38490 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location

#Depth in feet above

ground.

*Elevation in feet (NGVD)

Existing Modified

Maps available for inspection at the Lexington County Planning Department, 212 South Lake Drive, Lexington, South Carolina.

Send comments to Mr. Johnny Jeffcoat, Chairman of the Lexington County Council, 212 South Lake Drive, Lexington, South Carolina 29072.

South Carolina ....... West Columbia

(City), Lexington

County.

Congaree River ................ Approximately 1,250 feet upstream of

Blossom Street.

*156 *150

Downstream side of Jarvis Klapman Boulevard.*158 *151

Maps available for inspection at the West Columbia City Hall, 1053 Center Street, West Columbia, South Carolina.

Send comments to The Honorable Wyman Mack Rish, Mayor of the City of West Columbia, 1053 Center Street, West Columbia, South Carolina 29169.

Virginia ................... Danville (City),

Pittsylvania

County.

Apple Branch .................... At confluence with Dan River ................... None *418

Approximately 25 feet upstream of

Northmont Boulevard.

None *535

Dan River ......................... At downstream corporate limits ................ *395 *396

Approximately 970 feet downstream of

upstream corporate limits.

*457 *458

Sandy Creek ..................... At confluence with Dan River ................... *421 *424

At downstream side of U.S. Route 58 ...... *423 *424

Sandy River ...................... At confluence with Dan River ................... *424 *427

Just downstream of old U.S. Route 58 .... *426 *427

Pumpkin Creek ................. At confluence with Dan River ................... *4009 *401

750 feet upstream of State Route 265 ..... *400 *401

Jackson Branch ................ At confluence with Dan River ................... *401 *403

Approximately 1,725 feet upstream of

Goodyear Boulevard (Whitmell Street).

*402 *403

Fall Creek ......................... At confluence with Dan River ................... *403 *404

100 feet downstream of Halifax Street ..... *403 *404

Maps available for inspection at the Department of Community Development, 427 Patton Street, Danville, Virginia.

Send comments to Mr. Lyle Lacy, Interim City Manager, P.O. Box 3300, Danville, Virginia 24543.

West Virginia ......... Moorefield (Town),

Hardy County.

Unnamed Ponding Area ... Approximately 500 feet southwest of the

intersection of U.S. Route 220 and

Monroe Avenue.

*805 *804

South Branch Potomac

River.

Unnamed tributary from downstream corporate limits to Spring Avenue.None *798

Maps available for inspection at the Moorefield Town Hall, 206 Winchester Avenue, Moorefield, West Virginia.

Send comments to The Honorable Larry P. Snyder, Mayor of the Town of Moorefield, 206 Winchester Avenue, Moorefield, West Virginia

26836.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)

Dated: May 16, 2000.

Michael J. Armstrong,

Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 00–14292 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 98–67; FCC 00–56]

Telecommunications Relay Services

and Speech-to-Speech Services for

Individuals With Hearing and Speech

Disabilities

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On March 6, 2000, the

Commission released a Further Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM)

regarding telecommunications relay

services (TRS). In the FNPRM, the

Commission asks for comment on how

to further improve TRS to ensure that

TRS remains ‘‘functionally equivalent’’

to voice telecommunications service as

telecommunications capabilities change

over time. Specifically, the FNPRM

asked what changes are necessary to

increase public awareness of TRS

among all callers, not just those with

disabilities, including how a national

awareness education campaign can be

established; and whether other

technologies, services, and features

should be made available to TRS users.

DATES: Reply comments are due on or

before July 5, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, TW–

A325, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

Office of the Secretary, a copy of any

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38491

comments on the information

collections contained herein should be

submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room 1–

C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20554, or via the Internet to

jboley@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marilyn Jones, Attorney, 202/418–2357,

Fax 202/418–2345, TTY 202/418–0484,

majones@fcc.gov, Common Carrier

Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(FNPRM) in the Matter of

Telecommunications Relay Services and

Speech-to-Speech Services for

Individuals with Hearing and Speech

Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98–67, FCC

00–56, adopted February 17, 2000 and

released March 6, 2000. The full text of

the item is available for inspection and

copying during the weekday hours of 9

a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the FCC Reference

Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20554, or copies

may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 445 12th Street, SW, Suite CY–

B400, Washington, DC 20554, phone

(202) 857-3800.

Synopsis of the Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking

1. In January 1997, we released a

Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on the quality of

TRS service. Based on the record

developed in the NOI, the Commission

released a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed rules

to enhance the quality of

telecommunications relay service. In

response, the Commission received

numerous suggestions on ways to

improve TRS. After considering the

many comments received, we released a

Report and Order and Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking.

2. In the FNPRM, we seek comment

on the establishment of a national

education campaign to increase

awareness of TRS among all callers, not

just those with disabilities; whether

there should be a separate, nationwide

800 number for STS relay service; and

whether TRS providers should have

access to SS7 technology in order to

better handle emergency calls, be

compatible with Caller ID and more

efficiently bill for and deliver relay

services.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

3. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the

Commission has prepared this present

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) of the possible significant

economic impact on small entities by

the policies and rules in this FNPRM.

Written public comments are requested

on this IRFA. Comments must be

identified as responses to the IRFA and

must be filed by the deadlines for

comments on the FNPRM. The

Commission will send a copy of the

FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C.

603(a). In addition, the FNPRM and

IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be

published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Rules

4. The Commission is issuing this

FNPRM to seek public comment on

technological advances that could

improve the level and quality of service

provided through TRS for the benefit of

the community of TRS users. In doing

so, the Commission hopes to enhance

the quality of TRS, and broaden the

potential universe of TRS users

consistent with Congress’ direction at 47

U.S.C. 225(d)(2) to the Commission to

ensure that its regulations encourage the

use of existing technology and not

discourage or impair the development of

improved technology. Specifically, the

FNPRM seeks comment on outreach

programs, the accessibility of emergency

services to TRS, and whether SS7

services should be made available to

TRS centers. The intent of these

proposed rules is to improve the overall

effectiveness of the TRS program.

B. Legal Basis

5. The authority for actions proposed

in this FNPRM may be found in sections

1, 4(I) and (j), 201–205, 218 and 225 of

the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),

201–205, 218 and 225.

C. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities to Which the

Proposed Rules Will Apply

6. The RFA directs agencies to

provide a description of, and, where

feasible, an estimate of the number of

small entities that may be affected by

the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C.

603(b)(3). The Regulatory Flexibility Act

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as

having the same meaning as the terms

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’

and ‘‘small business concern’’ under

section 3 of the Small Business Act. 5

U.S.C. 601(3). A small business concern

is one that: (1) Is independently owned

and operated; (2) is not dominant in its

field of operation; and (3) satisfies any

additional criteria established by the

Small Business Administration (SBA).

Small Business Act, 5 U.S.C. 632 (1996).

The most reliable source of information

regarding the total numbers of certain

common carrier and related providers

nationwide, as well as the numbers of

commercial wireless entities, appears to

be data the Commission publishes

annually in its Telecommunications

Industry Revenue report, regarding the

Telecommunications Relay Service.

Telecommunications Industry Revenue,

Figure 2

7. TRS Providers. Neither the

Commission nor the SBA has developed

a definition of small entity specifically

applicable to providers of

telecommunications relay services. The

closest applicable definition under the

SBA rules is for telephone

communications companies other than

radiotelephone (wireless) companies.

Small Business Act, 5 U.S.C. 632 (1996).

The SBA defines such establishments to

be small businesses when they have no

more than 1,500 employees. 13 CFR

121.201, Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) Code 4813.

According to our most recent data, there

are 11 interstate TRS providers, which

consist of interexchange carriers, local

exchange carriers, state-managed

entities, and non-profit organizations.

We do not have data specifying the

number of these providers that are

either dominant in their field of

operations, are not independently

owned and operated, or have more than

1,500 employees, and we are thus

unable at this time to estimate with

greater precision the number of TRS

providers that would qualify as small

business concerns under the SBA’s

definition. We note, however, that these

providers include large interexchange

carriers and incumbent local exchange

carriers. Consequently, we estimate that

there are fewer than 11 small TRS

providers that may be affected by the

proposed rules, if adopted. We seek

comment generally on our analysis

identifying TRS providers, and

specifically on whether we should

conclude, for Regulatory Flexibility Act

purposes, that any TRS providers are

small entities.

D. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

8. This FNPRM imposes no

requirement to file any information with

the Federal Communications

Commission.

38492 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

9. The RFA requires an agency to

describe any significant alternatives that

it has considered in reaching its

proposed approach, which may include

the following four alternatives: (1) The

establishment of differing compliance or

reporting requirements or timetables

that take into account the resources

available to small entities: (2) the

clarification, consolidation, or

simplification of compliance or

reporting requirements under the rule

for small entities; (3) the use of

performance, rather than design,

standards; and (4) an exemption from

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,

for small entities.

10. The proposals in the FNPRM, and

the comments the Commission seeks

regarding them, are part of the

Commission’s analysis of its role with

respect to the implementation and

operation of nationwide TRS for persons

with hearing and speech disabilities.

The guiding principal shaping these

proposals is Congress’ direction to the

Commission to ensure that TRS keeps

pace with advancing technology and

that the Commission’s rules do not

discourage the implementation of

technological advances or

improvements. The majority of TRS

service is provided by large

interexchange carriers and incumbent

local exchange carriers, and we believe

that the number of small entities

impacted by these proposals would be

potentially very small. With respect to

proposed amendments to the

Commission’s rules governing TRS, by

statute, common carriers providing

voice transmission services who are

subject to the TRS rules, including small

entities, may comply with their

obligations individually, through

designees, through competitively

selected vendor, or in concert with other

carriers. 47 U.S.C. 225(c). For this

reason, the Commission expects that the

proposed rule amendments will have

minimal impact on small entities. We

tentatively conclude that our proposals

in the FNPRM would impose minimum

burdens on small entities. We seek

comment on our tentative conclusion.

E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

11. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

Communications common carriers,

Disabilities, Telephone,

Telecommunications relay service.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–15707 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U