[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 246 (Friday, December 23, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76208-76216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24419]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 05-203]


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 its current 
rules regarding eligibility criteria for compensation from the 
Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund do not reflect 
advances in the way that TRS is offered, particularly with respect to 
the two Internet-based forms of TRS, Video Relay Service (VRS) and 
Internet-Protocol (IP) Relay. Therefore, the Commission amends its 
rules to permit common carriers desiring to offer VRS and IP Relay 
service and receive compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) to 
seek certification from the Commission. In doing so, the Commission 
largely adopts the proposal set forth in the Second Improved TRS 
Order's NPRM. Through this action, the certification procedure will 
permit common carriers desiring to offer only VRS and/or IP Relay, and 
not the other forms of TRS, to receive compensation from the Fund 
without having to meet one of the existing three eligibility criteria 
set forth in the Commission's rules. Also in this document, the 
Commission addresses a related issue raised in Hands On Video Relay 
Services, Inc.'s (Hands On) petition for reconsideration of the 2004 
TRS Report and Order, which challenges the Commission's dismissal of 
Hands On application for certification as a VRS provider eligible for 
compensation from the Fund. Because the Commission adopts a new 
eligibility rule that permits Hands On to seek certification as a VRS 
provider eligible for compensation from the Fund without being part of 
a certified state TRS, the Commission concludes this issue is moot. 
Also, in this document, the Commission seeks approval from the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for any Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 
burdens contained in this document that will modify OMB Control No. 
3060-1047. The revised PRA burdens are related to new rules permitting 
common carriers seeking to offer VRS or IP Relay service, that are not 
part of a certified state program or have not contracted with an entity 
that is, to qualify for compensation from the Fund through a 
Commission-level certification process.

DATES: Effective January 23, 2006, except for Sec.  47 CFR 64.605 
(a)(2), (c)(2), (e)(2), (f)(2), and (g), which contains information 
collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in 
the Federal Register announcing the effective date. Written comments on 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information collection requirements 
must be submitted by the general public, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before January 23, 
2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit PRA comments identified by [CG Docket Number 
03-123 and/or OMB Control Number 3060-1047], by any of the following 
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Parties who choose to file by e-mail should submit 
their comments to Leslie Smith at [email protected] and to Kristy L. 
LaLonde at [email protected]. Please include the CG Docket 
Number 03-123 and/or OMB Control Number 3060-1047 in the subject line 
of the message.
     Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper should submit 
their comments to Leslie Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 
1-A804, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, and to Kristy L. 
LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone (202) 418-
0539 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

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 [email protected]. 
For additional information concerning the PRA information collection 
requirements contained in the document, contact Leslie Smith at (202) 
418-0217, or via the Internet at [email protected]. If you would 
like to obtain or view a copy of this revised information collection, 
you may do so

[[Page 76209]]

by visiting the FCC PRA Web page at: http://www.fcc.gov/omd/pra.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document contains modified information 
collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
These will be submitted to OMB for review under section 3507 of the 
PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to 
comment on the modified information collection(s) contained in this 
proceeding. This is a summary of the Commission's document FCC 05-203, 
adopted December 8, 2005, and released December 12, 2005, in CG Docket 
03-123. This Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration addresses 
issues arising from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Second Report and 
Order, Order on Reconsideration, and NPRM (Second Improved TRS Order), 
CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 03-112; published at 68 
FR 50973, August 25, 2003 and 68 FR 50993, August 25, 2003; and from 
the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), in the 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Report and Order, 
Order on Reconsideration, and FNPRM (2004 TRS Report and Order), CC 
Docket Nos. 90-571 and 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 04-137; 
published at 69 FR 53346, September 1, 2004 and 69 FR 53382, September 
1, 2004. Also, this Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration 
addresses issues raised in the Hands On October 1, 2004, petition for 
reconsideration of the 2004 TRS Report and Order. The full text of 
document FCC 05-203 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 
Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration and copies of 
subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from 
the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the 
Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site http://www.bcpiweb.com or by calling 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 [email protected] or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 05-203 can also be 
downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document contains modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as required by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, and as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and 
other Federal agencies to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in the Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration. Public and agency comments are due January 23, 2006. 
In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how it 
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' In this document, the 
Commission has assessed the effects of a new TRS eligibility that will 
allow more entities to become VRS and IP Relay providers. The 
Commission finds that some entities that may seek to become providers 
eligible for compensation from the Fund may be business entities with 
fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

    In this Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, the 
Commission addresses the issue of the certification and oversight of 
telecommunications relay service (TRS) providers seeking compensation 
from the Fund, raised in the NPRM of the Second Improved TRS Order and 
the FNPRM of the 2004 TRS Report and Order. TRS enables an individual 
with a hearing or speech disability to communicate by telephone or 
other device with a person without such a disability. This is 
accomplished through TRS facilities that are staffed by specially 
trained communications assistants (CAs) who relay conversations between 
persons using various types of assistive communication devices and 
persons who do not require such assistive devices. See generally 47 
U.S.C. 225(a)(3). This document also addresses the related issue raised 
in Hands On Video Relay Services, Inc.'s (Hands On) petition for 
reconsideration of the 2004 TRS Report and Order, which dismissed Hands 
On's application for certification as a VRS provider eligible for 
compensation from the Fund. See Hands On, Petition for Partial 
Reconsideration, CC Docket Nos. 90-571 and 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123 
(October 1, 2004) (Hands On Petition). The Commission amends the TRS 
regulations to permit common carriers seeking to offer VRS and IP Relay 
and receive compensation from the Fund to apply to the Commission for 
certification as an entity providing these services in compliance with 
the TRS rules, and therefore eligible for compensation from the Fund. 
See generally 47 CFR 64.601 et seq. (the TRS regulations). This 
certification procedure will permit common carriers desiring to offer 
VRS or IP Relay, and not the other forms of TRS, to do so without 
having to meet one of the existing eligibility criteria set forth in 
the rules. See 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F) (setting forth three 
eligibility categories for receiving compensation from the Fund). 
Because the Commission adopts a new eligibility rule that permits Hands 
On to seek certification as a VRS provider eligible for compensation 
from the Fund without being part of a certified state TRS program, the 
Commission concludes that the issue raised in Hands On's Petition is 
moot.

Background

Telecommunications Relay Service

    Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 
Public Law Number 101-336, section 401, 104 Statute 327, 336-69 (1990), 
adding Section 225 to the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 225; implementing regulations at 47 CFR 64.601 et seq., 
requires the Commission to ensure that TRS is available to persons in 
the United States with hearing and speech disabilities. TRS enables a 
person with a hearing or speech disability to communicate through the 
telephone system. The statute requires that TRS offer persons with 
hearing or speech disabilities telephone transmission services that are 
``functionally equivalent'' to voice telephone services. 47 U.S.C. 
225(a)(3). In adopting Title IV of the ADA, Congress recognized that 
persons with hearing or speech disabilities have long experienced 
barriers to their ability to access, utilize, and benefit from 
telecommunications services. See generally 2004 TRS Report and Order, 
19 FCC Rcd at 12479-12480, paragraph 3 (discussing legislative history 
of Title IV of the ADA). The intent of Title IV is to further the Act's 
goal of universal service by ensuring that individuals with hearing or 
speech disabilities have

[[Page 76210]]

access to the nation's telephone system. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 
225(a)(3). See also H.R. Report Number 485, Part 2, 101st Congress, 2nd 
Session at 129 (1990) (House Report).
    Section 225 of the Communications Act requires certain common 
carriers to offer TRS throughout the areas in which they offer service. 
47 U.S.C. 225(c). When TRS was implemented, TRS calls were placed using 
a TTY connected to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). In a 
``traditional'' TTY text-based TRS call, the user dials the telephone 
number for a TRS provider using a TTY. This first step for the TRS 
user, the completion of the outbound call to the TRS provider, is 
equivalent to reaching a ``dial tone.'' The caller then types the 
number of the person he or she wishes 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 typed by the 
caller into voice messages, and all voice messages from the called 
party into typed text 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. See generally 2004 TRS Report and 
Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12480, paragraph 3, note 18. States have primary 
jurisdiction over the provision of intrastate TRS through certified 
state TRS programs, see 47 CFR 64.605 (``State Certification''); see 
also 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12517-12518, paragraph 
103, and are responsible for compensating the TRS providers for the 
costs of intrastate service. See 47 U.S.C. 225(c)(3)(B). When TRS 
providers handle interstate calls, those calls are billed to, and 
compensated by, the Fund. See also 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) and (F).
    The Fund is funded by contributions from all common carriers 
providing interstate telecommunications services, and is administered 
by the TRS Fund administrator, currently the National Exchange Carrier 
Association, Inc. (NECA). The amount of each carrier's contribution is 
the product of the carrier's interstate end-user telecommunications 
revenue and a contribution factor determined annually by the 
Commission. See 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) and (B). The fund 
administrator uses these funds to compensate TRS providers for the 
costs of providing the various forms of TRS.
    Under the TRS regulations, providers ``eligible for receiving 
payments from the [Interstate] TRS Fund,'' see 47 CFR 
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F), must fall under one of three categories: (1) TRS 
facilities operated under contract with and/or by certified state TRS 
programs, see 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F)(1); (2) TRS facilities owned 
by or operated under contract with a common carrier providing 
interstate services, see 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F)(2); or (3) 
interstate common carriers offering TRS, see 47 CFR 
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F)(3). These three categories reflect the statutory 
regime that requires common carriers offering voice telephone service 
to also provide TRS, see 47 U.S.C. 225(c). Common carriers may offer 
TRS ``individually, through designees, through a competitively selected 
vendor, or in concert with other carriers.'' Therefore, every common 
carrier required to offer TRS need not necessarily do so individually. 
See 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12480, paragraph 3, note 
19 (distinguishing between interstate and intrastate TRS, and giving 
states the option to have ``certified'' state TRS programs). Currently 
all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia have certified 
state programs. The legislative history of Section 225 makes clear that 
Congress ``hope[d] and expect[ed] that all states would promptly adopt 
a certified state program.'' House Report at 130.
    Fund payments are made at per-minute compensation rates proposed 
each year by the fund administrator, and then approved or modified by 
the Commission in accordance with the Commission's rules. 47 CFR 
64.604(c)(5)(iii). The regulations provide that ``TRS Fund payments 
shall be distributed to TRS providers based on formulas approved or 
modified by the Commission. * * * Such formulas shall be designed to 
compensate TRS providers for reasonable costs of providing interstate 
TRS, and shall be subject to Commission approval.'' 47 CFR 
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E). The per-minute compensation rates are presently 
based on the projected average cost per minute for providing each 
service. See, e.g., Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-
Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, 
CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 05-135, Order; published 
at 70 FR 38134, July 1, 2005.
    In March 2000, the Commission recognized VRS as a form of TRS. See 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 
5140, at 5152-5154, paragraphs 21-27 (March 6, 2000); published at 65 
FR 38432, June 21, 2000 and 65 FR 38490, June 21, 2000, (Improved TRS 
Order and FNPRM); see also 47 CFR 64.601(17) (defining VRS). VRS 
requires the use of a broadband Internet connection between the VRS 
user and the CA, which allows the user to communicate in sign language 
via a video link. The CA, in turn, places an outbound telephone call to 
a hearing person. During the call, the CA communicates in American Sign 
Language (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. VRS therefore provides a degree 
of ``functional equivalency'' that is not attainable with text-based 
TRS, by allowing those persons whose primary language is ASL to 
communicate in ASL, just as a hearing person does with, e.g., spoken 
English. As a result, VRS has quickly become a very popular service.
    In April 2002, the Commission recognized a second Internet-based 
form of TRS--IP Relay. See Provision of Improved Telecommunications 
Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with 
Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Declaratory 
Ruling and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 
7779 (April 22, 2002); published at 67 FR 39863, June 11, 2002 and 67 
FR 39929, June 11, 2002, (IP Relay Declaratory Ruling and FNPRM). IP 
Relay calls are text-based calls, but the user connects to the TRS 
facility via a computer (or other similar device) and the Internet, 
rather than via a TTY and the PSTN. A user establishes a local 
connection to an Internet service provider using a computer, web phone, 
personal digital assistant, or other IP-enabled device, selects the 
Internet address of an IP Relay provider, and is connected to a CA who 
handles the call in the same way that TTY-based calls are handled. IP 
Relay, like VRS, has become a popular service because the user can make 
a relay call with any computer (or similar device) connected to the 
Internet, rather than with a dedicated TTY. See Improved TRS Order and 
FNPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 5149, paragraph 15 (VRS); IP Relay Declaratory 
Ruling and FNPRM, 17 FCC Rcd 7779, at 7786, paragraph 20 (IP Relay).

The Provision of VRS and IP Relay and Eligibility for Compensation From 
the Interstate TRS Fund

    Because the two Internet based forms of TRS--VRS and IP Relay--use 
the Internet for one leg of the call, it is currently not possible to 
determine the geographic location of the party using the service, and 
therefore to determine whether a particular call is interstate or 
intrastate. As a result, on an interim

[[Page 76211]]

basis, the costs of providing both intrastate and interstate VRS and IP 
Relay are compensated from the Fund. In addition, because VRS and IP 
Relay are services that are not tied to the PSTN or the provision of 
voice telephony, it became possible for entities that are not 
traditional voice telephone companies to offer these services. In 
particular, some entities sought to provide only VRS service under the 
third category of eligible TRS providers--``Interstate common carriers 
offering TRS''--even though they were not traditional common carriers 
(i.e., voice telephone companies) under the statute. Such entities 
could provide VRS and receive compensation from the Fund either by 
becoming part of a certified state program (first eligibility category) 
or subcontracting with an entity offering TRS and eligible for 
compensation from the Fund (second eligibility category).
    As a result, in the NPRM accompanying the June 2003 Second Improved 
TRS Order, the Commission sought comment on ``whether, and if so, how, 
the Commission should amend its rules to address the provision of TRS 
in circumstances not presently covered by the regulations, including a 
provider's eligibility for cost recovery for services currently 
reimbursed solely from the Fund.'' Second Improved TRS Order, 18 FCC 
Rcd at 12444, paragraph 136. The Commission noted the absence of a 
Commission-level certification process for TRS providers, leaving TRS 
providers not participating in a certified state program without a 
method for qualifying for compensation for interstate TRS. The 
Commission therefore sought comment on whether it should establish a 
federal certification process, either generally or specifically for IP 
Relay, VRS, and ``any other technology that does not fit easily into 
the traditional jurisdictional separation of intrastate and 
interstate.'' Second Improved TRS Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 12445, para. 
139; see also, 18 FCC Rcd at 12444, paragraph 137.
    The Commission tentatively concluded that under such a process TRS 
providers would apply to the Commission for certification as an 
interstate TRS provider, ``providing evidence that they are in 
compliance with the mandatory minimum standards found in 47 CFR 64.604 
of its rules.'' Second Improved TRS Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 12444, 
paragraph 137. In addition, the Commission proposed requiring such TRS 
providers to keep a log of any complaints received and their 
disposition of those complaints, detailing compliance with the 
mandatory minimum standards and listing the resolution of each 
complaint filed against the provider. Second Improved TRS Order, 18 FCC 
Rcd at 12444, paragraph 137. The Commission included proposed rules of 
such a certification process, adding a fourth prong to the eligibility 
criteria for interstate TRS providers ``certified by the Commission'' 
pursuant to new certification rules. Second Improved TRS Order, 18 FCC 
Rcd at 12467-12468, Appendix E (setting forth proposed rules).
    The commenters generally agreed that a federal certification 
requirement is appropriate if a TRS provider does not participate in a 
state TRS program, is not a traditional common carrier, and is 
providing Internet-based TRS, such as IP Relay and VRS. In this regard, 
several providers asserted that a federal certification process should 
be an alternative to participating in a state TRS program, and not an 
additional regulatory requirement for new or existing TRS providers. 
All supporting commenters agreed that the Commission-certified 
providers should also be required to submit annual complaint logs and 
waiver reports presently required of the existing VRS and IP Relay 
providers.

The 2004 TRS Report and Order

    In the 2004 TRS Report and Order, the Commission deferred a 
decision on this issue but invited further comment in the accompanying 
FNPRM. 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12517-12518, paragraph 
103. The Commission characterized the underlying issue as two-fold: 
``(1) How to define those entities providing TRS that are eligible for 
compensation from the Fund for providing eligible services; and (2) how 
to ensure that such entities are providing TRS in compliance with the 
TRS mandatory minimum standards.'' 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC 
Rcd at 12517-12518, paragraph 103. The Commission sought additional 
comment on whether it should separately ``certify'' and/or oversee 
providers of IP Relay and VRS. 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 
12570, paragraph 250. The Commission noted that ``because for both of 
these services there are presently only a handful of national 
providers, which consumers can access via computer without regard to 
geographic location, it may be either unnecessary or unworkable to have 
all 50 states oversee these providers.''
    In response to the FNPRM, four TRS providers filed comments. 
Comments were filed by Hamilton (October 18, 2004), Hands On (October 
15, 2004), Sorenson (October 18, 2004), and Sprint (October 18, 2004). 
Hands On, Hamilton, and Sorenson support a federal certification 
process as a way to promote competition and innovation while decreasing 
administrative costs by allowing providers actually providing the 
service to bill the Fund directly. Hamilton asserts that a 
certification system would assure provider compliance with minimum TRS 
standards.'' Sorenson asserts that the state certification process is 
slow and costly, and that most states will certify only one provider. 
Comments filed by the National Association for State Relay 
Administration (NASRA) noted that most states would opt for one VRS 
provider, which would eliminate the benefits of a competitive, multi-
vendor environment for VRS. Sorenson also asserts that to ensure the 
integrity of the Fund, new entrants should be required to file 
financial reports demonstrating financial stability, and that all 
certified providers should be required to file detailed complaint logs, 
annual waiver reports, and annual detailed call audit reports for all 
calls submitted for payment. Sorenson and Hands On also assert that 
existing providers should either be ``grandfathered'' into 
certification or presumed to meet the certification requirements. 
Sprint, however, opposes Commission certification of providers, stating 
that the Commission should make the provision of VRS and IP Relay 
mandatory and make the states responsible for compensating intrastate 
minutes, therefore also making the states responsible for ensuring 
compliance with the mandatory minimum standards. Sprint also asserts 
that the current complaint procedures are sufficient to keep the 
Commission informed about service problems, making the federal 
certification program an unnecessary use of Commission resources.

Hands On's Application for ``Certification'' as a VRS Provider

    On August 30, 2002, Hands On filed an application for 
``certification'' as a VRS provider eligible for compensation from the 
Fund. The application indicated that Hands On sought to provide only 
VRS, and not any of the mandatory relay services traditional common 
carriers are required to provide. Further, Hands On sought to provide 
VRS neither as part of a certified state program nor as a service 
operated in contract with a common carrier providing interstate TRS. 
See 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F). Hands On argued eligibility under the 
third prong; i.e., as an Interstate common carrier offering TRS 
pursuant to 47 CFR 64.604.

[[Page 76212]]

See 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F)(3). Hands On also acknowledged that the 
regulations do not specify any requirement for ``certification'' of TRS 
providers as eligible for compensation from the Fund. In the 2004 TRS 
Report and Order, the Commission dismissed Hands On's application 
without prejudice, based on the lack of a Commission certification 
process. 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12531, paragraph 148 
(citing, in part, 47 CFR 64.605) (footnote omitted).

Hands On's Petition for Reconsideration

    On October 1, 2004, Hands On filed a petition for reconsideration 
of, inter alia, the Commission's dismissal of its application for 
certification. See Communication Services for the Deaf, Inc., Hands On 
Video Relay Service, Inc., National Video Relay Service Coalition, and 
Hamilton Relay, Inc., File Petitions for Reconsideration of 
Telecommunications Relay Service Requirements from the Report and 
Order, and Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, CC Docket Nos. 90-571 and 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, DA 
04-3266, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 19929 (October 15, 2004); published 
at 69 FR 65401, November 12, 2004. Hands On seeks a ruling that it is 
entitled to receive compensation from the Fund without either providing 
its service as part of a certified state program or operating under 
contract with a common carrier providing interstate TRS and eligible 
for compensation from the Fund. Hands On asserts that it falls under 
the third eligibility prong of 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F)(3)--
``Interstate common carriers offering TRS pursuant to Sec.  64.604 of 
the Commission's rules''--and that under that prong it is entitled to 
compensation for its service from the Fund upon giving notice, whether 
or not the Commission has a separate certification process. MCI, the 
only commenter responding to the Hands On Petition, asserts that only 
compliance with mandatory minimum standards is necessary for 
reimbursement, and no Commission-wide certification is needed.

Discussion

    The Commission concludes that the present eligibility criteria for 
compensation from the Fund set forth in the Commission's rules do not 
reflect advances in the way that TRS is offered, particularly with 
respect to VRS and IP Relay. Therefore, the Commission amends its rules 
to permit common carriers desiring to offer VRS and IP Relay and 
receive compensation from the Fund to seek certification from the 
Commission. In so doing, the Commission largely adopts the proposal set 
forth in Second Improved TRS Order's NPRM. See Second Improved TRS 
Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 12443-12445, paragraphs 134-140. This 
certification procedure will permit common carriers desiring to offer 
only VRS and/or IP Relay, and not the other forms of TRS, to receive 
compensation from the Fund without having to meet one of the existing 
three eligibility criteria set forth in the rules.
    The present three categories for eligibility for compensation from 
the Fund were adopted at a time when all TRS calls were carried over 
telephone lines, and therefore all calls could be categorized as either 
interstate or intrastate. See Telecommunications Relay Services, and 
the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, CC Docket No. 90-571, FCC 
93-357, Third Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5300 (July 20, 1993), 
published at 58 FR 39671, July 26, 1993, (adopting TRS cost recovery 
rules). As a result, the states were given the primary role of 
regulating, and compensating, the provision of intrastate TRS through 
the state certification process. See generally 2004 TRS Report and 
Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12480-12483, paragraphs 4-8; see also House Report 
at 131. The third eligibility category--``Interstate common carriers 
offering TRS pursuant to Sec.  64.604 of the Commission's rules''--has 
been the means by which some entities that are not voice telephone 
service providers have sought to offer VRS. 47 CFR 
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F)(3). The Commission previously construed the third 
eligibility prong, however, as applying to common carriers obligated to 
provide TRS in a state that does not have a certified program. In the 
2004 TRS Report and Order, the Commission noted that, as a general 
matter, the Commission has construed the eligibility requirements to 
require eligible providers to be either part of a state program or to 
provide service under contract with another provider obligated to 
provide TRS services. 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12517-
12518, paragraph 103, note 304. The Commission noted that the three 
eligibility categories were modeled upon the ways in which common 
carriers may be deemed to be in compliance with their underlying 
obligation under sections 225(c)(1)-(2) of the Communications Act. It 
also noted that presently every state has a certified state TRS 
program, although they are not required to do so. See generally 2004 
TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12481, paragraph 6, note 25. The 
Commission now adopts a fourth eligibility criterion, which will allow 
common carriers seeking to offer VRS or IP Relay and receive 
compensation to do so without being part of a certified state program 
or contracting with an entity that is. Therefore, the Commission need 
not revisit its prior construction of the third eligibility category. 
Moreover, in the event that in the future a state either declines to 
seek recertification or fails to qualify for recertification, common 
carriers in that state may need to rely on the third eligibility 
category to receive compensation from the Fund for eligible TRS 
services.
    In the Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, the 
Commission specifically allows common carriers seeking to offer VRS or 
IP Relay, that are not part of a certified state program or have not 
contracted with an entity that is, to qualify for compensation from the 
Fund through a Commission-level certification process. The Commission 
recognizes that, with the advent of Internet-based forms of TRS, and 
particularly with the required expertise of sign language interpreters 
necessary for the provision of VRS, entities that have not offered 
voice telephony service or traditional TRS may desire to offer VRS or 
IP Relay. The Commission further recognizes that requiring such 
entities to either contract with a state or with another provider--
opportunities over which, as a practical matter, a new provider has 
little control--both elevates form over substance and artificially 
precludes new providers from offering service, thereby depriving 
consumers of additional choices. The record reflects that many states 
have been reluctant to accept VRS providers into their certified state 
programs. Presently, three VRS providers qualify for compensation from 
the Fund because they are part of a certified state program: Hands On 
(Washington); Sorenson (Utah); and Communication Access Center (CAC) 
(Michigan). The record reflects that other entities that desire to 
offer VRS have been unable to join a certified state program. See, 
e.g., Ex Parte Submission of Daryl Crouse, President, Snap 
Telecommunications, Inc. (Snap) (July 1, 2005) (submitted by counsel) 
(Snap Ex Parte) (asserting that Snap, which desires to offer VRS and 
receive compensation from the Fund, sought state certification but no 
state expressed an interest); see also NASRA Comments at 3-4 (noting 
that most states would opt for one VRS provider). States have little 
incentive to assume oversight responsibility for these services, which 
are offered on a

[[Page 76213]]

nationwide basis, particularly because states are not currently paying 
for the services. In addition, contracting with a provider that already 
offers TRS as part of a state program has made it uneconomical for some 
new providers to offer service. As Hands On has asserted, a ``direct 
certification by the Commission of VRS providers is likely to decrease 
the cost of service by allowing providers actually delivering the 
service to bill the Fund directly, rather than contracting with a state 
agency or existing telephone carrier (that would demand a substantial 
share of the compensation).'' The Commission concludes that common 
carriers seeking to provide VRS or IP Relay, and only those services, 
should not be precluded from doing so simply because they cannot 
contract with a State or another eligible TRS provider. According to 
Snap, the first eligibility category ``is no longer a viable option for 
new entrants because states are either completely uninformed about TRS 
Fund eligibility for VRS providers (since VRS is a non-mandatory 
service under the FCC's rules), or they are reluctant to certify and 
vouch for a new VRS provider due to the additional costs and burdens 
that might entail in terms of the state's oversight and audit 
responsibilities.''
    Moreover, as Hamilton, Sorenson, and the TDI Coalition have 
suggested, a federal certification program for VRS and IP Relay will 
allow the Commission to ensure that consumers receive high quality 
service without unduly burdening IP Relay and VRS providers. Sorenson, 
for example, states that ``a federal certification process--if properly 
administered--will encourage additional TRS providers to enter the 
market, ensuring the widespread availability of TRS services.''
    Permitting common carriers to provide VRS and IP Relay and receive 
compensation from the Fund through certification by the Commission 
furthers the goals of section 225 of the Communications Act. First, 
Commission certification will allow providers to offer service without 
contracting with a State or another TRS provider, possibly reducing the 
cost of providing service. Second, this Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration will enhance competition in the provision of VRS and IP 
Relay by permitting new entities to offer service, thereby giving 
consumers greater choice. In addition, the Commission anticipates that 
new providers will bring innovation to the provision of VRS and IP 
Relay, both with new equipment and new service features. Finally, and 
more broadly, because VRS requires broadband Internet service, new VRS 
providers may stimulate greater broadband deployment. See 2004 TRS 
Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12568, paragraph 243.
    As a result, the Commission concludes that common carriers seeking 
to offer VRS or IP Relay and receive compensation from the Fund 
independent of a certified state program or a common carrier offering 
TRS, may seek certification from the Commission to do so by providing 
documentation to the Commission as outlined below (and in amended 47 
CFR 64.605). See Rule Changes at the end of this document. This 
documentation shall include, in narrative form: (1) A description of 
the forms of TRS to be provided; (2) a description of how the provider 
will meet all non-waived mandatory minimum standards applicable to each 
form of TRS offered, see generally 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC 
Rcd at 12594, Appendix E (summarizing waivers of TRS mandatory minimum 
standards for VRS and IP Relay); (3) a description of the provider's 
procedures for ensuring ongoing compliance with all applicable TRS 
rules; (4) a description of the provider's complaint procedures; (5) a 
narrative describing any areas in which the provider's service will 
differ from the applicable mandatory minimum standards; (6) a narrative 
establishing that services that differ from the mandatory minimum 
standards do not violate applicable mandatory minimum standards; (7) 
demonstration of status as common carrier; and (8) a statement that the 
provider will file annual compliance reports demonstrating continued 
compliance with these rules. Non-common carriers seeking to offer VRS 
or IP Relay may continue to do so by joining a certified state program 
or subcontracting with an entity offering TRS and eligible for 
compensation from the Fund. However, the Commission requires providers 
to be common carriers under the Commission certification procedure 
adopted in this Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, because 
section 225 of the Communications Act is expressly directed at common 
carriers providing TRS. See 47 U.S.C. 225(c); see also 47 U.S.C. 
225(a)(1) (defining ``common carrier'' for purposes of Section 225 of 
the Communications Act). These procedures largely mirror those proposed 
in the NPRM in the Second Improved TRS Order. See Second Improved TRS 
Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 12443-12445, paragraphs 134-140.
    After review of this documentation, the Commission shall certify 
that the provider is eligible for compensation from the Fund if the 
Commission finds that: (1) The provision of VRS or IP Relay will meet 
or exceed all non-waived operational, technical, and functional 
mandatory minimum standards; (2) the VRS or IP Relay provider makes 
available adequate procedures and remedies for ensuring ongoing 
compliance with the Commission's rules, including that it makes 
available for TRS users informational materials on complaint procedures 
sufficient for users to know the proper procedures for filing 
complaints; and (3) where the VRS or IP Relay provider's service 
differs from the mandatory minimum standards, the TRS provider 
establishes that its service does not violate applicable mandatory 
minimum standards. The Commission will issue a Public Notice certifying 
that a VRS or IP Relay provider is eligible for compensation from the 
Fund under this new provision. A provider seeking eligibility must also 
comply with all applicable TRS regulations, including 47 CFR 
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(C), (D), (E), and (G). After a VRS or IP Relay 
provider obtains certification under the fourth eligibility prong, the 
provider need only submit a letter of intent to the fund administrator 
in order to become eligible to receive compensation. See 47 CFR 
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(G) (requiring an eligible provider to notify the TRS 
Fund administrator of its intent to participate in the Fund at least 30 
days prior to seeking compensation from the Fund).
    The Commission further amends 47 CFR 64.605 to provide that the 
certification granted under new 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F)(4) shall 
remain in effect for five years, and that a certified provider must 
file for renewal at least 90 days prior to the expiration of 
certification by filing the documentation required for certification. 
Although the Commission proposed a one year certification period, the 
record reflects that a five year period is preferable for 
administrative reasons and for consistency with the certification of 
state programs. See 47 CFR 64.605(c). In addition, the Commission 
amends 47 CFR 64.605 to provide that it may suspend or revoke 
certification if the Commission determines that certification is no 
longer warranted, and may require certified VRS or IP Relay providers 
to submit documentation demonstrating ongoing compliance with 
Commission rules and all applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards. 
These provisions largely mirror the existing certification requirements 
for state TRS programs.
    The Commission also amends 47 CFR 64.605 to require VRS or IP Relay 
TRS providers certified under the fourth prong to notify the Commission 
of

[[Page 76214]]

substantive changes in their TRS programs, services, and features 
within 60 days of when such changes may occur, and to certify that they 
continue to meet federal mandatory minimum standards after implementing 
the substantive change. Finally, the Commission amends 47 CFR 64.605 to 
require these certified VRS or IP Relay providers to file with the 
Commission, on an annual basis, a detailed report providing evidence of 
ongoing compliance with all applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards. 
Among other TRS mandatory minimum standards, the Commission notes that 
certified VRS or IP Relay providers must comply with 47 CFR 
64.604(c)(1), addressing consumer complaint logs and the filing of 
complaint log summaries with the Commission. Certified VRS and IP Relay 
providers must also file any annual reports required by the 
Commission's waiver of applicable mandatory minimum standards. See 
generally 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12520-12521, 
paragraph 111. The Commission believes that these requirements, taken 
together, will be sufficient to ensure that providers certified under 
this new provision will offer service in compliance with its rules, and 
will also provide a means by which the Commission can monitor 
compliance and service quality. The Commission therefore declines to 
require the filing of financial statements indicating financial 
stability. The Commission believes that a provider meeting the 
requirements adopted herein will be sufficiently qualified to offer VRS 
or IP Relay without a showing of its financial standing.
    In sum, the Commission has adopted a new eligibility category for 
VRS and IP Relay providers seeking compensation from the Fund to 
reflect the present reality that the provision of TRS is migrating to 
these Internet-based services, and that VRS and IP Relay are presently 
operated as national services without regard to the provision of 
traditional PSTN-based telephony or the physical location of the users 
and the relay facilities. Persons with hearing and speech disabilities, 
entitled by section 225 of the Communications Act to functionally 
equivalent telephone services, will benefit by having a greater choice 
of VRS and IP Relay providers. The Commission anticipates that the 
addition of new providers will not only enhance competition, but 
advance technological development, increase quality of service, and 
reduce costs. In this way, the Commission further fulfills two 
statutory mandates under section 225 of the Communications Act: 
ensuring that TRS is available ``to the extent possible and in the most 
efficient manner'' to persons with hearing and speech disabilities, 47 
U.S.C. 225(b)(1), and ``encourage[ing] * * * the use of existing 
technology and * * * not discourage[ing] or impair[ing] the development 
of improved technology.'' 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(2).

Order on Reconsideration

    Hands On seeks reconsideration of the Commission's dismissal in the 
2004 TRS Report and Order of its application for certification as a VRS 
provider eligible for compensation from the Fund. 2004 TRS Report and 
Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12531, paragraphs 147-148. Because the Commission 
adopts a new eligibility rule that permits Hands On to seek 
certification as a VRS provider eligible for compensation from the Fund 
without being part of a certified state TRS program, the Commission 
concludes that this issue is moot.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    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.'' 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' 
as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 
605(b). 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). 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.''
    This Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration addresses a 
petition for reconsideration of the Commission's prior conclusion not 
to certify common carriers providing TRS as eligible to receive 
compensation from the Fund. The Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration reverses the Commission's prior determination in this 
regard and concludes that the Commission will certify common carriers 
desiring to offer Video Relay Service (VRS) as TRS service providers 
eligible for compensation from the Fund. The Commission concludes that 
the public interest is best served by Commission certification of 
common carriers providing VRS and IP Relay service as eligible for 
Interstate TRS funding. The Commission finds that by so certifying 
common carriers providing VRS and IP Relay services, it will enhance 
competition in the provision of VRS and IP Relay by permitting new 
entities to offer service, thereby giving consumers greater choice. In 
addition, the Commission anticipates that new providers will bring 
innovation to the provision of VRS and IP Relay, both with new 
equipment and new features. Moreover, the Commission does not believe 
that the certification of additional VRS or IP Relay service providers 
will have an appreciable impact on the required size of the Fund. 
Indeed, the Commission expects that Federal certification is likely to 
reduce the costs of entry of new service providers (by eliminating the 
need to seek State certification or contracting with a State or another 
TRS provider), and that additional competition will help to lower the 
cost of VRS and IP Relay services. Therefore, given the lack of a 
significant economic impact, the Commission certifies that the 
requirements of the Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The Commission also notes 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

[[Page 76215]]

eight providers are providing VRS and being compensated from the Fund: 
AT&T, Communication Access Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, 
Hamilton, Hands On, MCI, Nordia, Sorenson, and Sprint. The Commission 
expects 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 VRS and IP Relay services the costs of 
providing interstate service. The Commission will send a copy of this 
Report and Order and 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 Report and Order and 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).

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 Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration Is hereby 
Adopted.
    The Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed by Hands On Is moot, 
as provided herein, to the extent it addresses Hands On's application 
for certification as a VRS provider.
    This Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration and the 
amendments to Sec. Sec.  64.604 and 64.605 of the Commission's rules in 
the Rule Changes shall be effective January 23, 2006, except for 
Sec. Sec.  64.605(a)(2), (c)(2), (e)(2), (f)(2), and (g), which 
contains information collection requirements that have not been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will 
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective 
date.
    The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, and 
Order on Reconsideration, including the Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 
Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 
218, 222, 225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Section 64.604 is amended by removing the period at the end of 
paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(F)(3) and adding ``;or'' in its place, and by 
adding paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(F)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.604  Mandatory minimum standards.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (F) * * *
    (4) Video Relay Service (VRS) and Internet Protocol (IP) Relay 
providers certified by the Commission pursuant to Sec.  64.605.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 64.605 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  64.605  VRS and IP Relay Provider and TRS program certification.

    (a) Documentation. (1) Certified state program. Any state, through 
its office of the governor or other delegated executive office 
empowered to provide TRS, desiring to establish a state program under 
this section shall submit, not later than October 1, 1992, 
documentation to the Commission addressed to the Federal Communications 
Commission, Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, TRS 
Certification Program, Washington, DC 20554, and captioned ``TRS State 
Certification Application.'' All documentation shall be submitted in 
narrative form, shall clearly describe the state program for 
implementing intrastate TRS, and the procedures and remedies for 
enforcing any requirements imposed by the state program. The Commission 
shall give public notice of states filing for certification including 
notification in the Federal Register.
    (2) VRS and IP Relay provider. Any entity desiring to provide VRS 
or IP Relay services, independent from any certified state TRS program 
or any TRS provider otherwise eligible for compensation from the 
Interstate TRS Fund, and to receive compensation from the Interstate 
TRS Fund, shall submit documentation to the Commission addressed to the 
Federal Communications Commission, Chief, Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, TRS Certification Program, Washington, DC 20554, and 
captioned ``VRS and IP Relay Certification Application.'' The 
documentation shall include, in narrative form:
    (i) A description of the forms of TRS to be provided (i.e., VRS 
and/or IP Relay);
    (ii) A description of how the provider will meet all non-waived 
mandatory minimum standards applicable to each form of TRS offered;
    (iii) A description of the provider's procedures for ensuring 
compliance with all applicable TRS rules;
    (iv) A description of the provider's complaint procedures;
    (v) A narrative describing any areas in which the provider's 
service will differ from the applicable mandatory minimum standards;
    (vi) A narrative establishing that services that differ from the 
mandatory minimum standards do not violate applicable mandatory minimum 
standards;
    (vii) Demonstration of status as a common carrier; and
    (viii) A statement that the provider will file annual compliance 
reports demonstrating continued compliance with these rules.
    (b) (1) Requirements for state certification. After review of state 
documentation, the Commission shall certify, by letter, or order, the 
state program if the Commission determines that the state certification 
documentation:
    (i) Establishes that the state program meets or exceeds all 
operational, technical, and functional minimum standards contained in 
Sec.  64.604;
    (ii) Establishes that the state program makes available adequate 
procedures and remedies for enforcing the requirements of the state 
program, including that it makes available to TRS users informational 
materials on state and Commission complaint procedures sufficient for 
users to know the proper procedures for filing complaints; and
    (iii) Where a state program exceeds the mandatory minimum standards 
contained in Sec.  64.604, the state establishes that its program in no 
way conflicts with federal law.
    (2) Requirements for VRS and IP Relay Provider FCC Certification. 
After review of certification documentation,

[[Page 76216]]

the Commission shall certify, by Public Notice, that the VRS or IP 
Relay provider is eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS 
Fund if the Commission determines that the certification documentation:
    (i) Establishes that the provision of VRS and/or IP Relay will meet 
or exceed all non-waived operational, technical, and functional minimum 
standards contained in Sec.  64.604;
    (ii) Establishes that the VRS and/or IP Relay provider makes 
available adequate procedures and remedies for ensuring compliance with 
the requirements of this section and the mandatory minimum standards 
contained in Sec.  64.604, including that it makes available for TRS 
users informational materials on complaint procedures sufficient for 
users to know the proper procedures for filing complaints; and
    (iii) Where the TRS service differs from the mandatory minimum 
standards contained in Sec.  64.604, the VRS and/or IP Relay provider 
establishes that its service does not violate applicable mandatory 
minimum standards.
    (c)(1) State certification period. State certification shall remain 
in effect for five years. One year prior to expiration of 
certification, a state may apply for renewal of its certification by 
filing documentation as prescribed by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section.
    (2) VRS and IP Relay Provider FCC certification period. 
Certification granted under this section shall remain in effect for 
five years. A VRS or IP Relay provider may apply for renewal of its 
certification by filing documentation with the Commission, at least 90 
days prior to expiration of certification, containing the information 
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (d) Method of funding. Except as provided in Sec.  64.604, the 
Commission shall not refuse to certify a state program based solely on 
the method such state will implement for funding intrastate TRS, but 
funding mechanisms, if labeled, shall be labeled in a manner that 
promote national understanding of TRS and do not offend the public.
    (e)(1) Suspension or revocation of state certification. The 
Commission may suspend or revoke such certification if, after notice 
and opportunity for hearing, the Commission determines that such 
certification is no longer warranted. In a state whose program has been 
suspended or revoked, the Commission shall take such steps as may be 
necessary, consistent with this subpart, to ensure continuity of TRS. 
The Commission may, on its own motion, require a certified state 
program to submit documentation demonstrating ongoing compliance with 
the Commission's minimum standards if, for example, the Commission 
receives evidence that a state program may not be in compliance with 
the minimum standards.
    (2) Suspension or revocation of VRS and IP Relay Provider FCC 
certification. The Commission may suspend or revoke the certification 
of a VRS or IP Relay provider if, after notice and opportunity for 
hearing, the Commission determines that such certification is no longer 
warranted. The Commission may, on its own motion, require a certified 
VRS or IP Relay provider to submit documentation demonstrating ongoing 
compliance with the Commission's minimum standards if, for example, the 
Commission receives evidence that a certified VRS or IP Relay provider 
may not be in compliance with the minimum standards.
    (f) Notification of substantive change. (1) States must notify the 
Commission of substantive changes in their TRS programs within 60 days 
of when they occur, and must certify that the state TRS program 
continues to meet federal minimum standards after implementing the 
substantive change.
    (2) VRS and IP Relay providers certified under this section must 
notify the Commission of substantive changes in their TRS programs, 
services, and features within 60 days of when such changes occur, and 
must certify that the interstate TRS provider continues to meet federal 
minimum standards after implementing the substantive change.
    (g) VRS and IP Relay providers certified under this section shall 
file with the Commission, on an annual basis, a report providing 
evidence that they are in compliance with Sec.  64.604.

[FR Doc. 05-24419 Filed 12-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P