Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

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 202021 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 COVID19
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:40 Jun 03, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 administrators estimate, the current rates allowed providers, on average, to recover 31.4% above allowable expenses in TRS Fund Year 202021
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,
PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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 Commissions 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 providers 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 usersand to how many usersthat 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
E:FRFM04JNP1.SGM

04JNP1