the respondents is thus estimated to be:
$113,206 in 2009,
$126,064 in 2010, and
$131,999 in 2011.

The average “in-house” cost burden will therefore be $123,756 per year.

First Numbering Order Totals (Revised).

Overall, the Commission expects that, as a result of the First Numbering Order, there will be about:
1,850,000 routing information collections,
1,850,000 provisions of routing information to the TRS Numbering Directory,
810,000 Registered Location collections,
810,000 provisions to the ALI databases,
462,000 advisories, and
462,000 affirmative acknowledgements.
+ 432 Interstate TRS Fund submissions
6,244,432 responses over the next three years.

This amounts to an average of 2,081,477 responses per year.

Total Number Of Respondents. In sum, the Commission expects there to be 12 primary respondents — the VRS and IP Relay providers.

Total Number Of Annual Responses. The Commission expects there to be a total of 6,244,432 responses over the next three years or an average of 2,081,477 responses per year.

Total Number Of Annual Burden Hours. The Commission expects the burden hours to be:
196,287 hours in 2009,
66,189 hours in 2010, and
61,470 hours in 2011.

The Commission estimates the revised First Numbering Order cumulative average burden hours to be:
107,982 hours per year

Total Annual “In-House” Cost Burden. The Commission estimates the total “in-house” cost burden to be:

$4,385,129 in 2009,
$1,917,068 in 2010, and
$1,823,382 in 2011.

The Commission estimates the revised First Numbering Order cumulative average “in-house” cost to be:
$2,708,526 per year

Second Numbering Order Totals (New).

Overall, the Commission expects that, as a result of the Second Numbering Order, there will be about:
462,000 revised advisories
180,000 “new number” notifications,
9,787,500 Numbering Directory queries to determine registration status,
462,000 registration verifications,
144 petitions seeking pass-through of numbering costs
+ 152,000 information exchanges after default provider switch
11,043,644 responses over the next three years.

This amounts to an average of 3,681,215 responses per year.

Total Number of Respondents. In sum, the Commission expects there to be 12 primary respondents — the VRS and IP Relay providers.

Total Number of Annual Responses. The Commission expects there to be a total of 11,043,644 responses over the next three years or an average of 3,681,215 responses per year.

Total Number of Annual Burden Hours. The Commission expects the burden hours to be:
146,280 hours in 2009,
73,803 hours in 2010, and
74,154 hours in 2011.

The Commission estimates the Second Numbering Order cumulative burden hours to be:
98,079 hours per year

Total Annual “In-House” Cost Burden. The Commission estimates the total “in-house” cost burden to be:
$3,212,364 in 2009,
$2,034,069 in 2010, and
$2,044,624 in 2011.

The Commission estimates the Second Numbering Order cumulative average “in-house” cost to be:
$2,430,352 per year

Cumulative Totals of First and Second Numbering Orders.

Overall, the Commission expects that, as a result of the First and Second Numbering Orders, there will be about:
16,826,076 cumulative total responses over the next three years.²⁶

This amounts to an average of 5,608,692 responses per year.

Total Number of Annual Responses. The Commission expects there to be a cumulative total of 16,826,076 responses over the next three years or an average of 5,608,692 responses per year.

Total Number of Annual Burden Hours. The Commission expects the cumulative burden hours of the First and Second Numbering Orders to be:
342,567 hours in 2009,
139,992 hours in 2010, and
135,624 hours in 2011.

The Commission estimates annual cumulative burden hours associated with the First and Second Numbering Orders to be:
206,061 hours per year

Total Annual “In-House” Cost Burden. The Commission estimates the total “in-house” cost burden to be:
$7,597,493 in 2009,
$3,951,137 in 2010, and
$3,868,007 in 2011.

The Commission estimates the cumulative annual “in-house” cost associated with the First and Second Numbering Orders to be:
$5,138,879 per year²⁷

13. The Commission expects that many of the initial costs of VRS and IP Relay providers — including the development of software systems needed to obtain, retain, and provision routing information; to obtain, retain, and provision Registered Location and other callback information; to notify users of the advisory; and to receive affirmative acknowledgements — will be covered by “in-house” work (burden hours), and those expenditures are included and amortized into the “in-house” cost burden as discussed above under question 12 since new staff will be hired to fulfill those requirements.

First Numbering Order. One capital expenditure resulting from the First Numbering Order that is not covered in question 12 is the annual equipment cost of gateway routers used to translate VRS and IP Relay calls into traditional analog formats for provisioning the ALI databases, which the Commission estimates will cost the industry $2,100,000 per year.

The Commission also estimates that VRS and IP Relay providers will need to spend $31,200 per year for additional server space, memory, communications, and backup/recovery service associated with routing systems; $31,200 per year for additional server space, memory, communications, and backup/recovery service associated with registration systems; and $1,940,000 per year for dedicated lines between gateway routers and specialized routers associated with provisioning information to the ALI databases. The Commission also expects VRS and IP Relay providers to pay an average of $145,000 per year for access to the Wireline E911 Network for provisioning information to the ALI databases, and $847 per year to store any affirmative acknowledgments sent to providers in paper form.

Second Numbering Order. In the Second Numbering Order, the Commission requires VRS and IP relay providers to obtain certifications of eligibility from users and to verify the accuracy of user registration information. To the extent that the certifications or verifications are completed in paper form, the Commission estimates that providers will pay $3,388 per year to store these files.

Thus, the Commission estimates that, for the First and Second Numbering Orders, the cumulative total average, annualized costs for operations, maintenance, and purchase of services are $2,151,635.

TOTAL ANNUAL COST BURDEN. In sum, the Commission expects the total cost of complying with these requirements for the 12 VRS and IP Relay providers to be:
$2,100,000 per year in capital expenditures
+ $2,151,635 per year in annualized costs for operations, maintenance, etc.
$4,251,635 per year²⁸

Attached as Appendix C is a set of charts detailing how the various burden estimates reported here were calculated and attached as Appendix D are notes on the assumptions underlying those burden estimates.

14. The Commission estimates that the annualized cost to the Federal government for the review and evaluation of VRS and IP Relay provider filings containing the proposed pass through of certain numbering costs to consumers is approximately $76,590.²⁹ . The Commission assumes that review and evaluation by a Federal employee will take approximately 20 hours per filing and that an attorney will review them at $61.37 per hour.³⁰ Thus, the wage cost to the Federal government for review and evaluation of provider filings would be $58,915.20.³¹

None of the remaining information collection requirements in the First and Second Numbering Orders involve information that will be directly reported to or reviewed by the Commission. To the extent that VRS and IP Relay providers can seek compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund for the reasonable, actual costs of complying with the First and Second Numbering Orders, that funding will come not from the federal budget, but instead from contributions from carriers providing interstate telecommunications services.³² Consequently, the annual cost to the federal government of the remaining information collections should be negligible.

15. The Commission had program changes to the total annual burden hours of +101,010 hours and total annual cost burden of +$24,689 due to the Commission’s adoption of information collection requirements contained in the Second Numbering Order (FCC 08-275).

The Commission also had adjustments to the total annual burden hours of +6,435 and +$2,600 to the annual cost burden due to the reevaluation of the burden hours and cost burden associated with the User Notification requirement, (E).

16. The information collected will not be published for statistical use.

17. The information collection does not include any Commission forms; consequently, the Commission has no reason to seek approval to avoid displaying the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection.

18. There are no exceptions to the Certification Statement.

B. Collections of Information Employing Statistical Methods

The information collections do not employ any statistical methods.

1 See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Access to Emergency Services, CG Docket No. 03-123, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 19476 (Nov. 30, 2005); Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) and Video Relay Service, CG Docket No. 03-123, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 5478 (May 8, 2006); 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, 21 FCC Rcd 5442 (May 9, 2006); Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-196, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 11591 (June 24, 2008) (First Numbering Order).

2 73 FR 70905-01 (published Nov. 24, 2008) (announcing effective date of 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.605(a) and (b), and 64.611(a), (b), (c) and (f)).

3 Automatic Location Information (ALI) databases contain location information that is associated with calling numbers that are used to route emergency calls appropriately.

4 As discussed further below, the Commission revised the “User Notification” information collection requirement in the Second Numbering Order which adds additional requirements to the user notification requirement that require OMB review and approval.

5 Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 401, 104 Stat. 327, 336–69 (1990); 47 U.S.C. § 225.

6 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).

7 See 47 U.S.C. § 151.

8 911 Act § 2(b).

9 See 911 Act § 3, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 251(e).

10 Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-196, Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 24 FCC Rcd 791 (Dec. 19, 2008) (Second Numbering Order).

11 We note that on June 15, 2009, the Commission’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau extended the date after which Internet-based TRS providers may no longer complete the calls of their unregistered users from June 30, 2009, to November 12, 2009. See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196, Order, DA 09-1323 (June 15, 2009).

12 As noted above, although this notification requirement was adopted in the First Numbering Order, it was revised to include certain additional information in the Second Numbering Order.

13 These means of disseminating consumer advisory information were not altered by the revisions made to the “User Notification” requirement in the Second Numbering Order.

14 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3); 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5).

15 See First Numbering Order, FCC 08-151, at 49–56, paras. 131–46. Section 222 of the Act prevents telecommunications carriers from disclosing customer proprietary network information (CPNI), including customer location information, without customer approval. 47 U.S.C. § 222(c)(1).

16 First Numbering Order, FCC 08-151, Appendix B (amending 47 C.F.R. § 64.611(e)(1)) (emphasis added).

17 Id. (amending 47 C.F.R. § 64.611(c)(2)(i)).

18 See id. (amending 47 C.F.R. § 64.611(c)(2)(ii)).

19 See id. (amending 47 C.F.R. § 64.613(a)(3)).

20 See id. (amending 47 C.F.R. § 64.605(a)(2)(vi)).

21 The October 2008 Supporting Statement prepared in connection with the First Numbering Order listed a total of eleven VRS and IP Relay providers. A subsequent merger of two of those providers reduced this number to ten providers. The Commission has, however, recently certified two additional providers to start service in 2009, increasing the total number of VRS and IP Relay providers to twelve.

22 73 FR 70905-01 (published Nov. 24, 2008) (announcing effective date of 47 C.F.R. 64.605(a) and (b), and 47 C.F.R. 64.611(a), (b), (c) and (f)).

23 The Commission both clarified and expanded upon the information that must be included in these consumer advisories in the Second Numbering Order. Therefore, the expected increase in providers’ annual “in-house” burden hours and costs is reflected below in the summary of information collections adopted in the Second Numbering Order.

24 In particular, the consumer advisories must explain to consumers that: (1) the consumer may obtain a telephone number from, and register with, his or her provider of choice; (2) the consumer may change default providers while retaining the same telephone number by porting that number to the new default provider; (3) the consumer may make calls through, and receive calls from, any provider; and (4) the provider cannot condition the ongoing use or possession of equipment, or the receipt of different or upgraded equipment, on the consumer continuing to use the provider as his or her default provider.

25Although the burden of 18,000 will occur only in the year of 2009, the Commission still did an average of the burden and arrived at 6,000 per year to keep the number consistent and calculated on an average basis.

26 Note that because the responses from information collection (E) in the First Numbering Order and the responses from the revised information collection (E) from the Second Numbering Order are the very same set of responses, we subtract the number of revised advisories (total of 462,000) from the cumulative total to avoid double counting.

27 Because the Commission has authorized the TRS Interstate Fund to reimburse VRS and IP Relay providers for the actual reasonable costs of complying with most of the new requirements adopted in the First and Second Numbering Orders, we expect most of the burden of these information collections will fall not on providers but on the Fund.

28 Because the Commission has authorized the Interstate TRS Fund to reimburse VRS and IP Relay providers for the actual reasonable costs of complying with most of the new requirements adopted in the First and Second Numbering Orders, we expect much of the burden of these information collections will fall not on providers but on the Fund.

29 “In-house” costs to VRS and IP Relay providers associated with the filing by providers with the Commission of the proposed pass through of certain numbering costs are included in question 12(K) above.

30 The Commission calculates the hourly rate by taking the hourly salary for a GS-13, step 5 employee in the Washington, D.C. pay area at the given grade and step and increasing that number by 30% to reflect overhead and other costs.

31 This calculation was calculated as follows: 12 providers x 4 filings/year (1 filing being filed every 3 months (quarterly) for a total of 4 filings/year) x 20 hours/filing x $61.37/hour = $58,915.20.

32 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii).

25