Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
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.
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.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
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
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process,
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 (
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,
1. In June 2010, the Commission began a comprehensive review of the rates, structure, and practices of the VRS program.
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
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
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.
5. As discussed in the
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
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 (
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 (
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?
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:
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
21. What changes in the Commission's rules would be necessary to implement such a structure?
22. As noted above, in the
23. Under § 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.
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.
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
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
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.