[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65526-65530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26553]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51; DA 12-1644]
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Structure and
Practices of the Video Relay Service Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on matters
related to access technology and enhanced database operations for video
relay service (VRS) raised in recent filings submitted by CSDVRS, LLC,
a VRS provider. In order for the Commission to be in a position to set
new rates as it moves forward with the next phase of VRS reform, it
also seeks comment on a proposal by the Fund administrator, Rolka Loube
Saltzer Associates (RLSA), to modify VRS compensation rates.
DATES: Comments are due on or before November 14, 2012. Reply comments
are due on or before November 29, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 03-123
and 10-51, by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions
provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in
completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket Nos. 03-123
and 10-51. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
[ssquf] In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading
with the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing,
Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via
email to [email protected].
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Hlibok, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 559-
5158 (voice/videophone), (202) 418-0431 (TTY), or email at
[email protected], or
[[Page 65527]]
Robert Aldrich, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-
0996 (voice), or email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Bureau's
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Structure and
Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Public Notice (VRS Reform
and Rates Notice), document DA 12-1644, released October 15, 2012, in
CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51, seeking comments on access
technologies and compensation rates for VRS. The full text of the VRS
Reform and Rates Notice and copies of any subsequently filed documents
in this matter will be available for public inspection and during
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals
II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They may
also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (202) 488-5300, fax: (202) 488-5300,
or Internet: www.bcpiweb.com. This document can also be downloaded in
Word or Portable Document Format (``PDF'') at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html. To request materials in accessible formats for people
with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
(TTY). Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200 et. seq., this matter shall be treated
as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Document DA 12-1644 does not contain proposed information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
Background
1. In June 2010, the Commission began a comprehensive review of the
rates, structure, and practices of the VRS program. Structure and
Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Notice of Inquiry, (2010
VRS NOI), CG Docket No. 10-51, published at 75 FR 41863, July 19, 2010.
The Commission's goal in beginning that review, and ever since then,
has been to reform the VRS program, which for many years had been beset
by waste, fraud, and abuse and by compensation rates that had become
inflated well above actual cost. Since that time, the Commission has
acted to improve the program so that it can continue to provide a
valuable service to deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers as efficiently
as possible.
2. The Commission's actions over the past two years have saved the
program approximately $300 million to date. Most significantly, in June
2010, at the same time the Commission issued the 2010 VRS NOI asking
questions about potential fundamental changes to the VRS program, the
Commission cut the compensation rate for the bulk of VRS traffic by
more than $1.00 per minute, the first substantial VRS rate reduction in
six years. Stressing its ``obligation to protect the integrity of the
Fund and to deter and detect waste,'' the Commission stated that it
would no longer tolerate ``the large discrepancy between actual costs
and provider compensation'' that had resulted from earlier VRS
ratesetting orders. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-
Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,
Order, (2010 TRS Rate Order), CG Docket No. 03-123, published at 75 FR
49491, August 13, 2010. See also Structure and Practices of the Video
Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-
Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2011 VRS Rate NPRM), CG Docket Nos. 03-
123 and 10-51, published at 76 FR 24442, May 2, 2011.
3. The Commission has taken significant further steps to protect
the VRS program's integrity and increase its efficiency since that
time. In April 2011, the Commission adopted additional wide-ranging
measures to improve oversight of and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse by
VRS providers. The Commission required providers to submit detailed
call records to justify their requests for compensation, instituted
annual as well as unscheduled provider audits, banned providers from
tying their employees' wages to the number of calls processed, and
prohibited revenue-sharing arrangements between certificated, Fund-
eligible service providers and unregulated companies. In July 2011, the
Commission tightened the eligibility and certification requirements for
VRS providers to ensure that only providers operating in compliance
with the Commission's rules would be permitted to provide this service
to the public. And in December 2011, the Commission proposed additional
substantial reforms to the VRS market structure and the practices of
providers. Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program;
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and
[[Page 65528]]
Speech Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (2011 VRS
Reform FNPRM), CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123, published at 77 FR
4948, February 1, 2012. These reforms were intended to ensure that the
program continues to support services that offer functional equivalence
to all eligible users and becomes as immune as possible from the waste,
fraud, and abuse that could threaten its viability.
4. Document DA 12-1644 is the next step in these ongoing reform
efforts. CGB, on delegated authority, seeks comment on matters raised
in recent filings submitted by CSDVRS, LLC, a VRS provider. Moreover,
in order for the Commission to be in a position to set new rates as it
moves forward with the next phase of VRS reform, the Bureau also seeks
comment in document DA 12-1644 on a proposal by the Fund administrator,
Rolka Loube Saltzer Associates (RLSA), to modify VRS compensation
rates.
Additional Comment on Structural Reform Options
5. As discussed in the 2010 VRS NOI, VRS communications require the
interaction of three separate yet interlinked components: VRS access
technologies, video communication service, and relay service provided
by American Sign Language (ASL)-fluent communications assistants (CAs).
The Bureau now seeks additional comment on specific proposals to
disaggregate these components. The Bureau emphasizes that neither the
Commission nor CGB has decided to adopt any of these proposals; CGB is
simply seeking input to help develop a more complete record to enable
the Commission to better evaluate the various issues in this
proceeding.
VRS Access Technology
6. As noted above, CSDVRS has submitted two structural reform
proposals to the Commission. The first of these proposes that the
Commission facilitate migration of all VRS access technologies to a
standard, software based VRS access technology (``application'') that
could be used on commonly available off-the-shelf hardware as a means
of furthering the Commission's interoperability and portability goals.
The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal, and seek particular comment
on the following related questions:
7. The Commission proposed to establish standards for iTRS Access
Technology, including VRS Access Technology, in the 2011 VRS Reform
FNPRM. Would the process for establishing and maintaining standards
discussed in the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM be appropriate for developing an
application or establishing standards for an application? Should the
application or key components thereof be open source?
8. Should the Commission mandate use of a single application or
allow development of multiple, interoperable applications? Who should
be responsible for application development? For example, should the
Commission develop, by contract, such an application? How should the
developer of the application be compensated?
9. Should providers be able to continue to offer their own
internally developed applications? If so, under what conditions? For
example, should there be an interoperability testing process? How would
such an interoperability testing process be structured?
10. Should the application be full executable, or a core executable
or set of libraries (``core'') that can be customized by interested
parties (e.g., using published APIs), or both? If core, what key
functions should this core contain, such as video encoding, video
decoding and session signaling? If core, should there be a
certification process before calls placed with the application are
compensable? How should that process be structured? Who should be
responsible for maintaining and updating applications?
11. What off-the-shelf hardware and operating system platforms
should be supported? Should users be responsible for procuring their
own off-the-shelf equipment, or should providers be involved in the
acquisition and distribution of end user equipment to VRS users?
12. How should consumers be involved in the development, selection,
certification and on-going enhancement of either the core or the
application?
13. How would users obtain support for issues relating to the
application or its use on their equipment (e.g., network firewall
issues, troubleshooting problems)?
14. What other approaches might be considered to select an
application or applications for use in the VRS system? For example,
should the Commission host a competition among existing VRS access
applications and/or commercial standards-based off-the-shelf video
conferencing applications? What would be the benefits and drawbacks of
these or other alternate approaches?
15. How would a transition to a VRS system that relies exclusively
on a common application be accomplished, and over what period of time?
16. What changes in the Commission's rules would be necessary to
adopt this proposal or one of the alternatives described above?
Enhanced iTRS Database Operations
17. CSDVRS also has proposed an industry structure in which all
providers of ASL relay CA services would utilize an enhanced version of
the TRS numbering directory to provide features such as user
registration and validation, call routing, and usage accounting. In
effect, this would separate the video communication service component
of VRS from the ASL relay CA service component by providing the
functions of the former from an enhanced database (``enhanced iTRS
database''). The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal, and seek
particular comment on the following related questions:
18. What functions and services should the enhanced iTRS database
provide? Some possibilities include:
Development and distribution of VRS access technology, such as
a common application
User registration and validation (account and credential
creation)
Per-call user verification (authentication)
TRS numbering directory functions
Usage accounting
Call routing
[cir] To the user-chosen default or the per-call ASL relay CA
service provider
[cir] To/from other end users (i.e., point-to-point calls)
[cir] To/from the PSTN
[cir] 911 call processing
Vertical features such as video mail and address book
19. How would ASL relay CA service providers interface with the
enhanced iTRS database? Would each ASL relay CA service provider be
required to establish its own internal routing system for distributing
calls among its call centers, or should the enhanced iTRS database
allow providers to specify provider-internal call routing rules?
20. CSDVRS' proposal appears to contemplate the existence of
multiple video communication service providers. Is this necessary? How
would the user or application choose among these providers? If the
choice of the communication service provider is independent of the ASL
relay CA service, based on what criteria or metrics would users or
applications make that choice? Given that VRS providers currently
compete primarily on quality of CA service, should the Commission
contract for a single
[[Page 65529]]
provider of the enhanced iTRS database functions, including video
communication service, that allows users to access the ASL relay CA
service of their choice? If the Commission does choose to contract for
these functions, should there be a single contract or multiple
contracts?
21. What changes in the Commission's rules would be necessary to
implement such a structure?
Rate Proposals
22. As noted above, in the 2010 TRS Rate Order, the Commission
stated it would no longer tolerate the ``large discrepancy between
actual costs and provider compensation'' that had resulted from earlier
VRS ratesetting orders. Stressing its ``obligation to protect the
integrity of the Fund and to deter and detect waste,'' the Commission
also released the 2010 VRS NOI to consider, among other issues, ``the
most appropriate way to calculate and set future [VRS] rates.''
Subsequently, in the 2011 VRS FNPRM, the Commission proposed that, if a
per-minute VRS rate was retained, it should be set based on the
weighted average of actual per-minute provider costs for the most
recently completed fund year. These steps have made clear the
Commission's determination to review rate issues as part of its VRS
reform proceeding and to obtain VRS rates that better reflect actual
expenses of VRS providers.
23. Under Sec. 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) and (H) of the Commission's
rules, the Fund administrator is required to file the Fund payment
formulas and revenue requirements for VRS with the Commission on May 1
of each year, to be effective the following July 1. However, on April
30, 2012, the Bureau waived the Fund administrator's obligation to file
proposed rates and revenue requirements for VRS for the 2012-13 Fund
year by May 1, 2012. In its order adopting rates for the 2012-13 Fund
year, the Bureau indicated that the current interim rates for VRS would
remain in place pending the Commission's completion of the current
proceeding on reforming the structure and practices in the VRS market.
In anticipation of the completion of the VRS reform proceeding, or of
the current phase thereof, the Commission requested the Fund
administrator, RLSA, to submit proposed VRS rates for the remainder of
the 2012-13 Fund year. In document DA 12-1644, the Bureau seeks comment
on RLSA's proposed VRS compensation rates, as well as on alternative
rate methodologies, for the remainder of the 2012-13 Fund year and
subsequent years.
24. The Bureau urges parties that disagree with RLSA's proposed
rates to offer specific and detailed alternatives. Further, the Bureau
expects parties to focus their comments, to the maximum extent
practicable, on publicly available data and to make public the details
of their views and arguments, including the specific dollar amounts
that they believe the Commission should adopt for specific rates or
cost elements.
RLSA's Rate Proposals
25. In the 2012 VRS Rate Filing, RLSA presents a proposal for
determining how VRS providers are to be compensated by the Fund. Based
on its analysis of the cost and demand data received from providers,
the Fund administrator states that VRS providers' weighted average
actual per-minute costs were $3.5740 for 2010 and $3.1900 for 2011, and
that VRS providers' weighted average projected per-minute costs are
$3.4313 for 2012. RLSA proposes that rates be based on an average of
these three numbers, with appropriate adjustments to reflect rate
tiers. Using this proposed methodology, RLSA proposes that cost based
rates be phased in over a multi-year time period, with the rates
restructured in two tiers instead of the current three tiers. Based on
a three-year phase-in, RLSA proposes that rates be set initially for
Tiers I and II (up to 500,000 minutes each month) at $5.2877 per
minute, and for Tier III (over 500,000 minutes each month) at $4.5099
per minute. RLSA also presents data that reflects several of the
categories of compensable and non-compensable costs. The Bureau invites
comment on RLSA's proposed rate structure, proposed rates, and cost
calculations, including its weighting of individual providers' costs.
Commenters who advocate alternative rates to those proposed by RLSA are
urged to discuss any resulting changes that will be necessary in the
TRS revenue requirement and contribution factor if the rate(s) they
advocate are adopted.
Open Ratemaking Issues
26. The Commission's determination regarding VRS compensation for
the remainder of the 2012-13 Fund year and subsequent years may be
affected by how the Commission resolves various ratemaking issues
raised in the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM, the 2011 VRS Rate NPRM, and the
2010 VRS NOI. Therefore, the Bureau invites commenters to refresh the
record of CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51 on the following issues that
may affect the establishment of a VRS rate for the remainder of the
2012-13 Fund year and subsequent years:
27. Should the following cost categories, which RLSA has included
in its calculation of the proposed rates, be allowable as part of the
cost basis for rates:
Marketing (calculated by RLSA as $0.0504 (2010), $0.0441
(2011), and 0.0466 (2012) per minute);
Outreach (calculated by RLSA as $0.2741 (2010), $0.2606
(2011), and 0.2594 (2012) per minute); and
Research and development (calculated by RLSA as $0.0486
(2010), $0.0542 (2011), and $0.0523 (2012) per minute)?
28. Should the Commission continue to limit the kinds and amount of
capital costs that are allowed to be recovered? Thus, RLSA's proposed
rate would allow an 11.25% return on invested capital, an element which
has long been used as the basis for calculating TRS rates, as well as
other common carrier rates, and which previously has been found to
address adequately the recovery of interest and principal payments on
debt, income taxes, and profits. RLSA calculates the weighted-average-
per-minute return on investment, with allowance for taxes, to be
$0.0949 per minute in 2010, $0.0778 per minute in 2011, and $0.0594 per
minute (projected) in 2012. The Bureau invites commenters to refresh
the record on the appropriate treatment of capital costs, rate of
return, and related issues. Parties that advocate a particular
alternative for treatment of capital costs should specify the type of
investment on which they believe providers should be authorized to
recover a return, the percentage return that they believe is
appropriate in light of current market conditions, an estimate of the
dollar amount that their proposed capital cost element would add to
proposed VRS rates, and the specific reasons why investment and return
should be so defined for purposes of Fund-compensated VRS.
29. Should the Commission retain, modify, or eliminate the current
tiered VRS rate structure?
30. Should there be a phase-in of the new VRS compensation rate or
rates? How long should such a phase-in period last and how should rates
be set during such an initial period? For example, should the
Commission establish a three-year phase-in period, as RLSA suggests,
with equal yearly adjustments to reach the new rate?
31. How long should the new rate remain in effect? In the 2007 TRS
Rate Methodology Order, the Commission determined that VRS and IP Relay
compensation rates should be set for a
[[Page 65530]]
three-year period, subject to certain adjustments. Telecommunications
Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with
Hearing and Speech Disabilities, (2007 TRS Rate Methodology Order), CG
Docket No. 03-123, published at 73 FR 3197, January 17, 2008. In the
2010 TRS Rate Order, the Commission again adopted a three-year rate for
IP Relay, but it adopted a one-year interim rate for VRS. That interim
VRS rate, however, was extended in 2011 and 2012. Should the new VRS
rate likewise be instituted for a three-year period, or a different
period?
32. As noted above, parties that disagree with RLSA's proposed cost
categories or rate tiers, or have views on the timing and duration of
the rate, should offer specific and detailed alternatives and should
focus their comments, to the maximum extent practicable, on data,
views, and arguments that can be made publicly available, including the
specific dollar amounts and percentages.
Federal Communications Commission.
Karen Peltz Strauss,
Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2012-26553 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P