Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51643 

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

(7) Notification Requirements: BMW must provide a one-time written notification to 

any State Regulatory Agency in a State to which or through which the delisted 

waste described above will be transported, at least 60 days prior to the commencement of such activities. Failure to provide such a notification will result in a 

violation of the delisting conditions and a possible revocation of the decision to 

delist. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–17359 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CC Docket No. 98–67 and CG Docket No. 

03–123; FCC 05–139] 

Telecommunications Relay Services 

and Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals With Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; petition for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission grants petitions for 

reconsideration of the 2004 TRS Report 

& Order. Through this action, the 

Commission reverses its conclusion that 

translation from American Sign 

Language (ASL) into Spanish is not a 

telecommunications relay service (TRS) 

eligible for compensation from the 

Interstate TRS Fund. This decision will 

allow Spanish-speaking people who are 

deaf to communicate with others who 

speak only Spanish and will allow them 

to integrate more fully into society. 

DATES: Effective September 30, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Chandler, Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability 

Rights Office at (202) 418–1475 (voice), 

(202) 418–0597 (TTY), or e-mail at 

Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Reconsideration, FCC 05–139, adopted 

July 14, 2005, and released July 19, 

2005, in CC Docket 98–67 and CG 

Docket 03–123. This Order on 

Reconsideration does not contain new 

or modified information collections 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. In addition, 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). The full text of the Order on 

Reconsideration and copies of any 

subsequently filed documents in this 

matter will be available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours at the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The Order on 

Reconsideration and copies of 

subsequently filed documents in this 

matter may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 

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

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

Customers may contact BCPI at their 

Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com or 

call 1–800–378–3160. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

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

418–0432 (TTY). The Order on 

Reconsideration can also be 

downloaded in Word or Portable 

Document Format (PDF) at: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro. 

Synopsis 

Title IV of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires 

the Commission to ensure that TRS is 

available to the extent possible in the 

most effective manner to persons with 

hearing or speech disabilities in the 

United States. TRS enables a person 

with a hearing or speech disability to 

have access to the telephone system to 

communicate with hearing individuals. 

The statute requires that TRS offers 

persons with hearing and speech 

disabilities telephone transmission 

services that are functionally equivalent 

to voice telephone services. When TRS 

was first implemented in 1993, persons 

desiring to use TRS to call a hearing 

person through the telephone system 

generally used a TTY (text-telephone) 

device connected to the public switched 

telephone network (the PSTN). In what 

is now referred to as a traditional TRS 

call (e.g., TTY text-based), the person 

with a hearing or speech disability dials 

(i.e., types) a telephone number for a 

TRS facility using a TTY, and then types 

the number of the party he or she 

desires to call. The CA, in turn, places 

an outbound voice call to the called 

party. The CA serves as the link in the 

conversation, converting all TTY 

messages from the caller into voice 

messages, and all voice messages from 

the called party into typed messages for 

the TTY user. The process is performed 

in reverse when a voice telephone user 

initiates a traditional TRS call to a TTY 

user. 

The most striking development in the 

short history of TRS has been the 

enormous growth in the use of VRS. As 

most frequently used, VRS allows a deaf 

person whose primary language is ASL 

to communicate in ASL with the CA 

through a video link. The CA, in turn, 

places an outbound telephone call to a 

hearing person. During the call, the CA 

communicates in ASL with the deaf 

person and by voice with the hearing 

person. As a result, the conversation 

between the two end users, deaf and 

hearing, flows in near real time and in 

a faster and more articulate manner than 

with a TTY or text-based TRS call. As 

a result, VRS calls reflect a degree of 

functional equivalency that is not 

attainable with text-based TRS. 

Section 225 of the Communications 

Act, creates a cost recovery framework 

whereby providers of TRS are 

compensated for their costs of providing 

TRS. This framework is based on a 

jurisdictional separation of costs. As a 

general matter, providers of intrastate 

TRS are compensated by the states, and 

providers of interstate TRS are 

compensated from the Interstate TRS 

Fund (Fund). The Interstate TRS Fund 

is funded by contributions from all 

carriers providing interstate 

telecommunications services, and is 

administered by the TRS fund 

administrator, currently the National 

Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. 

51644 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(NECA). The Fund administrator uses 

these funds to compensate eligible TRS 

providers for the costs of providing the 

various forms of TRS. Fund 

distributions are made on the basis of a 

payment formula initially computed by 

NECA in accordance with the 

Commission’s rules, and then approved 

or modified by the Commission. The 

per-minute compensation rates are 

presently based on the projected average 

cost per minute of each service. 

The Evolution of TRS 

Since TRS became available on a 

nationwide basis in July 1993, the 

Commission has addressed the 

provision, regulation, and compensation 

of TRS on numerous occasions. As the 

Commission has noted, in adopting 

Title IV of the ADA, Congress 

recognized that persons with hearing 

and speech disabilities have long 

experienced barriers to their ability to 

access, utilize, and benefit from 

telecommunications services. The intent 

of Title IV, therefore, is to further the 

Communications Act’s goal of universal 

service by ensuring that individuals 

with hearing or speech disabilities have 

access to the nation’s telephone system. 

To this end, the Commission must 

ensure that persons with hearing and 

speech disabilities have adequate means 

of accessing the telephone system. At its 

inception, TRS was limited to the use of 

a TTY connected via the PSTN to the 

CA, who would then make a voice call 

to the other party to the call. In 1998, 

however, the Commission issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking 

comment on whether Title IV applies to 

other forms of TRS that go beyond the 

TTY-to-speech and speech-to-TTY 

model. The Commission tentatively 

concluded that improved TRS services, 

such as speech-to-speech (STS) and 

VRS, falls within the scope of Title IV 

because its language and structure 

establish that Congress intended TRS to 

be an evolving service that would 

expand beyond traditional TTY relay 

service as new technologies developed. 

The Commission therefore proposed 

recognizing new forms of TRS that it 

believed would broaden the potential 

universe of TRS users and further 

promote access to telecommunications 

for the millions of persons with 

disabilities who might otherwise be 

foreclosed from participating in our 

increasingly telecommunications and 

information-oriented society. 

In March 2000, the Commission 

adopted its tentative conclusions that 

STS and VRS are forms of TRS. The 

Commission found that STS would help 

break the insularity barriers that confine 

members of the community of people 

with speech disabilities and offer them 

opportunities for education, 

employment, and other, more tangible 

benefits that are concomitant with 

independence. The Commission further 

concluded that TRS encompasses VRS, 

and that VRS would make relay services 

functionally equivalent to conventional 

telephone service for individuals whose 

first language is ASL. The Commission 

did not mandate the provision of VRS, 

given its technological infancy. The 

Commission nevertheless encouraged 

the use and development of VRS, and to 

this end stated that, on an interim basis, 

all VRS calls would be eligible for cost 

recovery from the Interstate TRS Fund. 

Finally, as discussed more fully below, 

the Commission also concluded that any 

non-English language relay services in a 

shared language, such as Spanish-toSpanish, are telecommunications relay 

services, and required interstate 

common carriers to provide interstate 

Spanish relay service. 

In April 2002, the Commission further 

expanded the scope of TRS by 

concluding that IP Relay falls within the 

statutory definition of TRS. In reaching 

this conclusion, the Commission noted 

that Congress did not adopt a narrow 

definition of TRS, but rather used the 

broad phrase ‘‘telephone transmission 

service’’ that was constrained only by 

the requirement that such service 

provide a specific functionality. In June 

2003, the Commission released the 

Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM, 

again expanding the scope of TRS to 

encompass new types of TRS calls, 

including two-line voice carry-over 

(VCO) and two-line hearing carry-over 

(HCO). The Commission stated that as 

technology has further developed, new 

variations of traditional TRS are now 

available to support the preferences and 

needs of persons with hearing and 

speech disabilities. 

Finally, in August 2003, the 

Commission concluded that captioned 

telephone VCO service is a type of TRS 

eligible for cost recovery under Section 

225. In reaching this conclusion, the 

Commission noted that the types and 

forms of relay services that we have 

found to fall within the definition of 

TRS have neither been static nor limited 

to relay services involving a TTY or the 

PSTN. The Commission also 

emphasized that captioned telephone 

service will reach a segment of the 

population persons who develop a 

hearing disability later in life and have 

some residual hearing that has 

traditionally not been well serviced by 

current TRS options, and that just as 

VRS has allowed greater functional 

equivalence in telecommunications for 

callers who use sign language, 

captioned telephone service will 

provide greater functional equivalence 

for those people who prefer VCO TRS 

and use this technology. 

Non-Shared Language Relay Service 

In 1998, the Commission first raised 

the issue whether multilingual relay 

services (MRS), i.e., relay service in a 

shared foreign language (such as 

Spanish-to-Spanish), and translation 

services, i.e., relay services between two 

parties who each use a different 

language, were TRS services under 

Section 225. The Commission 

tentatively concluded that Title IV of 

the ADA, as a general matter, only 

encompasses same-language MRS, and 

that such calls, to the extent voluntarily 

provided, should be compensated by the 

intrastate jurisdiction or the Interstate 

TRS Fund, as appropriate. The 

Commission also tentatively concluded 

that translation TRS, especially foreign 

language translation services, are valueadded TRS offerings that go beyond the 

‘‘relaying’’ of conversations between 

two end users, and therefore should not 

be compensable from the Interstate TRS 

Fund. The Commission sought comment 

on whether an exception should be 

made for ASL translation services, 

explaining that because ASL is a 

language unique to the deaf community, 

ASL translation services may be 

necessary to provide functional 

equivalency to ASL users. 

In March 2000, the Commission 

concluded that MRS—non-English 

language relay services that relay 

conversations in a shared language—are 

TRS services compensable by either the 

intrastate jurisdiction or the Interstate 

TRS Fund. The Commission recognized 

that Spanish is the most widely spoken 

non-English language in the United 

States, and that the number of Spanishspeaking persons is significantly larger 

than any other non-English speaking 

population and is rapidly growing. The 

Commission concluded that this 

warrants the availability of interstate 

Spanish relay service, and therefore 

mandated that interstate common 

carriers provide interstate Spanish relay 

services by March 1, 2001. The 

Commission added that while it was 

mandating only interstate Spanish relay 

service, any non-English language relay 

service provided by an interstate relay 

provider would be compensable from 

the Interstate TRS Fund. The 

Commission also stated that although it 

was not requiring each state TRS 

program to offer intrastate Spanish (or 

any other non-English language) relay 

service, it urged states to consider 

offering such services if the need arose, 

noting that there could otherwise be an 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51645 

adverse effect on the personal and 

economic well-being of individuals who 

speak a language other than English, 

making employment and education 

more difficult for them to attain. 

With respect to non-shared language 

relay service, the Commission 

concluded that the translation of typed 

ASL to English was TRS because it was 

necessary to provide ‘‘functional 

equivalency’’ to ASL users. The 

Commission noted that where a TTY 

user’s message is in ASL, the CA will, 

upon request of the TTY user, repeat the 

message to the hearing person using 

standard spoken English, and the CA 

will repeat the hearing person’s message 

by typing in ASL. The Commission 

stated that because the grammar and 

syntax of ASL are different from 

English, if this were not done, the 

hearing party may not understand the 

information as well as if it is presented 

in English, and vice versa. The order did 

not otherwise address non-shared 

language TRS. 

The Texas Public Utilities 

Commission (TX PUC) filed a petition 

for reconsideration, requesting that the 

Commission allow other non-shared 

language relay translation service 

(beyond ASL to English translation 

service) to be compensable from the 

Interstate TRS Fund. The TX PUC stated 

that there is a great demand for such 

service, and that the need for this 

service is particularly important for 

many deaf children of Latino origin. The 

TX PUC explained that many such 

children live in homes where Spanish is 

the spoken language, but the children 

are educated at school in ASL and 

English. Therefore, many deaf children 

of Spanish-speaking families are not 

able to participate in family 

communications. Sprint filed comments 

supporting the petition, stating that the 

provision of Spanish-to-English relay 

service is necessary to enable deaf 

children of Spanish-speaking parents to 

communicate with their families. Sprint 

also asserted that the incremental cost of 

providing such service would be de 

minimis. 

In response to the TX PUC petition, 

the Commission sought comment on 

whether non-shared (or multi-lingual) 

language translation service through 

relay is a form of TRS compensable from 

the Interstate TRS Fund. The 

Commission noted that since the time 

we addressed this issue in the 1998 TRS 

NPRM, the Commission has developed 

a better understanding of the needs of 

certain TRS consumers in this area, and 

recognizes that multi-lingual translation 

service through TRS may meet the 

unique needs of certain identifiable TRS 

users. The Commission sought comment 

on whether provision of this service is 

consistent with, or necessary under, the 

functional equivalency mandate. The 

Commission also sought comment on 

how multilingual translation service for 

TRS would be implemented with VRS, 

STS, and other forms of TRS. 

Several parties filed comments 

responding to this issue. Commenters 

representing TRS providers and 

disability advocacy groups asserted that 

non-shared language relay should be 

recognized as TRS, because it provides 

functionally equivalent relay service for 

millions of deaf children, parents, or 

friends who wish to communicate by 

telephone with Spanish-speaking 

Americans but cannot, because the 

persons who are deaf have been 

educated in ASL and English. 

Commenters in opposition generally 

maintained that non-shared language 

translation goes beyond the functional 

equivalency mandate because it 

provides relay users with a service not 

offered to non-relay voice telephone 

users, i.e., the ability, as part of their 

basic telephone services, to call and 

communicate with a person who speaks 

a different language. 

In 2004, the Commission found that 

non-shared language TRS is valueadded translation service that is not 

compensable from the Interstate TRS 

Fund. At the same time, the 

Commission recognized that states, in 

their efforts to tailor intrastate TRS to 

meet the needs of their citizenry, may 

identify the need to offer non-shared 

language TRS. The Commission stated 

that it supported, and in fact 

encouraged, states to assess the need for, 

and if appropriate offer, non-shared 

language intrastate TRS. In this regard, 

the Commission noted that it was not 

concluding that offering non-shared 

language TRS conflicts with 

Commission rules, but rather that the 

offering of such a service is an example 

of an entity permissibly exceeding the 

mandatory minimum standards. 

The Petitions for Reconsideration 

Three parties seek reconsideration of 

the Commission’s conclusion that nonshared language TRS service is not a 

form of TRS compensable from the 

Interstate TRS Fund. Specifically, they 

assert that non-shared language Spanish 

translation Video Relay Service—i.e., 

VRS where the CA translates what is 

signed in American Sign Language 

(ASL) into spoken Spanish, and vice 

versa—is a form of TRS compensable 

from the Interstate TRS Fund. 

Communication Services for the Deaf 

(CSD) argues that the enormous size of 

America’s Spanish-speaking population 

means that the provision of VRS 

between ASL and Spanish-speaking 

users is needed to achieve functional 

equivalent relay service. CSD notes that 

the recent growth of the Spanishspeaking population in America has 

been extraordinary, and that the 

Commission’s disability access rules 

already reflect this fact. CSD notes, for 

example, that the Commission has 

already required Spanish-to-Spanish 

interstate relay services, singling out 

this language only because the number 

of Spanish-speaking persons is 

significantly larger than any other nonEnglish speaking population and is 

rapidly growing. CSD further argues that 

it is inconsistent to permit 

reimbursement for ASL-to-English VRS, 

but not ASL-to-Spanish VRS. CSD 

asserts, in other words, that having 

recognized at least one translation relay 

service to achieve functional 

equivalency, it makes little sense to 

deny reimbursement for relay 

translation between ASL and Spanishspeaking people, particularly because 

after English, Spanish is the next most 

widely spoken language in the country. 

Further, CSD emphasizes that 

authorizing ASL-to-Spanish VRS is 

particularly critical for deaf Latino 

children because such children are 

educated in ASL and therefore can 

communicate by telephone with their 

relatives and other Spanish-speaking 

persons only through non-shared 

language TRS. Finally, CSD suggests 

that the cost to provide non-shared 

language ASL-to-Spanish calls would 

not be any greater than that for ASL-toEnglish calls, and that ASL-to-Spanish 

calls would likely constitute no more 

than one to two percent of all VRS calls. 

The National Video Relay Service 

Coalition (NVRSC) makes similar 

arguments. 

In response to the petitions for 

reconsideration, eighteen individuals 

filed comments in support, making 

many of the same arguments made by 

petitioners. These comments generally 

express the desire of deaf members of 

the Latino community to have the 

ability to communicate over the 

telephone via VRS in ASL, their native 

language, with the members of the 

Spanish-speaking community who are 

not deaf. No comments opposed 

recognizing Spanish translation VRS as 

a form of TRS compensable from the 

Interstate TRS Fund. 

Discussion 

We reverse the Commission’s prior 

ruling on this issue and conclude that 

ASL-to-Spanish VRS—i.e., relay service 

where the CA translates what is signed 

in American Sign Language (ASL) into 

spoken Spanish, and vice versa—is a 

51646 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

form of TRS compensable from the 

Interstate TRS Fund. Accordingly, we 

grant the petitions for reconsideration 

on this issue filed by CSD, NVRSC, and 

Hands On. (We note that the petitions 

for reconsideration only addressed 

Spanish language translation VRS, i.e., 

ASL-to-Spanish VRS). NECA shall 

compensate providers of this service at 

the same rate we adopt for VRS when 

a Spanish translation service is not 

involved. In reaching this conclusion, 

we find that it is essential that members 

of the large Spanish-speaking 

population in this country who are deaf, 

hard of hearing, or have a hearing 

disability, and for whom ASL is their 

primary language, have the means to 

communicate via the telephone system 

with persons without such disabilities 

who speak Spanish, in keeping with the 

goal of universal service. 

ASL-to-Spanish VRS Meets the Needs of 

an Identifiable Segment of the 

Population of Persons With Hearing and 

Speech Disabilities 

As explained above, the Commission 

has recognized that Congress intended 

TRS to be an evolving service that 

would encompass new developments in 

technology and meet the needs of 

identifiable segments of the population 

of persons with hearing and speech 

disabilities. The Commission has also 

recognized Congress’ clear direction that 

Title IV and the TRS regime are 

intended to further the goals of 

universal service by bringing persons 

with hearing and speech disabilities 

into the telecommunications 

mainstream and facilitating their 

educational and employment 

opportunities. To this end, Section 225 

specifically directs the Commission to 

ensure that TRS is available to the 

extent possible to persons with hearing 

and speech disabilities in the United 

States. 

The Commission’s recognition of new 

forms of TRS to meet the particularized 

needs of certain persons with hearing 

and speech disabilities has not been 

confined to addressing the needs of 

persons with certain disabilities (e.g., 

Speech-to-Speech) or the use of new 

technologies (e.g., VRS and captioned 

telephone service). It has also included 

recognizing that persons with hearing 

and speech disabilities who do not 

speak English should have access to the 

telephone system, and therefore that 

some non-English language relay service 

should be provided. As stated above, the 

Commission has concluded that the 

provision of Spanish language relay 

service is essential to ensuring that the 

nation’s large Spanish-speaking 

population has access to the telephone 

system. 

We find that the recognition of ASLto-Spanish VRS as a form of TRS 

compensable from the Interstate TRS 

Fund serves once again to meet the 

needs of an identifiable segment of the 

population of persons with hearing and 

speech disabilities, and therefore to 

further the goal of universal service, 

consistent with the Commission’s 

decisions noted above. The record 

reflects both that there is a large and 

growing Spanish-speaking population in 

this country, and that deaf members of 

this population, educated in ASL, 

cannot communicate with their family 

and friends who speak only Spanish. 

Indeed, the Commission has previously 

recognized that the provision of nonshared language relay service may 

satisfy a particular need of persons with 

hearing or speech disabilities. Further, 

the Commission has specifically 

recognized both shared non-English 

language relay service and VRS as forms 

of TRS compensable from the Interstate 

TRS Fund, and that precluding such 

services through a narrow reading of the 

statute would be inconsistent with 

Congress’ intent in enacting Title IV of 

the ADA. 

First, the record reflects that there are 

nearly 40 million Latinos living in the 

United States, and that number will 

increase to over 60 million by 2025, 

representing over 18% of the 

population. This is the largest minority 

population in the nation, and Spanish is 

the most widely used non-English 

language spoken in the United States. 

The record also reflects that, as reported 

by Gallaudet University, as many as 

24.5% of all deaf and hard of hearing 

students age three and over are Latino. 

The Commission has previously 

acknowledged that Hispanics are the 

fastest growing minority group in the 

deaf school age population. Relatedly, 

we note that Spanish is the predominant 

language in Puerto Rico, which has a 

certified state relay program under the 

Commission’s rules. (Territories such as 

Puerto Rico are encompassed by Section 

225 and the TRS regulations. See 47 

U.S.C. 225(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. 12102(3). 

Puerto Rico’s state TRS program was recertified by the Commission on July 24, 

2003. Notice of Certification of State 

Telecommunications Relay Service 

(TRS) Programs, Public Notice, CC 

Docket No. 98–67, 18 FCC Rcd 15322, 

(2003), published at 68 FR 45819, 

August 4, 2003; see generally http:// 

welcome.topuertorico.org/descrip.shtml 

(noting that language has been a central 

issue in Puerto Rican education and 

culture since 1898, and that now 

English and Spanish are both official 

languages in Puerto Rico)). As NVRSC 

has noted, in Puerto Rico, where 

Spanish is the primary language, failure 

to compensate for ASL-to-Spanish VRS 

leads to the result that Puerto Ricans 

who are deaf or hard of hearing using 

ASL must have their VRS conversations 

translated into English, a language that 

is either not spoken or is a second 

language for most Puerto Ricans. 

(NVRSC Petition at 10). 

Second, the Commission has also 

acknowledged that for many deaf 

Hispanic persons, particularly children, 

ASL is their primary language, even 

though it is not the language used in 

their home. As a result, as CSD has 

noted, because many do not learn 

Spanish in the deaf and residential day 

schools they attend, the only way for 

these children to communicate with 

some relatives by telephone—especially 

because many are young and cannot yet 

type—is through non shared-language 

VRS. (CSD Petition at 10). In other 

words, the particular communications 

needs of deaf children raised in 

Spanish-speaking households arise 

precisely because the children are deaf, 

and therefore learn ASL as their primary 

language and not Spanish. Recognizing 

non shared-language Spanish 

translation VRS as a form of TRS 

therefore empowers these persons to 

have access to the telephone system to 

become more fully integrated into 

society. The legislative history of Title 

IV makes clear that the lack of telephone 

access for persons with certain 

disabilities relegated them to secondclass citizenship, and that the relay 

system was intended to empower such 

persons to have greater control over 

their own lives and greater 

opportunities. Therefore, we agree with 

CSD that precisely because Spanishspeaking Latino Americans make up so 

large a portion of the American 

population, the Commission should be 

taking actions to enhance, not reduce 

communication between deaf people 

and Americans who speak Spanish. 

Recognition of ASL-to-Spanish VRS as a 

Form of TRS Is Consistent With the 

Recognition of VRS as a Form of TRS 

In reaching the conclusion that ASLto-Spanish VRS is TRS, we find 

significant, as have petitioners and 

commenters, that TRS already entails 

translation between two languages, 

English and ASL. The Commission has 

previously recognized that ASL is not 

English. For two persons to 

communicate with each other using 

these languages there must be a 

translation between a spoken language 

(English) and a visual language (ASL), 

each with its own grammatical structure 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51647 

and syntax. (See also CSD Petition at 6. 

CSD adds that it was for this very reason 

that VRS was first created—it was seen 

as a means of enabling ASL users who 

were not sufficiently acquainted with 

the English language to be able to 

communicate with hearing people who 

did not know ASL). 

Further, we now conclude that the 

Commission’s previous characterization 

of ASL-to-Spanish translation VRS as a 

value added service was misplaced. As 

we have noted, for certain identifiable 

segments of the population, the only 

way to communicate via telephone in a 

functionally equivalent manner is by 

ASL-to-Spanish translation VRS. 

Therefore, although a translation to 

Spanish may be a value added service 

for hearing persons, or in other contexts, 

we do not believe it can be fairly 

characterized as such for the deaf 

community for whom ASL is their 

primary language. As the record reflects, 

for deaf children who are raised in 

Spanish-speaking homes, and who are 

taught ASL in school as their primary 

language, without this service it is 

virtually impossible to communicate 

with their Latino communities. 

We also believe that the statutory 

mandate of functional equivalency must 

serve primarily as a benchmark for 

determining those services and features 

that TRS must offer, not as a barrier that 

precludes the recognition of new forms 

of TRS that give access to the nation’s 

telephone system to identifiable groups 

of persons with hearing and speech 

disabilities. Significantly, the 

Commission has made clear that 

functional equivalency is reflected in 

the services and features required by the 

mandatory minimum standards that a 

provider must offer to receive 

compensation from the Interstate TRS 

Fund. At the same time, the TRS 

regulations recognize that states may 

offer services that exceed the mandatory 

minimum standards, as long as they do 

not conflict with the existing standards; 

indeed, in the past the Commission has 

encouraged states to do so with regard 

to non-shared language TRS. The 

determination of whether a particular 

service falls within the scope of TRS 

and is compensable from the Fund must 

take into account the purpose of the 

service and whether it affords persons 

with hearing and speech disabilities a 

means of functionally equivalent access 

to the nation’s telephone system. 

Recognition of ASL-to-Spanish VRS as a 

Form of TRS Is Consistent With the 

Commission’s Focus on Spanish 

Language Access in Other Contexts 

The conclusion that ASL-to-Spanish 

VRS falls within the scope of TRS 

compensable from the Interstate TRS 

Fund is also supported by the special 

emphasis the Commission has placed on 

providing the nation’s Spanish-speaking 

population with access to 

communications in other contexts. First, 

as we have noted above, the 

Commission concluded that the 

provision of Spanish-to-Spanish relay 

service is essential to ensuring that the 

nation’s large Spanish-speaking 

population has access to the telephone 

system. The Commission explained that 

just as the voice telephone network 

allows for a Spanish-speaking user to 

call a parent and speak in Spanish, TRS 

users should have the same functional 

equivalency. The Commission found 

that because Spanish is the most widely 

spoken non-English language in the 

country, it was appropriate that the 

Commission mandate the availability of 

interstate Spanish relay service; at the 

same time, the Commission left to the 

states the determination whether 

particular demographics made it 

appropriate to offer other non-English 

language relay service. 

Second, the Commission has adopted 

captioning rules for Spanish language 

programming because there was already 

a market for such programming in the 

United States. The Commission 

explained that it was extending its 

disability access obligations only to 

Spanish video programmers because the 

number of Spanish-speaking persons is 

significantly larger than any other nonEnglish speaking population and is 

rapidly growing. The Commission also 

noted that it was appropriate to require 

Spanish language captioning because 

the captioning rules applied to 

programming in Puerto Rico. 

Third, the Commission’s Web site has 

a homepage that contains information 

written in Spanish about its rules and 

regulations. Consumers also have access 

to numerous Commission Factsheets 

and other documents that have been 

translated to Spanish. (The Commission 

has endeavored to provide Spanish 

translations of Commission Factsheets 

and Consumer Advisories. In addition, 

because we receive a large number of 

inquiries about charges on telephone 

bills, we have sample telephone bills 

available (both wireline and wireless) 

with definitions in Spanish of all line 

item terms. We also have translated 

telephone complaint Form 475, and 

‘‘slamming’’ complaint Form 501, into 

Spanish to allow Spanish-speaking 

consumers to easily file complaints with 

the Commission). In sum, the 

Commission has endeavored in a variety 

of contexts to make its services and 

information accessible to the nation’s 

large population of Spanish-speaking 

persons. 

Recognition of ASL-to-Spanish VRS as a 

Form of TRS Will Not Have an Undue 

Impact on the Interstate TRS Fund 

Finally, the record reflects that 

allowing compensation from the 

Interstate TRS Fund for ASL-to-Spanish 

VRS will not have an appreciable 

impact on the required size of the Fund. 

We are mindful that the size of the 

Interstate TRS Fund has been rapidly 

increasing in recent years, largely due to 

the popularity of the two Internet-based 

relay services (IP Relay and VRS), and 

that a larger Fund size requires a higher 

carrier contribution factor, with costs 

ultimately passed on to all consumers. 

But as we have noted, the record 

indicates that ASL-to-Spanish VRS calls 

should constitute no more than one to 

two percent of all VRS calls. Therefore, 

as the Commission stated when it 

recognized STS as a form of TRS, we 

find that no information has been 

presented that demonstrates that ASLto-Spanish VRS is too costly relative to 

the benefit derived from this service. 

Further, the record also reflects that the 

operational cost of providing ASL-toSpanish VRS is not likely to be 

significantly more than ASL-to-English 

VRS. Prior to the 2004 TRS Report and 

Order, CSD had been providing ASL-toSpanish VRS service for a period in 

2002 and 2003 at the same rate as ASLto-English VRS service. 

Conclusion 

We therefore conclude that ASL-toSpanish VRS—i.e., relay service where 

the CA translates what is signed from 

ASL to spoken Spanish, and vice 

versa—is a form of TRS compensable 

from the Interstate TRS Fund. (We 

remind providers (and consumers) that 

VRS is not the same as Video Remote 

Interpreting (VRI), and that VRS, 

including the ASL-to-Spanish VRS that 

we recognize in this Order on 

Reconsideration, may not be used when 

two persons are together and an 

interpreter is needed. As the 

Commission has explained, VRI is a 

service that is used when an interpreter 

cannot be physically present to interpret 

for two persons who are together at the 

same location (for example, at a meeting 

or in a doctor’s office). See Federal 

Communications Commission Clarifies 

That Certain Telecommunications Relay 

Services (TRS) Marketing And Call 

Handling Practices Are Improper And 

Reminds That Video Relay Service 

(VRS) May Not Be Used As A Video 

Remote Interpreting Service, Public 

Notice, CC Docket No. 98–67, CG Docket 

No. 03–123, 20 FCC Rcd 1471, (2005), 

51648 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

published at 70 FR 8034, February 17, 

2005. In that situation, an interpreter at 

a remote location may be used via a 

video connection. A fee is generally 

charged by companies that offer this 

service. By contrast, VRS, like all forms 

of TRS, is a means of giving access to 

the telephone system. Therefore, VRS is 

to be used only when a person with a 

hearing disability, who absent such 

disability would make a voice telephone 

call, desires to make a call to a person 

without such a disability through the 

telephone system (or when, in the 

reverse situation, the hearing person 

desires to make such a call to a person 

with a hearing disability). In 

circumstances where a person with a 

hearing disability desires to 

communicate with someone in person, 

he or she may not use VRS but must 

either hire an ‘‘in-person’’ interpreter or 

a VRI service). Accordingly, providers 

offering ASL-to-Spanish VRS may be 

compensated from the Interstate TRS 

Fund. Because presently VRS is not a 

mandatory service, we also do not make 

ASL-to-Spanish VRS a mandatory 

service at this time. Further, NECA shall 

compensate providers of this service at 

the same rate we adopt for VRS when 

a Spanish translation service is not 

involved. (We note that the petitions for 

reconsideration only addressed Spanish 

language translation VRS, i.e., ASL-toSpanish VRS. As noted above, the 

record suggests that compensation of 

ASL-to-Spanish VRS will not impose 

costs significantly greater than those 

associated with ASL-to-English VRS. 

We leave open the issue whether 

providers, after the 2005–2006 fund 

year, may include in their submitted 

projected costs any additional costs 

caused by providing ASL-to-Spanish 

VRS translation service we recognize in 

this Order on Reconsideration). 

Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, as amended (RFA), requires that 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

be prepared for notice-and-comment 

rulemaking proceedings, unless the 

agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not, 

if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ (See 5 U.S.C. 

603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601–612, has 

been amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104–121, 

Title II, 110 Statute 857 (1996)). The 

RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). In 

addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ has 

the same meaning as the term ‘‘small 

business concern’’ under the Small 

Business Act. (5 U.S.C. 601(3) 

incorporating by reference the definition 

of ‘‘small-business concern’’ in the 

Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the 

statutory definition of a small business 

applies unless an agency, after 

consultation with the Office of 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration and after opportunity 

for public comment, establishes one or 

more definitions of such term which are 

appropriate to the activities of the 

agency and publishes such definition(s) 

in the Federal Register’’). 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). (15 U.S.C. 632). 

Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 

million small organizations. 

(Independent Sector, The New 

Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference 

(2002)). 

This Order on Reconsideration 

addresses three petitions for 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

prior conclusion that non-shared 

language TRS service is not a form of 

TRS compensable from the Interstate 

TRS Fund. (See petitions filed by CSD 

(September 30, 2004), NVRSC (October 

1, 2004), and Hands On Video Relay 

Services, Inc. (Hands On) (October 1, 

2004)). This item reverses the 

Commission’s prior conclusion that 

non-shared language Spanish 

translation Video Relay Service—i.e., 

VRS where the CA translates what is 

signed in American Sign Language 

(ASL) into spoken Spanish, and vice 

versa—is a not a form of TRS 

compensable from the Interstate TRS 

Fund. The Commission concludes that 

the public interest is best served by 

requiring the Interstate Fund 

Administrator to pay to eligible 

providers of ASL-to-Spanish VRS the 

costs of providing interstate service. We 

find that it is essential that members of 

the large Spanish-speaking population 

in this country who are deaf, hard of 

hearing, or have a hearing disability, 

and for whom ASL is their primary 

language, have the means to 

communicate via the telephone system 

with persons without such disabilities 

who speak Spanish, in keeping with the 

goal of universal service. In addition, as 

noted in paragraph 31 of the item, the 

record reflects that allowing 

compensation from the Interstate TRS 

Fund for ASL-to-Spanish VRS will not 

have an appreciable impact on the 

required size of the Fund, or that ASLto-Spanish VRS is too costly relative to 

the benefit derived from this service. 

Therefore, given the lack of a significant 

economic impact, we certify that the 

requirements of the Order on 

Reconsideration will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

We also note that, arguably, there are 

not a substantial number of small 

entities that will be affected by our 

action. The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such firms having 1,500 

or fewer employees. (13 CFR 121.201, 

NAICS code 517110 (changed from 

513310 in October 2002). According to 

Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 

2,225 firms in this category which 

operated for the entire year. U.S. Census 

Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject 

Series: Information, ‘‘Establishment and 

Firm Size (Including Legal Form of 

Organization),’’ Table 5, NAICS code 

513310 (issued October 2000). Of this 

total, 2,201 firms had employment of 

999 or fewer employees, and an 

additional 24 firms had employment of 

1,000 employees or more. Thus, under 

this size standard, the majority of firms 

can be considered small. (The census 

data do not provide a more precise 

estimate of the number of firms that 

have employment of 1,500 or fewer 

employees; the largest category 

provided is ‘‘Firms with 1,000 

employees or more’’)). Currently, only 

eight providers are providing VRS and 

being compensated from the Interstate 

TRS Fund: AT&T, Communication 

Access Center for the Deaf and Hard of 

Hearing, Hamilton, Hands On, MCI, 

Nordia, Sorenson and Sprint. We expect 

that only one of the providers noted 

above is a small entity under the SBA’s 

small business size standard. In 

addition, the Interstate Fund 

Administrator is the only entity that 

will be required to pay to eligible 

providers of ASL-to-Spanish VRS the 

costs of providing interstate service. The 

Commission will send a copy of this 

Order on Reconsideration, including a 

copy of this Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA. (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). 

Congressional Review Act 

The Commission will send a copy of 

this Order on Reconsideration 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). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51649 

Ordering Clauses 

Pursuant to the authority contained in 

Sections 1, 2, and 225 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, and 225, 

this Order on Reconsideration is hereby 

adopted. 

The Petition for Partial 

Reconsideration filed by Hands On is 

granted in part, as provided herein; the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

CSD is granted in part, as provided 

herein; and the Petition for 

Reconsideration filed by NVRSC is 

granted, as provided herein. 

This Order on Reconsideration shall 

be effective September 30, 2005. 

The Commission’s Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center shall send a copy of 

this Order on Reconsideration, 

including the Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Jacqueline R. Coles, 

Associate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–17110 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CC Docket No. 98–67 and CG Docket No. 

03–123; FCC 05–140] 

Telecommunications Relay Services 

and Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals With Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission concludes that because 

speed of answer is central to the 

provision of ‘‘functionally equivalent’’

telecommunications relay service (TRS), 

and video relay service (VRS) is now 

widely used—if not the preferred form 

of TRS, VRS providers must provide 

service in compliance with the speed of 

answer rule adopted to be eligible for 

compensation from the Interstate TRS 

Fund. The rule establishes for the first 

time, mandatory speed of answer 

requirement for VRS, requires VRS to be 

officered 24/7, and permit VRS 

providers to be compensated for 

providing VRS mail. Also, in this 

document, the Commission closes TRS 

Docket No. CC 98–67. 

DATES: Effective September 30, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Chandler, Consumer & 

Government Affairs Bureau, Disability 

Rights Office at (202) 418–1475 9 

(voice), (202) 418–0597 (TTY), or e-mail 

at Thomas.Changler@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, FCC 05–140, adopted July 

14, 2005, and released July 19, 2005, in 

CC Docket 98–67 and CG Docket 03–

123. The Commission addresses threes 

issues related to the provision of Video 

Relay Services, a form of 

telecommunications relay service (TRS): 

(1) The adoption of a speed of answer 

rule for VRS; (2) whether VRS should be 

required to be offered 24 hours a day, 

7 days a week (24/7); and (3) whether 

VRS providers may be compensated for 

providing VRS Mail. This Report and 

Order does not contain new or modified 

information collections requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, 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). The full text of the 

Report and Order and copies of any 

subsequently filed documents in this 

matter will be available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours at the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street, NW., CY–A257, Washington, DC 

20554. The Report and Order and copies 

of subsequently filed documents in this 

matter may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contract, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals 

II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. Customers may 

contact BCPI at their Web site 

www.bepiweb.com or call 1–800–378–

3160. To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an e-mail to 

fee504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). The Report and Order can also 

be downloaded in Word or Portable 

Document Format (PDF) at: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro. 

Synopsis 

Title IV of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Pub. L. 

101–336, 401, 104 Statute 327, 336–69 

(1990), adding Section 225 to the 

Communications Act of 1934 

(Communications Act), as amended, 47 

U.S.C. 225; implementing regulations at 

47 CFR 64.601 et seq.), requires 

common carriers offering telephone 

voice transmission services to provide 

TRS throughout the area in which they 

offer service so that persons with 

disabilities will have access to 

telecommunications services, and 

provides that they will be compensated 

for their just and reasonable costs of 

doing so. Title IV is intended to further 

the universal service goal set out in the 

Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as 

amended, by providing to individuals 

with hearing or speech disabilities 

telephone services that are ‘‘functionally 

equivalent’’ to those available to 

individuals without such disabilities. 

Congress recognized that persons with 

hearing and speech disabilities have 

long experienced barriers to their ability 

to access, utilize, and benefit from 

telecommunications services. 

The advent of VRS as a form of TRS 

has been one of the most important 

developments in the short history of 

TRS. VRS allows a deaf person whose 

primary language is ASL to 

communicate in ASL with the CA, a 

qualified interpreter, through a video 

link; the CA, in turn, places an 

outbound telephone call to a hearing 

person. During the call, the CA 

communicates in ASL with the deaf 

person and by voice with the hearing 

person. As a result, the conversion 

between the two end users, deaf and 

hearing, flows in near real time and in 

a faster and more articulate manner than 

with a TTY or text-based TRS world. 

The use of VRS reflects this reality. In 

April 2005 the monthly minutes of use 

were approximately 1.8 million, a tenfold increase in the past two years, and 

more than the number of interstate 

traditional TRS minutes. (See TRS Fund 

Performance Status Report as of May 31, 

2005, http://www.neca.org (under 

Resources, then TRS Fund)). 

Discussion 

Speed of Answer 

The TRS Speed of Answer Rule 

TRS became available on a 

nationwide basis in July 1993. Initially, 

the Commission’s regulations required 

the provision of only ‘‘traditional,’’ or 

text (TTY)-based TRS, and the 

Commission adopted mandatory 

minimum standards to govern the 

provision of this service. Providers 

seeking compensation from the 

Interstate TRS Fund for providing any 

form of TRS must offer service in 

compliance with the applicable 

mandatory minimum standards, unless 

waived. In the initial Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking following the adoption of 

Section 225, the Commission explained