Proposed Rule2021-24945
Internet Protocol Relay Service Compensation Methodology
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 18, 2021
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) proposes to modify the methodology for determining compensation for the provision of internet Protocol Relay (IP Relay) service and seeks comments on modifying the formula for determining the per-minute compensation for providers of IP Relay to ensure Interstate TRS Fund support is sufficient to sustain a functionally equivalent telephone service.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 220 (Thursday, November 18, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 220 (Thursday, November 18, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64440-64444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24945]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 03-123; RM-11820; FCC 21-95; FR ID 57163]
Internet Protocol Relay Service Compensation Methodology
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) proposes to modify the methodology for determining
compensation for the provision of internet Protocol Relay (IP Relay)
service and seeks comments on modifying the formula for determining the
per-minute compensation for providers of IP Relay to ensure Interstate
TRS Fund support is sufficient to sustain a functionally equivalent
telephone service.
DATES: Comments are due December 20, 2021; reply comments are due
January 18, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 03-123
and RM-11820, by either of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal Communications Commission's Website: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings</a>. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and 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 on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see document FCC 21-95 at:
<a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-95A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-95A1.pdf</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Wallace, Consumer and
[[Page 64441]]
Governmental Affairs Bureau, at 202-418-2716, or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#27704e4b4b4e464a0970464b4b4644426741444409404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dc8bb5b0b0b5bdb1f28bbdb0b0bdbfb99cbabfbff2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), document FCC 21-95, adopted on August
5, 2021, released on August 6, 2021, in CG Docket No. 03-123 and RM-
11820. The full text of document FCC 21-95 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#24424747111410644247470a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f2949191c7c2c6b2949191dc959d84">[email protected]</span></a> 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 Sec. 1.1206(b). 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.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
The Notice in document FCC 21-95 seeks comment on proposed rule
amendments to the compensation methodology 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 21-95, the Commission proposes to modify the
methodology for setting compensation for IP Relay, a form of
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS).
2. With IP Relay, an individual with a hearing or speech disability
can communicate with voice telephone users by transmitting text via the
internet. The text transmission is delivered to an IP Relay call
center, where a communications assistant (CA) converts the user's text
to speech for the hearing party and converts that party's speech to
text for the IP Relay user.
3. IP Relay is supported by the TRS Fund in accordance with a
methodology approved by the Commission in 2007. A base level of per-
minute compensation is approved based on the weighted average of
providers' reasonable costs and remains effective for a three-year
period. In addition, an adjustment factor is set to be applied to the
base amount to determine per-minute compensation for the second and
third years, which reflects an increase due to inflation, offset by a
decrease due to cost efficiencies. The base compensation amount also is
subject to upward adjustment to account for exogenous costs, i.e.,
those costs beyond the control of the IP Relay providers that are not
reflected in the inflation adjustment. At the end of each three-year
period, the base compensation level is reset based on average provider
costs. The current compensation period runs from July 1, 2019, to June
30, 2022.
4. Since 2007, there have been substantial changes in the
circumstances relevant to TRS Fund support of IP Relay. In 2013 and
2014, four of the five IP Relay providers exited the market, and IP
Relay demand declined precipitously. After November 2014, Sprint
Corporation (now T-Mobile USA, Inc.) was the sole provider of IP Relay
service, and demand stabilized.
5. In response to these developments, the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) has taken a number of steps to ensure
that TRS Fund support for IP Relay was sufficient to sustain the
service and allow the remaining provider to ascertain and meet the
needs of consumers relying on it for functionally equivalent telephone
service.
6. In 2016, the Bureau partially waived the Commission rule
prohibiting TRS Fund support of IP Relay provider-directed outreach
activities to allow T-Mobile to effectively educate deafblind consumers
about its service and solicit feedback on how to improve it. The Bureau
renewed this waiver in subsequent years.
7. In 2019, the Bureau allowed recovery of an operating margin,
determined as a percentage of annual expenses, in lieu of the rate of
return on capital investment previously allowed. In renewing the
previously granted waiver permitting provider recovery of expenses for
outreach to the deafblind community, the Bureau expanded the scope of
that waiver to include outreach to other potential users of this
service.
8. In November 2018, Sprint (now T-Mobile) filed a petition for
rulemaking requesting a new compensation methodology. The company
proposed that the Commission adopt a new approach based substantially
on the Multi-State Average Rate Structure (MARS) compensation plan for
TTY-based TRS offered through state TRS programs.
9. The Commission proposes to amend the compensation rules for IP
Relay to take account of the changed environment in which this service
is provided. The Commission believes it should continue the practice of
periodically re-setting the compensation level based on determinations
of reasonable provider cost. As the Commission explained last year when
setting compensation for internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service
(IP CTS) in the IP CTS Compensation Methodology Order, published at 85
FR 64971, October 14, 2020, over a long period ``the Commission has
developed a consistent approach to determining
[[Page 64442]]
the reasonable costs of providing TRS, which can be applied without
imposing undue administrative burdens on either providers or the
Commission.'' Further, ``[a]lthough any ratemaking method is subject to
imprecision, provider cost data, which is subject to audit, has been
reasonably reliable and consistent,'' and ``the Commission's
determinations regarding allowability of costs are solidly reasoned and
have been upheld on judicial review.'' The Commission seeks comment on
whether these general observations continue to hold true for IP Relay.
10. The Commission proposes to continue setting the compensation
level for a multi-year period, subject to annual adjustment based on
predetermined factors. The Commission proposes a number of changes in
how reasonable costs are determined, and seeks comment on whether to
change the specific duration of the compensation period and on the
appropriate criteria for annual adjustment of the compensation level,
as well as other aspects of the methodology. The Commission seeks
comment on which specific aspects of the cost-based approach have been
problematic in the IP Relay context and how they could be improved. The
Commission seeks additional comment on the MARS-based alternative
proposed in T-Mobile's petition for rulemaking, and invites commenters
to suggest additional alternative compensation methodologies.
Benefits of IP Relay
11. The Commission seeks granular information on which segments of
the TRS-eligible population primarily use and benefit from this
service. How many deafblind individuals use IP Relay and how many
minutes of use do they represent? The Commission seeks comment on the
best way to determine or estimate these numbers. What features of IP
Relay are critical for this customer segment? What proportion of IP
Relay users represent people who became deaf or hard of hearing early
in life, and are unable to use VRS because they do not know ASL? To
what extent is IP Relay used to make 911 calls, and what advantages
does it offer in this regard? To what extent do other forms of TRS (or
other communications services, such as real-time text) provide an
effective substitute to IP Relay for individuals who might otherwise
rely on the service as their sole or primary means of telephone
communication? To what extent do people who lose hearing later in life
find IP Relay beneficial, despite the availability of other options,
such as IP CTS? Would a person with close to 100% hearing loss find IP
Relay preferable to IP CTS? Would such a preference depend on how much
an individual's speech is affected, or other factors? The Commission
seeks comment on whether there has been enough outreach and education
to the deafblind community by the Commission and TRS providers and
whether more is needed. Would increased outreach and education to the
deafblind community regarding the availability and merits of each type
of TRS increase legitimate demand for IP Relay?
Allowable Expenses
12. The Commission has made a number of determinations, both for
TRS generally and for specific relay services, as to whether various
categories of costs are allowable for recovery from the TRS Fund as
reasonable costs of providing TRS. The Commission seeks comment on
possible amendments to the allowable cost rules.
13. Outreach. The Commission proposes to rescind the current
prohibition on outreach recovery by IP Relay providers and seeks
comment on this proposal, its costs and benefits, and the underlying
rationale stated below.
14. First, CGB has found that in the absence of competition,
providing economic incentive for outreach and education by the sole
service provider may be critical to effectively educate consumers--
including consumers who are deafblind and others--regarding the
availability of and improvements to the service. The Commission invites
comment on the extent to which outreach for this purpose continues to
be needed and the resulting benefits.
15. Second, with only one IP Relay provider, the Commission
believes that provider outreach expenditures in this context are more
likely to be focused appropriately on educating existing and potential
IP Relay users about the service rather than on encouraging or
preventing ``churn'' among existing customers, would therefore be more
effective for their intended purpose than when the outreach ban was
adopted, and would not likely duplicate other outreach efforts.
Finally, a review of the outreach reports submitted by T-Mobile in
response to the resumption of compensated outreach activity has not
shown that they are misdirected toward ineligible users. Therefore, the
Commission does not believe such efforts would contribute to a
recurrence of the kind of misuse of IP Relay that occurred prior to
2015. The Commission seeks comment on these assumptions.
16. The Commission seeks comment on whether to limit allowable
outreach expenses to a specified percentage or amount, and, if so, what
percentage or amount should be allowed. How should the Commission
measure the effectiveness of outreach efforts--based on the number of
new users or on some other basis? Should the Commission continue to
require the filing of regular reports to ensure that outreach expenses
are beneficial and effectively educating consumers about IP Relay
service, and if so, on what schedule? Should the Commission continue to
require separate reporting of general and deafblind outreach activities
and the associated costs?
17. Indirect Overhead. The Commission seeks comment on whether to
modify, with respect to IP Relay, the Commission's rule allowing
recovery for only those overhead costs directly related to and directly
supporting the provision of relay service and whether there is a
continuing need for this rule in the IP Relay context.
18. First, is the current rule effectively mandated by section 225
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended? 47 U.S.C. 225. Given
that only some current providers of TRS are common carriers, does the
Commission have more flexibility in determining what costs are
reasonable?
19. Second, the Commission seeks comment on the cost-effectiveness
of the current rule, relative to alternatives, notably allowing a
reasonable contribution toward overhead costs. To what extent is it
feasible for a multi-service provider to track administrative costs
directly, to the extent they are attributable to the provision of TRS?
Is it unduly burdensome to require a demonstration of cost causation
for such costs, e.g., by maintaining time records for staff time
attributable to IP Relay? What specific kinds of administrative costs
that are not currently recoverable would be recovered if allocation of
overhead were permitted? The Commission seeks comment on whether there
are circumstances specific to the current context of IP Relay, such as
the presence of only one provider, that make the rule more burdensome
or less appropriate for application to this service, compared to other
forms of TRS? How much would allowing support for such costs increase
per-minute IP Relay compensation? Is there any risk T-Mobile would
abandon TRS if it continued to receive no contribution to overheads but
continued to be fully compensated for all costs attributed to TRS?
20. If the Commission were to allow recovery of overhead costs,
i.e., administrative costs not directly attributable to TRS, how should
such
[[Page 64443]]
costs be allocated--based on the percentage of total revenues derived
from IP Relay, percentage of total company costs, or by some other
method? How could the Commission or Fund administrator effectively
audit such allocations?
21. Other Allowable Costs. Are there other costs incurred in the
provision of IP Relay that the Commission's methodology should allow?
Operating Margin
22. The Commission proposes to amend its compensation rules to
affirm that the IP Relay compensation level should include an operating
margin--i.e., an allowance for recovery of a designated percentage of
allowed expenses, in lieu of return on investment. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal and its cost-effectiveness.
23. The Commission seeks comment on what percentage of allowable
expenses constitutes a reasonable operating margin for IP Relay. By
what criteria should the allowed operating margin be determined? Is
business risk assessment an appropriate measure for setting the
operating margin for IP Relay? Due to the level of business risk, or
for other reasons, should the operating margin for IP Relay be
different from that for other forms of TRS? Is the operating margin of
12.35%, determined by the Bureau in 2019, a reasonable margin going
forward, or should a different allowed margin be selected? Have there
been recent changes in capital markets that would support increasing or
decreasing this margin? The Commission seeks comment on whether future
determinations of an operating margin for IP Relay should be made by
the Commission itself or could be delegated to the Bureau.
Projected Versus Historical Costs
24. The Commission proposes to return to the pre-2019 practice of
using only projected costs and demand as the basis for calculating the
base compensation level for IP Relay and seeks comment on this proposal
and its cost-effectiveness relative to other approaches. The Commission
invites the submission of evidence regarding the likelihood that the
current level of cost increases in IP Relay are likely to continue or
to prove to be a temporary phenomenon.
Compensation Period and Adjustments
25. Duration of Compensation Period. The Commission proposes to
continue setting IP Relay compensation for a multi-year period and
seeks comment on this proposal and whether it will provide benefits in
the IP Relay context.
26. Assuming that the Commission continues setting compensation for
a multi-year period, should the duration continue to be three years? A
longer compensation period, such as four or five years, would
potentially offer a provider greater certainty for the purpose of long-
term planning and allow retention of a larger portion of any profits
produced by efficiency improvements--as well as reducing the
administrative burden for the provider and the Commission. Would these
benefits outweigh the risks posed by the potential for unpredicted cost
increases or fall-off in demand? Alternatively, would a shorter period
be preferable, to address cost predictability concerns, while retaining
some of the benefit of a multi-year plan? The Commission seeks comment
on the extent to which a compensation period of longer than three years
would make a material difference to such firms' capacity to provide and
improve IP Relay service. Recognizing that, if over a given
compensation period, costs were to rise substantially, and providers
would have strong incentives to present a robust petition explaining
their need, and thus obtain relief, to what extent would any benefits
of a longer compensation period justify the risks of overcompensation
that would occur if costs were to fall significantly over the period?
27. Are IP Relay costs sufficiently predictable to warrant setting
a base compensation amount for a multi-year period? Alternatively, is
the variability in IP Relay costs sufficiently unpredictable that the
Commission should reassess the IP Relay compensation level annually?
The Commission seeks comment on the cost-effectiveness of this
alternative approach relative to the current approach or other
alternative approaches. Would the resulting year-to-year uncertainty
and reduced incentives for efficiency and innovation be outweighed by
the greater flexibility to ensure full cost recovery in response to
unpredicted cost and demand changes? Are there net benefits of this
alternative that would outweigh any increased administrative burden on
the provider and the Commission?
28. The Commission also seeks comment on whether compensation
decisions based on cost determinations, whether made annually or at
longer intervals, should be made by the full Commission, or by the
Bureau under delegated authority. Further, should other decisions--
e.g., approval of annual changes based on preset adjustment factors,
determinations regarding exogenous cost claims, and grant or denial of
requests for waiver of compensation rules--be made at the Commission or
Bureau level?
29. Compensation Adjustments During a Multi-Year Period. If the
Commission continues setting IP Relay compensation for a multi-year
period, it seeks comment on whether to continue the current practice of
adjusting the compensation level in subsequent years of the cycle, and
if so, whether to modify the criteria for such adjustments.
30. Inflation Adjustment. Should the Commission continue to apply
an annual inflation adjustment to the base compensation level, and if
so, how should the adjustment be determined? The current methodology
uses an inflation factor based on the Gross Domestic Product--Price
Index (GDP-PI) to adjust the compensation level upward. Is the GDP-PI a
reasonably accurate predictor of inflation in IP Relay costs? Would
another price index provide a better measure? For example, because IP
Relay is currently a labor-intensive service, should the Commission
select a measure from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Employment
Cost Index: Historical Listing Volume III (April 2021), available at
<a href="https://www.bls.gov/web/eci/echistrynaics.pdf">https://www.bls.gov/web/eci/echistrynaics.pdf</a>, which tracks measures of
labor cost for various industry segments--for example, the seasonally-
adjusted ``office and administrative support,'' ``service-providing
industries,'' ``other services except public administration,'' or the
non-seasonally-adjusted ``office and administrative support,'' indices?
Which measure or measures of inflation in this index would be most
appropriate for IP Relay? Is there another general or sector-specific
cost index that would more accurately predict changes in IP Relay cost?
31. Efficiency Adjustment. The Commission also established an
efficiency factor, used to adjust the compensation level in a downward
direction to reflect expected productivity improvements. The Commission
seeks comment on how best to measure expected efficiency gains for this
particular service. What are the potential sources of annual efficiency
gains in IP Relay, and how should the extent of annual efficiency gains
be estimated? Alternatively, should the Commission eliminate the
efficiency factor?
32. Exogenous Costs. The IP Relay base compensation level can be
adjusted upward to permit recovery of exogenous costs, which are
``costs beyond the control of the IP Relay providers that are
[[Page 64444]]
not reflected in the inflation adjustment,'' such as a new service
requirement adopted by the Commission. Should the Commission retain
this aspect of the methodology? If so, are there other types of
exogenous costs that warrant inclusion? Should the Commission broaden
the definition of exogenous costs? Should the Commission apply the
allowable cost criteria adopted in the 2017 VRS Compensation Order,
published at 82 FR 39673, August 22, 2017, which allow upward
compensation adjustment for well-documented exogenous costs that (1)
belong to a category of costs that the Commission has deemed allowable,
(2) result from new TRS requirements or other causes beyond the
provider's control, (3) are new costs that were not factored into the
applicable compensation rates, and (4) if unrecovered, would cause a
provider's current allowable-expenses-plus-operating margin to exceed
its revenues?
33. Other Adjustments. In addition to adjustments for inflation,
efficiency, and exogenous costs, are there other types of adjustments
to the IP Relay compensation level that the Commission should be making
in subsequent years of a multi-year rate cycle?
Alternative Compensation Methodologies
34. Hybrid MARS Approach. T-Mobile proposes that in setting a new
IP Relay compensation level, the Commission should take as a starting
point the per-minute compensation for interstate TTY-based TRS, which
is currently set using the MARS method. The Commission would multiply
the average per-minute rate of TTY-based TRS compensation by the
projected number of IP Relay minutes, subtract those provider costs
that are incurred only in providing TTY-based TRS, and add costs that
are incurred only in providing IP Relay. The resulting funding
requirement would be divided by projected IP Relay demand to determine
the per-minute compensation level.
35. The Commission invites advocates of this approach to identify
the specific categories of costs they believe would be appropriate to
add and subtract to achieve an appropriate per-minute compensation
level using such a hybrid MARS methodology. Which categories of TTY-
based TRS costs, specifically, are not incurred to provide IP Relay,
which categories of IP Relay costs are not incurred to provide TTY-
based TRS, and what are the estimated current costs in each of those
categories?
36. The Commission is unpersuaded that it would be appropriate to
use a MARS compensation approach as a starting point for setting IP
Relay compensation, and believes that attempting to revert to a version
of the MARS methodology would likely result in significant
overcompensation for IP Relay, wasting TRS funds. The Commission also
is not persuaded that T-Mobile's proposed methodology would be any less
difficult to apply or subject to inaccuracy than the current
methodology, and T-Mobile's proposal appears inconsistent with recent
Commission precedent. The Commission seeks comment on the concerns
stated above. Are there other factors that merit consideration of T-
Mobile's proposal? Would the hybrid MARS approach better serve the
compensation-setting policy goals articulated above?
37. Other Methodologies. Are there other compensation methodologies
that the Commission should consider for IP Relay to achieve its policy
goals?
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
38. 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 Notice. 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 on the Notice provided in the item.
The Commission will send a copy of the entire Notice, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
Need for, and Objectives of the Proposed Rules
39. In the Notice, the Commission proposes to reform the
compensation methodology for IP Relay. To develop a complete record,
the Commission seeks comment on whether and how to modify the process
for setting projected-cost-based IP Relay compensation, including
whether certain costs that are currently not allowed should be
compensable, the methodology for calculating the compensation amount,
and alternative approaches. The Commission takes these steps to allow
recovery of reasonable provider costs and ensure that functionally
equivalent IP Relay is provided in the most efficient manner.
Legal Basis
40. 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
41. The proposals in the document FCC 21-95 will affect the
obligations of IP Relay providers. These services can be included
within the broad economic category of All Other Telecommunications.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
42. The proposed compensation methodology will not create new
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
43. Throughout the Notice, the Commission is (1) taking steps to
minimize the impact on small entities by proposing reforms to the IP
Relay compensation methodology that would ensure that providers of IP
Relay are fairly compensated for the provision of IP Relay, including
considering significant alternatives by identifying and seeking comment
on multiple methodologies for compensation; and (2) considering various
options to determine the best compensation methodology for ensuring
functionally equivalent service and maintaining an efficient IP Relay
market over the long term in accordance with the Commission's statutory
obligations. The Notice seeks comment on the effect these proposals
will have on all entities that have the potential to provide IP Relay,
including small entities.
44. The Notice 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
Notice. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the Notice, in
reaching its final conclusions and acting in this proceeding.
Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission's Proposals
45. None.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-24945 Filed 11-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 18, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.