Commission advances rulemaking on sign-language interpreter credentials after wide public comment

At its Feb. 21 meeting, the Louisiana Commission for the Deaf reviewed proposed administrative rules that would create a statewide registry and minimum qualifications for sign-language interpreters and took public comment from interpreters, advocates and association representatives.

The proposals respond to changes in state law and would require registration with a Louisiana Interpreter Registry and minimum credentialing to represent oneself as a sign-language interpreter in Louisiana. Interim LCD director Jana Broussard said the Commission has been preparing for rulemaking since the 2022 legislative changes, noting that "the Louisiana Department of Health is now responsible for establishing the credentialing standards and for maintaining a professional registry of all sign language interpreters in Louisiana." She told the board the effort grew from multi-year community engagement, needs assessments and multiple town halls.

Why it matters: the standards would apply to interpreters working in community settings as well as settings historically credentialed through other agencies. Commissioners and commenters said the rules could affect K–12 access, workforce supply, and professional development pathways.

Public commenters expressed sharply different views. Darlene Austin, an RID-certified ASL interpreter, told the commission she was “frustrated with the process and lack of transparency” and said generalist standards appeared to be “pushed through without the input of all stakeholders.” Gary Morgan, speaking for the Louisiana Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (LRID), said there had been “a lack of transparency of the process and content” and that people had not had access to full draft documents prior to notice of intent.

Several emailed comments read into the record emphasized competing priorities. Chelsea Richard, who said she supports stricter educational-interpreter standards, asked the Commission to “fight for the children and the community by approving rigorous new minimum qualification standards” while also supporting pathways such as professional development and mentorship. By contrast, a lengthy anonymous emailed comment urged the Commission not to sacrifice present K–12 interpreting services for future standards, saying “we can work on enhancing interpreting services while still making it our goal to meet the needs of our deaf and hard of hearing students today.” Natosha Istree urged the board to treat community and educational interpreters consistently and to apply degree requirements across settings, calling current differences “unequitable.”

Staff described supporting steps and timeline. Broussard listed programs under development to reduce barriers—mentoring, tuition reimbursement, testing access—and said the Commission recently won approval to proctor certain interpreter certification exams in-state. Legislative and policy lead Shane Bates outlined the formal rulemaking sequence: once staff finalize the draft it will be submitted as a notice of intent, undergo fiscal and state-register review and then be published for a public comment period. Bates said the department’s internal schedule aimed to "submit that notice of intent, by April 20," and that, if on schedule, a rule could be published around Aug. 20; he added that the department could pause or revise the rule in response to public comment.

Procedure and board actions: the Commission approved the meeting agenda on a motion by Dr. Ashley Argrave, seconded by Commissioner Marissa Ramos; the board postponed approval of January minutes to the April meeting; and, after discussion, moved into a committee-of-the-whole—motion moved by Miss Nollis and seconded by proxy Lynn Gomez—to review each slide of the draft content and record recommended edits before returning to make a single motion on the assembled edits. The commission then recessed for a short break.

What remains open: staff and the board emphasized that a full legal draft is not yet publicly posted and that the public will have a formal comment period after the notice of intent is published. Broussard and Bates said the board’s input at this meeting is intended to inform the content that will be finalized for submission.

The board did not take a final regulatory vote at the meeting; the next substantive step is finalizing language for the notice of intent and publishing that draft for the public comment process.