Telecom Providers and Manufacturers: Accessibility-Related Recordkeeping and Certification Requirements Are Now in Effect

For some time already many, if not most, communications service providers and equipment makers have had to ensure accessibility to the disabled; now they’ve got to keep records of those efforts AND separately certify to the FCC that they’re in fact keeping those records.

If you happen to be subject to Section 255, 716 and/or 718 of the Communications Act, the FCC wants to make sure that you know you’ve got some recordkeeping to do – and some reporting, too. (Fuzzy on whether you’re in that club? If you are not a communications service provider or equipment manufacturer, you need read no further. If you do happen to fall into one or both of those categories, you should read on, although it may turn out that you, too, are off the hook.)

The new recordkeeping requirements – which took effect on January 30, 2013 – arise from Congress’s repeated efforts to ensure that telecommunications services and equipment are accessible to folks with disabilities. Thanks to those efforts, certain service providers and manufacturers must take affirmative steps to provide accessibility to the extent achievable. 

And now, in addition to actually taking those steps, the affected companies must also maintain records of the steps they’ve taken . . . and they’ve also got to confirm to the FCC, once a year, that they are indeed maintaining such records.

What kind of recordkeeping are we talking about?

According to the Commission, affected entities must maintain, in the ordinary course of business:

  • records of information about efforts to consult with individuals with disabilities;
  • descriptions of the accessibility features of their products and services; and
  • information about the compatibility of such products and services with peripheral devices or specialized customer premise equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access.

Section 14.31, which imposes this obligation, is light on specifics – no particular format for the records is mandated. However, the records must be kept “for a two year period from the date a product ceases to be manufactured or a service ceases to be offered”. (The Commission’s public notice about the recordkeeping rule says – unhelpfully, and perhaps a bit misleadingly – that the records must be maintained “for a reasonable period”.) 

Once the records have been prepared, there is no obligation that they be submitted to the FCC (unless a complaint is filed and the FCC then asks for them). But that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to file anything at all.

Au contraire. The Commission wants to be sure that everybody that’s supposed to be keeping records is in fact keeping records, even if the FCC isn’t particularly interested in seeing the records themselves. So, as of this year, every telecom service provider and manufacturer subject to the recordkeeping requirement must submit a certificate to the FCC, annually, confirming that the certifying entity “has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the recordkeeping rules and that it is keeping records accordingly”. That certificate must be supported by a statement – signed under oath or penalty of perjury – from an authorized company official verifying the truth and accuracy of the report.

In addition, the certificate must include the name and contact information of company personnel authorized to receive service, and/or resolve, complaints about possible violations of the accessibility rules.

When do these certificates have to be filed? By April 1 of each year (but note that the certificate must be updated as necessary to keep the contact information current).

What period of time is covered by each annual certificate? According to Section 14.31(b)(3), each certificate relates to “records pertaining to the previous calendar year”. That, of course, poses something of a problem with respect to the certificate due to be filed April 1, 2013, since the recordkeeping requirement did not take effect until January 30, 2013 and, thus, nobody was required to keep records during the previous calendar year. The Commission’s public notice addresses that conundrum by asserting that the certificate due by this coming April Fool’s Day “must certify that, as of January 30, 2013 (the effective date of the recordkeeping rules), records are being kept in accordance with the Commission’s rules.” That’s not really what the actual rule (that would be Section 14.31(b)(3)) seems to provide, but if you opt to comply with the public notice’s direction, the FCC probably won’t hold it against you.

How do you file these certificates and updates? Electronically, through the FCC’s web-based Recordkeeping Compliance Certification and Contact Information Registry. (You’ll need your FRN and password to access the upload site.)

And who, exactly, is required to file these annual certificates? This gets a little complicated. As we said up front, the accessibility requirements – i.e., the focus of the recordkeeping/certification obligations – are imposed by Sections 255, 716 and 718 of the Act. Each of those sections applies to particular categories of communications-related service providers and the manufacturers of equipment used for such services:

  • Section 255 applies to providers of telecommunications services, interconnected VoIP services, voicemail, or interactive menu services, as well as to manufacturers of equipment for telecommunications or interconnected VoIP services.
  • Section 716 applies to providers of “advanced communications services” (ACS) and manufacturers of equipment (including end-user, network and software) for such services.  For purposes of these new requirements, covered ACS include: non-interconnected VoIP services (e.g., “one-way VoIP”), electronic messaging services (e.g., text-messaging, instant messaging, e-mail) and interoperable video conferencing services (e.g., real-time video chat).
  • Section 718 applies to manufacturers of, and service providers offering, mobile phones that include an Internet browser.

The recordkeeping and certification requirements are identical for all categories, even though the specific substantive accessibility requirements are not. 

Let’s take a quick look at those categories. Sections 255 and 718 are reasonably straightforward – if you belong to one of these, you should know it. But Section 716 is trickier.

First, the definition of ACS technically includes “interconnected VoIP” services. But “interconnected VoIP” services – as currently defined by the FCC – are not subject to Section 716. That section specifically excludes any services that were already subject to Section 255 prior to the enactment of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) on October 8, 2010, and Section 255 was extended to interconnected VoIP services (as currently defined) in 2007. So there appears to be an inconsistency here. 

While the FCC could conceivably change the definition, or regulatory classification, of “interconnected VoIP” in the future, for the time being interconnected VoIP providers and equipment manufacturers should be pleased to know that they appear to be subject to the slightly less burdensome accessibility requirements of Section 255 as opposed to the heftier burdens of Section 716.

Second, entities subject to Section 716 can also include providers/developers of software (e.g., applications, cloud-based services, etc.) used to engage in ACS. As the FCC explained, “if software gives the consumer the ability to send and receive e-mail, send and receive text messages, make non-interconnected VoIP calls, or otherwise engage in advanced communications, then provision of that software is provision of ACS.” 

But hold on there. The FCC, somewhat confusingly, distinguishes between software which allows one to “engage” in ACS and software which merely “manages” ACS. Providing the latter type of software (for which the FCC offers Microsoft Outlook as an example) as a standalone product is apparently not the provision of ACS subject to Section 716. If you want to see the FCC’s full discussion of this, feel free to peruse the 302-page order. Otherwise, be aware that special accessibility considerations may need to be given for communications-related software.

On the positive side, Section 716 is subject to a number of exemptions or exclusions. As mentioned above, Section 716 excludes any service which was already covered by Section 255 prior to the CVAA. Additionally, Section 716 exempts customized equipment or services used on private networks, and the FCC has adopted a limited exemption for qualifying “small entities”. The qualification criteria for the “small entity” exemption are industry specific, and are based on standards established by the Small Business Administration. (Example: Most telecommunications service providers with 1,500 or fewer employees qualify as small entities, but an “Electronic Computer Manufacturing” company would qualify only if it has 1,000 or fewer employees.) 

Despite the obvious temptation, you might not want to get too heavily invested in the “small entity” exemption: it’s currently set to expire on October 8, 2013.

Finally, thanks to Section 716(h), the Commission may waive the Section 716 obligations where the equipment/service in question: “(A) is capable of accessing an advanced communications service; and (B) is designed for multiple purposes, but is designed primarily for purposes other than using advanced communications services.” Many devices are designed for multiple purposes these days, so just because a mobile phone also takes pictures does not mean the FCC will think it qualifies for a waiver under Section 716. Anybody thinking that they qualify for a waiver will have to submit a waiver request – and get that request granted – before they will be free of their statutory chores.

To read more about the new recordkeeping and certification filing requirements, check out the FCC’s recent Public Notice.

Update: New Comment Deadlines In VoIP/Accessibility Proceeding

On March 31 we reported on a couple of VoIP-related NPRMs, including one item looking toward making VoIP and similar services easily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.  Despite the fact that that NPRM proposes sweeping changes in the nature of VoIP obligations and even the scope of the FCC’s regulatory reach (which would be extended into considerable technical minutiae), the deadline for comments on the proposals was originally set for April 13. But now, at the request of a number of organizations, the Commission has extended the comment deadline to April 25, 2011, and the reply deadline to May 23, 2011. That’s still not a lot of time, but it does provide some breathing room.

Update: Comment Deadlines Set In VoIP/TRS Contributions Rulemaking

Last week we posted about an NPRM proposing to expand the requirement that VoIP providers contribute to the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund.  The requirement, already applicable to connected VoIP operators, would be broadened to include non-VoIP as well. See the original post for details.

The NPRM has now been published in the Federal Register, which sets the deadlines for comments on the proposals. Comments are due on May 4, 2011, and reply comments on May 19, 2011. And if you feel like commenting on the “information collection” aspects of the proposal (as you are entitled to do, thanks to the Paperwork Reduction Act), you’ve got until June 3, 2011, to do so.

For VoIP Providers: Warning - Steep (Regulatory) Incline Ahead

More burdens just up the road, thanks to two Congressionally-ordered NPRMs

The FCC’s release of two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) on March 3 will give VoIP providers a familiar sinking feeling – that is, the feeling of sinking ever deeper into the quicksand of FCC regulation.   At Congress’s direction, the FCC is looking both to expand TRS contribution obligations and to impose additional accessibility rules on all VoIP providers. As we describe below, the new accessibility standard for VoIP (as well as email and video conferencing) will be even higher than that already imposed on most telecommunications services.

The NPRMs (along with the video description NPRM about which we’ve already reported) are some of the first regulatory offspring of the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA). Because the CVAA is clear in its mandate, the Commission has little choice with respect to the major points on the table – but it does have discretion relative to a number of the ancillary and administrative aspects. (And, given the scope of CVAA’s ambition to modernize the nation’s accessibility laws, we expect more NPRMs to follow in the months to come.)

TRS contributions.  Section 103(b) of the CVAA requires that all VoIP providers contribute to the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund.  (The TRS Fund supports services that allow deaf people or people with speech disabilities to communicate by phone.)  Of course, interconnected VoIP providers are already contributing (as our readers should be aware).  One of the two NPRMs addresses the Section 103(b) mandate by proposing to expand that requirement to non-interconnected VoIP providers, that is, VoIP that doesn’t interconnect with the regular telephone network.  We’re looking at you, Skype et al.

While the CVAA requires all VoIP providers to contribute to TRS, it leaves the FCC some discretion as to details. Accordingly, the Commission asks for comment on specific issues such as:

  • Should the VoIP safe harbor apply to non-interconnected VoIP? (The “safe harbor” allows carriers to report a specified fixed percentage of revenue as interstate if they are unable or unwilling to measure interstate and intrastate traffic separately.)
  • What revenues should be included in calculating TRS contributions (just revenues from interstate end-user calls, or revenues from all sources?)
  • Should providers of free services, that have no end-user revenues, be required to make any contributions to the TRS fund?

Clearly the FCC is focused on how to treat free, non-interconnected Internet voice services (again, that’s Skype-to-Skype et al.). Some such services are supported by advertising, and the FCC suggests that it might require TRS contributions based on those revenues, in place of or in addition to subscriber revenues. The answers to these questions will significantly affect contribution amounts; affected companies will want to express their viewpoints when the docket is open for comments. 

Accessibility. As required by Section 104 of the CVAA, the FCC proposes to make VoIP, electronic messaging (emails, IMs, etc), and video conferencing “accessible to and usable by” persons with disabilities. Naturally, a new rule needs a new acronym – we must learn to call these types of services “advanced communications services” (ACS).

ACS will be subject to a higher standard of achievement than “telecommunications services” under the existing Section 255 of the Communications Act. Section 255 requires telecommunications manufacturers and providers (including interconnected VoIP but not including non-interconnected VoIP) to provide accessibility if readily achievable. For ACS manufacturers and providers, on the other hand, the presumption is reversed; they must make their services and products accessible to people with disabilities, unless it is not achievable to do so. (According to the CVAA, “achievable” means “with reasonable effort or expense, as determined by the Commission” taking into account a list of certain factors.)

Further, ACS providers may not install network features, functions, or capabilities that impede accessibility or usability. Finally, all equipment and networks used to provide ACS services must allow information content that has already been made accessible to pass through in accessible form. The NPRM seeks comment on definitions of relevant terms (e.g., what is “achievable”?) as well as input regarding matters such as:

  • the standards that would apply to requests for waivers for equipment designed for non-ACS purposes but having incidental ACS capability
  • whether any exemption(s) for small entities might be warranted
  • obligations for applications or services accessed over service provider networks rather than based on user hardware features
  • recordkeeping and enforcement 

Mobile web access. The ACS NPRM also gets a head start on assuring that Internet browsers built into mobile phones will be accessible to those with visual impairments. As with ACS services, mobile Internet browsers must be “accessible to and usable by individuals who are blind or have a visual impairment, unless doing so is not achievable.” The statutory requirements do not take effect for three years, but the FCC seeks input now on how best to get everyone up to speed before then.

Some ramp-up time may be needed, because ACS and browser accessibility raise practical difficulties. Accessibility functions will work only if they are supported by each component or layer of the device: i.e.,the hardware, the operating system, the user interface, the application, and the network. This practical reality has at least two major consequences: (1) a broad array of entities will be affected, some of whom may not have previously fallen under FCC jurisdiction and may not be habituated to regulatory compliance matters; and (2) various entities will have to cooperate with each other on technical standards, without much market motivation to do so.

So the FCC will have to get in the business of compelling information-sharing: mandating industry standards, setting up industry forums and working groups, and so on. Yes, even Apple may have to share information about iPhone design, which is certainly not their custom. This process inevitably raises hard questions. For example: Who will develop and enforce compatibility standards? What is the appropriate balance between the necessary sharing and protecting proprietary, confidential technical information? Will components have to be compatible only with existing fellow components, or also with potential future components? At what stage of development should accessibility be considered?

The FCC has tackled tough inter-industry compatibility issues before, with some success. Doing so in this case, however, will certainly require the agency to delve into technical minutiae generally outside its usual expertise (such as software). It will also require constant calibration to keep things running smoothly in the future.

The bottom line here is that Congress, through the CVAA, is determined to impose new and substantial burdens on VoIP providers in order to ensure technological access for people who are deaf, blind or subject to other disabilities or impairments. That means that the FCC has little discretion going forward with these two NPRMs, at least with respect to the Big Picture aspects. Congress did, however, give the Commission some leeway in working out the operational details, and it’s there that affected parties (including, particularly, VoIP providers) may have their best chance to ease the ultimate burden. Given that, VoIP providers should give serious thought to submitting helpful comments in these proceedings.