Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 62875 

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

—the appropriate safety and personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g., protective gloves, tightly sealed 

goggles, protective work clothing, and particulate-removing respirators with National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health type N95 or better filters) 

consistent with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines should be used during manufacture, installation, servicing, and disposal 

of total flooding systems using the agent; 

—adequate ventilation should be in place to reduce airborne exposure to constituents of agent; 

—an eye wash fountain and quick drench facility should 

be close to the production area; 

—training for safe handling procedures should be provided to all employees that would be likely to handle 

containers of the agent or extinguishing units filled 

with the agent; 

—workers responsible for clean up should allow for 

maximum settling of all particulates before reentering 

area and wear appropriate personal protective equipment; and 

—all spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance with good industrial hygiene practices. 

As required by the manufacturer, units installed in normally 

occupied spaces will be equipped with features such as a 

system-isolate switch and cross-zone detection system to 

reduce risk of accidental activation of an agent generator 

while persons are present in the protected space. Also required by the manufacturer is warning of pending discharge and delay in release to ensure egress prior to activation of the agent to reduce the risk of exposure. 

See additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 

1. The EPA recommends that users consult Section VIII of the OSHA Technical Manual for information on selecting the appropriate types of 

personal protective equipment for all listed fire suppression agents. The EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related 

to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes. 

2. Use of all listed fire suppression agents should conform to relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR part 1910, subpart L, sections 

1910.160 and 1910.162. 

3. Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area. 

4. Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements. 

5. The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or 

destroyed. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24989 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: 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 

§§ 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 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 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62876 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

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 limitedduration 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 indepth 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 ‘‘operatorassisted’’ 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-tovoice relay services. However, given the 

technological changes that have taken 

place over the past two decades, 

including the development of Internetbased 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 longdistance 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-percall 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62878 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

requirement. The Commission’s rules 

require TRS providers to provide threeway 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 threeway 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 onetouch 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 oneline 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 oneline 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 noninteroperable 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, broadlyapplicable 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 oneline VCO and one-line HCO. The oneline 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 oneline 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-toTTY 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-toHCO and VCO-to-VCO calls by TRS 

providers. 2003 TRS Report and Order. 

Upon further analysis, the Commission 

eliminates the VCO-to-VCO and HCOto-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 HCOto-HCO call, in which both parties 

would be able to hear each other. 

Because HCO-to-HCO calls and VCO-toVCO 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-toHCO 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62880 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 oneline 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-toVCO 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-toTTY calls and captioned telephone-toVRS 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 voiceto-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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 TTYto-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 limitedduration 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: 

• 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; 

• Exempts CTS providers from 

mandatory minimum standards for STS, 

ASCII/Baudot-compatible services, and 

call-release; 

• 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; 

• Exempts IP Relay providers from 

mandatory minimum standards 

requiring one-line VCO, VCO-to-text 

telephone (TTY), one-line HCO, and 

HCO-to-TTY; 

• Exempts VRS providers from 

mandatory minimum standards 

requiring VCO-to-TTY and HCO-to-TTY. 

• 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; 

• Exempts IP CTS and CTS providers 

from mandatory minimum standards 

requiring one-line HCO, two-line HCO, 

HCO-to-TTY, and HCO-to-HCO; 

• Exempts IP CTS providers from 

mandatory minimum standards 

requiring one-line VCO; and 

• 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: 

• Terminates the existing waiver for 

IP CTS providers for the mandatory 

minimum standards requiring three-way 

calling and speed dialing 

functionalities; 

• 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; 

• Determines that a waiver for CTS 

providers for the mandatory minimum 

standard requiring one-line VCO is 

unnecessary; and 

• 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62882 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 threeway 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 

■ 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 § 64.603 by revising the 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 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. Speechto-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: 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 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: 

§ 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, operatorassisted, 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 Internetbased 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 TTYbased 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 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 14–56, RM–11718; DA 14– 

1360] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Centerville, Texas 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the 

request of Bryan Broadcasting License 

Corporation, substitutes Channel 274A 

for vacant Channel 267A at Centerville, 

Texas, and grant the Application for 

Station KKEE, Centerville, Texas, File 

No. BMPH–20140324ADD. A staff 

engineering analysis indicates that 

Channel 274A can be allotted to 

Centerville, Texas consistent with the 

minimum distance separation 

requirements of the Commission’s Rules 

with a site restriction located 4.3 

kilometers (2.7 miles) east of 

Centerville. The reference coordinates 

are 31–15–00 NL and 95–56–00 WL. 

DATES: Effective November 3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Report and Order, DA 

14–1360, adopted September 18, 2014, 

and released September 19, 2014. The 

full text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY– 

A257, 445 Twelfth Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractors, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1– 

800–378–3160 or via Web site at 

www.BCPIWEB.com. This document 

does not contain information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. The Commission will send a copy of 

the Report and Order in a report to be 

sent to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Nazifa Sawez, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 

339. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Texas, is amended by 

removing Channel 267A at Centerville. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23656 Filed 10–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 501, 537, and 552 

[(Change 59); GSAR Case 2013–G501; 

Docket No. 2014–0010; Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 3090–AJ46 

General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulation; (GSAR); 

Qualifications of Offerors 

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, 

General Services Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA) is amending the 

General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to 

remove the GSAR provision 

Qualifications of Offerors. 

DATES: Effective: October 21, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Christina Mullins, Procurement Analyst, 

by phone at 202–969–4066, or by email 

at christina.mullins@gsa.gov, for 

clarification of content. For information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules, contact the Regulatory 

Secretariat at 202–501–4755. Please cite 

GSAR Case 2013–G501. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

GSA published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register at 79 FR 24361 on 

April 30, 2014, amending the General 

Services Administration Acquisition 

Regulation (GSAR), to remove GSAR 

provision 552.237–70, Qualifications of 

Offerors, and provide other conforming 

changes. No comments were received on 

the proposed rule by the June 30, 2014 

closing date. 

This rule is a result of the 

Retrospective Analysis conducted under 

Executive Order 13563. Executive Order 

13563 required agencies to review 

existing regulations and identify rules 

that are obsolete, unnecessary, 

unjustified, excessively burdensome or 

counterproductive and identify those 

rules that warrant repeal, amendment, 

or revision. The General Services 

Administration (GSA) identified GSAR 

provision 552.237–70 in GSA’s Final 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES