Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities, 54294-54298 [05-18029]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54294-54298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18029]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 05-141]


Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services 
for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Clarification.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission concludes that two-line 
captioned telephone service is a type of telecommunications relay 
service (TRS) eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund. 
The Commission also approves the National Exchange Carrier Association, 
Inc. (NECA), the Interstate TRS Fund Administrator, proposed allocation 
methodology for determining the number of inbound two-line captioned 
telephone minutes that should be compensated from the Interstate TRS 
Fund. 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. 3060-1053 to have TRS providers offering two-line captioned 
telephone service along with TRS providers offering one-line captioned 
telephone service file annual reports with the Commission.

DATES: Effective October 14, 2005. Written comments on the PRA modified 
information collection requirements must be submitted by the general 
public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested 
parties on or before November 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit PRA comments identified by [CG Docket No. 03-
123 and/or OMB Control Number 3060-1053], by any of the following 
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://
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 Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov and to Kristy L. 
LaLonde at Kristy--L.LaLonde@omb.eop.gov. Please include the docket 
number and/or OMB Control number 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: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone (202) 418-
0539 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Chandler, Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-1475 (voice), (202) 418-0597 
(TTY), or e-mail Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov. 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 Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Order 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 Order, adopted July 
14, 2005, released July 19, 2005. 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 full text of the 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, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554. The Order 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: 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). This Order can also be 
downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Order contains modified information collection requirements. 
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public to comment on the information 
collection requirements contained in the Order as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Public and 
agency comments are due November 14, 2005. 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 present document, the Commission has 
assessed the effects

[[Page 54295]]

of its determination that two-line captioned telephone service is a 
type of TRS eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund, and 
finds that such action will not affect businesses with fewer than 25 
employees.

Synopsis

One-Line and Two-Line Captioned Telephone Service

    In the August 2003 Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling, the 
Commission concluded that captioned telephone Voice Carry Over (VCO) 
service is a type of TRS, and that eligible providers of such services 
are eligible to recover their costs in accordance with Section 225 of 
the Communications Act. See Telecommunications Relay Services, and 
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd 
16121, August 1, 2003, published at 68 FR 55898, September 29, 2003, 
(Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling) recognizing captioned 
telephone service as a form of telecommunications relay service (TRS). 
Captioned telephone service uses a special telephone that has a text 
display. It permits, on one standard telephone line, the user--
typically someone who has the ability to speak and some residual 
hearing--to both listen to what is said over the telephone and 
simultaneously read captions of what the other person is saying. A 
communications assistant (CA) using specially developed voice 
recognition technology generates the captions. No typing is involved. 
The Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling permits providers of 
interstate captioned telephone service to be compensated from the 
Interstate TRS Fund.
    To use one-line captioned telephone service, the captioned 
telephone user dials the number of the person she wishes to call. 
Unlike with other forms of TRS, the user does not dial the number of a 
TRS provider (or the 711 access number). Although the user has dialed 
the number of the other party, the captioned telephone automatically 
calls a captioned telephone CA at a TRS facility. The TRS provider, in 
turn, calls the number of the called party, and all three parties (the 
captioned telephone user, the CA, and the called party) are connected. 
Unlike ``traditional'' TRS, where the CA would type what the called 
party says, the CA instead repeats or re-voices what the called party 
says and voice recognition technology automatically transcribes the 
CA's voice into text, which is then transmitted directly to the user 
and displayed on the captioned telephone. As a result, the captions 
appear on the captioned telephone at nearly the same time the user 
hears the called party's spoken words. Throughout the call the CA is 
completely transparent and does not participate in the call by voicing 
any part of the conversation; there is no interaction with the CA by 
either party to the call. Calls may be placed to captioned telephone 
users via a provider's toll free access number. When such an 
``inbound'' captioned telephone call is made, the caller is prompted by 
a recording to enter the number he or she wishes to call, and the call 
is automatically processed.
    The Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling did not address two-line 
captioned telephone service, and Petitioners now seek clarification 
that this type of captioned telephone service is also a type of TRS 
eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund. See Ultratec, 
Inc., Sprint Corporation, and Hamilton Relay, Inc., Request for 
Clarification, CC Docket No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123, filed 
December 7, 2004 (Ultratec Petition). The Commission refers to 
Ultratec, Inc., Sprint Corporation, and Hamilton Relay, Inc. as 
Petitioners). As Petitioners explain, two-line captioned telephone 
service requires the user to have two standard telephone lines 
connected to a captioned telephone. See, e.g., Ultratec Petition at 2. 
The first line is set up as the user's primary telephone line, and the 
second line transmits the captions from the captioned telephone relay 
service. When a two-line captioned telephone user places an outbound 
call, he or she dials the number of the party he or she wants to call 
on the first line, in the same way that a voice telephone call is made 
to the called party. An outbound call occurs when a captioned telephone 
user initiates (dials) a call from his or her captioned telephone 
hardware device. When this call is being made, the two-line captioned 
telephone simultaneously connects to the captioned telephone relay 
service on the second line. When this connection is made, the two-line 
captioned telephone takes the voice of the party who is called via the 
first line and sends it to the captioned telephone relay provider over 
the second line. As with one-line captioned telephone, the captioned 
telephone CA then re-voices everything that is said by the called 
party. Voice recognition technology transcribes what the CA says into 
text, and sends captions back on the second line to the text display on 
the two-line captioned telephone. In short, with one-line captioned 
telephone service the outbound call goes through the captioned 
telephone service provider to be connected to the called party; with 
two-line captioned telephone service, the primary telephone line links 
the calling and called parties directly, and the captioned telephone 
service is brought in on a second line.
    For inbound calls to the two-line captioned telephone user, the 
calling party simply dials the telephone number of the person he or she 
wants to call. An inbound call occurs when a captioned telephone user 
receives a call from a voice telephone caller. The call goes directly 
to the two-line captioned telephone in the same way a call would come 
in to any traditional telephone. When the captioned telephone user 
answers the call, his or her two-line captioned telephone automatically 
calls the captioned telephone relay service on the second telephone 
line, and the call then proceeds in the same manner as an outbound two-
line captioned telephone call. Ultratec Petition at 3.
    Petitioners cite several benefits that two-line captioned telephone 
service offers that are not available with one-line captioned telephone 
service. First, because a two-line captioned telephone allows direct 
inbound dialing, no special ``relay'' numbers are needed and users can 
give out their own telephone numbers to persons who may want to call 
them, not the number of a captioned telephone relay service provider. 
Second, because two-line captioned telephone service directly connects 
both parties to the call on the same telephone line and adds the 
captioned telephone relay service on a second telephone line, it allows 
the user access to other telephone network features available to voice 
telephone users such as *69 to receive information about the last 
incoming call and to return such call, call waiting, and call 
forwarding. In addition, and for the same reason, this service makes it 
possible for users to directly access 9-1-1 emergency services in the 
same way that hearing telephone users access these services (while 
simultaneously receiving captions back on the second telephone line). 
Two-line captioned telephone service also allows two or more persons to 
be on the call at the same time e.g., by using another telephone 
extension in the same house because the primary connection is a direct 
voice connection, just like with any other call. In contrast, one-line 
captioned telephone service uses a single connection to carry both 
voice traffic and captioning information, which are encoded into a 
single data stream. This data stream would be unintelligible to a user 
who picks up a

[[Page 54296]]

separate phone connected to the line on which one-line captioned 
telephone service is being used. Finally, unlike with one-line 
captioned telephone service, the captions service can be added to a 
call at any time during the call even after the call is in progress by 
engaging the second line which is the call to the captioned telephone 
service.

Jurisdictional Separation of Costs and Inbound Two-Line Captioned 
Telephone Service

    Petitioners and NECA acknowledge that although providers can 
readily determine which one-line captioned telephone calls are 
interstate and which are intrastate for reimbursement purposes, and can 
also make that determination for outbound two-line captioned telephone 
calls, they cannot do so for inbound two-line captioned telephone 
calls. See the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., CC Docket 
No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123, Petition for Declaratory Ruling, 
filed December 10, 2004 (NECA Petition). Therefore, NECA proposes that 
we adopt an allocation methodology for the jurisdictional compensation 
of the inbound two-line captioned telephone calls; i.e., for 
determining which such calls shall be compensated by a state, and which 
such calls shall be compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund.
    As NECA explains, for one-line captioned telephone service the 
relay center is able to determine whether each call is intrastate or 
interstate because such calls go through the relay center, and 
therefore the center can determine where the call originates from the 
automatic number identification (ANI) of the caller's telephone number 
and where it ends from the called party's telephone number. NECA 
Petition at 1-2; see also Ultratec Petition at 6. In other words, the 
TRS providers (i.e., call center) captures network information from 
both the caller's and the called person's telephone numbers. This 
applies to both inbound and outbound one-line captioned telephone 
calls. For outbound two-line captioned telephone calls, the process of 
determining the jurisdictional nature of the call is the same as for 
one-line captioned telephone service. NECA Petition at 2. The telephone 
captures the number of the called party that is dialed, and 
automatically forwards that number to the relay center through the 
second line. See Ultratec Petition at 6. As a result, in this situation 
the call center receives from the calling party the user of the two-
line captioned telephone the telephone number of both the calling and 
called parties. For inbound two-line captioned telephone calls, 
however, the relay center is incapable of determining the location of 
the calling (i.e., originating) party to the call. This is because the 
originating inbound caller calls the captioned telephone user directly, 
and the captioned telephone does not receive information about the 
calling party that can be forwarded to the relay center when the 
captioned telephone calls the relay center on the second line. NECA 
Petition at 2; Ultratec Petition at 7. As a result, the relay center 
does not receive the calling party's ANI, and therefore cannot 
determine the jurisdictional nature of the call in order to report and 
bill either the state or the Interstate TRS Fund for the call. NECA 
Petition at 2; Ultratec Petition at 7. Petitioners suggest that 
although Caller ID might provide the necessary information, ``this 
would not offer a consistent solution because it is often blocked or 
unavailable,'' and also note that Caller ID is a fee-based service that 
may put an unfair additional financial burden on the user. According to 
NECA, presently states are compensating providers of inbound two-line 
captioned telephone calls for all such calls.
    The problem of determining the jurisdictional nature of inbound 
two-line captioned telephone calls was addressed at the Interstate TRS 
Advisory Council's (Council) April 2004 and September 2004 meetings. 
NECA, on behalf of the Council, now requests that the Commission adopt 
an allocation methodology to determine the portion of such calls that 
will be considered intrastate, and the portion that will be considered 
interstate. NECA notes that an allocation methodology has been approved 
and is currently used for toll free (800) and pay-per-call (900) number 
calls because providers cannot determine the jurisdictional nature of 
such calls. In those cases, the share of minutes compensable from the 
Interstate TRS Fund is based on the relationship of interstate and 
international TRS minutes to intrastate toll, interstate, and 
international TRS minutes. Because this allocation is a means of 
estimating the percentage of 800 and 900 number calls that are 
interstate, and 800 and 900 number calls are not local calls, only 
intrastate calls that are toll calls, and not all intrastate calls, are 
included in the denominator of this calculation. NECA requests that a 
similar interstate allocation factor be calculated and applied to all 
inbound two-line captioned telephone calls. However, for such calls 
NECA proposes that the allocation factor be based on the relationship 
between the number of interstate and international traditional TRS 
minutes to the total number of all traditional TRS minutes (i.e., 
including all intrastate minutes, as well as all interstate and 
international minutes). In other words, although NECA proposes that the 
same allocation methodology used for 800 and 900 calls also be used to 
determine an allocation factor for inbound two-line captioned telephone 
calls, the allocation factor applied would not be the same for 800/900 
calls and for inbound two-line captioned telephone calls because the 
denominator would not be the same. NECA notes that based on this 
proposed allocation methodology, the allocation factor for the 2004-
2005 Fund year (using the traditional TRS data projected for the 
calendar years 2004 and 2005) would be 10 percent. Pursuant to this 
methodology and allocation factor, 10% of the two-line inbound 
captioned telephone minutes would be allocated to the interstate 
jurisdiction for payment from the Interstate TRS Fund, while the 
remaining 90% of the two-line inbound captioned telephone minutes would 
continue to be billed to the intrastate jurisdiction. On December 16, 
2004, the Ultratec Petition and NECA Petition were placed on Public 
Notice. Request for Clarification Filed by Ultratec, Inc., Sprint 
Corporation and Hamilton Relay, Inc. and Petition for Declaratory 
Ruling Filed by The National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. 
Concerning Two-Line Captioned Telephone Voice Carry Over, A Form of 
Telecommunications Relay Service, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 
03-12, Public Notice (December 16, 2004) (Two-line Captioned Telephone 
Public Notice). Comments were filed by the California Coalition of 
Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (California Coalition 
Comments) (January 6, 2005) and Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. 
(TDI Comments) (January 7, 2005). Ultratec, Inc. (Ultratec) filed reply 
comments to the NECA Petition on January 18, 2005 (Ultratec Reply 
Comments). All commenting parties support both petitions.

Discussion

Two-line Captioned Telephone Service as a Type of TRS

    The Commission concludes that two-line captioned telephone service 
is a type of TRS eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS 
Fund. As noted above, in the August 2003 Captioned Telephone 
Declaratory Ruling the Commission concluded that one-line captioned 
telephone is a type of TRS eligible for compensation from the 
Interstate TRS Fund. The record reflects that two-line captioned 
telephone

[[Page 54297]]

service is simply a variation of captioned telephone service that 
offers the same functionality while also offering the user additional 
features, noted above. Ultratec Petition at 2-6; see also California 
Coalition Comments at 1-3; TDI Comments at 1-2. These additional 
features `` including direct inbound dialing and the ability to use 
call waiting, call forwarding, directly call 911, and have two or more 
persons on the call at the same time `` represent another step forward 
toward functional equivalency. Therefore, the Commission clarifies that 
two-line captioned telephone service, like one-line captioned telephone 
service, is a type of TRS eligible for compensation from the Interstate 
TRS Fund. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission is mindful that 
Section 225 obligates the Commission to ensure that interstate and 
intrastate TRS are available, to the extent possible and in the most 
efficient manner, to hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals 
in the United States, and to ensure that the TRS regulations encourage 
the use of existing technology and do not discourage or impair the 
development of improved technology. 47 U.S.C. 225 (b)(1); 47 U.S.C. 225 
(d)(2). The Commission also notes that no commenters oppose this 
conclusion.

Compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund

    The Commission concludes that the same allocation methodology 
presently used for 800 and 900 number call minutes should be used for 
inbound two-line captioned telephone call minutes. In enacting Section 
225, Congress provided for the compensation of TRS providers for their 
costs of providing TRS. See 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(1)(D). The users of TRS 
cannot be required to pay for the service; see also Captioned Telephone 
Declaratory Ruling. This cost recovery regime distinguishes between 
interstate and intrastate TRS: the providers of interstate TRS are 
compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund, and providers of intrastate 
TRS are compensated from the states. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 225(c) and 
(d)(3); 47 CFR 64.603, 64.604(c)(5). Presently the costs of providing 
certain types of intrastate TRS are compensated from the Interstate TRS 
Fund, including VRS and IP Relay. See Captioned Telephone Declaratory 
Ruling. As noted above, however, with inbound two-line captioned 
telephone calls, there is currently no way for the provider to 
determine the jurisdictional nature of the call. As a result, the 
provider cannot determine which calls should be reported and billed to 
the states, and which should be reported and billed to the Interstate 
TRS Fund. In these circumstances, NECA has proposed an allocation 
methodology by which an interstate allocation factor is calculated and 
applied to all inbound two-line captioned telephone minutes. NECA notes 
that the impact of the use of its allocation methodology on the fund 
would be minimal. NECA Petition at 4. NECA states that although 
captioned telephone minutes are growing, they are not a significant 
portion of the TRS provider payments (less than 1% of the monthly fund 
requirements), and that inbound captioned telephone minutes are in turn 
a small portion of total captioned telephone minutes. No party filed an 
alternate proposal or an opposition to NECA's proposal.
    The Commission agrees with NECA's recommendation that the same 
allocation methodology presently used for 800 and 900 number call 
minutes should be used for inbound two-line captioned telephone call 
minutes. Application of this methodology will ensure that the 
Interstate TRS Fund compensates providers of inbound two-line captioned 
telephone calls only for such minutes reasonably estimated to be 
interstate in nature. As a result, the Commission adopts NECA's 
proposed methodology and instructs the Interstate TRS Fund 
Administrator to determine and apply, on an annual basis, an allocation 
factor for inbound two-line captioned telephone calls that is based on 
the relationship between interstate and international traditional TRS 
calls and all intrastate, interstate, and international traditional TRS 
calls. As with the determination of the allocation factor for 800 and 
900 number calls, the Fund Administrator will generally use the 
providers' projected minutes of use for traditional TRS. This 
allocation factor, along with the allocation factor for 800 and 900 
number calls, shall be reflected in the Interstate TRS Fund 
Administrator's annual filing with the Commission proposing the TRS 
compensation rates for the upcoming TRS Fund year. Upon release of the 
Order, NECA shall determine an allocation factor for inbound two-line 
captioned telephone calls as specified herein and submit it to the 
Commission. After Public Notice and an opportunity for comments, the 
Commission will issue an order approving or modifying the proposed 
factor. Finally, the Commission notes that Ultratec suggests that we 
monitor the usage data of one-line and two-line captioned telephone 
service to ensure that any allocation methodology adopted accurately 
reflects the usage of two-line captioned telephone service. Utratec 
Reply Comments at 4-5. The Commission will do so as part of its general 
oversight of the regulation and compensation of TRS.

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 rule making 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 Number 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).
    The Order addresses two petitions concerning the regulation and 
compensation of captioned telephone service, a form of 
telecommunications relay service (TRS). As noted in the Order, in 
August 2003, the Commission concluded that captioned telephone Voice 
Carry Over (VCO) service is a type of TRS, and that eligible providers 
of such services are eligible to recover their costs in accordance with 
Section 225 of the Communications Act. See Captioned Telephone 
Declaratory Ruling. The Captioned Telephone

[[Page 54298]]

Declaratory Ruling did not address two-line captioned telephone 
service, and petitioners now seek clarification that this type of 
captioned telephone service is also a type of TRS eligible for 
compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund.
    As noted in the Order, the record reflects that two-line captioned 
telephone service is simply a variation of captioned telephone service 
that offers the same functionality while also offering the user 
additional features. These additional features represent another step 
forward toward functional equivalency. Therefore, in the Order the 
Commission clarifies that two-line captioned telephone service, like 
one-line captioned telephone service, is a type of TRS eligible for 
compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund.
    The Commission does not believe this clarification will have a 
significant economic impact; however, in the event that it does, the 
Commission also notes that 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 three providers are providing 
captioned telephone service and being compensated from the Interstate 
TRS Fund: CapTel, Inc., Hamilton and Sprint. The Commission expects 
that only one of the providers noted above may be 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 two-line captioned telephone service the costs of 
providing interstate service. The Commission will send a copy of the 
Order, 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 the Order in a report to 
Congress and the Governmental 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 Order is hereby adopted.
    The Request for Clarification submitted by Ultratec, Inc, Sprint 
Corporation, and Hamilton Relay, Inc., is granted to the extent 
indicated herein.
    The Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by the National Exchange 
Carrier Association, Inc. (NECA), on behalf of the Interstate 
Telecommunications Relay Service Advisory Council, is granted to the 
extend indicated herein.
    The Order shall be effective October 14, 2005.
    The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 
Information Center shall send a copy of the Order, including the 
Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-18029 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P