Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62935 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on part of 

this rule and if that part can be severed 

from the remainder of the rule, EPA may 

adopt as final those parts of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 30, 2014. 

Rebecca Weber, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24895 Filed 10–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0687; FRL–9918–16– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri, Restriction of Emissions of 

Particulate Matter From Industrial 

Processes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

two revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Missouri on May 8, 2012 

and October 17, 2013, related to a 

Missouri rule titled ‘‘Restriction of 

Emissions of Particulate Matter from 

Industrial Processes.’’ These SIP 

revisions are administrative and provide 

the following: Updates an outdated 

reference in the current SIP approved 

rule; provides a hierarchy of compliance 

measurement approaches requested by 

EPA; provides a clarification on 

applicability; and, deletes redundant 

definitions. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received in writing by 

November 20, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2014–0687, by mail to Larry 

Gonzalez, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may 

also be submitted electronically or 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in 

the ADDRESSES section of the direct final 

rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Gonzalez, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

913–551–7041, or by email at 

gonzalez.larry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of the Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the state’s 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

revision amendment and anticipates no 

relevant adverse comments to this 

action. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated in 

relation to this action. If EPA receives 

relevant adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on part of 

this rule and if that part can be severed 

from the remainder of the rule, EPA may 

adopt as final those parts of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 24, 2014. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24761 Filed 10–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket No. 03–123; FCC 14–125] 

Telecommunications Relay Services 

and Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals With Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities; Waiver of iTRS Mandatory 

Minimum Standards 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission issues a Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) seeking 

comment on amending the definition of 

Telecommunications Relay Services 

(TRS) in the Commission’s rules to 

conform to changes made to this 

definition by the Twenty-First Century 

Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), 

which allows compensation for TRS 

calls between two or more individuals 

with disabilities. The Commission also 

seeks comment on eliminating as a 

mandatory minimum standard the 

requirement that TRS providers provide 

voice-carry-over to voice-carry-over 

(VCO-to-VCO) and hearing-carry-over to 

hearing-carry-over (HCO-to-HCO), 

subject to exceptions for Captioned 

Telephone Service (CTS) and Internet 

Protocol Captioned Telephone Service 

(IP CTS), as HCO-to-HCO and VCO-toVCO calls would not require a 

communications assistant (CA) to 

provide functionally equivalent 

communication. These proposals are 

made to ensure that the intent of 

Congress in enacting the CVAA is 

implemented and that the mandatory 

minimum standards imposed for TRS 

are applicable and appropriate for each 

type of TRS to which they are applied. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

November 20, 2014, and reply 

comments on or before December 22, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CG Docket No. 03–123, by 

any of the following methods: 

Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS), through 

the Commission’s Web site http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

Web site for submitting comments. For 

ECFS filers, in completing the 

transmittal screen, filers should include 

their full name, U.S. Postal Service 

mailing address, and CG Docket No. 03– 

123. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62936 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

• Paper filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies 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 (although the Commission 

continues to experience delays in 

receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial Mail sent by overnight 

mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 

Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be 

sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, 

Capitol Heights, MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

D In addition, parties must serve one 

copy of each pleading with the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, or via email to 

fcc@bcpiweb.com. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliot 

Greenwald, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability 

Rights Office, at (202) 418–2235 or 

email Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

Telecommunications Relay Services and 

Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals with Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities; Waiver of iTRS Mandatory 

Minimum Standards, Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), 

document FCC 14–125, adopted on 

August 20, 2014, and released on 

August 22, 2014, in CG Docket No. 03– 

123. In document FCC 14–125, the 

Commission also adopted an 

accompanying Report and Order and 

Order, which are summarized in a 

separate Federal Register Publication. 

The full text of document FCC 14–125 

will be available for public inspection 

and copying via ECFS, and during 

regular business hours at the FCC 

Reference Information Center, Portals II, 

445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. It also may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554, telephone: (800) 378–3160, fax: 

(202) 488–5563, or Internet: 

www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 14– 

125 can also be downloaded in Word or 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at: 

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/

disability-rights-office-headlines. 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 (voice), 

202–418–0432 (TTY). 

This proceeding shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 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 

presentations 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) of the Commission’s rules 

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 14–125 does not 

contain proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public 

Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it 

does not contain any proposed 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis 

1. Telecommunications Relay 

Services. Title IV of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires 

the Commission to ensure that TRS is 

available to enable a person with a 

hearing or speech disability to 

communicate with other telephone 

users in a manner that is functionally 

equivalent to voice communications 

service to the extent possible and in the 

most efficient manner. In accordance 

with this directive, the Commission’s 

rules contain functional requirements, 

operations procedures and mandatory 

minimum standards to ensure the 

provision of functionally equivalent 

relay service. See 47 CFR 64.604. Many 

of these standards were adopted in the 

1990s, at a time when there was only 

one form of TRS transmitted over the 

public switched telephone network 

(PSTN)—TTY-to-voice relay service. A 

text telephone, or TTY, is a text device 

that employs graphic communication in 

the transmission of coded signals 

through a wire or radio communication 

system. In a TTY-to-voice relay call, a 

communications assistant (CA) relays 

the call between parties by converting 

everything that the text caller with a 

hearing or speech disability types into 

voice for the hearing party and typing 

everything that the voice user responds 

back to the person with a disability. 

From 2000 to 2007, in light of advancing 

communication technologies and 

Internet-based innovations, the 

Commission recognized other forms of 

TRS as eligible for compensation from 

the Interstate Telecommunications 

Relay Service Fund (TRS Fund or 

Fund), including three forms of Internetbased TRS (iTRS): Video Relay Service 

(VRS), Internet Protocol Relay Service 

(IP Relay), and Internet Protocol 

Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS). 

Today iTRS account for more than 90% 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62937 

of the total relay service minutes 

reimbursed from the Fund. 

2. In this document, the Commission 

seeks comment on a proposed 

amendment to the definition of TRS 

contained in the Commission’s rules, to 

conform to changes made to this 

definition in the CVAA, which allows 

compensation for TRS calls between 

two or more individuals with 

disabilities. The proposed amendment 

would allow such calls, including those 

whose handling may require more than 

one CA. The Commission’s mandatory 

minimum standards are intended to 

ensure that the user experience when 

making TRS calls is comparable to a 

voice user’s experience when making 

conventional telephone calls. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

eliminating the mandatory minimum 

standard requiring TRS providers to 

provide HCO-to-HCO and VCO-to-VCO. 

With VCO, a deaf or hard of hearing 

person who is able to speak 

communicates by voice directly to the 

other party to the call without 

intervention by the CA, and the CA 

relays the other party’s voice response 

as text or in sign language. See generally 

47 CFR 64.601(a)(42) (defining VCO in 

the context of TTY-based relay service). 

With HCO, a person who has a speech 

disability, but who is able to hear, 

listens directly to the other party’s voice 

without intervention by the CA, and in 

reply has the CA convert his or her 

typed or signed responses into voice See 

generally 47 CFR 64.601(a)(13) (defining 

HCO in the context of TTY-based relay 

service). 

3. Proposed amendment to the 

definition of TRS. As originally drafted, 

section 225 of the Communications Act 

of 1934 (Act), defined TRS as a 

telecommunication service between a 

person with a hearing or speech 

disability and a ‘‘hearing’’ individual. 

This definition, adopted when there was 

only one type of relay service (TTY-tovoice), generally did not allow 

compensation for calls between and 

among two or more persons with a 

disability when no hearing person was 

a party to the call. 

4. Section 103(a)(3) of the CVAA 

amended section 225 of the Act to make 

clear that TRS are intended to enable 

people who are deaf, hard of hearing, 

deaf-blind, or who have a speech 

disability to communicate by telephone 

(wire or radio) with any individual, 

removing the specification that such 

individual be hearing. Specifically, the 

new definition states: 

The term ‘‘telecommunications relay 

services’’ means telephone transmission 

services that provide the ability for an 

individual who is deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, or who has a speech disability to 

engage in communication by wire or radio 

with one or more individuals, in a manner 

that is functionally equivalent to the ability 

of a hearing individual who does not have a 

speech disability to communicate using voice 

communication services by wire or radio. 

47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3). 

5. Congressional guidance on the 

amended definition recognizes that 

there are many different forms of relay 

services and that there may be times 

when two or more individuals using 

different types of TRS may need to 

communicate with each other, even 

when a hearing person is not a party to 

the call. Specifically, the Senate and 

House Reports on the CVAA explain 

that in addition to defining TRS as the 

ability of a person who is deaf, hard of 

hearing, deaf-blind or has a speech 

disability to use TRS to communicate 

with hearing individuals, these services 

may be used where individuals with 

disabilities need to communicate with 

other relay users with disabilities, 

where necessary to achieve functionally 

equivalent communication. This will be 

the case, for example, when two or more 

individuals to a call each have 

disabilities, but use different types of 

relay services, depending on their 

communication needs. In order for 

communication between or among such 

individuals to be achieved, more than 

one type of relay service may be needed 

to complete the call. 

6. In accordance with the CVAA and 

its legislative history, the Commission 

proposes to amend the definition of TRS 

in the Commission’s rules at 47 CFR 

64.601(a)(32) to conform to the 

definition adopted in the CVAA. 

Additionally, in accordance with the 

revised definition, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that the proposed 

new rule will allow compensation from 

the TRS Fund for relay calls involving 

two or more persons using different 

forms of relay services, including calls 

whose handling may require more than 

one CA. The Commission seeks 

comment on these proposals. 

7. With the exception of CTS and IP 

CTS, the Commission emphasizes that 

the proposed changes, if adopted, will 

not permit compensation from the TRS 

Fund for relay calls involving two or 

more persons using the same type of 

relay service, which in effect would be 

a form of point-to-point 

communications. In other words, 

although multiple CA calls may be 

necessary to facilitate TRS 

communication between and among 

individuals using different forms of 

TRS, compensation is not appropriate 

for TRS calls in which a CA is not 

needed to relay service between users. 

The exceptions to this prohibition are 

calls between two CTS or two IP CTS 

users, or a CTS user to IP CTS user, 

because each CTS user currently must 

communicate through his or her own 

CA, who re-voices what the other party 

says to that user. 

8. HCO-to-HCO and VCO-to-VCO. The 

Commission’s rules currently require all 

TRS providers to provide VCO-to-VCO 

and HCO-to-HCO. The Commission 

believes that it should not have 

minimum standards mandating the 

provision of HCO-to-HCO and VCO-toVCO calls by TRS providers. 

Specifically, under the Commission’s 

rules, in order for two individuals to use 

VCO or HCO on the same call, both 

people to the call would have to be able 

to speak and hear what the other party 

is saying. This means that a CA would 

not be necessary to provide functionally 

equivalent communication during either 

type of call. The exceptions to this are 

when a CTS or IP CTS user calls another 

CTS or IP CTS user, which is essentially 

a way of completing an enhanced VCOto-VCO call, and for which the use of 

multiple CAs has been permitted 

(though not mandated) by the 

Commission for compensation because 

of its specific function. Accordingly, the 

Commission proposes to amend 

§ 64.604(a)(3)(v) of its rules to remove as 

a mandatory minimum standard the 

requirement that TRS providers provide 

VCO-to-VCO and HCO-to-HCO, subject 

to the exceptions for CTS and IP CTS. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

9. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission 

has prepared this Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

small entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in document FCC 14–125. 

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 in document FCC 14–125. 

The Commission will send a copy of 

document FCC 14–125, including this 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA). 

10. In document FCC 14–125, the 

Commission initiates a further review 

relating to TRS in response to section 

103(a)(3) of the CVAA, which amended 

the definition of TRS in section 

225(a)(3) of the Act. The objective of 

this proceeding is to amend the 

Commission’s rule defining TRS to 

conform to the statutory definition of 

TRS. The Commission also seeks 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62938 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

comment on whether, under the revised 

definition of TRS, providers may be 

compensated from the TRS Fund for 

communication among TRS users using 

multiple forms of TRS. 

11. Document FCC 14–125 seeks 

comment on (1) whether the 

Commission should revise the 

definition of TRS found in § 64.601 of 

its rules to conform to the amended 

definition of TRS included in section 

225 of the Act; (2) the compensability of 

calls between two or more individuals 

with disabilities using TRS, even when 

a hearing person is not on the call; (3) 

the compensability of TRS calls that 

require multiple CAs to provide 

functionally equivalent communication; 

and (4) whether the Commission should 

amend § 64.604(a)(3)(v) of the 

Commission’s rules to remove the 

mandatory minimum standard requiring 

TRS providers to provide VCO-to-VCO 

and HCO-to-HCO. 

12. Legal Basis. The authority for this 

proposed rulemaking is contained in 

sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 225 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

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

and 225. 

13. 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 and policies, if 

adopted. The RFA generally defines the 

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act. 

A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one 

which: (1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

SBA. 

14. TRS Providers. These services can 

be included within the broad economic 

categories of Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers and All 

Other Telecommunications. Nine 

providers currently receive 

compensation from the TRS Fund for 

providing VRS, IP Relay, IP CTS and 

CTS: ASL Services Holdings, LLC (ASL 

Services) (VRS); AT&T Inc. (AT&T) 

(CTS); CSDVRS, LLC (CSDVRS) (VRS); 

Convo Communications, LLC (Convo) 

(VRS); Hamilton Relay, Inc. (Hamilton) 

(IP CTS and CTS); Hancock, Jahn, Lee 

and Puckett, LLC d/b/a 

‘‘Communications Axess Ability Group’’ 

(CAAG) (VRS); Kansas Relay Service, 

Inc. (Kansas Relay) (CTS); Purple 

Communications, Inc. (Purple) (VRS, IP 

Relay and IP CTS); Sorenson 

Communications, Inc. (Sorenson) (VRS 

and IP CTS); and Sprint Corporation 

(Sprint) (IP Relay, IP CTS and CTS). 

15. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers is defined as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

engaged in operating and maintaining 

switching and transmission facilities to 

provide communications via the 

airwaves. Establishments in this 

industry have spectrum licenses and 

provide services using that spectrum, 

such as cellular phone services, paging 

services, wireless Internet access, and 

wireless video services.’’ In analyzing 

whether a substantial number of small 

entities would be affected by the 

requirements proposed in document 

FCC 14–125, the Commission notes that 

the SBA has developed the small 

business size standard for Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such firms having 1,500 

or fewer employees. TRS providers 

AT&T and Sprint can be included 

within the broad economic census 

category of Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers. Under 

this category and the associated small 

business size standard, AT&T and 

Sprint cannot be considered small. 

16. All Other Telecommunications. 

All Other Telecommunications is 

defined as follows: ‘‘This U.S. industry 

comprises establishments primarily 

engaged in providing specialized 

telecommunications services . . . . 

Establishments providing Internet 

services or voice over Internet protocol 

(VoIP) services via client-supplied 

telecommunications connections are 

also included in this industry.’’ In 

analyzing whether a substantial number 

of small entities would be affected by 

the requirements proposed in document 

FCC 14–125, the Commission notes that 

the SBA has developed a small business 

size standard for All Other 

Telecommunications, which consists of 

all such firms with gross annual receipts 

of $30 million or less. TRS providers 

ASL Services, CSDVRS, Convo, 

Hamilton, CAAG, Kansas Relay, Purple, 

and Sorenson can be included within 

the broad economic census category of 

All Other Telecommunications. Under 

this category and the associated small 

business size standard, approximately 

half of these eight providers can be 

considered small. 

17. Certain rule changes proposed in 

document FCC 14–125, if adopted by 

the Commission, would modify rules or 

add requirements governing reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

obligations. 

18. If the Commission were to revise 

the definition of TRS found in § 64.601 

of its rules to conform to the amended 

definition of TRS included in section 

225 of the Act, such a rule may impose 

new compliance obligations on TRS 

providers. If the Commission were to 

conclude that the revised definition of 

TRS allowed for compensation from the 

TRS Fund of calls between two or more 

individuals with disabilities using TRS, 

even when a hearing person is not on 

the call and even when TRS calls 

require multiple CAs to provide 

functionally equivalent communication, 

the Commission notes that all providers 

potentially affected by the proposed 

rules, including those deemed to be 

small entities under the SBA’s standard, 

would benefit because they would be 

eligible for compensation for additional 

types of TRS calls. If the Commission 

were to revise § 64.604(a)(3)(v) of its 

rules to remove the mandatory 

minimum standard requiring TRS 

providers to provide VCO-to-VCO and 

HCO-to-HCO, the Commission notes 

that all providers potentially affected by 

the proposed rule, including those 

deemed to be small entities under the 

SBA’s standard, would benefit because 

they would no longer be required to 

provide VCO-to-VCO and HCO-to-HCO. 

19. 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 (among 

others): (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. 

20. If the Commission were to revise 

the definition of TRS found in § 64.601 

of its rules to conform to the amended 

definition of TRS included in section 

225 of the Act and conclude that the 

revised definition of TRS allowed for 

compensation from the TRS Fund of 

calls between two or more individuals 

with disabilities using TRS, even when 

a hearing person is not on the call and 

even when TRS calls require multiple 

CAs to provide functionally equivalent 

communication, such regulations may 

impose new compliance obligations on 

TRS providers. However, allowing 

providers to be compensated for 

additional types of TRS calls may 

benefit certain small entities by 

increasing the types of TRS calls for 

which they may seek compensation. In 

determining whether to revise the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62939 

definition of TRS in § 64.601 of the 

Commission’s rules and the 

compensability of additional types of 

calls, the Commission will consider the 

costs and benefits of such a revision 

while keeping in mind the statutory 

requirements. Additionally, if the 

Commission were to amend 

§ 64.604(a)(3)(v) of its rules to remove 

the mandatory minimum standard 

requiring TRS providers to provide 

VCO-to-VCO and HCO-to-HCO, such 

regulations would remove current 

compliance obligations and would not 

impose new compliance obligations on 

TRS providers. 

21. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With, the 

Commission’s Proposals. None. 

Ordering Clauses 

Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 

225 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

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

154(j), and 225, document FCC 14–125 

is adopted. 

The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

document FCC 14–125 including the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Individuals with disabilities, 

Telecommunications. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 64 as follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat. 

56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 

225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act 

of 2012, Pub. L. 112–96, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 64.601 by revising 

paragraph (a)(32) to read as follows: 

§ 64.601 Definitions and provisions of 

general applicability. 

(a) * * * 

(32) Telecommunications relay 

services (TRS). Telephone transmission 

services that provide the ability for an 

individual who is deaf, hard of hearing, 

deaf-blind, or who has a speech 

disability to engage in communication 

by wire or radio with one or more 

individuals, in a manner that is 

functionally equivalent to the ability of 

a hearing individual who does not have 

a speech disability to communicate 

using voice communication services by 

wire or radio. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 64.604 by revising 

paragraph (a)(3)(v) to read as follows: 

§ 64.604 Mandatory minimum standards. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(v) TRS providers are required to 

provide the following types of TRS 

calls: 

(A) Text-to-voice and voice-to-text; 

(B) One-line VCO, two-line VCO, and 

VCO-to-TTY; and 

(C) One-line HCO, two-line HCO, and 

HCO-to-TTY. VRS providers are not 

required to provide text-to-voice and 

voice-to-text functionality. IP Relay 

providers are not required to provide 

one-line VCO and one-line HCO. IP 

Relay providers and VRS providers are 

not required to provide VCO-to-TTY 

and HCO-to-TTY. Captioned telephone 

service providers and IP CTS providers 

are not required to provide: 

(1) Text-to-voice functionality; and 

(2) One-line HCO, two-line HCO, and 

HCO-to-TTY. IP CTS providers are not 

required to provide one-line VCO. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–24533 Filed 10–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS