[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62875-62883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24532]


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

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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission eliminates certain waivers of 
the telecommunications relay service (TRS) requirements that are no 
longer necessary, given advances in communications technology. At the 
same time, it extends certain existing waivers of mandatory minimum 
standards for specific providers for which the provision of certain TRS 
features is technologically infeasible at this time. The Commission 
also eliminates certain TRS requirements that are either not applicable 
or technically not feasible, while ensuring that TRS consumers continue 
to have access to communications services that are functionally 
equivalent to voice telephone services. Lastly, the Commission 
eliminates an annual reporting requirement for TRS providers. These 
actions provide regulatory clarity and reduce administrative burdens on 
both TRS providers and the Commission and ensure that the TRS mandatory 
minimum standards are applicable and technologically appropriate for 
each type of TRS.

DATES: Effective December 22, 2014, except for terminations of waivers 
of Sec. Sec.  64.604(a)(3)(vi)(B) and (C) of the Commission's rules, 
which shall become effective on October 21, 2014.

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#a3e6cfcaccd78de4d1c6c6cdd4c2cfc7e3c5c0c08dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a7f5653554e147d485f5f544d5b565e7a5c5959145d554c">[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 Report and Order and Order, (Order), 
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 seeks comment in an accompanying Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), which is summarized in a

[[Page 62876]]

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#11777272242125517772723f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="284e4b4b1d181c684e4b4b064f475e">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 
at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 14-125 does not contain new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 
1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain 
any new or modified 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).

Congressional Review Act

    The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 14-125 in a report 
to be sent to Congress and the Governmental Accountability Office 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

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 of 
Fund), including Captioned Telephone Service (CTS) and 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). CTS permits people who can speak, but who have 
difficulty hearing over the telephone to simultaneously listen to the 
other party and read captions of what that party is saying. VRS allows 
people with hearing or speech disabilities who use sign language to 
communicate with voice telephone users over a broadband Internet 
connection using video equipment and a CA who relays the conversation 
back and forth by signing what the voice telephone user says to the 
deaf or hard of hearing user and responding in voice to the voice 
telephone user. IP Relay permits people with hearing or speech 
disabilities to communicate in text using an Internet Protocol-enabled 
device via the Internet. With IP CTS, the connection carrying the 
captions between the relay service provider and the relay service user 
is via the Internet, rather than through the PSTN. Today iTRS account 
for more than 90% of the total relay service minutes reimbursed from 
the Fund.
    2. Waivers Granted for iTRS and CTS. 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. Over the years, however, the Commission 
has granted TRS providers waivers of certain TRS mandatory minimum 
standards that were deemed either technologically infeasible for or 
inapplicable to a particular form of TRS. The waivers granted for IP 
CTS and Captioned Telephone Service (CTS) have been issued for 
indefinite periods, while most waivers granted for VRS and IP Relay 
have been limited in duration. See Telecommunications Relay Services 
and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Declaratory Ruling (IP CTS 
Declaratory Ruling); published at 72 FR 6960, February 14, 2007; 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, 
Waiver Order (2001 VRS Waiver Order); Provision of Improved 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Petition for 
Clarification of WorldCom, Inc., CC Docket No. 98-67, Declaratory 
Ruling (IP Relay Declaratory Ruling); published at 67 FR 39863, June 
11, 2002. Generally, the limited-duration waivers have been renewed 
periodically--in recent years on an annual basis. The Commission has 
conditioned many of the waivers on the filing of annual waiver reports 
in which providers are expected to detail their progress in achieving 
compliance with the underlying mandatory minimum standards.
    3. TRS Waiver NPRM. On November 19, 2009, Hamilton Relay, Inc., 
AT&T, Inc., CSDVRS, LLC, Sorenson Communications, Inc., Sprint Nextel 
Corporation, and Purple Communications, Inc. (Petitioners) filed a 
``Request for Extension and Clarification of Various iTRS Waivers'' 
(Hamilton Joint Request), requesting that the Commission extend 
indefinitely all iTRS waivers of limited duration and provide 
clarification on what Petitioners claim are discrepancies in some of 
the waivers. In September 2013, the Commission released a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking to take an in-depth look at the merits of making 
permanent or eliminating the waivers addressed in the Hamilton Joint 
Request, as well as waivers granted for CTS. Telecommunications Relay 
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and 
Speech Disabilities; Waivers of iTRS Mandatory Minimum Standards, CG 
Docket No. 03-123, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (TRS Waiver NPRM); 
published at 78 FR 63152, October 23, 2103. Specifically, the 
Commission sought public comment on the continuing need for, and 
technical feasibility and applicability of, the rules underlying each 
of these waivers as these rules apply to certain types of TRS.

[[Page 62877]]

    4. Generally, the Commission sought input on the technological 
feasibility of compliance with, as well as the consumer need for, its 
waived mandatory minimum standards. The Commission divided the waivers 
addressed in its TRS Waiver NPRM into two categories, with the first 
group consisting of waivers for standards mandating the inclusion of 
features and functions available with voice telephone service in TRS, 
and the second group consisting of waivers for standards mandating the 
provision of specific communication services needed by people with 
speech or hearing disabilities. With respect to waivers that were 
limited in duration, the Commission sought comment on whether to exempt 
specified iTRS providers from the underlying waived mandatory minimum 
standards on a permanent basis, if they were determined to be 
inapplicable to the specified iTRS providers. Similarly, for waivers 
that were already of unlimited duration, the Commission sought comment 
on whether it should amend its rules to codify these as exemptions.
    5. Mandatory Minimum Standards for Features and Functions of Voice 
Telephone Service. The first group of waived mandatory minimum 
standards relates to features and functions that are available with 
voice telephone service, including the types-of-calls requirement, 
equal access to interexchange carriers, pay-per-call (900) calls, 
three-way calling, and speed dialing. Each of these issues are 
addressed in turn.
    6. Types-of-Calls Requirement. The Commission exempts iTRS 
providers from the types-of-calls requirement--to the extent that this 
standard requires providers to offer specific billing options 
traditionally offered for wireline voice services--so long as iTRS 
providers allow for long distance calls to be placed using calling 
cards or credit cards or do not charge for long distance service. 
Commission rules require TRS providers to be capable of handling any 
type of call normally provided by telecommunications carriers unless 
the Commission determines that it is not technologically feasible to do 
so. 47 CFR 64.604(a)(3)(ii). This requirement has been waived on a 
limited-duration basis for IP Relay and VRS providers (but not for IP 
CTS providers) to the extent that it requires providers to offer 
specific billing options, including ``operator-assisted'' billing, such 
as collect, calling card, and third party billing, as well as sent-paid 
billing for long distance calls. As a condition of this waiver, the 
Commission, and subsequently the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau, required that VRS and IP Relay providers allow users to place 
long distance calls using calling cards or without charging users for 
such calls.
    7. The Commission concludes that compliance with this mandatory 
minimum standard is not necessary to provide functionally equivalent 
telephone services for iTRS users and would not be cost effective or 
efficient, because it would be more costly to providers to establish a 
billing mechanism in order to bill for these calls than to handle them 
without billing consumers, as is providers' current practice. The 
types-of-calls requirement, adopted more than 20 years ago, was 
intended to ensure that certain billing options, including operator-
assisted billing, that were available to voice telephone users in a 
PSTN-based environment would be similarly available to users of TTY-to-
voice relay services. However, given the technological changes that 
have taken place over the past two decades, including the development 
of Internet-based forms of TRS, iTRS consumers do not need the same 
billing options that users who access relay services via the PSTN 
require. Accordingly, so long as iTRS providers allow consumers to use 
calling cards or credit cards or do not charge for long distance 
service, the Commission exempts all forms of iTRS from the types-of-
calls requirement to the extent that the standard requires providers to 
offer the billing options traditionally offered for wireline voice 
services, and amends its rules accordingly.
    8. Equal Access to Interexchange Carriers. The Commission exempts 
iTRS providers from the equal access to interexchange carriers 
requirement so long as they do not charge for long distance service. 
The Commission's rules require TRS providers to offer consumers access 
to their interexchange carrier of choice to the same extent that such 
access is provided to voice users. 47 CFR 64.604(b)(3). The Commission 
waived this requirement indefinitely for IP Relay and IP CTS, IP Relay 
Declaratory Ruling, IP CTS Declaratory Ruling, and on a limited-
duration basis for VRS providers, Telecommunications Relay Services and 
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, CG 
Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-196, Waiver Order, (2012 TRS Waiver 
Order), contingent on iTRS providers offering long distance service 
without charge.
    9. The Commission exempts iTRS providers from the equal access to 
interexchange carriers requirement so long as iTRS providers do not 
charge for long distance service. First, the equal access to 
interexchange carriers requirement is not necessary to provide 
functionally equivalent telephone services for iTRS users so long as 
iTRS providers do not charge for long distance service. Consumers 
derive no value from equal access to long distance carriers where they 
do not pay long-distance charges for iTRS calls and, consequently, have 
no interest in price shopping for a long-distance provider. Finally, it 
is not feasible for iTRS providers to implement networking and routing 
solutions to allow iTRS users to choose their carriers. For these 
reasons, the Commission concludes that the equal access to 
interexchange carriers requirement is not necessary for iTRS providers 
and therefore exempt iTRS providers that do not charge for long 
distance service from this requirement.
    10. Pay-Per-Call (900) calls. The Commission exempts iTRS providers 
from the requirement for TRS providers to be capable of handling pay-
per-call (i.e., 900-number) calls. Although the Commission's rules 
generally require TRS providers to be capable of handling pay-per-call 
calls, 47 CFR 64.604(a)(3)(iv), \,\the Commission has previously waived 
this requirement indefinitely for IP CTS providers in the IP CTS 
Declaratory Ruling, and on a limited-duration basis for IP Relay and 
VRS providers because no billing mechanism has been available to handle 
the charges associated with pay-per-call calls. See Provision of 
Improved Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC 
Docket No. 98-67, Order on Reconsideration, (IP Relay Order on 
Reconsideration); published at 68 FR 50973, August 25, 20013; 2012 TRS 
Waiver Order.
    11. The Commission exempts iTRS providers from handling pay-per-
call calls. The Commission bases its decision on the fact that, as 
holds true for the types-of-calls and equal interexchange access 
requirements discussed above, the pay-per-call requirement presupposes 
a billing relationship, or the ability to establish a billing 
relationship with iTRS users that providers presently do not have. The 
Commission is persuaded that requiring providers to establish such a 
billing relationship in order to provide pay-per-call calls would not 
be efficient given its high price tag and the very small demand for 
pay-per-call calls over TRS.
    12. Three-Way Calling. The Commission terminates the indefinite 
waiver for IP CTS providers of the Commission's three-way calling

[[Page 62878]]

requirement. The Commission's rules require TRS providers to provide 
three-way calling functionality, 47 CFR 64.604(a)(3)(vi)(3), which 
allows more than two parties to be on the telephone line at the same 
time with the CA. 47 CFR 64.601(a)(34). The Commission granted IP CTS 
providers an indefinite waiver of the three-way calling requirement 
when it approved IP CTS as a form of reimbursable TRS. Because the 
record demonstrates that IP CTS providers are capable of offering 
three-way calling functionality, the Commission hereby terminates the 
indefinite waiver of the Commission's three-way calling requirement 
previously granted to IP CTS providers.
    13. Speed Dialing. The Commission terminates the indefinite waiver 
for IP CTS providers of the Commission's speed dialing requirement. The 
Commission's rules require TRS providers to provide speed dialing 
functionality, which allows a TRS user to use a ``short-hand'' name or 
number for the user's most frequently called telephone numbers. 47 CFR 
64.604(a)(3)(vi)(2). This permits users to place calls without having 
to remember or locate the number they want to call. In the IP CTS 
Declaratory Ruling, the Commission granted IP CTS providers an 
indefinite waiver of the speed dialing requirement, contingent on the 
providers filing annual reports addressing the waiver.
    14. The Commission now terminates the indefinite waiver for IP CTS 
providers of the Commission's speed dialing requirement. The Commission 
recognizes that IP CTS users may dial calls before being connected to a 
CA. Accordingly, IP CTS providers will be permitted to fulfill the 
speed dialing requirement contained in the Commission's rules by 
offering speed dialing capability through users' iTRS access 
technology, such as through one-touch dialing. As a result, IP CTS 
providers need not offer a feature that allows a TRS user to 
communicate the speed dial ``short hand'' name or number directly to 
the CA in the context of an IP CTS call to comply with this 
requirement.
    15. Mandatory Minimum Standards to Provide Specific TRS Features. 
The second group of waivers relates to standards mandating the 
provision of specific communication services needed by people with 
disabilities, including voice carryover (VCO), hearing carryover (HCO), 
text to voice and voice to text, speech-to-speech (STS), ASCII/Baudot, 
and call release. Each of these are addressed in turn.
    16. VCO and HCO. The Commission concludes that certain iTRS 
providers must provide some, but not all, forms of VCO and HCO. 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. 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. 47 CFR 
64.601(a)(13) (defining HCO in the context of TTY-based relay service). 
There are multiple forms of both VCO and HCO. The Commission has 
granted fixed-duration waivers for VRS and IP Relay of all of the VCO 
and HCO mandatory minimum standards except two-line VCO and two-line 
HCO, based on providers' representations that Internet connections are 
unable to deliver voice and data over a single line with the necessary 
quality. See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC 
Docket Nos. 90-571, 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Report and Order, 
Order on Reconsideration (2004 TRS Report and Order); published at 69 
FR 53346, September 1, 2004 (extending the one-line VCO and HCO waivers 
to VRS); see also IP Relay Declaratory Ruling (initially waiving the 
one-line VCO requirement for IP Relay for a period of one year); IP 
Relay Order on Reconsideration, (extending the one-line VCO waiver for 
five years and approving a waiver for one-line HCO for the same period, 
based on provider representations that the same technological obstacles 
exist for HCO as for VCO); Telecommunications Relay Services and 
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, CC Docket No. 
98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Second Report and Order, Order on 
Reconsideration, (2003 TRS Report and Order), published at 68 FR 50973, 
August 25, 2003 (extending the waiver for IP Relay and VRS providers to 
VCO-to-TTY, HCO-to-TTY, VCO-to-VCO, and HCO-to-HCO types of TRS calls). 
The Commission also previously granted indefinite waivers of all of the 
VCO and HCO mandatory minimum standards for IP CTS. See IP CTS 
Declaratory Ruling. Finally, the Commission previously granted an 
indefinite waiver of its mandatory minimum standards addressing HCO for 
CTS. See Telecommunications Relay Services, and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC 
Docket No. 98-67, Declaratory Ruling (CTS Declaratory Ruling); 
published at 68 FR 55898, September 29, 2003.
    17. One-line VCO and one-line HCO for VRS Providers. The Commission 
generally will allow the existing waivers for one-line VCO and one-line 
HCO for VRS providers to expire, although the Commission extends for 
one year a waiver of the requirement to offer one-line VCO and one-line 
HCO for VRS providers ASL Services Holdings, LLC (ASL Services) and 
Hancock, Jahn, Lee and Puckett, LLC d/b/a Communications Axess Ability 
Group (CAAG), as discussed below.
    18. Because commenters confirm that it is now technologically 
feasible for VRS providers to offer their users one-line VCO and one-
line HCO capabilities, the Commission declines Petitioners' original 
request to exempt all VRS providers from these mandatory minimum 
standards, and terminates the current waiver for these required 
features December 22, 2014. VRS providers may meet this obligation so 
long as they provide, upon a consumer's request for an equipment 
upgrade, at least one form of iTRS access technology that supports one-
line VCO and one-line HCO. In other words, VRS providers need not 
support one-line VCO and one-line HCO in every version of the iTRS 
access technology that they distribute. Rather, VRS providers that 
provide at least one form of iTRS access technology that supports one-
line VCO and one-line HCO will be in compliance with the mandatory 
minimum standard for one-line VCO and one-line HCO. This will allow the 
continued use of legacy VRS hardware for consumers who wish to keep 
their devices and who do not wish to use one-line versions of VCO or 
HCO.
    19. In addition, the Commission waives the requirement for VRS 
providers to support one-line VCO and one-line HCO on VRS access 
technology distributed by another provider until the release of a 
Public Notice by the Commission indicating that the SIP standards-
development process for VRS has progressed to the point where support 
for one-line VCO and one-line HCO on VRS access technology distributed 
by another provider is possible or the VRS access technology reference 
platform is implemented, whichever comes first.
    20. VRS providers' limited ability to provide one-line VCO and one-
line HCO using other providers' iTRS access technology due to the lack 
of standards for signaling the user's one-line VCO or

[[Page 62879]]

HCO preferences will be resolved once the SIP standards-development 
process for VRS has progressed to the point where support for one-line 
VCO and one-line HCO on VRS access technology distributed by another 
provider is possible or the VRS access technology reference platform is 
implemented. The Commission has ordered the development of a VRS access 
technology reference platform to ``allow providers to ensure that any 
VRS access technology they develop or deploy is fully compliant with 
[the Commission's] interoperability and portability requirements.'' 
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 10-51, 
03-123, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
(VRS Reform Order), published at 78 FR 40582, July 5, 2013, and at 78 
FR 40407, July 5, 2013. Once the VRS access technology reference 
platform is tested and available for use, the Commission has explained 
that no VRS provider shall be compensated for minutes of use generated 
by the provider's VRS access technologies that are found to be non-
interoperable with the reference platform. The Commission will release 
a Public Notice announcing the completion of the VRS access technology 
reference platform or the progression of the SIP standards development 
process to the point where support for one-line VCO and one-line HCO on 
VRS access technology distributed by another provider is possible, and 
the resulting termination of this waiver.
    21. Although the Commission terminates the current, broadly-
applicable waivers for one-line VCO and one-line HCO for VRS providers 
generally, the Commission extends for one year the waiver of these 
requirements for two VRS providers, ASL Services and CAAG. The 
Commission finds that neither ASL Services nor CAAG distribute hardware 
VRS access technology, that the current version of the software that 
ASL Services and CAAG distribute does not support one-line HCO or one-
line VCO, and that the next version of their respective software is 
expected to have this capability. While covered by the prior waivers, 
ASL Services and CAAG nonetheless have engaged in efforts to develop 
solutions to provide these TRS features, as evidenced by their 
commitment to meet these mandatory minimum standards within one year. 
Based on the Joint Providers' statement that ASL Services and CAAG will 
be technically capable of offering their users these capabilities 
within one year, the Commission concludes that a waiver of this limited 
duration is appropriate.
    22. Two VRS providers, Sorenson and Purple ask that the Commission 
confirm that their specific implementation of one-line VCO and one-line 
HCO meets the mandatory minimum standards for one-line VCO and one-line 
HCO. Sorenson explains that because not all interpreter stations are 
capable of supporting one-line VCO and HCO, deaf-to-hearing single-line 
VCO and HCO calls are routed to interpreting stations capable of 
handling those calls. The Commission confirms that this method of 
handling one-line VCO and one-line HCO calls satisfies the mandatory 
minimum standards for one-line VCO and one-line HCO. The one-line VCO 
and one-line HCO routing process described by Sorenson routes the call 
based on technical capability to handle the call, not the skill of the 
CA. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that Sorenson's method of 
implementing one-line VCO and one-line HCO does not use skill-based 
routing and meets the mandatory minimum standards for the provision of 
one-line VCO and one-line HCO.
    23. One-line VCO and one-line HCO for IP Relay Providers. The 
Commission exempts IP Relay providers from the requirement to offer 
one-line VCO and one-line HCO. The Commission is persuaded that the 
significant engineering changes necessary to support one-line HCO and 
one-line VCO would not be practical given the current level of demand 
for one-line VCO or HCO. The Commission also agrees that because 
alternatives, such as IP CTS, are available to take the place of one-
line VCO and HCO used in conjunction with IP Relay, the significant 
time and resources that would be associated with creating these 
features over IP Relay is not justified. As a result, the Commission 
amends its rules to exempt IP Relay providers from the requirement to 
offer one-line VCO and one-line HCO.
    24. VCO-to-TTY and HCO-to-TTY for VRS and IP Relay Providers. The 
Commission exempts VRS and IP Relay providers from the requirement to 
offer VCO-to-TTY and HCO-to-TTY. The Commission concludes that the 
provision of these features is not necessary to achieve functionally 
equivalent telephone service in the most efficient manner. This 
conclusion is reinforced by the low to non-existent demand for VCO-to-
TTY and HCO-to-TTY using VRS and IP Relay reported by providers and the 
lack of consumer comment in support of applying these TRS features. 
Moreover, with so little interest by the user community in accessing 
these services and the impracticality of providing such calls, the 
Commission concludes that it would not be an efficient use of TRS 
resources to require VRS and IP Relay providers to develop a solution 
to enable them. Accordingly, the Commission amends its rules to exempt 
VRS and IP Relay providers from the requirement to offer VCO-to-TTY and 
HCO-to-TTY.
    25. VCO-to-VCO and HCO-to-HCO for VRS and IP Relay Providers. In 
2003, the Commission adopted, with little discussion, minimum standards 
mandating the provision of HCO-to-HCO and VCO-to-VCO calls by TRS 
providers. 2003 TRS Report and Order. Upon further analysis, the 
Commission eliminates the VCO-to-VCO and HCO-to-HCO requirements with 
respect to VRS and IP Relay providers. The Commission's rules define 
VCO as a form of TRS where the person with the hearing disability is 
able to speak directly to the other end user. The CA types the response 
back to the person with the hearing disability. 47 CFR 64.601(a)(42) 
(emphasis added). Similarly, the Commission's rules define HCO as a 
form of TRS where the person with the speech disability is able to 
listen to the other end user and, in reply, the CA speaks the text as 
typed by the person with the speech disability. 47 CFR 64.601(a)(13) 
(emphasis added). Under these definitions, if two individuals were to 
use VCO or two individuals were to use HCO in the context of VRS or IP 
Relay services, then both would have to be able to speak as well as 
hear what the other party is saying, and a CA would not be necessary to 
provide functionally equivalent communication. For example, if 
individuals were to make a VCO-to-VCO call, they would be speaking 
directly to each other, and thus, the call would not require a CA. The 
same would hold true in an HCO-to-HCO call, in which both parties would 
be able to hear each other. Because HCO-to-HCO calls and VCO-to-VCO 
calls make use of CAs, but with the exception of CTS and IP CTS, do not 
require CAs for functionally equivalent communication, the Commission 
finds they should not be compensable relay calls. Therefore, the 
Commission concludes that the handling of HCO-to-HCO and VCO-to-VCO 
calls by VRS and IP Relay providers, to the extent that such calls 
would result in point-to-point calls for which a CA is involved even 
though not needed, is not required and thus not compensable from the 
TRS Fund.

[[Page 62880]]

    26. HCO for CTS and IP CTS Providers. As noted above, IP CTS 
providers already have an indefinite waiver of all of the HCO mandatory 
minimum standards. In addition, an indefinite waiver of the 
Commission's mandatory minimum standards addressing HCO already is in 
place for CTS providers. The Commission now exempts IP CTS and CTS 
providers from all of the HCO mandatory minimum standards, because it 
concludes that these TRS features are not applicable to captioned 
telephone-based relay services. CTS and IP CTS are a form of VCO in 
that they enable a person with hearing loss to speak directly to the 
other party to the call and to receive the text of the other party's 
response. HCO involves particular functionalities that do not apply to 
captioned telephone calls because HCO users rely on the CA to speak the 
text as typed, but do not rely on printed text as the HCO user can hear 
the called party's response. In contrast, when using CTS, a person with 
some residual hearing can speak to the other party and in return both 
listen to what the other party is saying and read text of what that 
party is saying. Accordingly, CTS is simply not able to handle HCO 
relay calls. For similar reasons, the Commission has also exempted 
providers that offer the Internet-based form of CTS from the 
requirement to provide HCO services. Because the defining 
characteristics of CTS and IP CTS make requirements for HCO, two-line 
HCO, HCO-to-TTY, and HCO-to-HCO inapplicable to CTS and IP CTS, the 
Commission exempts IP CTS and CTS providers from these mandatory 
minimum standards.
    27. VCO for CTS and IP CTS Providers. The Commission has previously 
granted IP CTS providers indefinite waivers for all of the VCO 
mandatory minimum standards. The Commission has not previously waived 
any of the mandatory minimum standards relating to VCO for CTS 
providers. The Commission now concludes that waivers for the 
requirements to provide two-line VCO and VCO-to-TTY for IP CTS 
providers are unnecessary because IP CTS already is a form of VCO. 
However, because IP CTS typically involves two lines, i.e., a telephone 
line and an IP line, the Commission does not find it efficient to 
require IP CTS providers to provide one-line VCO, and amends its rules 
to exempt them from that requirement. For the same reason that waivers 
of the VCO requirements are unnecessary for IP CTS providers--i.e., 
because CTS is a form of VCO--the Commission concludes that waivers for 
the provision of one-line VCO, two-line VCO, and VCO-to-TTY are 
unnecessary for CTS providers.
    28. With respect to VCO-to-VCO, the Commission concludes that calls 
between two captioned telephone relay users are essentially a form of 
VCO-to-VCO and, accordingly, that a waiver of the VCO-to-VCO 
requirement is unnecessary for IP CTS and CTS providers. The Commission 
agrees that the use of multiple CAs currently is necessary to complete 
calls between two captioned telephone relay users. Specifically, each 
captioned telephone user must communicate through an individual CA, who 
re-voices what the other party says to that user. Similarly, the use of 
multiple CAs currently is necessary for captioned telephone-to-TTY 
calls and captioned telephone-to-VRS calls. Captioned telephone-to-TTY 
calls and captioned telephone-to-VRS calls require one CA to voice what 
the TTY or VRS user says to the captioned telephone user (which the 
captioned telephone user hears using residual hearing) and to type or 
sign what the captioned telephone relay user says to the TTY or VRS 
user, as well as another CA to re-voice what the TTY or VRS user says, 
through the TTY or VRS CA, to the captioned telephone user (which the 
captioned telephone user reads on his or her device). Because these 
calls currently cannot be completed without the use of multiple CAs, 
the Commission now amends its rules to make clear that compensation 
from the TRS Fund is allowed for such calls.
    29. Text-to-Voice and Voice-to-Text. The Commission amends 47 CFR 
64.604(a)(3)(v) to exempt VRS providers from providing text-to-voice 
and voice-to-text functionality and to exempt CTS and IP CTS providers 
from providing text-to-voice. VRS allows people with hearing or speech 
disabilities who use sign language to communicate with voice telephone 
users through video equipment. A VRS user, through a CA, speaks to the 
called party using sign language and receives the called party's 
response in sign language. Accordingly, text-to-voice, in which the 
user types his or her message and has it read aloud by the CA, and 
voice-to-text, in which the user receives the called party's message as 
text, is not compatible with VRS, a service based on sign language. As 
a result, the Commission exempts VRS providers from the requirement to 
provide text-to-voice and voice-to-text. In addition, for the reasons 
discussed above--i.e., that CTS and IP CTS are forms of VCO--the 
Commission finds that text-to-voice is inapplicable to CTS and IP CTS. 
By their nature, CTS and IP CTS allow the user to speak directly to the 
called party. Throughout a CTS and IP CTS call, the CA is completely 
transparent and does not participate in the call by voicing any part of 
the conversation. As a result, text-to-voice, which requires the CA to 
re-voice text typed by the TRS user, is incompatible with CTS and IP 
CTS. The Commission therefore exempts CTS and IP CTS providers from 
this standard.
    30. STS. The Commission exempts VRS, IP Relay, IP CTS, and CTS 
providers from the STS requirement. The Commission's rules mandate the 
provision of STS by common carriers providing telephone voice 
transmission services. 47 CFR 64.603. The Commission has waived this 
requirement on a limited-duration basis for IP Relay providers and 
indefinitely for CTS, IP CTS, and VRS providers. IP Relay Declaratory 
Ruling; CTS Declaratory Ruling; IP CTS Declaratory Ruling; 
Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities; Recommended TRS Cost Recovery Guidelines; Request by 
Hamilton Telephone Company for Clarification and Temporary Waivers, CC 
Docket No. 98-67, Memorandum Opinion and Order (2001 TRS Order); 
published at 67 FR 4203, January 29, 2002.
    31. STS is inapplicable to VRS, IP Relay, IP CTS, and CTS. 
Specifically, STS is purely speech-based, while IP Relay, CTS and IP 
CTS require the CA to provide communication in text, and, under the 
Commission's current rules, VRS requires the CA to provide 
communication in sign language. 47 CFR 64.601(a)(40). Because there are 
no speech capabilities in the relay leg of these text and video based 
forms of TRS, the Commission concludes that IP Relay, VRS, IP CTS, and 
CTS providers should be exempt from the requirement to offer STS, and 
amends its rules accordingly.
    32. ASCII/Baudot. The Commission exempts iTRS, CTS and STS 
providers from the ASCII/Baudot requirement. The Commission's rules 
require TRS providers to support communications using the American 
Standard Code for Information Interexchange (ASCII) and Baudot formats, 
at any speed generally in use. 47 CFR 64.601(a)(5) and (7). The 
Commission finds that the ASCII/Baudot requirement is not applicable in 
the context of iTRS, CTS and STS because iTRS, CTS and STS do not use 
ASCII or Baudot protocol for their relay transmissions. Thus, the 
Commission exempts iTRS, CTS and STS providers from the requirement to 
handle ASCII or Baudot protocol in relay calls and amends its rules 
accordingly.
    33. Call Release. The Commission exempts iTRS and CTS providers 
from

[[Page 62881]]

the call release functionality requirement. The Commission's rules 
require TRS providers to offer ``call release,'' a feature that allows 
the CA to drop out--or be ``released''--from the relay call after 
setting up a direct TTY-to-TTY connection between the caller and the 
called party. 47 CFR 64.601(a)(8), 47 CFR 64.604(a)(3)(vi). The 
Commission has waived this requirement indefinitely for CTS and IP CTS 
providers and on a limited-duration basis for VRS and IP Relay 
providers. See CTS Declaratory Ruling; IP CTS Declaratory Ruling; 2003 
TRS Report and Order; 2012 TRS Waiver Order.
    34. Call release is inapplicable to VRS and IP Relay because users 
of these services can already communicate directly via the Internet 
with other video and text users. In addition, the call release feature 
is not technically feasible or would raise numerous technological 
challenges for these services. Finally, call release is inapplicable to 
CTS and IP CTS because captioned telephone service, by its nature, 
requires the CA to remain on the line for the duration of the call, as 
the CA provides captioning of the called party's end of the 
conservation to ensure that the captioned telephone user does not miss 
any part of the called party's conversation. As a result, the CA would 
never be ``released'' from this type of call. Accordingly, the 
Commission amends the rules to exempt iTRS and CTS providers from the 
call release functionality requirement.
    35. Annual Reports. Because the permanent exemptions granted herein 
are for standards that are either inapplicable in the context of iTRS 
or CTS or technologically infeasible for reasons that are unlikely to 
change any time in the near future, requiring providers to file annual 
reports for such exemptions would be a waste of resources. Therefore, 
the Commission will no longer require providers to file annual reports 
for those mandatory minimum standards for which the Commission by this 
Order has adopted permanent exemptions. In addition, because the 
Commission expects the temporary waiver extensions granted herein to be 
of a limited duration, at this time, the Commission does not require 
the submission of annual reports to justify their continuance.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    36. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (``RFA''), 
requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for 
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.'' The RFA generally defines ``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 Small Business Administration 
(SBA).
    37. After consideration of the comments received in response to the 
TRS Waiver NPRM, document FCC 14-125 amends the Commission's rules to 
exempt TRS providers using the Internet to provide services such as 
VRS, IP Relay, and IP CTS as well as providers offering traditional CTS 
from certain operational, technical, and functional mandatory minimum 
standards applicable to the provision of TRS. Document FCC 14-125 
adopts exemptions to these mandatory minimum standards for VRS, IP 
Relay, IP CTS, and CTS, either because it is not technologically 
feasible for providers to meet the requirement or the mandatory minimum 
standards are inapplicable to a particular form of TRS. Document FCC 
14-125 incorporates these exemptions into the Commission's rules (1) to 
obviate the need for annual waivers to be applied for and granted; and 
(2) to harmonize the treatment of all TRS providers to which these 
mandatory minimum standards do not apply, given the technology through 
which the service is provided. Specifically, document FCC 14-125:
    <bullet> Exempts iTRS providers from mandatory minimum standards 
for certain ``types-of-calls,'' equal-access to interexchange carriers, 
pay-per-call, STS, ASCII/Baudot-compatible services, and call-release;
    <bullet> Exempts CTS providers from mandatory minimum standards for 
STS, ASCII/Baudot-compatible services, and call-release;
    <bullet> Exempts VRS providers from mandatory minimum standards 
requiring text-to-voice and voice-to-text features and exempts CTS and 
IP CTS providers from mandatory minimum standards requiring text-to-
voice features;
    <bullet> Exempts IP Relay providers from mandatory minimum 
standards requiring one-line VCO, VCO-to-text telephone (TTY), one-line 
HCO, and HCO-to-TTY;
    <bullet> Exempts VRS providers from mandatory minimum standards 
requiring VCO-to-TTY and HCO-to-TTY.
    <bullet> Concludes that VRS and IP Relay providers are not required 
to provide HCO-to-HCO and VCO-to-VCO services because HCO-to-HCO and 
VCO-to-VCO, with one exception for IP CTS and CTS, are not compensable 
relay calls;
    <bullet> Exempts IP CTS and CTS providers from mandatory minimum 
standards requiring one-line HCO, two-line HCO, HCO-to-TTY, and HCO-to-
HCO;
    <bullet> Exempts IP CTS providers from mandatory minimum standards 
requiring one-line VCO; and
    <bullet> Eliminates the requirement for iTRS and CTS providers to 
file annual reports for those mandatory minimum standards for which the 
Commission by this Order has adopted exemptions and for waivers adopted 
in this Order.
    38. Document FCC 14-125 terminates or declines to extend some 
existing waivers for mandatory minimum standards. Specifically, 
document FCC 14-125:
    <bullet> Terminates the existing waiver for IP CTS providers for 
the mandatory minimum standards requiring three-way calling and speed 
dialing functionalities;
    <bullet> Terminates the existing waivers for VRS providers for 
mandatory minimum standards requiring one-line VCO and one-line HCO, 
but extends for one year the waiver for VRS providers ASL Services and 
CAAG and extends the waiver for providers' support of one-line VCO and 
one-line HCO on VRS access technology distributed by another provider;
    <bullet> Determines that a waiver for CTS providers for the 
mandatory minimum standard requiring one-line VCO is unnecessary; and
    <bullet> Determines that waivers for IP CTS and CTS providers for 
mandatory minimum standards requiring two-line VCO, VCO-to-TTY, and 
VCO-to-VCO are unnecessary.
    39. In document FCC 14-125, the Commission adopts its proposal to 
codify exemptions to certain mandatory minimum standards and 
determines, as it concluded in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification, that this codification will not place any financial 
burden on iTRS or CTS providers, including small businesses, because 
these entities will be relieved from the necessity to periodically file 
for new waivers of the TRS mandatory minimum standards and from 
incurring unnecessary expenses in research and development of features 
or services that are inapplicable to certain types of TRS services. 
Therefore, those rules as amended in document FCC 14-125 that

[[Page 62882]]

exempt certain TRS mandatory minimum standards will not have a 
significant economic impact on any entities, including small 
businesses.
    40. In addition, with respect to those waivers that are terminated 
or that are not extended, in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification, the Commission concluded that the proposed rules would 
not impose a financial burden on entities, including small businesses, 
because the record showed that, as a result of technological advances, 
providers were generally providing the features that had been waived. 
No commenters opposed this proposal or the associated Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Certification.
    41. In document FCC 14-125, the Commission terminates or declines 
to extend waivers of certain mandatory minimum standards and determines 
that this action will not place any financial burden on iTRS or CTS 
providers, including small businesses, because the record shows that 
the providers are generally providing the features that had been 
waived. For example, the record shows that IP CTS providers are now 
able to offer three-way calling and speed dialing. Additionally, the 
record shows that all but two VRS providers are now able to offer one-
line VCO and one-line HCO. Moreover, the record shows that the two VRS 
providers that are not currently capable of offering one-line VCO and 
one-line HCO plan to be able to do so when they each release the next 
version of their software. The Commission has extended for one year the 
waiver of this mandatory minimum standard to afford those two VRS 
providers sufficient time to implement their planned software release. 
Document FCC 14-125 also determines that waivers for mandatory minimum 
standards for VCO for CTS and IP CTS are unnecessary. However, because 
document FCC 14-125 concludes that CTS and IP CTS are a form of VCO, 
and, as a result, the mandatory minimum standards for the provision of 
various forms of VCO are subsumed in the provision of CTS and IP CTS, 
this action will not place any financial burden on IP CTS or CTS 
providers.
    42. Finally, document FCC 14-125 eliminates the requirement that 
providers file annual reports for those mandatory minimum standards for 
which the Commission adopts exemptions or the waivers adopted in this 
Order and determines that this action will not place any financial 
burden on iTRS or CTS providers because providers benefit by being 
relieved from the necessity to file annual reports regarding their 
ability to provide services that are either inapplicable to their 
services or technologically infeasible.
    43. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the requirements in 
document FCC 14-125 will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    44. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 14-125, 
including a copy of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in 
a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In 
addition, Document FCC 14-125 and the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
SBA.

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 Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, 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 amends 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.  64.603 by revising the introductory text to read as 
follows:


Sec.  64.603  Provision of services.

    Each common carrier providing telephone voice transmission services 
shall provide, in compliance with the regulations prescribed herein, 
throughout the area in which it offers services, telecommunications 
relay services, individually, through designees, through a 
competitively selected vendor, or in concert with other carriers. 
Interstate Spanish language relay service shall be provided. Speech-to-
speech relay service also shall be provided, except that speech-to-
speech relay service need not be provided by IP Relay providers, VRS 
providers, captioned telephone relay service providers, and IP CTS 
providers. In addition, each common carrier providing telephone voice 
transmission services shall provide access via the 711 dialing code to 
all relay services as a toll free call. A common carrier shall be 
considered to be in compliance with these regulations:
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  64.604 by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(ii), (a)(3)(iv), 
(a)(3)(v), (a)(3)(vi), (b)(1), and (b)(3) and adding paragraph (c)(14) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  64.604  Mandatory minimum standards.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Relay services shall be capable of handling any type of call 
normally provided by telecommunications carriers unless the Commission 
determines that it is not technologically feasible to do so. Relay 
service providers have the burden of proving the infeasibility of 
handling any type of call. Providers of Internet-based TRS need not 
provide the same billing options (e.g., sent-paid long distance, 
operator-assisted, collect, and third party billing) traditionally 
offered for wireline voice services if they allow for long distance 
calls to be placed using calling cards or credit cards or do not assess 
charges for long distance calling. Providers of Internet-based TRS need 
not allow for long distance calls to be placed using calling cards or 
credit cards if they do not assess charges for long distance calling.
* * * * *
    (iv) Relay services other than Internet-based TRS shall be capable 
of handling pay-per-call calls.
    (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, VCO-to-TTY, and VCO-to-VCO; and
    (C) One-line HCO, two-line HCO, HCO-to-TTY, HCO-to-HCO. 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:
    (1) VCO-to-TTY and VCO-to-VCO; and

[[Page 62883]]

    (2) HCO-to-TTY and HCO-to-HCO. Captioned telephone service 
providers and IP CTS providers are not required to provide:
    (i) Text-to-voice functionality; and
    (ii) One-line HCO, two-line HCO, HCO-to-TTY, and HCO-to-HCO. IP CTS 
providers are not required to provide one-line VCO.
    (vi) TRS providers are required to provide the following features:
    (A) Call release functionality (only with respect to the provision 
of TTY-based relay service);
    (B) Speed dialing functionality; and
    (C) Three-way calling functionality.
* * * * *
    (b) Technical standards--(1) ASCII and Baudot. TTY-based relay 
service shall be capable of communicating with ASCII and Baudot format, 
at any speed generally in use. Other forms of TRS are not subject to 
this requirement.
* * * * *
    (3) Equal access to interexchange carriers. TRS users shall have 
access to their chosen interexchange carrier through the TRS, and to 
all other operator services to the same extent that such access is 
provided to voice users. This requirement is inapplicable to providers 
of Internet-based TRS if they do not assess specific charges for long 
distance calling.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (14) TRS calls requiring the use of multiple CAs. The following 
types of calls that require multiple CAs for their handling are 
compensable from the TRS Fund:
    (i) VCO-to-VCO calls between multiple captioned telephone relay 
service users, multiple IP CTS users, or captioned telephone relay 
service users and IP CTS users;
    (ii) Calls between captioned telephone relay service or IP CTS 
users and TTY service users; and
    (iii) Calls between captioned telephone relay service or IP CTS 
users and VRS users.

[FR Doc. 2014-24532 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>