Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29969 

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas 

Designated as an Extension to a Class D or 

Class E Surface Area. 

* * * * * 

AAL AK E4 Kodiak, AK [Removed] 

Kodiak Airport, AK 

(Lat. 57°45′00′′ N, long. 152°29′38′′ W) 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or more 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

AAL AK E5 Kodiak, AK [Amended] 

Kodiak Airport, AK 

(Lat. 57°44′59′′ N, long. 152°29′38′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile 

radius of the airport, and within 8 miles 

north and 4.1 miles south of the 071ß bearing 

from the airport, extending from the 6.9-mile 

radius and extending from 5.2 miles east of 

the airport to 21.2 miles east of the airport, 

excluding that airspace extending beyond 12 

miles of the shoreline; and that airspace 

extending upward from 1,200 feet above the 

surface within a 73-mile radius of the Kodiak 

Airport, AK, excluding that airspace 

extending beyond 12 miles of the shoreline. 

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 

27, 2021. 

B.G. Chew, 

Acting Group Manager, Operations Support 

Group, Western Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11668 Filed 6–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

Proposed Establishment of Class C 

Airspace at Harrisburg International 

Airport, PA; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notification of meeting. 

SUMMARY: This document announces a 

fact-finding informal airspace meeting 

regarding a plan to establish Class C 

Airspace at Harrisburg International 

Airport, PA. The purpose of the meeting 

is to solicit aeronautical comments on 

the proposal’s effects on local aviation 

operations. All comments received 

during the meeting, and the subsequent 

comment period, will be considered 

prior to the issuance of a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, August 18, 2021, from 6:00 

p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). 

Comments must be received on or 

before September 18, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: This will be a virtual 

informal airspace meeting using the 

Zoom teleconferencing tool. The 

meeting will also be available to watch 

on the FAA’s Facebook, Twitter, and 

YouTube social media channels. 

Send comments on the proposal, in 

triplicate, to: Matthew Cathcart, Acting 

Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Eastern Service Area, Air Traffic 

Organization, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, 

College Park, GA 30337; or via email to: 

9-AJO-MDT-ClassC-AirspaceComments@faa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Trevor Catanese, Acting Manager, 

Harrisburg Airport Traffic Control 

Tower, Building 511 Airport Drive, 

Middletown, PA 17057. Telephone: 

(717) 948–9180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Meeting Procedures 

The meeting will provide interested 

parties an opportunity to present views, 

recommendations, and comments on the 

proposed airspace. 

(a) Registration: To attend the 

meeting, the public can register here: 

https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_

XJe2ZgfQQB2Kr2;WbEIKWIw. 

(b) The meeting will be open to all 

persons on a space-available basis. 

There will be no admission fee or other 

charge to attend and participate. The 

meeting will be informal in nature and 

will be conducted by one or more 

representatives of the FAA Eastern 

Service Area. A representative from the 

FAA will present a briefing on the 

planned airspace modifications. 

(c) Each participant will be given an 

opportunity to deliver comments or 

make a presentation, although a time 

limit may be imposed to accommodate 

closing times. Only comments 

concerning the plan to establish the 

Harrisburg Class C airspace area will be 

accepted. 

(d) Each person wishing to make a 

presentation will be asked to note their 

intent when registering for the meeting 

so those time frames can be established. 

This meeting will not be adjourned until 

everyone registered to speak has had an 

opportunity to address the panel. This 

meeting may be adjourned at any time 

if all persons present have had an 

opportunity to speak. 

(e) Position papers or other handout 

material relating to the substance of the 

meeting will be accepted. Participants 

submitting papers or handout materials 

should send them to the mail or email 

address noted in the ADDRESSES section, 

above. 

(f) This meeting will not be formally 

recorded. However, a summary of the 

comments made at the meeting will be 

filed in the rulemaking docket. 

Information gathered through this 

meeting will assist the FAA in drafting 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) that would be published in the 

Federal Register. The public will be 

afforded the opportunity to comment on 

any NPRM published on this matter. 

A graphic depiction of the proposed 

airspace modifications may be viewed at 

the following URL: https://www.faa.gov/ 

air_traffic/community_involvement/ 

mdt/. 

Agenda for the Meeting 

—Presentation of Meeting Procedures 

—Informal Presentation of the planned 

Class C Airspace area 

—Public Presentations and Discussions 

—Closing Comments 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O.10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 28, 

2021. 

George Gonzalez, 

Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations 

Group. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11654 Filed 6–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket Nos. 03–123 and 10–51; FCC 

21–61; FR ID 29574] 

Video Relay Service Compensation 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) seeks comment on the 

adoption of compensation rates for 

Telecommunications Relay Services 

(TRS) Fund support of providers of 

video relay service (VRS). Because the 

compensation rates now in effect will be 

expiring, the adoption of new 

compensation rates is necessary so that 

VRS providers can continue to provide 

service and be compensated. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CG Docket Nos. 03–123 

and 10–51, by either of the following 

methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

29970 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

one copy of each filing. Filings can be 

sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 

commercial overnight courier, or by 

first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail. Currently, the Commission 

does not accept any hand delivered or 

messenger delivered filings as a 

temporary measure taken to help protect 

the health and safety of individuals, and 

to mitigate the transmission of COVID– 

19. All filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see document FCC 21–61 at https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC21-61A1.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Scott, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 

418–1264, or email Michael.Scott@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 

document FCC 21–61, adopted on May 

20, 2021, released on May 21, 2021, in 

CG Docket Nos. 03–123 and 10–51. The 

full text of document FCC 21–61 is 

available for public inspection and 

copying via the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530. 

This proceeding shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 

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 rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 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. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

Document FCC 21–61 seeks comment 

on proposed rule amendments that may 

result in modified information 

collection requirements. If the 

Commission adopts any modified 

information collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish another 

document in the Federal Register 

inviting the public to comment on the 

requirements, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. Public Law 

104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. 

In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

the Commission seeks comment on how 

it might further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

Public Law 107–198; 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis 

1. In document FCC 21–61, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

adoption of compensation rates for TRS 

Fund support of providers of VRS. 

2. Section 225 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), 47 

U.S.C. 225, requires the Commission to 

ensure the availability of TRS to persons 

who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, 

or have speech disabilities, ‘‘to the 

extent possible and in the most efficient 

manner.’’ TRS are defined in section 

225 of the Act as ‘‘telephone 

transmission services’’ enabling such 

persons to communicate by wire or 

radio ‘‘in a manner that is functionally 

equivalent to the ability of [a person 

without hearing or speech disabilities] 

to communicate using voice 

communication services.’’ VRS is a form 

of TRS that allows people with hearing 

or speech disabilities who use sign 

language to communicate with voice 

telephone users through video 

equipment. VRS is supported entirely 

by the Interstate TRS Fund (TRS Fund), 

and VRS providers are paid 

compensation for the provision of VRS 

in accordance with the Commission’s 

rules and orders. 

3. In 2007, the Commission 

introduced a tiered rate structure for 

compensating VRS providers, to reflect 

the per-minute cost differentials among 

VRS providers and to ensure both that, 

in furtherance of promoting 

competition, the newer providers would 

cover their costs, and the larger and 

more established providers were not 

overcompensated due to economies of 

scale. Under a tiered rate structure, a 

VRS provider’s monthly compensation 

payment is calculated based on the 

application of different rates to specified 

‘‘tiers’’ of minutes. The highest rate is 

applied to an initial tier of minutes up 

to a defined maximum number, a lower 

rate is applied to the next tier, again up 

to a second defined maximum number 

of minutes, and a still lower rate is 

applied to any minutes in excess of the 

second maximum. Since 2007, the 

Commission has periodically modified 

the tier structure and rates to align them 

more closely with the actual costs 

incurred by providers of varying size 

and levels of usage. 

4. In 2013, the Commission made 

numerous regulatory changes affecting 

the VRS program. The Commission 

directed the Managing Director to 

contract with a neutral third party to 

build, operate, and maintain a video 

communications service platform, 

which would enable smaller VRS 

providers to compete more effectively, 

without having to operate their own 

service platforms. The Commission also 

expected that the development of a 

standard user-device interface would 

make it easier for smaller providers to 

compete for customers without having 

to replace the free devices routinely 

distributed by the largest VRS provider. 

After completing such structural 

reforms, the Commission anticipated 

being able to transition from the tiered 

rate structure to a single compensation 

rate for each element of the relay 

service. The Commission sought to align 

annual TRS Fund expenditures more 

closely with allowable provider costs. 

The Commission adopted a four-year 

interim compensation plan, whereby all 

the tiered rates would be reduced in 

stages on a ‘‘glide path’’ toward closer 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29971 

alignment with the weighted-average 

cost of providing VRS. 

5. In 2017, the Commission reassessed 

its VRS compensation policy in light of 

intervening developments. The neutral 

VRS platform had proved to be 

impracticable. To the extent that the 

2013 reforms had been implemented, 

they had not changed market conditions 

sufficiently to justify adoption of a 

single compensation rate. Accordingly, 

the Commission chose to defer 

consideration of major changes in the 

compensation system. Instead, to 

preserve choice among suppliers for 

VRS users, the Commission decided to 

maintain tiered compensation rates for 

the next four years. The Commission 

adopted a 3-tier rate structure for the 

four-year period and added an emergent 

rate to the tiered rate structure 

applicable to VRS providers with no 

more than 500,000 total monthly 

minutes. 

6. In setting VRS compensation for 

Fund Year 2021–22 and beyond, the 

Commission proposes to continue using 

a tiered rate structure. The Commission 

seeks comment on the costs and benefits 

of this proposal and on the underlying 

rationale, discussed below. 

7. First, developments over the last 

four years do not appear to warrant 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

2017 assessment that the expectations 

and assumptions underlying the 2013 

proposal to transition away from tiered 

compensation rates have not been borne 

out by experience. The reforms 

introduced in 2013 appear to have run 

their course, and further competitive 

improvements resulting from their 

implementation do not seem likely. 

8. Second, certain fundamental facts 

also appear unlikely to change. VRS 

addresses a limited segment of the 

communications marketplace. As a 

result, there are built-in limitations on 

total demand for VRS, which appears to 

have stabilized relative to the high 

growth rates that occurred 10–15 years 

ago. Further, the Commission is 

unaware of any innovations substantial 

enough to cause a major change in the 

economics of providing VRS in the 

foreseeable future. 

9. Third, in light of the above, there 

appears to be little reason to expect 

major changes in most VRS providers’ 

relative per-minute costs. Today, there 

are only four certified VRS providers. 

No new entrants have sought 

certification to provide VRS since 2011. 

The current providers continue to 

operate at dramatically different scales, 

and there continues to be vast 

differences in the per-minute costs of 

VRS providers. 

10. Notwithstanding the foregoing 

limitations, the Commission sees no 

reason to change the VRS compensation 

policy objectives the Commission has 

long pursued: (1) To continue bringing 

total TRS Fund payments into closer 

alignment with allowable costs, and (2) 

to preserve and promote quality-ofservice competition among multiple 

providers. By offering VRS users a 

choice among multiple providers, the 

Commission has found, it can most 

effectively carry out the statutory 

mandate to ensure that ‘‘functionally 

equivalent’’ VRS is available to all 

eligible individuals, ‘‘to the extent 

possible and in the most efficient 

manner,’’ in accordance with the 

Commission’s minimum TRS standards 

and subject to rules that ‘‘do not 

discourage or impair the development of 

improved technology.’’ Enabling 

multiple VRS providers to compete for 

customers based on service quality, the 

Commission has found, will best ensure 

that: (1) Diverse service offerings are 

available, analogous to those afforded 

voice service users; (2) niche services 

are provided to meet the needs of 

certain segments of the sign languageusing population, such as individuals 

who speak Spanish or are deafblind; 

and (3) VRS providers have incentives 

to maintain high standards of service 

quality and improve their VRS offerings. 

It might be less costly in the short run 

to set TRS Fund compensation in such 

a way that only the lowest-cost VRS 

provider can continue offering service. 

However, the Commission continues to 

believe that in the long run, the removal 

of competitive choices risks degradation 

of service quality and elimination of 

diverse offerings, both of which are 

needed for functionally equivalent 

service to all eligible users. And, 

because ‘‘efficient service is not just 

about cost but also quality,’’ Sorenson 

Communications, LLC v. FCC, 897 F.3d 

214, 228 (D.C. Cir. 2018), the 

Commission also believes that a policy 

of maintaining a choice of service 

offerings can be pursued consistently 

with the mandate that TRS be made 

available ‘‘in the most efficient 

manner.’’ 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1). As the 

D.C. Circuit has explained, 

‘‘competition promotes efficiency by 

preventing subpar service from a 

monopolist who has no fear of losing 

customers; i.e., it promotes compliance 

with the service quality required by the 

mandatory minimum standards.’’ 

Sorenson at 229. The Commission seeks 

comment on these beliefs. 

11. Accordingly, in setting 

compensation policy for the next 

period, under the current regulatory 

structure, the Commission tentatively 

concludes that it will best serve the 

purposes of section 225 of the Act if it 

structures VRS compensation to 

continue supporting an ecosystem in 

which multiple VRS providers can 

compete for minutes of use based on 

quality of service. The Commission 

seeks comment on this tentative 

conclusion and the premises set forth 

above, as well as any relevant data. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how best to set VRS compensation to 

promote the above benefits of allowing 

consumers a choice of VRS providers. 

Which past measures have succeeded or 

failed in this regard? What should the 

Commission’s role be, if any, in 

supporting more effective quality-ofservice competition? 

12. The Commission invites 

commenters to suggest alternatives to 

retaining a tiered-rate compensation 

methodology. The Commission urges 

commenters advocating alternatives to 

explain their proposals in detail, 

including how such proposals can 

deliver the benefits that the Commission 

has found are achievable through VRS 

competition (i.e., making functionally 

equivalent TRS available to all eligible 

individuals in the most efficient 

manner, in accordance with minimum 

TRS standards, without discouraging or 

impairing the development of improved 

technology). 

Alternative Approaches for Setting 

Tiered Compensation Rates 

13. The Commission seeks comment 

on two overarching issues. First, should 

it adopt modified VRS compensation 

rates at this time, or ‘‘freeze’’ the current 

rates until a reliable, post-COVID–19 

pandemic baseline for cost and demand 

has been established? Second, if the 

Commission decides to move forward 

with rate-setting at this time, should the 

Commission retain the current setup, 

with an emergent rate and the current 

tier structure, or should it eliminate the 

emergent rate and adopt a modified tier 

structure, to improve provider 

incentives and move expenditures 

closer to costs? 

Deferring Rate Changes to After the 

Pandemic 

14. In light of the protracted duration 

of the COVID–19 pandemic, the 

significant demand changes associated 

with it, and the consequent increase in 

uncertainty as to future costs and 

demand, the Commission seeks 

comment about the feasibility of setting 

new VRS compensation rates at this 

time. In 2020, following the outbreak of 

the COVID–19 pandemic and efforts to 

reduce its spread, VRS providers 

29972 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

experienced an unanticipated increase 

in VRS traffic levels. Providers incurred 

some additional costs resulting from the 

need for operational adjustments, such 

as migrating communications assistants 

from call centers to working at home, 

and hiring additional staff to cope with 

increased demand. 

15. The TRS Fund administrator 

reports that the increased expenses 

incurred by VRS providers during the 

pandemic were more than offset by 

increased call volumes, resulting in a 

significant reduction in providers’ 

average cost per minute from 2019 to 

2020. Specifically, average demand has 

risen during the pandemic period by 

approximately 25%, and average perminute provider costs declined from 

2019 to 2020 by approximately 5.3%. At 

this time, the effects of the pandemic 

continue to be felt across the VRS 

industry, and it is unclear whether VRS 

traffic levels will return to a lower, prepandemic level. For many years, the 

Commission has found that the most 

reliable reference points in setting VRS 

compensation rates are the actual costs 

reported for the previous calendar year 

(in this case 2020) and the projected 

costs for the current calendar year (in 

this case 2021). Parties have raised the 

concern that, if the Commission relies 

on 2020 and 2021 data (as it would 

under the current practice), its estimate 

of per-minute costs could turn out to be 

understated in relation to actual postpandemic costs, and rates set in reliance 

on 2020–21 data might not reasonably 

compensate VRS providers for the costs 

they will incur in the next rate period. 

16. In light of these uncertainties 

regarding future VRS costs and demand, 

should the Commission maintain the 

existing VRS compensation tiers and 

rates for the next two TRS Fund rate 

periods, i.e., until June 30, 2023, to 

allow the effects of the COVID–19 

pandemic to resolve, so that future rates 

can be set based on cost and demand 

data that more reliably reflect postpandemic conditions? Under a rate 

freeze approach, providers receiving 

compensation at the emergent rate on 

June 30, 2021, as well as any new 

entrants, would continue to be 

compensated at the emergent rate. Or 

should the Commission move forward 

with adopting modified compensation 

rates based on current cost and demand 

estimates, which could be adjusted to 

address the likelihood of a reversion to 

pre-pandemic demand levels? 

17. What are the likely costs and 

benefits of freezing current 

compensation rates for two years? The 

Commission invites advocates of this 

approach to explain and document the 

dimensions of any risk of further 

demand fluctuations they perceive. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether such risks could or could not 

be mitigated by adopting a more 

conservative approach to ratemaking, 

such as by relying on 2019 costs as an 

additional benchmark for rate-setting. 

According to the TRS Fund 

administrator’s estimate, the current 

rates allowed providers, on average, to 

recover 31.4% above allowable 

expenses in TRS Fund Year 2020–21— 

operating margins that are substantially 

above the zone of reasonableness 

(7.75%–12.35%) the Commission set in 

2017. Is the risk of future changes in 

costs and demand so substantial that it 

warrants maintaining what appear to be 

over-compensatory compensation rates? 

Are there other effects that changing the 

compensation rate during this period 

could have on the provision of VRS? 

18. In addition, it has been suggested 

that increased VRS demand, as well as 

limitations on in-person education 

during the pandemic, has constricted 

the current supply of VRS 

communications assistants as well as 

the number of American Sign Language 

(ASL) interpreters entering the training 

‘‘pipeline’’ for future availability for 

VRS employment. The Commission 

invites commenters to submit any 

evidence that would support a 

prediction of additional increases in 

such labor costs, the likely extent of 

such increases, and whether such 

increases are likely to be temporary or 

permanent. 

19. If the Commission decides to 

move forward and set revised 

compensation rates for 2022 and 

beyond, it invites parties to comment on 

how cost and demand estimates should 

be adjusted, if at all, to account for 

possible post-COVID costs and demand. 

Are 2020 and projected 2021 cost and 

demand data sufficiently reliable to 

serve as a reasonable basis to set rates 

for a new multi-year rate cycle? Should 

the Commission look only at providerprojected costs, e.g., for 2021 and 2022, 

without considering historical costs? 

Alternatively, should the Commission 

substitute 2019 cost and demand data, 

in anticipation that VRS costs and 

demand may decrease to pre-pandemic 

levels once the pandemic subsides? Or 

should the Commission assume that 

demand will remain higher than 2019 

levels, and if so, how much higher? 

What labor cost adjustments, if any, 

should be applied? 

Retaining or Modifying the Current Rate 

Structure 

20. If the Commission decides to 

move forward and adopt a modified 

VRS compensation plan, what, if any, 

changes to the current rate structure 

would be warranted? 

21. Emergent rate. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether to retain or 

eliminate the emergent rate for VRS 

providers with no more than 500,000 

monthly minutes. Has there been any 

change in circumstances since 2017 that 

would justify retaining the emergent 

rate, notwithstanding the Commission’s 

previously stated intention to terminate 

the emergent rate after June 2021? The 

Commission notes that no new 

applicants have requested certification 

to provide VRS since 2011. Are any 

firms currently planning or considering 

whether to apply for VRS certification? 

Have relevant circumstances changed 

for current beneficiaries of the emergent 

rate? For example, has any provider 

subject to the emergent rate managed to 

expand its market share, and if so, to 

what extent is continued application of 

the emergent rate still necessary? The 

Commission also notes that in 2017 it 

did not purport to assure cost recovery 

for every emergent VRS provider, but 

only to provide a reasonable 

opportunity for cost recovery, on a 

temporary basis, for those that have 

demonstrated an ability to grow 

substantially. Alternatively, are there 

other benefits from continuing to 

support very high-cost providers, even if 

they fail to reduce their per-minute 

costs substantially? Among the 

advantages of the tiered-rate system is 

that it allows support for smaller 

providers offering ‘‘niche’’ services to 

meet the needs of subsets of the signing 

population. Should the Commission 

make the continued application of the 

emergent rate conditional on a 

provider’s success in providing specific 

niche services not offered by others? To 

assist its determinations regarding tier 

structure, the Commission seeks 

comment on the specific services and 

features offered by each VRS provider. 

To what extent do providers offer niche 

services or features targeted to specific 

user populations, to provide 

functionally equivalent communication 

for such users? For example, GlobalVRS 

states that in addition to providing ASLto-English VRS, it provides ASL-toSpanish VRS. Do other providers 

currently offer ASL-to-Spanish VRS, 

and to how many customers? Are there 

significant qualitative differences among 

such offerings? Which providers, if any, 

offer a service to deafblind users—and 

to how many users—that permits the 

deafblind user to speak using ASL, 

while the CA communicates to the 

deafblind user in English or Spanish 

text that can be read by a refreshable 

Braille reader? Do other providers offer 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29973 

this type of service, or others, to 

deafblind users, and if so, what kind of 

service is offered to how many users? 

22. As for costs, in addition to the 

greater TRS Fund expenditures needed 

to support very high-cost providers, 

would the costs of perpetuating a 

special rate for such providers include 

lessened incentives to innovate, reduce 

costs, and grow market share? What 

other costs result from the emergent 

rate? Are the benefits of retaining the 

emergent rate sufficient to justify the 

costs? If retained, should the 

Commission alter the maximumminutes criterion for applying the 

emergent rate? 

23. Tier Structures. The Commission 

also seeks comment on whether to 

retain or modify the current tier 

structures, whereby Tier I includes a 

provider’s first 1 million monthly 

minutes, Tier II includes additional 

minutes up to 2.5 million, and Tier III 

includes all minutes above 2.5 million. 

The Tier I limit of 1 million minutes 

was adopted to ensure that as providers 

grew large enough to leave the emergent 

category, they would be subject to a rate 

that reflects their size and likely cost 

structure and that is appropriately lower 

than the marginal rate applicable to 

larger providers. Does this tier boundary 

continue to be appropriate? For 

example, has the ZVRS-Purple merger 

resulted in increased efficiencies? If so, 

what is the scale of such efficiencies, 

and does the existence of such 

efficiencies support the conclusion that 

substantial economies of scale can be 

achieved by growing above the 

benchmark of 1 million monthly 

minutes? Alternatively, if the emergent 

rate is eliminated, should Tier I be 

subdivided, so as to apply different 

rates, for example, to a provider’s first 

500,000 and second 500,000 minutes, or 

to a provider’s first 300,000 minutes and 

its next 700,000 minutes? Are such 

changes warranted by relevant scale 

economies in the provision of VRS or a 

need to support niche services, as 

discussed above? Would these 

alternatives unduly limit a provider’s 

incentive to increase its monthly 

minutes beyond 300,000 or 500,000? 

24. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether to retain or modify 

the structures of Tiers II and III. To what 

extent has the gap in per-minute costs 

between Sorenson and ZP Better 

Together, LLC (ZP), narrowed? The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the retention of a tier boundary at 2.5 

million minutes is supported by 

experience over the past four years. Is 

the Commission’s 2017 finding—that 

substantial scale economies are likely to 

be present even at the 2.5 million 

minutes level—still supportable or are 

scale economies exhausted below that 

level? Alternatively, does experience 

show that substantial economies are 

likely present above the current 

boundary? If the current Tier II upper 

boundary is no longer appropriate, 

should the boundary be increased or 

decreased, and to what level? 

Alternatively, should the Commission 

create a fourth tier, and with what 

boundaries? Should the current Tiers II 

and III be merged? More broadly, how 

should the Commission account for 

increasing economies of scale in setting 

VRS rates, and at what scale do such 

economies stop increasing? The 

Commission encourages providers to 

submit recent real-world data relevant 

to whether the provision of VRS 

continues to be characterized by 

substantial scale economies and the 

appropriate boundaries for setting tiered 

rates that reasonably reflect those 

economies. 

25. With respect to all three tiers, 

what marketplace distortions, if any, 

may be created by retaining tier 

boundaries—or drawing new ones—that 

are not closely correlated to scale 

economies? What other costs and 

benefits are relevant to retaining or 

adjusting the number of tiers or the tier 

boundaries? 

26. Additional Compensation for 

Specialized Services. The Commission 

also seeks comment on whether it 

would serve the objectives of section 

225 of the Act for a VRS provider to 

receive additional per-minute 

compensation from the TRS Fund (in 

addition to the amount payable under 

the tiered formula) for the provision of 

certain specialized services, such as, for 

example, service to deafblind 

consumers, Spanish-ASL interpreting, 

or responding to requests that Certified 

Deaf interpreters be added to a call. 

What criteria should the Commission 

use to decide which, if any, specialized 

services should be supported by 

additional compensation and how to 

define the circumstances in which such 

services will be compensated? How 

should the additional reasonable costs 

of such services be determined for the 

purpose of setting an appropriate 

amount of additional compensation? 

What measures should the Commission 

take to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse 

in the provision of, or requests for, such 

specialized services? 

Setting Tiered Rate Levels 

27. Assuming that the Commission 

adopts adjusted compensation rates at 

this time, it seeks comment on the 

appropriate rate level for each tier. In 

2017, the Commission sought to set the 

rates for each tier to limit the likelihood 

that any provider’s total compensation 

will be insufficient to provide a 

reasonable margin over its allowable 

expenses, and to limit the extent of any 

overcompensation of a provider in 

relation to its allowable expenses and 

reasonable operating margin. The 

Commission believes it should maintain 

this goal in setting tiered rates, although 

by setting rates for providers in discrete 

size classes based on general cost 

differentials between large, mediumsized, and small providers, the 

Commission does not seek or purport to 

guarantee all providers recovery of their 

individual costs. The Commission seeks 

comment on this belief. 

28. Operating Margin. The 

Commission proposes that VRS 

compensation rates for the next cycle 

should aim to ensure that the total 

compensation paid to all providers 

allows an average recovery of an 

operating margin above allowable 

expenses that is within the zone of 

reasonableness (7.75%–12.35%). The 

Commission is unaware of relevant 

changes in financial markets or other 

conditions affecting the VRS industry 

that would warrant reassessment of the 

zone of reasonableness. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal, including any changes that 

would justify setting a higher or lower 

range of reasonable operating margins. 

Is the current allowable operating 

margin sufficient to attract capital, new 

entry, and promote functionally 

equivalent VRS services? What has been 

providers’ experience since 2017? 

Further, should the Commission set a 

specific allowed operating margin 

within this range, and if so, at what 

percentage? 

29. Allowable Costs. To the extent 

that, notwithstanding the Commission’s 

history of comprehensive consideration 

of allowable cost issues, parties believe 

it is important to revisit allowable cost 

issues, the Commission urges 

commenters to state specifically in what 

respects the Commission’s prior 

determinations on allowable costs are 

no longer valid, describe in detail any 

respects in which relevant 

circumstances have changed in the 

intervening period, and explain how the 

outcome they seek is consistent with, 

and furthers the purposes of, section 

225 of the Act. 

30. Marginal Cost Benchmarks. The 

Commission continues to believe that 

marginal cost for a provider of relevant 

size would be an appropriate 

benchmark for Tier II or Tier III rates if 

it can be reasonably estimated. Of 

particular concern, some VRS providers 

distribute substantial amounts of free 

29974 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

user equipment as a marketing device to 

add or retain customers. In light of the 

waste and market disruption that can 

result from the use of device giveaways 

to recruit customers, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether to limit the 

compensation rates for tiers above Tier 

I to levels that do not exceed a 

reasonable percentage above a relevant 

provider’s marginal allowable cost of 

providing an additional minute of 

service. The Commission also believes 

this approach to setting rates will help 

ensure that the TRS Fund is not 

providing de facto support for the costs 

of user devices, contrary to section 225 

of the Act and the Commission’s 

longstanding rule precluding the use of 

the TRS Fund to support such 

distribution of user devices. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

above-stated beliefs, and on how the 

Commission should estimate marginal 

allowable cost for purposes of applying 

a marginal-cost benchmark. For 

example, what expense categories 

should be included or excluded when 

calculating the marginal cost of 

providing an additional minute of VRS? 

Would a per-minute average of the 

operating expenses reported in Part B of 

the TRS Fund administrator’s annual 

expense reporting form for VRS 

providers—which includes salaries and 

benefits for relay center staff, including 

communications assistants, 

telecommunications expenses, billing 

expenses, and relay center expenses— 

serve as a reasonable proxy for the 

marginal expense of providing an 

additional VRS minute? Should the 

marginal cost benchmark for a given tier 

be calculated as a weighted average of 

the marginal cost for those VRS 

providers for which that tier currently 

defines (or is projected to define) the 

highest applicable rate? The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

marginal cost is an appropriate metric, 

or whether the Commission should 

consider alternative metrics. Would 

marginal-cost benchmarks for Tiers II 

and III deter continued investment in 

the service? Would they cause providers 

to ‘‘put on the brakes’’ and stop 

competing as the Commission feared in 

2017? Or would they appropriately 

discourage providers from incurring 

wasteful marketing and other costs? 

What increment over marginal cost 

would be needed to ensure that 

beneficial effects are achieved, and 

detrimental effects are avoided? 

31. Rate Levels. The Commission also 

seeks comment on where to set rates for 

the emergent rate (if retained) and Tiers 

I–III. If the emergent rate is retained, 

should the Commission increase it, e.g., 

to the weighted average 2019 cost per 

minute for the current emergent 

providers, plus a 10% operating margin, 

maintain it at the current level of $5.29, 

or decrease it, e.g., to the weighted 

average of the emergent providers’ 

projected cost per minute for 2022, plus 

a 10% operating margin? For Tier I, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to increase the rate, e.g., to $5.29 (the 

current emergent rate), maintain the 

current $4.82 rate, or reduce it, e.g., to 

the weighted average of the emergent 

providers’ projected cost per minute for 

2022, plus a 10% operating margin. For 

Tier II, the Commission seeks comment 

on whether to maintain the rate at $3.97, 

or decrease it, e.g., to the level of the 

weighted-average marginal allowable 

expense per minute (plus a reasonable 

operating margin) of those providers for 

which the Tier II rate is the lowest 

applicable rate. For Tier III, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to maintain the current $2.63 rate or 

decrease it, e.g., to the level of the 

weighted-average marginal allowable 

expense per-minute (plus a reasonable 

operating margin) of those providers for 

which the Tier III rate is the lowest 

applicable rate. The Commission also 

invites parties to submit other suggested 

rate levels for each tier, with 

justification and supporting data. 

32. To the extent the current tier 

structure is modified, as discussed 

above, the Commission seeks comment 

on appropriate rates for the modified 

tiers. Are there other factors the 

Commission should consider in 

determining appropriate rates of 

compensation for each tier? As an 

alternative, should the Commission 

consider Sorenson’s suggestion to 

establish a unitary compensation rate 

for non-emergent providers at or about 

$3.33, the current average per-minute 

compensation paid across all VRS 

providers? Should the Commission also 

consider ZP’s proposal that the 

Commission keep the existing rates but 

increase the benchmark for Tier II from 

2.5 million to 5 million minutes, under 

the theory, in ZP’s view, that doing so 

would allow continued competition and 

increased investment in the 

community? The Commission seeks 

comment on these proposals. 

Rate Period and Adjustments 

33. Rate Period. The Commission 

seeks comment on the duration of the 

next rate period. In the current 

circumstances, what rate period will 

appropriately balance the needs for 

administrative efficiency, rate certainty, 

and cost-reduction incentives with the 

need for a timely review of how VRS 

costs may change in the future? 

34. Glide Path. If the Commission 

makes substantial reductions in any 

tiered rate, should it transition to that 

level in stages to avoid disruption of 

service to VRS consumers? What would 

be a reasonable annual percentage rate 

reduction for this purpose? For IP CTS, 

the Commission recently adopted a 

‘‘glide path’’ for the IP CTS 

compensation rate, with a 10% annual 

reduction towards cost-based rates. 

Would a 10% annual reduction be 

appropriate for VRS? 

35. Price Indexing Adjustments. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

a price indexing formula, analogous to 

price-cap factors, should be applied to 

tiered rates during a multi-year rate 

period, and on the appropriate indices 

to use to reflect inflation and 

productivity. Is the application of price 

indexing factors needed to ensure that 

VRS providers have a reasonable 

opportunity to recover costs, to provide 

a sufficient incentive to reduce costs, or 

to prevent overcompensation of 

providers due to predictable future 

productivity-related cost declines? If 

adopted, how should a price-indexing 

approach be structured in the context of 

tiered rates, e.g., to account for any 

disparities in expected productivity 

gains between small and large 

providers? 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

36. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in the 

NPRM. Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadline for 

comments specified in the DATES

section. The Commission will send a 

copy of document FCC 21–61 to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). 

Need For, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

37. The Commission intends to 

develop a multi-year cost-based 

compensation rate methodology for 

VRS. To develop a complete record the 

Commission seeks comment on 

maintaining a tiered rate structure, 

including the specifics for the tiered 

structure and for setting such rates, and 

in the alternative, freezing the current 

rates. The Commission is making these 

proposals for the purpose of allowing 

recovery of reasonable provider costs 

and ensuring that functionally 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29975 

equivalent VRS is provided in the most 

efficient manner. The Commission seeks 

comment on these proposals, which 

include a number of various policy 

questions and alternatives for 

consideration. 

Legal Basis 

38. The authority for this proposed 

rulemaking is contained in sections 1, 2, 

and 225 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 

225. 

Small Entities Impacted 

39. The proposals in the NPRM will 

affect obligations of VRS providers. 

These services can be included within 

the broad economic category of All 

Other Telecommunications. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

40. The proposed compensation 

methodologies will not create reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other compliance 

requirements. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

41. The Commission is taking steps to 

minimize the impact on small entities 

and considering significant alternatives 

by identifying multiple methodologies 

for compensating VRS providers for the 

provision of VRS. The Commission 

seeks comment on maintaining tiered 

rates, including the specifics for the 

tiered structure and for setting such 

rates, and in the alternative, freezing the 

current rates. The Commission will 

consider these proposals to determine 

the best compensation methodology for 

ensuring choice among suppliers for 

VRS users and to help maintain 

functionally equivalent service and 

maintain an efficient VRS market over 

the long term in accordance with the 

Commission statutory obligations. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

effect these proposals will have on all 

entities that provide VRS, including 

small entities. 

42. The Commission also seeks 

comment from all interested parties. 

Small entities are encouraged to bring to 

the Commission’s attention any specific 

concerns they may have with the 

proposals outlined in the NPRM. The 

Commission expects to consider the 

economic impact on small entities, as 

identified in comments filed in response 

to the NPRM, in reaching its final 

conclusions and acting in this 

proceeding. 

Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With, the 

Commission’s Proposals 

43. None. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11681 Filed 6–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2020–0017; 

FF08E00000 FXES11110800000 212] 

RIN 1018–BF94 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Finding on a Petition To 

List the Tiehm’s Buckwheat as 

Threatened or Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of 12-month 

petition finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

Tiehm’s buckwheat (Eriogonum tiehmii) 

as an endangered or threatened species 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). The Service has 

determined, after a review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, that the petitioned action 

to list Tiehm’s buckwheat, a plant 

species native to Nevada in the United 

States, is warranted. The Service, 

therefore, will promptly publish a 

proposed rule to list Tiehm’s buckwheat 

under the Act. 

DATES: The finding in this document 

was made on June 4, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marc Jackson, Reno Ecological Services 

Field Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, 

Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; telephone 

775–861–6337. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

Availability of supporting materials: 

Our Species Status Assessment for 

Tiehm’s buckwheat is available at 

https://www.fws.gov/reno/content/ 

endangered-species, and at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2020–0017. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 

16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, 

within 12 months of receipt of a petition 

to add a species to, or remove a species 

from, the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants, a 

finding be made as to whether the 

requested action is: (a) Not warranted, 

(b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but 

precluded by other listing activity. If the 

action is found to be warranted, section 

4(b)(3)(B)(ii) requires a prompt 

publication in the Federal Register of a 

general notice and the complete text of 

a proposed regulation to implement 

such action. 

On October 7, 2019, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD; CBD 2019, entire) 

requesting that Tiehm’s buckwheat be 

listed as threatened or endangered, that 

critical habitat be concurrently 

designated for this species under the 

Act, and that the petition be considered 

on an emergency basis. The Act does 

not provide for a process to petition for 

emergency listing; therefore, we 

evaluated the petition to determine if it 

presented substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

The Service published a 90-day finding 

on July 22, 2020 (85 FR 44265), stating 

that the petition presented substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing Tiehm’s 

buckwheat may be warranted. 

On September 29, 2020, CBD filed a 

complaint in the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Nevada against the 

Service alleging violations under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

551 et seq.); CBD amended the 

complaint on October 8, 2020, to 

include a claim under the Endangered 

Species Act that the Service had missed 

the 1-year deadline of October 7, 2020, 

for issuing a 12-month finding for 

Tiehm’s buckwheat. On April 21, 2021, 

the court issued a decision, and, in 

response to a stipulated request for a 

revised remedy order, on May 17, 2021, 

the court amended the decision and 

ordered the Service to deliver a 12- 

month finding on Tiehm’s buckwheat to 

the Federal Register by May 31, 2021. 

The Service now announces a 12-month 

finding on the October 7, 2019, petition 

to list Tiehm’s buckwheat. 

Species Description and Habitat 

Tiehm’s buckwheat was first 

discovered in 1983 and described in 

1985. All available taxonomic and 

genetic research information indicates 

that Tiehm’s buckwheat is a valid and