Denial of Healinc Application for iTRS Certification
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-260In the Matter of
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service )
CG Docket No. 10-51
Internet-based TRS Certification Application
of Healinc Telecom, LLC
Adopted: February 21, 2013
Released: February 21, 2013By the Acting Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau:
The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB, or Bureau) of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) denies the application of Healinc Telecom, LLC
(Healinc) to obtain recertification as a video relay service (VRS) provider and to obtain initial
certification as an Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service provider eligible to receive compensation from the
Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund (Fund).1 As described below, CGB has
identified numerous instances of Healinc’s noncompliance with the Commission’s TRS rules and orders,
as well as apparent deficiencies in Healinc’s ability to maintain compliance with TRS rules and orders.
Therefore, we find that Healinc has failed to satisfy the conditions set forth in our grant of conditional
certification permitting Healinc to receive Fund compensation for the provision of VRS.2 In addition, we
find that Healinc has failed to demonstrate that its provision of VRS and IP Relay will meet or exceed the
mandatory minimum standards applicable to those services.3 For these reasons, we conclude that Healinc
is not qualified to receive compensation from the Fund for the provision of VRS and IP Relay, and we
hereby deny Healinc’s application for recertification.
On January 4, 2012, CGB granted Healinc conditional certification as a VRS provider
eligible to be compensated by the Fund. Such conditional certification was granted:
1 See Healinc, Internet-based TRS Certification Application (filed Dec. 1, 2011) (Healinc Application). On October
1, 2012, Healinc notified the Commission that it had transferred its VRS customer and network operations to Purple
Communications, Inc. (“Purple”), effective September 30, 2012. See Letter from Lamar G. Stewart, Chief
Operations Officer/Senior Vice President, Healinc Telecom, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC Secretary (October 1,
2012). We are nonetheless issuing this order because Healinc’s application for certification as a provider of
Internet-based TRS (including IP Relay) remains pending at the Commission.
2 See Notice of Conditional Grant of Application of Healinc Telecom, LLC for Recertification as a Provider of Video
Relay Service Eligible for Compensation from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund, CG
Docket No. 10-51, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 116, 118 (CGB 2012) (Healinc Conditional Certification PN).
3 Our rules provide that certification of Internet-based TRS providers will be granted if the provider has established
that it will meet or exceed all non-waived minimum standards for TRS. 47 C.F.R. § 64.606(b)(2).
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-260pending inspection of Healinc’s facilities and confirmation of Healinc’s
compliance with all applicable rules and orders, as well as our determination that
Healinc is qualified to receive compensation from the Fund and that grant of full
certification would be consistent with the objective of preventing waste, fraud,
and abuse to the [TRS] Fund, as embodied in our VRS rules and orders.4
This grant of conditional certification, we stated, is “without prejudice to the Commission’s final
determination of Healinc’s qualifications, and is dependent on the Commission verifying the information
provided in the Healinc Recertification Application, as supplemented, and on the veracity of the
applicant’s representations that it will provide service in compliance with all pertinent Commission
requirements.”5 We further reserved the right to conduct one or more on-site inspections of Healinc’s
facilities6 and to request additional documentation relating to Healinc’s provision of VRS. We stated:
Ultimate conversion to full certification will be granted if, based on on-site visits
and our review of such additional documentation, the Commission finds that
Healinc is in compliance with the Commission’s rules and orders, including those
rules designed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of Fund payments, and is
qualified to receive compensation from the Fund for the provision of VRS. If at
any time during the period in which Healinc is operating pursuant to this
conditional certification, the Commission determines that Healinc has failed to
provide sufficient supporting documentation for any of the assertions in
Healinc’s application, or that any of those assertions cannot be supported, or
finds evidence of any apparent rule violation, fraud, waste, or abuse, the
Commission will take appropriate action, including the possible denial of the
Healinc Recertification Application. In the event of such denial, Healinc’s
conditional certification will automatically terminate 35 days after such denial.7
Since granting Healinc conditional certification, we have conducted further investigations of
Healinc’s eligibility for full certification. In addition to reviewing call detail records (CDRs) and other
information Healinc submitted to the Fund administrator and the Commission, Bureau staff conducted on-
site inspections of Healinc’s call centers, test calls to 911 through Healinc’s service, and test calls to
confirm whether Healinc processes calls routed through non-Healinc URLs.
4 Healinc Conditional Certification PN, 27 FCC Rcd at 117.
5 Id. at 118, citing Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, Second
Report and Order and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 10898, 1014, ¶ 36 (2011) (iTRS Certification Order).
6 In the iTRS Certification Order, the Commission noted that such visits would “better enable the Commission to
verify the information provided in a certification application, and help us to better assess an applicant’s ability to
provide service in compliance with our rules.” iTRS Certification Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 10914, ¶ 36.
7 Healinc Conditional Certification PN, 27 FCC Rcd at 118 (footnotes omitted).
Federal Communications Commission
Our rules provide that an Internet-based TRS provider will be granted certification if the
provider has established that it will meet or exceed all non-waived minimum standards for TRS.8 CGB’s
investigations of Healinc’s VRS identified numerous instances in which Healinc did not provide VRS in
compliance with the Commission’s rules and orders. Among other violations, Healinc failed to process
VRS 911 calls in accordance with the Commission’s rules; submitted for compensation calls routed
through URLs used by ineligible providers, contrary to the Commission’s prohibitions against use of such
URLs; repeatedly submitted false, inaccurate, or incomplete reports and information to the Fund
administrator and the Commission; and failed to submit reports required by the Commission’s rules. Our
findings are discussed below.
Failure to Comply with TRS 911 Calling Requirements5.
Section 64.604 of the Commission’s rules requires TRS providers to “be capable of
handling any type of call normally provided by telecommunications carriers,”9 and Section 64.605 sets
forth specific requirements for the processing of 911 calls placed by registered10 and nonregistered11
When a VRS provider handles a 911 call placed by one of the providers’ registered VRS
users, Section 64.605(b) generally requires that the provider must transmit the call, via the dedicated
wireline E911 network, to the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) serving the caller’s Registered
Location and ensure that the caller’s Registered Location and other relevant information is available to
the PSAP from the appropriate automatic location information (ALI) database.12
When a provider handles a 911 call from a VRS user who is not registered with the provider,
Section 64.605(a) of the rules requires, among other things, that the provider: (1) access a commercially
available database that will allow the provider to determine an appropriate PSAP, statewide default
answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority and to relay the call to that entity;13 (2) request,
at the beginning of the call, the caller’s name and location information;14 and (3) deliver to the PSAP or
other appropriate entity such name and location information, as well as the provider’s name, the
8 47 C.F.R. § 64.606(b)(2).
9 Id. § 64.604(a)(3)(ii).
10 Id. § 64.605(b).
11 Id. §§ 64.605(a)(1), (2)(i), (iv). Section 64.605(a) also contains emergency calling requirements that are generally
applicable to all Internet-based TRS providers. Id. §§ 64.605(a)(2)(ii), (iii), (v), (vi).
12 Id. § 64.605(b)(2).
13 Id. § 64.605(a)(2)(i).
14 Id. § 64.605(a)(2)(iii). This requirement does not apply if the provider already has, or has access to, the
Registered Location for the caller.
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-260communications assistant’s (CA) callback number, and the CA’s identification number, at the outset of
the outbound leg of an emergency call.15
Although Healinc’s application for certification stated that it handles 911 calls in accordance
with these rules,16 two test calls conducted and recorded at FCC headquarters, on March 26, 2012, by a
caller with 911 expertise (Test Caller), under CGB supervision, revealed noncompliance by Healinc with
the requirements applicable to 911 calls from nonregistered users.17 Specifically, the CA failed to obtain
relevant information from the Test Caller, as required by Section 64.605(a)(2)(iii), failed to relay the call
to an appropriate PSAP, statewide default answering point, or local emergency authority as required by
Section 64.605(a)(2)(i), and failed to convey required information to the appropriate PSAP, statewide
default answering point, or local emergency authority as required by Section 64.605(a)(2)(iv).18
As a result of Healinc’s noncompliance, it took more than six minutes, on the first test call,
and more than three minutes, on the second test call, for the Test Caller to reach a 911 dispatcher.19 The
noncompliant acts and omissions of Healinc’s CAs during these 911 test calls also reflect Healinc’s
failure to train its CAs adequately in accordance with Section 64.604(a)(1) of the rules.20
Failure to Comply with the URL Rule10. Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(i) of the Commission’s rules provides that only service
providers who are eligible to receive Fund compensation for VRS may hold themselves out as VRS
providers.21 In addition, Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(ii) requires that VRS must be offered only under
the name of the eligible VRS provider and in a manner that clearly identifies that provider, and any sub-
brands used to identify a provider’s VRS must clearly identify the eligible provider.22 Further, a VRS
15 Id. § 64.605(a)(2)(iv).
16 See Healinc Application at 23-28.
17 Test calls to 911 from FCC headquarters, placed through Healinc call centers, March 26, 2012 (911 Test Calls).
The Test Caller was not able to successfully register with Healinc prior to making the test calls; therefore, the Test
Caller placed the test calls with Healinc using a ten-digit number and video communications software obtained from
another provider. Because the Test Caller was not registered with Healinc, Healinc’s contention that the 911
requirements applicable to calls from registered users do not apply to these test calls is moot. See Letter from Lamar
A. Stewart, Chief Operating Officer, Healinc, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 1 (March 29, 2012).
18 911 Test Calls.
19 By contrast, when no relay service is involved, the connection to a PSAP is typically instantaneous, and the
expectation is that a 911 call will be answered by a 911 dispatcher within 10 seconds. See National Emergency
Number Association, NENA Call Answering Standard/Model Recommendation, § 3.1 (2006) (providing that “90%
of all 9-1-1 calls arriving at the PSAP during the busy hour shall be answered within 10 seconds”).
20 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(1). Section 64.604(a)(1) requires TRS providers to ensure that their CAs are “sufficiently
trained to effectively meet the specialized needs of individuals with hearing and speech disabilities.” Id. During the
May 7, 2012, site visit to a Healinc call center, the CA on duty reported he had never been trained or even received a
manual on handling 911 calls. Inspection of Call Center 5007, May 7, 2012 (Call Center Inspection).
21 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(i).
22 Id. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(ii).
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-260provider must route all VRS calls through a single URL address used for each name or sub-brand used.23
These provisions, known as the “branding and URL” rules, became effective June 1, 2011.24 As an
additional measure to ensure that providers comply with the branding and URL rules, Section
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(2) requires that the CDRs submitted by VRS providers in support of their claims for
Fund compensation specify, for each call, the URL address through which the call is initiated.25
11. Prior to the grant of conditional certification to Healinc, the Fund administrator withheld
payment for numerous calls processed by Healinc in July, August, and September 2011 because Healinc
failed to comply with the branding and URL rules.26 Subsequently, Healinc asserted that it had made
various changes to ensure future compliance with the branding and URL rules, including ensuring that all
23 Id. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(ii).
24 See Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, 76 Fed. Reg. 24393 (May 2, 2011). The
Commission adopted the branding and URL rules in part because it found that the complex branding and
commercial relationships that had previously existed between eligible and ineligible VRS providers hindered
consumers from making informed choices among VRS providers. Anti-Fraud Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5574, ¶ 57.
The Commission also found that the use of multiple URLs facilitated fraud by enabling providers to track calls made
by users assigned to specific URLs. Anti-Fraud Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5574, ¶ 57.
25 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(2)(x) (2012) (requiring providers to identify, in their CDRs, “the URL
address through which [each] call is initiated”). The initial version of the CDR rule itself, as published in the
Federal Register, used the word “handled” in place of “initiated.” See Structure and Practices of the Video Relay
Service Program, 76 Fed. Reg. 24393, 24400 (May 2, 2011). The order adopting the rule, however, used the term
“initiated” in its discussion and description of the rule. See Anti-Fraud Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5580, ¶ 73.
Similarly, the Federal Register publication on September 26, 2011, announcing OMB’s approval of the rule’s
information collection requirement and the rule’s effective date, used “initiated.” On October 4, 2012, a correction
of the codified rule was published in the Federal Register. See Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service
Program, 77 Fed. Reg. 60630, 60630-31 (October 4, 2012). On April 9, 2012, RLSA amended its instructions to
require providers to include in their CDRs the URL address through which each call is initiated. As noted above,
Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(ii) requires that each call processed under a particular name or sub-brand must be
routed through a “single” URL. The use of the term “initiated” in the Anti-Fraud Order and in the text of
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(2)(x), as corrected, makes clear the Commission’s intent to require providers to report the first
URL through which the call was routed. Given the role of the CDR reporting requirement as a tool for ensuring
compliance with the branding and URL rules, this likewise informs our interpretation of the requirements in section
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(ii) of the rules that each call processed under a particular name or sub-brand must be routed
through a “single” URL. As explained in Section II.C.1, in its CDRs for June and July 2012, Healinc failed to
accurately report the URLs through which its VRS calls were initiated.
26 Specifically, Healinc failed to ensure that the subcontractors processing VRS calls for Healinc clearly identified
Healinc as the eligible provider and used only Healinc URLs to route calls. See Structure and Practices of the Video
Relay Service Program; Healinc Telecom, LLC, Request for Reimbursement of July 2011 and August 2011 Video
Relay Service Minutes, CG Docket No. 10-51, Letter Order, 27 FCC Rcd 9314 (CGB 2012) (First Healinc
Withholding Order); Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Healinc Telecom, LLC, Request
for Reimbursement of September 2011 Video Relay Service Minutes, CG Docket No. 10-51, Letter Order, DA 13-
1259 (rel. Feb. 21, 2013) (Second Healinc Withholding Order). See also CODAVRS Corporation, EB-11-TC-097,
Citation, 26 FCC Rcd 13406 (EB 2011) (CODAVRS Citation); IWRelay, Inc., EB-11-TC-102, Citation, 26 FCC Rcd
13422 (EB 2011) (IWRelay Citation); Malka Communications Group, Inc., EB-11-TC-079, Citation, 26 FCC Rcd
13427 (EB 2011) (Malka Citation); PowerVRS, Inc., EB-11-TC-084, Citation, 26 FCC Rcd 13443 (EB 2011)
(PowerVRS Citation); Say-Hey, Inc., EB-11-TC-086, Citation, 26 FCC Rcd 13451 (EB 2011) (Say-Hey Citation).
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-260calls were routed through a single URL, <healinctelecom.tv>.27 Notwithstanding these written and oral
representations to the Commission, test calls conducted by Bureau staff on June 5, 2012 and July 17,
2012, that were routed through URLs not associated with known Healinc brands or sub-brands
demonstrated that Healinc had failed to end its practice of accepting, processing, and billing VRS calls
routed to its call centers through non-compliant URLs, in violation of Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(ii).28
Failure to Submit Truthful, Accurate, and Complete Reports and Information12. The Commission’s TRS rules require VRS providers to submit to the Fund administrator
and/or the Commission a variety of reports and information deemed necessary to ensure that providers are
operating in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements and are entitled to the monthly
payments they request from the TRS Fund.29 Healinc repeatedly failed to submit truthful, accurate, and
complete information in accordance with these provisions. Healinc’s failure to be truthful and accurate in
reporting required information not only provides further confirmation that Healinc is not able to meet the
minimum standards of Section 64.604,30 but also constitutes an independent violation of the
Commission’s rules and an independent reason compelling denial of Healinc’s application for
CDRs13. Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D) of the Commission’s rules requires VRS providers, as well as
other TRS providers, to provide the Fund administrator with accurate and complete data supporting their
requests for payment,32 including CDRs containing specified data for each VRS call for which
compensation is sought.33 VRS providers must employ an automated record keeping system to capture
the required call data34 and must submit such data electronically in a standardized format.35 In submitting
27 See, e.g., Healinc, Petition for Waiver, CG Docket No. 10-51, at 3 (filed Sept. 28, 2011). After receiving such
assurances that Healinc had brought itself into compliance with the URL rule, the Commission granted Healinc
28 Test Calls placed by CGB staff to the URLs <iwrelay.tv> and <malkavrs.tv> on June 5, 2012, and again on July
17, 2012 (URL Test Calls).
29 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D) (requiring VRS providers, as well as other TRS providers, to provide
the Fund administrator with accurate and complete CDRs and speed-of-answer data supporting their requests for
payment); 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(2) (requiring reports and change-of-status notifications regarding a VRS provider’s
call centers; and 64.606(a)(2)(ii)(A) (requiring applicants for certification as a VRS provider to submit information
regarding the applicant’s VRS call centers).
30 Id. § 64.606(b)(2)(ii).
31 See id. § 1.17 (requiring applicants for Commission authorization, as well as others, to provide truthful and
accurate information to the Commission).
32 Id. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(1).
33 Id. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(2).
34 Id. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(4)(i). An “automated record keeping system” is one that captures data in a computerized
and electronic format that does not allow human intervention during the call session for either conversation or
session time. Id. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(4)(ii).
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-260such call data, the chief executive officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), or other senior executive
of a TRS provider with first hand knowledge of the accuracy and completeness of the information
provided, must certify under penalty of perjury that the information is accurate and complete.36
14. On multiple occasions, Healinc failed to submit accurate, complete, and properly certified
CDRs to the Fund administrator as required by Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D). For example, we have
determined that Healinc falsified URLs in the CDRs it submitted for September 2011, in violation of
Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D).37 Moreover, test calls revealed that Healinc submitted incorrect URLs for
certain calls completed in June 2012 and July 2012.38 In addition, Healinc repeatedly failed to provide a
certification of the accuracy and completeness of its CDRs by a senior executive, as required by Section
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(5). Instead, the certifications submitted to the administrator were signed by a billing
15. Healinc’s repeated and extensive revisions of its initial call data submissions provide further
confirmation that its CDRs were not accurate and complete when originally submitted. Specifically,
according to the Fund Administrator, between September 26, 2011, and July 31, 2012, Healinc made the
following revised submissions of CDRs for the months indicated.
August 2011: revised October 4, 2011, October 11, 2011, and October 17, 2011
September 2011: revised November 21, 2011, and May 30, 2012
December 2011: revised February 23 and 24, 2012
January 2012: revised June 8, 2012
February 2012: revised June 4, 2012
March 2012: revised June 4, 2012 and July 11, 201240
16. The fact that Healinc had to revise and resubmit call data for almost every month between
August 2011 and March 2012 leads us also to question how Healinc could certify under penalty of perjury
that Healinc’s CDRs were accurate and complete when submitted, as required by Section
36 Id. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(5).
37 See Second Healinc Withholding Order. Although Healinc had acknowledged that the URLs were incorrect prior
to the grant of conditional certification, the Commission subsequently determined that the URLs were deliberately
falsified in order to mask the routing of calls through noncompliant URLs.
38 URL Test Calls.
39 See Healinc, Interstate TRS Fund Requests for Compensation for September 2011 (dated October 17, 2011),
October 2011 (dated November 14, 2011), November 2011 (dated November 14, 2011), December 2011 (dated
January 13, 2012), January 2012 (February 13, 2012), February 2012 (dated March 12, 2012), and March 2012
(dated April 13, 2012). Sections 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(2), (4) and (5), which require that Fund payment requests
include specified types of call data, that such call data be automatically recorded, and that the call data be submitted
under oath and certified by a senior executive, took effect on September 26, 2011. See Structure and Practices of
the Video Relay Service Program 76 Fed. Reg. 59269 (Sept. 26, 2011).
40 See Healinc submissions to RLSA dated October 4, 2011, October 11, 2011, October 17, 2011, November 21,
2011, February 23, 2012, February 24, 2012, May 30, 2012, June 4, 2012, June 8, 2012, and July 11, 2012.
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-26064.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(5).41 Further, the fact that, for several months, the data had to be corrected multiple
times indicates that even Healinc’s corrected CDRs were not always reliable.
Call Center Reports17. Section 64.606(a)(2)(ii)(A)(2) of the rules requires applicants for certification to submit
information to the Commission about their call centers.42 In addition, Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(2)
provides that VRS providers shall file a biannual written report with the Commission and the TRS Fund
administrator, identifying each call center operated by the VRS provider and providing specified
information about each center.43 Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(2) also requires that VRS providers notify
both the Commission and the TRS Fund administrator of the opening, closing, or relocation of any center
at least 30 days prior to any such change.44
18. We find that Healinc repeatedly violated these requirements as explained below.
Healinc’s initial biannual call center report was to be filed October 1, 2011. Healinc filed this
report with the Commission on March 20, 2012, more than 5½ months after the due date.45
Healinc failed to notify the Commission of the closing of numerous call centers that were listed
on Healinc’s October 2011 call center report but not in Healinc’s December 2011 certification
application or its April 2012 call center report.46
With respect to more than three-quarters of the call centers listed in its application, the period for
which Healinc’s call center reports indicate that each call center was open do not match up with
the period for which calls were actually handled by the call center according to Healinc’s call
center reports. Specifically for several centers, the reported opening date occurred four to six
months before the first date that Healinc’s CDRs indicate any calls were actually processed by
those centers. In addition, for numerous centers, the reported closing date occurred one to six
months after the last date that Healinc’s CDRs indicate any calls were processed by those centers,
41 Healinc’s repeated revisions of call data also raise doubts about whether Healinc’s call recording system
accurately captured required call data without human intervention, as required by Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(4)(ii).
If Healinc’s call recording system had automatically and accurately recorded the required data, one would expect
Healinc to have been able to submit accurate data to the Fund Administrator without the need for repeated revisions.
42 47 C.F.R. § 64.606(a)(2)(ii)(A)(2).
43 Id. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(2). Reports are due April 1st and October 1st of each year. Id. This rule became
effective September 26, 2011. See Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, 76 Fed. Reg. 59269
(Sept. 26, 2011).
44 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(2).
45 See Letter from Andrew O. Isar, Miller Isar, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC and confidential
attachment (March 20, 2012) (Healinc October 2011 Call Center Report).
46 See generally Healinc October 2011 Call Center Report; Healinc Application, Exhibit A; Letter from Lauren J.
Stewart, Chief Technology Officer, Healinc, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, and attachment (April 2, 2012)
(Healinc April 2012 Call Center Report); other FCC filings by Healinc.
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-260according to Healinc’s CDRs. It is not credible that Healinc allowed CAs to remain idle at a call
center for a month or more (and in some cases as long as six months) after opening a center or
before closing a center. Therefore, we conclude that Healinc apparently failed to provide timely
notification of the opening and/or closing of the affected centers and misrepresented the opening
and/or closing dates to the FCC.47
Failure to Certify That Healinc Continued to Meet Minimum Standards After
that providers who are certified to provide VRS have the capability to provide service in compliance with
the Commission’s minimum standards for VRS, including the standards for speed of answer,48 24/7
operation,49 and redundancy features.50 Accordingly, Section 64.606(a)(2) of the rules requires, among
other things, that an applicant for VRS certification provide a detailed description of how it will meet the
applicable mandatory minimum standards, including the number and location of its call centers and the
number of full-time and part-time CAs staffing such call centers.51 In addition, Section 64.606(f) requires
that when a VRS provider makes any substantial change in its service, such as the discontinuation of
service from any facility, the provider must certify within 60 days after such change that the provider is
able to continue to meet the Commission’s minimum standards for TRS.52
20. Notwithstanding its representations to the Commission, Healinc ceased providing service
from some of the call centers listed in its certification application even before Healinc filed its
certification application, and it discontinued service from additional call centers after receiving a
conditional grant of its application.53 Yet, despite discontinuing service from more than two-thirds of its
call centers prior to April 1, 2012 (centers that employed about 75% of the CAs specified in its
application), Healinc failed to file a single one of the certifications mandated by Section 64.606(f), as
47 See generally Healinc October 2011 Call Center Report; Healinc Application, Exhibit A; Healinc April 2012 Call
Center Report; other FCC filings by Healinc; CDR submissions to RLSA by Healinc.
48 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(b)(2).
49 Id. § 64.604(b)(4)(i).
50 Id. § 64.604(b)(4)(ii) (“TRS shall have redundancy features functionally equivalent to the equipment in normal
central offices, including uninterruptible power for emergency use”).
51 Id. § 64.606(a)(2)(ii).
52 Id. § 64.606(f).
53 Call center closings on such a scale, had they been fully disclosed in a timely manner, would have raised doubts as
to whether Healinc was able to continue meeting the Commission’s TRS standards. In fact, the site inspection of a
Healinc call center conducted by Commission staff on May 7, 2012, indicated that Healinc may not have had the
ability to meet minimum standards for 24/7 operation and redundancy. Call Center Inspection ; 47 C.F.R. §§
Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-260required, after a call center’s service is discontinued, in order to confirm the provider’s continuing ability
to meet the Commission’s mandatory minimum standards.54
CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES21. Based on the facts presented above, and an analysis of the totality of the circumstances
regarding Healinc’s lack of compliance with numerous Commission rules and requirements, we find that
Healinc has failed to satisfy the conditions set forth in our grant of conditional certification permitting
Healinc to receive Fund compensation for the provision of VRS.55 In addition, we find that Healinc has
failed to demonstrate that its provision of VRS and IP Relay will meet or exceed the mandatory minimum
standards applicable to those services.56 We thus conclude that Healinc is not qualified to be certified and
receive compensation from the Fund for the provision of VRS and IP Relay. Therefore, we deny
Healinc’s application for recertification as a VRS provider and for initial certification as an IP Relay
22. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4 and 225 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154 and 225, and Section 64.606 of
the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.606, and pursuant to authority delegated in Sections 0.141 and
0.361 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.141 and 0.361, the application filed by Healinc for
certification as a provider of Internet-based TRS is DENIED.
23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kris Anne Monteith
Acting Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
54 See generally FCC filings by Healinc.
55 See Healinc Conditional Certification PN, 27 FCC Rcd at 118.
56 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.606(b)(2).
Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.