76944 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

payment under the employer shared 

responsibility provisions of section 

4980H(a) of the Code, if such provisions 

were applicable; provides minimum 

value (as defined in section 

36B(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Code); and is 

reasonably expected to be affordable 

(applying the safe harbor rules for 

determining affordability set forth in 26 

CFR 54.4980H–5(e)(2)). If a plan or 

issuer providing limited wraparound 

coverage takes reasonable steps to 

ensure that employers disclose to the 

plan or issuer necessary information 

regarding their coverage offered and 

affordability information, the plan or 

issuer is permitted to rely on reasonable 

representations by employers regarding 

this information, unless the plan or 

issuer has specific knowledge to the 

contrary. 

(ii) Eligibility for the wraparound 

coverage is limited to employees who 

are not full-time employees (and their 

dependents), or who are retirees (and 

their dependents). For this purpose, 

full-time employees are employees who 

are reasonably expected to work at least 

an average of 30 hours per week. 

(iii) Other group health plan coverage, 

not limited to excepted benefits, is 

offered to the individuals eligible for the 

wraparound coverage. Only individuals 

eligible for the other group health plan 

coverage are eligible for the wraparound 

coverage. 

(2) Limited wraparound coverage 

offered in conjunction with Multi-State 

Plan coverage. Limited wraparound 

coverage offered in conjunction with 

Multi-State Plan coverage satisfies all of 

the conditions of this paragraph 

(b)(3)(vii)(D)(2). For this purpose, the 

term ‘‘full-time employee’’ means a 

‘‘full-time employee’’ as defined in 26 

CFR 54.4980H–1(a)(21) who is not in a 

limited non-assessment period for 

certain employees (as defined in 26 CFR 

54.4980H–1(a)(26)). Moreover, if a plan 

or issuer providing limited wraparound 

coverage takes reasonable steps to 

ensure that employers disclose to the 

plan or issuer necessary information 

regarding their coverage offered and 

contribution levels for 2014 and for any 

year in which limited wraparound 

coverage is offered, the plan or issuer is 

permitted to rely on reasonable 

representations by employers regarding 

this information, unless the plan or 

issuer has specific knowledge to the 

contrary. Consistent with the reporting 

and evaluation criteria of paragraph 

(b)(3)(vii)(E) of this section, the Office of 

Personnel Management may verify that 

plans and issuers have reasonable 

mechanisms in place to ensure that 

contributing employers meet these 

standards. 

(i) The limited wraparound coverage 

is specifically designed, and approved 

by the Office of Personnel Management, 

consistent with the reporting and 

evaluation criteria of paragraph 

(b)(3)(vii)(E) of this section, to provide 

benefits in conjunction with coverage 

under a Multi-State Plan authorized 

under section 1334 of the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act. The 

Office of Personnel Management may 

revoke approval if it determines that 

continued approval is inconsistent with 

the reporting and evaluation criteria of 

paragraph (b)(3)(vii)(E) of this section. 

(ii) The employer has offered coverage 

in the plan year that begins in 2014 that 

is substantially similar to coverage that 

the employer would need to have 

offered to its full-time employees in 

order to not be subject to an assessable 

payment under the employer shared 

responsibility provisions of section 

4980H(a) of the Code, if such provisions 

had been applicable. 

(iii) In the plan year that begins in 

2014, the employer has offered coverage 

to a substantial portion of full-time 

employees that provided minimum 

value (as defined in section 

36B(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Code) and was 

affordable (applying the safe harbor 

rules for determining affordability set 

forth in 26 CFR 54.4980H–5(e)(2)). 

(iv) For the duration of the pilot 

program, as described in paragraph 

(b)(3)(vii)(F) of this section, the 

employer’s annual aggregate 

contributions for both primary and 

wraparound coverage are substantially 

the same as the employer’s total 

contributions for coverage offered to 

full-time employees in 2014. 

(E) Reporting—(1) Reporting by group 

health plans and group health 

insurance issuers. A self-insured plan, 

or a health insurance issuer, offering or 

proposing to offer Multi-State Plan 

wraparound coverage pursuant to 

paragraph (b)(3)(vii)(D)(2) of this section 

reports to the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM), in a form and 

manner specified in guidance, 

information OPM reasonably requires to 

determine whether the plan or issuer 

qualifies to offer such coverage or 

complies with the applicable 

requirements of this section. 

(2) Reporting by group health plan 

sponsors. The plan sponsor of a group 

health plan offering wraparound 

coverage under paragraph (b)(3)(vii) of 

this section, must report to the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), in a form and manner 

specified in guidance, information HHS 

reasonably requires to determine 

whether the exception for limited 

wraparound coverage under this 

paragraph (b)(3)(vii) is allowing plan 

sponsors to provide workers with 

comparable benefits whether enrolled in 

minimum essential coverage under a 

group health plan offered by the plan 

sponsor, or a qualified health plan with 

additional limited wraparound coverage 

offered by the plan sponsor, without the 

causing an erosion of coverage. 

(F) Pilot program with sunset—The 

provisions of paragraph (b)(3)(vii) of this 

section apply to limited wraparound 

coverage that is first offered no later 

than December 31, 2017 and that ends 

on the later of: 

(1) The date that is three years after 

the date wraparound coverage is first 

offered; or 

(2) The date on which the last 

collective bargaining agreement relating 

to the plan terminates after the date 

wraparound coverage is first offered 

(determined without regard to any 

extension agreed to after the date 

wraparound coverage is first offered). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–30010 Filed 12–19–14; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P; 4510–29–P; 4120–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[WT Docket Nos. 07–250, 10–254: DA 14– 

1688] 

Request for Updated Information and 

Comment on Wireless Hearing Aid 

Compatibility Regulations 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

and the Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau seek updated input to 

better understand the current consumer 

experience, to explore technical or other 

barriers to the provision of hearing aid 

compatible devices on new wireless 

technologies, and to consider changes to 

its rules that may be necessary to ensure 

that wireless handsets used with 

advanced communications services are 

accessible in light of directives 

contained in the Twenty-First Century 

Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act (CVAA). 

DATES: Effective 30 days from 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Reply Comments 45 days from 

publication in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eli 

Johnson, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, (202) 418–1395, email 

Eli.Johnson@fcc.gov. Bob Aldrich, 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76945 

Bureau, (202) 418–0996, email 

Robert.Aldrich@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Public 

Notice, WT Docket Nos. 07–250, 10– 

254, released November 21, 2014. The 

full text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

Also, it may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor at 

Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554; the 

contractor’s Web site, http:// 

www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 

378–3160, facsimile (202) 488–5563, or 

email FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Copies of 

the Public Notice also may be obtained 

via the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS) by 

entering the docket number WT Docket 

07–250; 10–254. Additionally, the 

complete item is available on the 

Federal Communications Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.fcc.gov. 

I. Introduction 

1. By this Public Notice, the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau (Wireless 

Bureau) and the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) 

request updated information to assess 

whether the Commission’s hearing aid 

compatibility rules for wireless handsets 

effectively meet the needs of individuals 

who are deaf and hard of hearing. Since 

the Wireless Bureau last developed the 

record on these issues in 2012, a 

number of developments have occurred, 

including the deployment of LTE 

networks and LTE only handsets, wider 

use of and reliance on Wi-Fi calling, 

increasing consumer demand for datacentric mobile services on wireless 

devices, and continued growth in the 

number of wireless-only households. 

2. The Wireless Bureau and CGB 

therefore seek updated information to 

better understand the current consumer 

experience, to explore technical or other 

barriers to the provision of hearing aid 

compatible devices on new wireless 

technologies, and to consider 

recommending changes to the 

Commission’s rules that may be 

necessary to ensure that wireless 

handsets used with advanced 

communications services are accessible 

in light of directives contained in the 

Twenty-First Century Communications 

and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) 

(CVAA, Pub. L. 111–260). The 

Commission seeks to refresh the record 

on two principal issues. First, should 

the Commission revise the hearing aid 

compatibility requirement to apply in a 

technologically neutral way to all 

mobile wireless devices that can be used 

for voice communications? Second, 

should the Commission consider 

moving away from the fractional 

compliance regime that exists today and 

implement a requirement that all mobile 

wireless devices must comply with the 

hearing aid compatibility rules? 

II. Background 

3. In 2003, the Commission adopted 

rules to ensure that all wireless handset 

manufacturers and service providers 

offer consumers a selection of handsets 

that are compatible with hearing aids. 

Under these rules, which were amended 

in 2008, manufacturers and wireless 

service providers are currently required 

to meet the Commission’s wireless 

hearing aid compatibility standards only 

to the extent that handsets are 

associated with digital CMRS networks 

that ‘‘offer real-time, two-way switched 

voice or data service that is 

interconnected with the public switched 

network and utilize an in-network 

switching facility that enables the 

provider to reuse frequencies and 

accomplish seamless hand-offs of 

subscriber calls.’’ These rules require 

mobile service providers and handset 

manufacturers to offer only a certain 

number of digital wireless handset 

models that are hearing aid compatible 

through reductions in radio frequency 

(RF) interference and through an 

internal capacity for inductive coupling 

with a telecoil. 

4. In the 2007 Hearing Aid 

Compatibility NPRM, (22 FR 292, 

November 7, 2007) the Commission 

sought comment on whether to apply 

the hearing aid compatibility rules to 

wireless handsets that may fall outside 

the scope of covered CMRS, including 

handsets that offer voice services on 

non-cellular unlicensed Wi-Fi networks. 

In the 2010 Further NPRM, (75 FR 

77781, December 14, 2010) the 

Commission proposed to apply hearing 

aid compatibility requirements to ‘‘all 

customer equipment used to provide 

wireless voice communications over any 

type of network among members of the 

public or a substantial portion of the 

public via a built-in speaker where the 

equipment is typically held to the ear, 

so long as meeting hearing aid 

compatibility standards is 

technologically feasible and would not 

increase costs to an extent that would 

preclude successful marketing.’’ 

5. Subsequent to the release of the 

2010 Further NPRM, the CVAA 

amended the Hearing Aid Compatibility 

Act (HAC Act) (HAC Act, Pub. L. 100– 

394) in several relevant respects. First, 

the CVAA defined the class of 

equipment that is generally required to 

be hearing aid compatible to include, in 

addition to telephones, ‘‘all customer 

premises equipment used with 

advanced communications services that 

is designed to provide 2-way voice 

communication via a built-in speaker 

intended to be held to the ear in a 

manner functionally equivalent to a 

telephone.’’ The CVAA defines 

‘‘[a]dvanced communications services’’ 

to include, among other things, 

interconnected and non-interconnected 

VoIP services. Second, the CVAA 

defines ‘‘telephones’’ for purposes of the 

public mobile and private radio services 

exemptions to include ‘‘telephones and 

other customer premises equipment 

used in whole or in part with’’ various 

wireless communications services, 

including unlicensed services that are 

functionally equivalent to licensed 

services. Third, Congress directed the 

Commission to reassess the 

appropriateness of existing exemptions 

using a four-part test. Finally, in 

implementing the hearing aid 

compatibility requirements applicable 

to customer premises equipment (CPE) 

used with advanced communications 

services, Congress directed the 

Commission to ‘‘use appropriate 

timetables or benchmarks to the extent 

necessary (1) due to technical 

feasibility, or (2) to ensure the 

marketability or availability of new 

technologies to users.’’ 

6. Shortly after passage of the CVAA, 

the Wireless Bureau released a Public 

Notice seeking comments on the effect 

that the new legislation might have, if 

any, on the hearing aid compatibility 

rules that had been proposed in the 

2010 Further NPRM. In December 2010, 

the Wireless Bureau issued a second 

Public Notice to initiate a 

comprehensive review of the wireless 

hearing aid compatibility regulations 

(2010 Review PN), (76 FR 2625, 

December 28, 2010) including 

reassessment of deployment 

benchmarks and consideration of 

whether all wireless handsets should be 

required to meet hearing aid 

compatibility standards. Subsequently, 

in November 2012, due to intervening 

market, technical, and regulatory 

developments since the 2010 Review 

PN, the Wireless Bureau sought updated 

and additional comment on these 

matters (2012 Refresh PN), (77 FR 

70407, November 26, 2012). 

III. Request for Comment 

A. Applying the Rules in a 

Technologically Neutral Manner 

7. Section 20.19 of the Commission’s 

rules currently imposes hearing aid 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76946 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

compatibility requirements based on the 

underlying network technology, not on 

a device’s functionality. Consumers, 

however, may focus more on a 

particular handset’s functionality than 

on the network technology that it 

utilizes. Additionally, a technologically 

neutral approach may encourage 

innovation in the design of hearing aid 

compatible mobile wireless devices. The 

Wireless Bureau and CGB renew the 

Commission’s request for comment on 

whether to require compatibility in a 

technologically neutral manner. 

8. To keep pace with consumer 

expectations and the evolution of 

wireless technologies, the Wireless 

Bureau and CGB seek comment on 

whether consumers are aware that the 

hearing aid compatibility rules currently 

apply only to digital CMRS services 

with certain functionalities and, 

relatedly, whether section 20.19 should 

apply to all wireless handsets, 

regardless of the service, frequency, or 

technology with which they are used. In 

other words, if a wireless handset 

includes a built-in speaker and is 

typically held to the ear in a manner 

functionally equivalent to a telephone, 

then should the hearing aid 

compatibility requirements apply? If the 

Commission were to take this course of 

action, how should it define 

‘‘functionally equivalent’’? What would 

be the costs and benefits of revising 

section 20.19 along these lines—for 

handset manufacturers, service 

providers, hearing aid manufacturers, 

and consumers? The Wireless Bureau 

and CGB seek comment on whether this 

approach would be more consistent 

with consumer expectations, especially 

the expectations of persons with hearing 

loss, and if so, why. 

9. The Wireless Bureau and CGB note 

that amended rules could cover, among 

other things, handsets that operate over 

Wi-Fi systems and private internal 

networks. In light of this potential 

scope, the Wireless Bureau and CGB 

seek comment on whether the 

Commission should consider applying 

the hearing aid compatibility rules to 

handsets and other CPE used for 

wireless voice communications 

regardless of whether they are 

interconnected with the public switched 

telephone network (PSTN). Similarly, 

should the rules apply to other packetbased modes of voice access such as 

Voice over LTE (VoLTE) that may not 

use an in-network switching facility? 

How would amending the hearing aid 

compatibility rules in this manner affect 

a consumer’s ability to use his or her 

device in a variety of situations, such as 

for communicating in a moving vehicle 

(which requires access to multiple base 

stations), in a Wi-Fi hot-spot, or through 

a satellite? Additionally, should the 

Commission expand the hearing aid 

compatibility rules to include handsets 

and CPE used solely over internal 

networks? 

10. The CVAA directs the 

Commission to consider technical 

feasibility, marketability, and the 

availability of new technologies in 

connection with its hearing aid 

compatibility rules. Thus, the Wireless 

Bureau and CGB seek comment on how 

difficult it would be for handsets that 

offer voice communication capability 

but may not presently be subject to 

section 20.19 to comply with a hearing 

aid compatibility technical standard, 

and whether devices used primarily or 

exclusively on internal networks pose 

unique technical challenges. Could 

manufacturers and service providers 

achieve compliance for these devices in 

a relatively short period of time? Are 

there technical impediments or other 

considerations of which the 

Commission should be aware? If there 

are technical impediments or other 

considerations, what are they and how 

long would it take for manufacturers 

and service providers to overcome 

them? How much lead time would 

manufacturers need in order to come 

into compliance and what would be the 

costs of complying? 

11. Along these same lines, do testing 

laboratories have the equipment and 

software needed to test the 

compatibility of handsets that offer 

voice communication capability but 

may not be presently subject to section 

20.19? Could laboratories upgrade 

existing equipment to test devices that 

operate on other interfaces, or would 

they need to purchase new equipment 

and software? What are the costs of 

updating existing equipment and 

software or purchasing new equipment 

and software? 

12. Would technical impediments, 

testing costs, or other challenges 

support exempting certain technologies 

or services from the rules, either 

indefinitely or for a specified period? If 

so, what technologies or services would 

merit an exemption and why? What 

impact would exemptions have on 

people with hearing loss? What 

standard should the Commission utilize 

to determine if a technology or service 

should be exempted? Finally, how 

frequently should the Commission 

review such exemptions? 

B. Fractional Deployment Benchmarks 

13. In enacting the HAC Act, Congress 

found that individuals with hearing loss 

should have access to the 

telecommunications network ‘‘to the 

fullest extent made possible by 

technology and medical science.’’ 

Likewise, the CVAA directs the 

Commission to adopt rules that expand 

consumer access to hearing aid 

compatible handsets in line with 

advanced communication technologies. 

The Commission’s existing hearing aid 

compatibility rules, however, require 

covered handset manufacturers and 

service providers to achieve compliance 

only for a percentage of the total number 

of handset models that they offer. These 

fractional deployment benchmarks have 

been in place for a number of years and 

they have remained static, despite 

significant progress among certain 

manufacturers in achieving compliance. 

Moreover, the Wireless Bureau and CGB 

note the increasing trend among 

consumers to reside in wireless only 

households and rely exclusively on 

wireless services for communications. 

In such households, wireless handsets 

may be the only way for consumers to 

contact essential services, such as 911 

emergency services. Given the evolution 

in wireless technology and handset 

manufacturing, and evolving consumer 

expectations and use, the Wireless 

Bureau and CGB seek comment on 

whether the current fractional 

deployment approach effectively meets 

the communication needs of people 

with hearing loss. 

14. The Wireless Bureau and CGB 

renew the Commission’s request for 

comment on how consumers with 

hearing loss would benefit if all newly 

manufactured handsets were hearing aid 

compatible—i.e., have ratings of M3 and 

T3 or better. For example, to what 

extent would this improve the ability of 

consumers to select phones that meet 

their communication needs and reduce 

consumer confusion when shopping at 

retail establishments? To the extent that 

consumers currently have difficulty 

finding handsets that work effectively 

with their hearing aids or implants, 

would this change meaningfully address 

the difficulty? Or, by contrast, are 

consumers able to find hearing aid 

compatible devices (i.e., devices with 

ratings of M3 and T3 or better) without 

difficulty, but are discovering that many 

devices do not work effectively with 

hearing aids or implants 

notwithstanding compliance with the 

Commission’s rules? 

15. To what extent would requiring 

compliance for all handsets make it 

easier for consumers with hearing loss 

to purchase handsets not just from 

manufacturers and service providers but 

from distributors, third-party vendors, 

kiosks, and Web sites? The Wireless 

Bureau and CGB note that, in the past, 

consumers have requested an in-store 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76947 

testing requirement for independent 

retailers. Would expanding the hearing 

aid compatibility requirement to all 

handsets render this request moot? 

Given the increasing number of 

wireless-only households, to what 

extent would this change improve 

access to emergency services for 

individuals with hearing loss? The 

Wireless Bureau and CGB seek comment 

on these issues and on other ways 

consumers with hearing loss could 

benefit if all future handsets were 

hearing aid compatible. 

16. The Wireless Bureau and CGB also 

seek comment on challenges that may 

be associated with ensuring that all 

future handsets are compliant. Are there 

any technologies for which this would 

be technically infeasible? How much 

lead time would manufacturers need to 

achieve this, while ensuring the 

marketability and availability of their 

new technologies? Does the transition 

away from GSM and towards VoLTE 

remove some technological hurdles that 

slowed progress towards making all 

handsets hearing aid compatible? 

Commenters advocating maintaining the 

existing benchmarks should clearly 

explain why their position is consistent 

with the HAC Act and the CVAA, and 

also why this decision would not 

adversely impact persons who are deaf 

or hard of hearing. Are there some 

wireless technologies for which the 

Commission should grant exemptions 

from an all-inclusive rule, because of 

their nascent status or for other reasons? 

Commenters advocating specific 

exemptions should clearly state the 

basis for any exemption, its expected 

impact on the affected population, 

whether it should be temporary or 

permanent, and if temporary, whether 

and how frequently it should be 

reevaluated by the Commission. 

17. Finally, the Wireless Bureau and 

CGB seek comment on the costs and 

benefits associated with requiring all 

handsets to be hearing aid compatible. 

In particular, would this change 

eliminate the need for a number of the 

compliance requirements associated 

with the present fractional approach, 

such as annual status reports on hearing 

aid compatibility, the product refresh 

rule, and the ‘‘different levels of 

functionality’’ rule? What would be the 

advantages and disadvantages of 

discontinuing these requirements for 

manufacturers, service providers and 

consumers? Are there other compliance 

requirements that could be 

discontinued? Would the potential 

reduction in compliance burdens 

provide a particular benefit or cost to 

discrete segments of the industry, such 

as smaller wireless providers? Would 

smaller providers benefit from the 

availability of a wider variety of the 

latest handset models? The Wireless 

Bureau and CGB note that some 

manufacturers now deploy hearing aid 

compatible handsets in a higher 

percentage than is required under the 

rules. What economies of scale and 

other benefits would accrue to 

manufacturers who design all of their 

handsets to be hearing aid compatible? 

The Wireless Bureau and CGB generally 

seek comment on other ways covered 

handset manufacturers and service 

providers could benefit if all wireless 

handsets were hearing aid compatible, 

as well as any obstacles to achieving 

this result. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

18. Interested parties may file 

comments within 30 days of the 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register and reply comments 

within 45 days of the publication of this 

Public Notice in the Federal Register. 

All filings should refer to WT Docket 

Nos. 07–250 and 10–254. Comments 

may be filed using: (1) The 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS), or (2) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/. Filers should follow the 

instructions provided on the Web site 

for submitting comments. If multiple 

dockets or rulemaking numbers appear 

in the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, Postal Service mailing address, 

and the applicable docket number. 

Parties may also submit an electronic 

comment by Internet email. To get filing 

instructions for email comments, filers 

should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, 

and should include the following words 

in the body of the message, ‘‘get form 

your email address.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

19. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although the Commission continues to 

experience delays in receiving U.S. 

Postal Service mail). All filings must be 

addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

All hand deliveries must be held 

together with rubber bands or fasteners. 

Any envelopes must be disposed of 

before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, 

Express Mail, and Priority Mail should 

be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

20. One copy of each pleading must 

be delivered electronically, by email or 

facsimile, or if delivered as paper copy, 

by hand or messenger delivery, by 

commercial overnight courier, or by 

first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail (according to the 

procedures set forth for paper filings), to 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

at FCC@BCPIWEB.COM or (202) 488– 

5563 (facsimile). 

21. Copies of the document and any 

subsequently-filed documents in this 

matter may be obtained from Best Copy 

and Printing, Inc. in person at 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, via telephone at 

(202) 488–5300, via facsimile at (202) 

488–5563, or via email at 

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. The Public Notice 

and any associated documents are also 

available for public inspection and 

copying during normal reference room 

hours at the following Commission 

office: FCC Reference Information 

Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY– 

A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

Public Notice is also available 

electronically through the Commission’s 

ECFS, which may be accessed on the 

Commission’s Internet Web site at 

http://www.fcc.gov. 

22. To request information in 

accessible formats (computer diskettes, 

large print, audio recording, and 

Braille), send an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76948 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Chad Breckinridge, 

Associate Bureau Chief, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30096 Filed 12–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

48 CFR Parts 1001, 1002, 1016, 1019, 

1022, 1028, 1032, 1034, 1042, and 1052 

Department of the Treasury 

Acquisition Regulation; Technical 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Office of the Procurement 

Executive, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury is makes amendments to the 

Department of the Treasury Acquisition 

Regulation (DTAR) in order to make 

editorial changes. These editorial 

changes are in response to either 

updates made to the Federal Acquisition 

Regulations (FAR), Treasury bureau 

organizational restructuring, and other 

internal updates that have occurred 

since the 2013 edition. 

DATES: Comment due date: January 22, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Treasury invites comments 

on the topics addressed in this proposed 

rule. Comments may be submitted to 

Treasury by any of the following 

methods: by submitting electronic 

comments through the federal 

government e-rulemaking portal, 

www.regulations.gov, by email to 

thomas.olinn@treasury.gov; or by 

sending paper comments to Department 

of the Treasury, Office of the 

Procurement Executive, Attn: Thomas 

O’Linn, 655 15th Street NW., 

Metropolitan Square, Room 6B415, 

Washington, DC 20220. 

In general, Treasury will post all 

comments to www.regulations.gov 

without change, including any business 

or personal information provided, such 

as names, addresses, email addresses, or 

telephone numbers. Treasury will also 

make such comments available for 

public inspection and copying in 

Treasury’s Library, Room 1428, 

Department of the Treasury, 1500 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20220, on official business days 

between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 

5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. You can make 

an appointment to inspect comments by 

telephoning (202) 622–0990. All 

comments, including attachments and 

other supporting materials received are 

part of the public record and subject to 

public disclosure. You should submit 

only information that you wish to make 

publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas O’Linn, Procurement Analyst, 

Office of the Procurement Executive, at 

(202) 622–2092. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

DTAR, which supplement the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation, are codified at 

48 CFR Chapter 10. In order to update 

certain elements in 48 CFR part 10 this 

document makes editorial changes to 

the DTAR, which include updating 

Treasury bureau names and updating 

titles and dates, and other 

nonsubstantive revisions. This proposed 

rule would also remove the Earned 

Value Management System provisions 

codified at section 1052.234–72. There 

is no longer a need for Treasury-specific 

coverage in this area. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Therefore 

a regulatory assessment is not required. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. chapter 6) generally requires 

agencies to conduct an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis and a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

It is hereby certified that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The rule is intended to make editorial 

changes to the DTAR. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collections contained 

in this proposed rule have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq.) and assigned OMB control 

numbers 1505–0081; 1505–0080; and 

1505–0107. Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, an agency may not 

conduct or sponsor and a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Chapter 10 

Government procurement. 

Accordingly, the Department of the 

Treasury proposes to amend 48 CFR 

chapter 10 as follows: 

PART 1001—DEPARTMENT OF THE 

TREASURY ACQUISITION 

REGULATION (DTAR) SYSTEM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1001 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1707. 

1001.670 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend section 1001.670 by 

removing from the paragraph the word 

‘‘Technical’’ from Contracting Officer 

Technical Representative and the letter 

‘‘T’’ in COTR in all instances used. 

PART 1002—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS 

AND TERMS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 1002 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1707. 

■ 4. Section 1002.101 is revised to read 

as follows: 

1002.101 Definitions. 

Bureau means any one of the 

following Treasury organizations: 

(1) Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau (TTB); 

(2) Bureau of Engraving & Printing 

(BEP); 

(3) Bureau of the Fiscal Service 

(formerly Bureau of Public Debt and 

Financial Management Service); 

(4) Departmental Offices (DO); 

(5) Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network (FinCEN); 

(6) Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG); 

(7) Internal Revenue Service (IRS); 

(8) Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency (OCC); 

(9) Special Inspector General for the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program 

(SIGTARP); 

(10) Treasury Inspector General for 

Tax Administration (TIGTA); or 

(11) United States Mint. 

1002.70 [Amended] 

■ 5. Amend section 1002.70 by— 

■ a. Removing ‘‘COTR Contracting 

Technical Officer’s Representative’’ and 

adding ‘‘COR Contracting Officer’s 

Representative’’ in its place. 

■ b. Removing ‘‘IPP Internet Payment 

Platform’’ and adding ‘‘IPP Invoice 

Processing Platform’’ in its place. 

PART 1016—TYPES OF CONTRACTS 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 1016 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1707. 

1016.505 [Amended] 

■ 7. Section 1016.505 is revised to read 

as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS