[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62935-62939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24533]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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-to-VCO 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.

[[Page 62936]]

    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    [ssquf] 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80e6e3e3c0e2e3f0e9f7e5e2aee3efed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a7c79795a78796a736d7f7834797577">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90d5fcf9ffe4bed7e2f5f5fee7f1fcf4d0f6f3f3bef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcf9d0d5d3c892fbced9d9d2cbddd0d8fcdadfdf92dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#680e0b0b5d585c280e0b0b460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="167075752326225670757538717960">[email protected]</span></a> 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 Sec.  1.1206(b). In proceedings governed 
by rule Sec.  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 Internet-based 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%

[[Page 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-to-voice), 
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, 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.

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-to-VCO 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 VCO-to-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 Sec.  
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

[[Page 62938]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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

[[Page 62939]]

definition of TRS in Sec.  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 Sec.  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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  64.601 by revising paragraph (a)(32) to read as follows:


Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  64.604 by revising paragraph (a)(3)(v) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>