Proposed Rule2023-16672
Access to Video Conferencing
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 7, 2023
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) proposes to amend its rules to ensure that interoperable video conferencing services (IVCS) are accessible to people with disabilities and to facilitate the integration and appropriate use of telecommunications relay services (TRS) with video conferencing. These amendments are proposed to meet the need for people with disabilities to participate fully in video conferences, a technology that appears to have permanently altered the norms of modern communication in the workplace, healthcare, education, social interaction, and civic life.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 150 (Monday, August 7, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 150 (Monday, August 7, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52088-52102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16672]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 14 and 64
[CG Docket Nos. 23-161, 10-213, 03-123; FCC 23-50; FR ID 157623]
Access to Video Conferencing
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) proposes to amend its rules to ensure that interoperable
video conferencing services (IVCS) are accessible to people with
disabilities and to facilitate the integration and appropriate use of
telecommunications relay services (TRS) with video conferencing. These
amendments are proposed to meet the need for people with disabilities
to participate fully in video conferences, a technology that appears to
have permanently altered the norms of modern communication in the
workplace, healthcare, education, social interaction, and civic life.
DATES: Comments are due September 6, 2023. Reply comments are due
October 6, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 23-
161, 10-213, and 03-123 by either of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal Communications Commission's Website: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings</a>. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see document FCC 23-50 at
<a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-50A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-50A1.pdf</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Wallace, Disability Rights
Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at 202-418-2716, or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88dfe1e4e4e1e9e5a6dfe9e4e4e9ebedc8eeebeba6efe7fe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d5a646161646c60235a6c61616c6e684d6b6e6e236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 23-50, adopted on June 8, 2023,
released on June 12, 2023, in CG Docket Nos. 23-161, 10-213, and 03-
123. Also, this document has a companion document published at 88 FR
50053, August 1, 2023. The full text of document FCC 23-50 is available
for public inspection and copying via the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS).
To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f99f9a9accc9cdb99f9a9ad79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="492f2a2a7c797d092f2a2a672e263f">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a permit-but-
disclose proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.
47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a
copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for
which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
[[Page 52089]]
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Synopsis
Background
Since the March 2020 outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the
United States, video conferencing has grown from a niche product to a
central pillar of our communications infrastructure. In early 2020,
after governments, businesses, and schools adopted social distancing
requirements, organizations, families, and individuals turned to video
conferencing as a work-around. Use of video conferencing increased
exponentially, becoming a significant part of the technology solution
replacing in-person meetings, conference calls, and traditional
classroom instruction.
The new social interaction paradigm occasioned by the pandemic
appears to have permanently altered the norms of modern communication
in the workplace, healthcare, education, social interaction, civic
life, and more. The pandemic amplified and accelerated the reality that
much of Americans' lives take place online using an increasing variety
of connected devices. For millions of Americans, video conferencing has
become a mainstay of their business and personal lives.
With the growing use of video conferencing has come heightened
concern about accessibility. Small screens make it difficult for users
who are deaf or hard of hearing to identify visual clues, such as when
a colleague is about to speak. When automatic captions are provided on
video conference platforms, the quality and timeliness of the
transcription varies widely. In a 2021 survey of 330 people with vision
disabilities, approximately 57% of respondents found telehealth to be
inaccessible in some way. Further, users who are blind or have limited
vision describe struggles to find and toggle volume controls.
In recent years, various accessibility features have been
introduced by a number of video conferencing providers. Depending on
the platform, these features may include screen reader and braille
display support, a choice of third-party live captioning or synchronous
automatic captioning, multi-pinning features, and spotlighting a
speaker so that all participants know who is speaking. Some services
also offer keyboard accessibility features, high-contrast visual
elements, customizable notifications, verbosity controls, and other
accessibility innovations.
However, the accessibility of video conferencing services remains
limited for many users. In its February 2022 recommendations to the
Commission, the Disability Advisory Committee highlighted the
inconsistent performance of video conferencing providers in making
their platforms accessible to people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or
deafblind. Commenters also point out that users with disabilities often
are not in a position to dictate what video conferencing service the
host of the conference should use. For example, a patient who is deaf
may not be able to obtain healthcare because the doctor's telehealth
conferencing platform does not enable an effective connection to a sign
language interpreter or VRS. A student who is blind may be unable to
fully participate in a remote class discussion if information provided
through a share-screen feature is not accessible to screen readers. In
these and other scenarios, a person with a disability often has no
opportunity to request a different, accessible video conferencing
system.
Under the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), Public Law 111-260, providers of
advanced communications services (ACS) and manufacturers of equipment
used for ACS must make such services and equipment accessible to and
usable by people with disabilities, unless these requirements are not
achievable. 47 U.S.C. 617(a)(1), (b)(1). Service providers and
manufacturers may comply with these provisions either by building
accessibility features into their services and equipment or by using
third-party applications, peripheral devices, software, hardware, or
customer premises equipment (CPE) that are available to individuals
with disabilities at nominal cost. 47 U.S.C. 617(a)(2), (b)(2). If
accessibility is not achievable through either of these means, then
manufacturers and service providers must make their products and
services compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized CPE
commonly used by people with disabilities to achieve access, subject to
the achievability standard. 47 U.S.C. 617(c). The Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the Act), defines advanced communications services
as: (1) interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) service; (2)
non-interconnected VoIP service; (3) electronic messaging service; (4)
interoperable video conferencing service; and (5) any audio or video
communications service used by inmates for the purpose of communicating
with individuals outside the correctional institution where the inmate
is held, regardless of technology used. 47 U.S.C. 153(1). Interoperable
video conferencing service, in turn, is defined as a service that
provides real-time video communications, including audio, to enable
users to share information of the user's choosing. 47 U.S.C. 153(27).
In the Report and Order in document FCC 23-50, the Commission
revisits its previously stated views regarding the interpretation of
the statutory term interoperable video conferencing service. The
Commission concludes that part 14 of its rules applies to all services
and equipment that meet the statutory definition of interoperable video
conferencing service, i.e., all services and equipment that provide
real-time video communications, including audio, to enable users to
share information of the user's choosing.
TRS and Video Conferencing. Enacted in 1990, Title IV of the
Americans With Disabilities Act, codified as section 225 of the Act,
directs the Commission to ensure that interstate and intrastate
telecommunications relay services are available, to the extent possible
and in the most efficient manner, to eligible users in the United
States. 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1). TRS are defined as telephone transmission
services enabling such persons to communicate by wire or radio in a
manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of a person
without hearing or speech disabilities to communicate using voice
communication services. 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3).
There are currently three forms of internet-based TRS: Video Relay
Service (VRS) allows people with hearing or speech disabilities who use
sign language to communicate with voice telephone users through video
equipment; Internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay) allows an
individual with a hearing or speech disability to communicate with
voice telephone users by transmitting text via the internet; and
Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) permits a person
with hearing loss to have a telephone conversation while reading
captions of what the other party is saying on an internet-connected
device.
TRS Fund. The provision of internet-based TRS is supported by the
TRS Fund. In addition, the TRS Fund supports interstate use of certain
non-internet-based relay services, which are provided through state TRS
programs. Entities required to make contributions to the TRS Fund
include providers of telecommunications service, interconnected VoIP
service, and non-interconnected VoIP service.
[[Page 52090]]
Disability Advisory Committee Report on TRS and Video Conferencing.
The structure of the Commission's TRS program reflects the fact that,
historically, most people have used wireline or wireless telephone
networks to communicate remotely by voice. Thus, North American
Numbering Plan (NANP) telephone numbers are used to route calls between
TRS users and hearing people, and the provision of TRS, to date, has
typically included a voice-only telephone call, with originating and
terminating NANP numbers. To address concerns about the inaccessibility
of video conferencing platforms, the Commission requested the
Disability Advisory Committee to study the use of TRS on IVCS
platforms. In a report delivered in February 2022, the committee
states:
[I]t is impossible for users of most video conferencing
platforms and most TRS providers to natively interconnect their
preferred TRS provider to video conferencing platforms. Typically,
TRS users can only interconnect their preferred TRS provider to a
video conferencing platform by dialing in via the public switched
telephone network.
Such a dial-in connection is often unavailable. Further, when a
dial-in connection to a video conference is available, a TRS user may
encounter multiple difficulties. For example, the user must use two
separately connected devices--one to participate in the video portion
of the conference and the other to communicate with the TRS provider's
communications assistant (CA), who is only connected to the video
conference via an audio-only dial-in connection. As a result, the user
must navigate multiple user interfaces, which can cause confusion,
fatigue, and other barriers to full participation in a video
conference. If multiple TRS users join the conference, with each user
having a double presence as the user's video image and a CA's voice-
only icon, the result can increase the overall cognitive load for video
conference hosts and participants to process discussion and facilitate
shared dialogue. Further, the CA's audio-only connection may result in
poor audio quality, causing errors in interpretation or captioning. The
committee also explains that it is not clear whether the Commission's
rules allow other methods of linking a TRS CA to a video conference.
Since the committee's recommendations were published, one VRS provider
has reported that it now offers a means of integrating its provision of
VRS with one video conferencing platform.
For these reasons, the Disability Advisory Committee recommends
that the FCC resolve these issues by: facilitating a technical
mechanism for TRS providers to natively interconnect TRS services,
including video, audio, captioning, and text-based relay to video
conferencing platforms; ensuring that users can seamlessly initiate TRS
from the provider of their choice on any video conferencing platform;
addressing the integration of CAs and the overall accessibility
challenges of videoconferencing platforms; and clarifying the legal
ability of TRS providers to seek compensation for service provided for
video conferences from the TRS fund.
Proposed Rules
The Commission proposes to amend its rules to improve the
accessibility of video conferencing, whether used for work, education,
healthcare, entertainment, or other activities. The proposals in this
document are applicable to those services that fit the statutory
definition of interoperable video conferencing service. See 47 U.S.C.
153(27). In this document, when the Commission refers to video
conferencing or video conferences, it means video conferencing or video
conferences that involve the use of an interoperable video conferencing
service, as defined.
First, to address the integration of TRS CAs and the overall
accessibility challenges of videoconferencing platforms, the Commission
proposes to adopt additional performance objectives for the
accessibility of interoperable video conferencing services.
Specifically, the Commission proposes that such performance objectives
include the provision of speech-to-text (e.g., captioning of all voice
communications in a video conference) and text-to-speech; and enable
the use of sign language interpreting. The Commission seeks comment on
whether additional amendments are needed to ensure that video
conferencing is accessible. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether technical standards are available or could be fashioned for use
as safe harbors, whereby certain performance objectives for IVCS can be
satisfied by providing access to relevant forms of TRS.
Second, the Commission proposes to amend part 64 of its rules to
provide that the TRS Fund can be used to support the provision of TRS
for video conferencing users--whether or not the video conferencing
platform can be accessed via a NANP telephone call. In addition, the
Commission proposes certain modifications to its rules to specify the
conditions under which the TRS Fund will support the provision of TRS
with video conferencing.
Amending Part 14 To Improve the Accessibility of Video Conferencing
Performance Objectives. Section 716 of the Act directs the
Commission to adopt performance objectives to ensure the accessibility,
usability, and compatibility of ACS. 47 U.S.C. 617(e)(1)(A). To
implement this requirement, the Commission in 2011 adopted general
performance objectives specifying that input, control, and mechanical
functions are locatable, identifiable, and operable by people with
disabilities and that all information necessary to operate and use the
product is available to people with disabilities. For example, ACS must
be operable without hearing, which is defined to mean that it must
provide at least one mode that does not require user auditory
perception. 47 CFR 14.21(b). These performance objectives provide a
definition of accessible for purposes of the Part 14 rules. Other
performance objectives define usable and compatible. 47 CFR 14.21(c),
(d). These general performance objectives are applicable to IVCS as
well as other types of ACS.
The Commission believes that the performance objectives in part 14
of its rules have encouraged innovative and effective approaches to
achieve accessibility for covered equipment and services. However,
given the seismic shift in how society communicates, and based on this
proceeding's record and the Disability Advisory Committee Report, the
Commission seeks comment on whether to amend the rules to define more
specific objectives for making IVCS accessible. The Commission notes
that some IVCS providers have added accessibility features to their
products in response to consumer need during the COVID-19 pandemic. The
Commission seeks comment on the effectiveness of these features in
providing accessibility, the extent of their availability, their ease
of use, and how they could be improved. The Commission also seeks
comment on what other features may be necessary to make IVCS accessible
and how the current performance objectives could be modified or
supplemented to ensure that such features are provided if achievable.
Disability Advisory Committee Recommendations. As the Disability
Advisory Committee explained, without the ability to have other
participants' audio communications converted to text or sign language,
as appropriate, and to have their own text or sign language
communications converted to speech, a person who is deaf or hard of
hearing or has a speech disability may not be able
[[Page 52091]]
to effectively participate in a video conference. The Committee
recommends that the Commission ensure, at a minimum, that video
conferencing platforms: include built-in closed captioning
functionality that is available to all users, including to users with
free accounts if the platform provides such accounts; fully integrate
support for TRS CAs, including video, audio, captioning, and text
communication; and allow users, including CAs, to control the
activation and customize the appearance of captions and video
interpreters, including caption activation, size, color, background,
layout, and positioning, pinning and multi-pinning, side-by-side views,
hiding non-video participants, including American Sign Language (ASL)
interpreters, Certified Deaf Interpreters, and other interpreters, and
cued language transliterators, and exercise this control on their own
clients without reliance on video conference hosts.
The Commission proposes to amend the performance objectives in part
14 of its rules to address these recommendations and promote innovative
future solutions for making IVCS accessible. Consistent with section
716 of the Act, the proposals would permit IVCS providers to choose
whether to satisfy their accessibility obligations by including certain
features as native applications or by using third party applications,
peripheral devices, software, hardware, or CPE that is available to the
consumer at nominal cost and that individuals with disabilities can
access. 47 U.S.C. 617(b)(2)(B). Nominal cost means that any fee for
third-party software or hardware accessibility solutions shall be small
enough so as to generally not be a factor in the consumer's decision to
acquire a product or service that the consumer otherwise desires.
Implementing the Provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as
Enacted by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010, published at 76 FR 82353, December 30, 2011.
IVCS providers must maintain records of their efforts to ensure that
their services and products are accessible, 47 CFR 14.31(a), and the
Commission's rules do not provide an exemption from this requirement
for service providers who rely on third-party applications or equipment
to achieve accessibility.
Captions. The Commission proposes to adopt, as a performance
objective specific to IVCS, the provision of captions for the audio
communications in video conferences. For people who are deaf or hard of
hearing, a lack of captions can make meaningful interaction impossible.
Some video conferencing platforms offer captions, which are typically
provided via automatic speech recognition (ASR). However, according to
the Disability Advisory Committee, captions are not available on all
platforms, or on all video conferences for platforms that do provide
them, and where they are available they may be of insufficient quality
to ensure functional equivalence.
Automatic captioning, when available, sometimes produces incomplete
or delayed transcriptions, while the delays inherent in live captioning
can lead to cognitive overload as users try to follow poorly
synchronized visual and textual conversations. In addition, because
voice conversations go quickly and it may be difficult to immediately
identify who is speaking, video conferences may cause some people who
are deaf or hard of hearing to lose vital portions of voice
communications. Finally, some research indicates that ASR technology
may show algorithmic bias in the accuracy with which it transcribes
voices, particularly in the transcription of certain speakers.
The Commission proposes to amend Sec. 14.21 of its rules to make
clear that captioning is an essential component of accessibility in the
context of IVCS. Section 14.21(b)(2)(iv) of the Commission's rules
currently specifies that accessibility includes providing auditory
information through at least one mode in visual form and, where
appropriate, in tactile form. 47 CFR 14.21(b)(2)(iv). As noted above,
however, the record indicates that not every IVCS offers captioning,
and that where captioning is offered, the quality is often uneven.
Therefore, the Commission proposes to amend Sec. 14.21(b)(2)(iv) of
its rules to read (with proposed new text shown in bold):
Availability of auditory information. Provide auditory
information through at least one mode in visual form and, where
appropriate, in tactile form. For interoperable video conferencing
services, provide at least one mode with captions that are accurate
and synchronous. The accuracy and latency of such captions should be
at minimum comparable to that provided on TRS Fund-supported
captioned telephone services.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Does this language
provide an appropriate level of specificity, given, on the one hand,
the need for effective guidance on what accessibility requires, and on
the other, the need to allow flexibility in implementation and
innovative solutions, and to avoid mandatory technical standards? The
Commission has a pending proceeding on quantifying minimum standards
for the quality of captions provided by TRS Fund-supported captioned
telephone services and establishing methods of measuring caption
quality. Pending completion of that proceeding, this proposed
performance objective states that caption quality should be generally
comparable to that offered by TRS Fund-supported services. In the
future, with the adoption of metrics for captioned telephone services
by the Commission, such metrics could serve as a safe-harbor technical
standard for IVCS as well.
Is this level of quality sufficient to provide a functionally
equivalent experience for all users, including users of color or users
with accents? Alternatively, the Commission invites comment on the
extent to which current performance objectives, such as Sec.
14.21(b)(2)(i) of its rules, already require that IVCS provide an
appropriate level of caption quality. How can the FCC promote
improvements in ASR technology to address any existing algorithmic
bias?
In some instances, the host of a video conference may prefer (or
have a legal obligation) to use another captioning service--be it live
captioning or ASR--rather than the IVCS provider's captioning feature.
According to the Disability Advisory Committee:
When out-of-band interpreters, transliterators, or captioners
can be secured, many video conferencing platforms do not provide
sufficient accessibility features to ensure that they can be
integrated properly in a video conference to ensure accessibility.
Some video conferencing platforms have problems properly joining and
integrating caption streams to be displayed on streams, requiring
users to open a separate web browser or application to view
captions.
To address this concern, the Commission seeks comment on whether to
specify that IVCS enable the use of alternative captioning methods,
such as Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART). CART is the
instant translation of the spoken word into English text using a
stenotype machine, computer, and realtime software. Similarly, should
IVCS be compatible with TRS Fund-supported captioning, so that such
captioning can be displayed in a video conference if requested by a TRS
user? Is there a commonly used technology that would enable the display
of, e.g., CART or IP CTS captioning to all participants in a video
conference? Would the adoption of such a performance objective be
consistent with section 716(b)(2) of the Act, 47
[[Page 52092]]
U.S.C. 617(b)(2), which allows covered service providers to meet their
accessibility obligations either natively or by using third party
applications or equipment?
Text-to-Speech. To ensure that IVCS is operable by people with
disabilities who need to communicate by text, the Commission proposes
to amend 47 CFR 14.21(b)(1)(ix), which specifies that ACS be operable
in at least one mode that does not require user speech, to read (with
proposed new text shown in bold):
Operable without speech. Provide at least one mode that does not
require user speech. For interoperable video conferencing services,
provide at least text-to-speech functionality.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Would text-to-speech
and captions, along with compatibility with refreshable braille
displays or other peripheral devices, make IVCS accessible for people
who are deafblind and for people with speech disabilities who cannot or
do not use Speech-to-Speech relay service (STS)? STS is a form of TRS
that allows individuals with speech disabilities to communicate with
voice telephone users through the use of specially trained CAs who
understand the speech patterns of persons with speech disabilities and
can repeat the words spoken by that person. 47 CFR 64.601(41). STS is
currently provided only through state-certified relay service programs.
Should the Commission also specify that IVCS support the use of IP
Relay, and would such a specific performance objective be consistent
with the flexible compliance approach permitted by section 716(b)(2) of
the Act? Is there an effective means for users to connect with and use
IP Relay in video conferences?
Sign Language Interpreting. The Commission also proposes to adopt,
as a performance objective, that IVCS enable the provision of sign
language interpreting, such as through a third-party interpreting
service or a VRS provider. According to the Disability Advisory
Committee, many video conferencing platforms do not provide sufficient
accessibility features to ensure that interpreters can be integrated
properly in a video conference. Further, at present, video conferencing
platforms generally are not configured to allow the connection of VRS
CAs to a video conference, except through a voice-only dial-in
connection. The need to connect a VRS CA through a dial-up connection
poses multiple difficulties for the user, including the need to use two
separately connected devices, splitting attention between the two in a
way that appears to fall short of functionally equivalent participation
in a video conference. However, some companies are developing ways to
enable VRS CAs to have a video presence on a video conferencing
platform, enabling a solution to these problems. A VRS provider,
Sorenson Communications, has made available to its customers an
application that allows its CAs to participate in a Zoom conference
call.
To provide guidance on how to make video conferencing accessible to
people who use sign language, the Commission proposes to add a new
performance objective to Sec. 14.21 of its rules to specify that
accessibility for IVCS includes enabling an effective video connection
for sign language interpreters, including VRS CAs, so that they can be
pinned and viewed by those who use such services. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal and its costs and benefits, and also seeks
comment on the following language for this proposed performance
objective:
Sign language interpretation. Interoperable video conferencing
services shall enable the use of sign language interpretation,
including the transmission of user requests for sign language
interpretation to providers of video relay service and other
entities and the provision of sufficient video quality to support
sign language communication.
To ensure that providers of video remote interpreting (VRI) and VRS
can connect with an IVCS provider's platform, should the Commission
also specify in this performance objective that IVCS providers make
technical specifications available on their websites, indicating how to
make use of the relevant capabilities? Are there other forms of visual
communication that this rule should cover for use on video conferences?
For example, Cued English uses hand shapes, hand placements, and non-
manual signals on the mouth to provide a transliteration of spoken
English for some individuals with hearing disabilities. How would
requiring the ability to connect interpreters or transliterators for
additional forms of visual communication (if procured, e.g., by the
host or organizer of a video conference) affect the costs and benefits
of this proposed rule?
The Commission also seeks comment on whether additional performance
objectives should be specified for IVCS to address other accessibility
concerns. For example, are the current performance objectives in part
14 of the Commission's rules sufficient to ensure that people with
disabilities other than hearing and speech disabilities can effectively
participate in video conferences?
User Interface Controls. The Disability Advisory Committee and some
commenters raise a concern that video conferencing platforms do not
provide certain user interface controls needed for accessibility. To
address these concerns, the committee recommends that the Commission
ensure that such platforms:
Allow users, including CAs, to control the activation and
customize the appearance of captions and video interpreters,
including caption activation, size, color, background, layout, and
positioning, pinning and multi-pinning, side-by-side views, hiding
non-video participants, including ASL interpreters, [Certified Deaf
Interpreters], other interpreters, and cued language
transliterators, and exercise this control on their own clients
without reliance on video conference hosts.
Section 14.21(b) of the Commission's rules generally requires that
the control functions necessary for a user to operate a covered service
or product be accessible. The Commission invites comment on the extent
to which the existing performance objectives already require control
functions that would address the committee's recommendation. If not,
would adding a performance objective such as the following effectively
and appropriately address those concerns?
Interoperable video conferencing services shall provide user
interface control functions that permit users to adjust the display
of captions, speakers and signers, and other features for which user
interface control is necessary for accessibility.
Should the Commission identify additional kinds of user interface
controls that are necessary for accessibility? Commenters are invited
to recommend language for performance objectives that would provide
appropriate guidance in this area.
Costs and benefits. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and
benefits of the above proposals. What benefits would result, and what
costs would IVCS providers and other affected entities incur to: enable
captioning of video conferences; provide text-to-speech capabilities;
enable a video connection for sign language interpreters and VRS CAs;
improve user interface controls; and address other possible performance
objectives discussed above or in responsive comments?
How should the Commission quantify such incremental costs? How
should it compare those costs with the benefits to IVCS users? Are
there cost savings the Commission should consider--such as costs that
could be incurred by video conference hosts or participants to provide
captioning in the absence of
[[Page 52093]]
platform-provided captioning? Further, IVCS providers may view
accessibility not only as a public obligation, but also as a market
opportunity. The Commission seeks comment on this view.
In addition to describing and (where possible) quantifying the
benefits that would result from meeting all the performance objectives
proposed above, the Commission invites comment on the extent to which
particular performance objectives are achievable, either at present or
in the foreseeable future. The Commission stresses that each of the
amendments proposed above, if adopted, would remain subject to the
general condition that a provider or manufacturer need not meet the
objective if it is not achievable to do so. Therefore, the Commission
may adopt new or modified performance objectives even if they are not
immediately achievable for every provider. However, the Commission can
better assess the likely benefits of these proposals if there is
evidence as to whether or not a performance objective is likely to be
achievable, for at least some covered entities, within the foreseeable
future.
Legal Authority. The Commission believes the Act provides legal
authority for the above proposals. Section 716 of the Act requires
providers of ACS and manufacturers of equipment used with ACS,
including interoperable video conferencing service, to make their
services and equipment accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, unless that is not achievable. The Act directs the
Commission, in broad terms, to adopt implementing regulations that,
among other things, include performance objectives to ensure the
accessibility, usability, and compatibility of advanced communications
services and determine the obligations under this section of
manufacturers, service providers, and providers of applications or
services accessed over service provider networks. 47 U.S.C. 617(a)(1),
(b)(1). Further, whenever that requirement is not achievable, a service
provider shall ensure that its service is compatible with existing
peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly
used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, unless this
requirement too is not achievable. 47 U.S.C. 617(c). A manufacturer of
equipment used for IVCS is similarly required to make its products
accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, unless it is not
achievable to do so. The Commission believes its proposals fall within
this broad grant of authority and are consistent with other provisions
of section 716 of the Act, including the allowance for flexible
implementation through either native or third-party applications, the
prohibition on mandating technical standards, and the condition that
compliance is not required if it is not achievable. 47 U.S.C.
617(a)(1), (b)(1), (e)(1)(D). The Commission seeks comment on this
analysis.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other
sources of authority supporting the above proposals. For example, in
2007 the Commission found that it had authority, ancillary to section
225 of the Act, to require interconnected providers of VoIP service to
provide access to TRS. Could the Commission also find that it has
authority ancillary to section 225, or other provisions of the Act, to
require video conferencing service providers to provide TRS access to
interoperable video conferences? If so, what would be the bases for
such a finding?
Safe Harbor Technical Standards. Section 716 of the Act provides
that the Commission shall not adopt mandatory technical standards for
ACS accessibility. However, the Commission may adopt technical
standards as a safe harbor for such compliance if necessary to
facilitate the manufacturer's and service providers' compliance. 47
U.S.C. 617(e)(1)(D). The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether
technical standards are available (or in development)--e.g., WebRTC or
portions thereof--that could serve as safe harbors for IVCS compliance
with one or more applicable performance objectives, including the
additional performance objectives proposed above, whereby a performance
objective can be satisfied if an IVCS complies with the technical
standard. WebRTC, short for Web Real-Time Communications, is an open-
source internet standard that allows for real-time video communications
through a user's internet browser, foregoing the need for plug-ins or
standalone third-party software. On January 26, 2021, the World Wide
Web Consortium and the internet Engineering Task Force announced WebRTC
as an official standard. Although designed as a tool for internet
browsers, WebRTC applications are now also being developed for mobile
and Internet of Things devices.
Any commenter who proposes that a technical standard be recognized
as a safe harbor is invited to discuss the costs and benefits of the
proposal, and how the Commission would verify compliance with the
standard. In general, are there costs or benefits to innovation of
recognizing certain technical standards as safe harbors? Given the pace
of technological innovation, how often should a safe harbor be updated,
or should it be designated to expire after a date certain?
The Commission also seeks comment on how it can assist with or
promote the development of safe harbor technical standards in this
area. For example, there are numerous IVCS providers, each with a
specific technology configuration, and there are multiple VRS providers
as well. Would substantial costs be saved if all companies adhered to a
common technical standard for integrating interpreters and VRS CAs into
video conferences? How could the Commission facilitate the development
of a useful standard?
Providing TRS in Video Conferences
Responding to the Disability Advisory Committee's recommendations,
the Commission proposes to amend its rules to clarify that the
integrated provision of TRS to enable functionally equivalent
participation in video conferences can be supported by the Interstate
TRS Fund. Just as the TRS Fund has long been used to support the
provision of TRS with audio-only teleconferencing, the Commission
believes it is necessary and appropriate, as a general matter, that the
TRS Fund be used to support the provision of TRS with video
conferencing.
The Commission tentatively concludes that section 225 of the Act
authorizes the Commission to support the integrated provision of TRS in
video conferences, without any need for either the TRS user or the CA
to place a dial-up, voice-only call to the video conferencing platform.
By integrated provision of TRS in a video conference, the Commission
means an arrangement whereby communication between the CA (or automated
equivalent) and video conference participants, whether by voice, text,
or sign-language video, takes place on the video conferencing platform
(where it can be available to all participants), rather than through a
separate dial-up connection. The Act defines telecommunications relay
services as: telephone transmission services that provide the ability
for an individual who is deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or who has
a speech disability to engage in communication by wire or radio with
one or more individuals, in a manner that is functionally equivalent to
the ability of a hearing individual who does not have a speech
disability to communicate using voice communication services by wire or
radio. 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3) (emphasis added). Applying this
[[Page 52094]]
definition, the Commission tentatively concludes that when the
provision of a relay service is integrated with a video conferencing
platform (without using a dial-up, voice-only connection), the
provision of such service to an eligible TRS user is a telephone
transmission service that enables communication by wire or radio in a
manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of a hearing
individual who does not have a speech disability to communicate using
voice communication services by wire or radio.
As indicated above, section 225 of the Act defines TRS in terms of
its purpose--to enable people with hearing or speech disabilities to
communicate by wire or radio in a manner that is functionally
equivalent to how people without such disabilities use voice
communication services. Both radio communication and wire communication
are broadly defined in the Act as the transmission of writing, signs,
signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds, including all
instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other
things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications)
incidental to such transmission. 47 U.S.C. 153(40), (59). These
definitions include wire or radio communication using internet
Protocol. Further, the Commission believes that interoperable video
conferencing service, which is defined to include audio communication,
is appropriately characterized as a voice communication service for
purposes of section 225 of the Act.
While telephone transmission service is not defined in the Act, the
Commission has given this term a similarly broad interpretation. As the
Commission explained in 2002, the use of this phrase to define TRS is
constrained only by the requirement that such service provide a
specific functionality, namely the ability to communicate by wire or
radio in a manner functionally equivalent to voice communication.
Further, section 225 of the Act directs the Commission to ensure that
regulations prescribed to implement that section encourage, consistent
with section 7(a) of the Act, the use of existing technology and do not
discourage or impair the development of improved technology. 47 U.S.C.
225(d)(2). In its prior decisions authorizing new forms of TRS, the
Commission has found that internet-based relay services are not limited
to a specific technical configuration. For example, when finding IP CTS
to be a compensable form of TRS, the Commission emphasized that the
service could be initiated, set up, and provided in numerous ways,
including using specific telephone equipment or IP-enabled devices, and
various combinations of the public switched telephone network and IP-
enabled networks. Similarly, when the Commission approved compensation
for VRS, it noted that the service was under development using a number
of equipment configurations. Further, the Commission has not
interpreted telephone transmission service as requiring the use of
telephone numbers. For example, VRS users were not assigned NANP
numbers until 2008.
The Commission seeks comment on the foregoing tentative conclusion
and interpretation of its authority under section 225 of the Act. Among
other things, comment is sought on whether anything in section 225 or
elsewhere in the Act indicates that the Commission's authority in this
context is limited to making TRS available only with voice services
that rely on the use of NANP telephone numbers. How could such a
restrictive interpretation be squared with the broad language of the
statutory definition of TRS?
Below, the Commission seeks comment on how to modify the
Commission's TRS rules to facilitate such integration, ensure the
appropriate use of VRS with video conferencing, and prevent waste,
fraud, and abuse. First, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on
measures that specifically address the integration of VRS with video
conferencing. Then, it seeks comment on whether additional rule
amendments are needed to specifically address the integration of other
types of TRS with video conferencing. Finally, the Commission proposes
to amend certain generally applicable TRS rules to address the
integrated provision of TRS regardless of type.
Integrating the Provision of VRS With Video Conferencing
The Commission tentatively concludes that the integrated provision
of VRS with video conferencing is often necessary to enable sign-
language users to communicate in a functionally equivalent manner. By
integrated provision of VRS in a video conference, the Commission means
an arrangement whereby a CA is included as a participant in the video
conference and all communication between the CA and the participants
takes place on the video conferencing platform rather than through a
separate connection. First, the only alternative for connecting a VRS
CA to a video conference--using a dial-up, voice-only connection--is
often unavailable. Assuming the video conferencing platform allows a
dial-up connection, it is usually the video conference organizer or
host who determines whether a dial-up option is provided. Similarly,
the conference organizer or host may or may not hire a sign language
interpreter to provide communication assistance for a video conference.
Second, the need to connect a VRS CA through a dial-up connection poses
multiple difficulties for the user. For example, the VRS user must
navigate between two separately connected devices and user interfaces--
one to participate in the video portion of the conference and the other
to communicate with the VRS CA--and this can cause confusion, fatigue,
and other barriers to effective communication. In addition, the CA who,
unlike other participants, is limited to an audio connection, is unable
to read documents or other text that may be displayed, interpret facial
expressions, or attend to other visual cues on which video conference
participants often rely for effective communication. The Commission
seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
The active development and deployment of technological solutions
for the integrated provision of VRS in a video conference has
crystallized a number of issues regarding the application of the TRS
rules to such integration. Therefore, the Commission proposes to amend
its rules, as set forth below, to facilitate such integration, ensure
the appropriate use of VRS with video conferencing, and prevent waste,
fraud, and abuse.
In addition, the Commission invites the submission of comments
describing in detail any ongoing efforts by VRS providers and IVCS
providers to enable the integration of VRS with IVCS, and how far their
development has progressed. Comment is sought on the extent to which
the integration methods and technologies currently being developed or
deployed are usable (or can be made usable) with more than one video
conferencing platform or more than one VRS provider. What steps can the
Commission take to encourage or assist with the development of
standardized or open-architecture solutions, so that IVCS providers,
TRS providers, and the TRS Fund do not needlessly incur duplicative
costs to support multiple solutions unique to each video conferencing
platform and VRS provider? What changes in the TRS interoperability
rule, or other Commission rules, would promote wider availability of
effective technical solutions in this area? To the extent that
technological solutions are feasible, should the Commission not only
[[Page 52095]]
authorize, but also require VRS providers to provide VRS with IVCS on
an integrated basis?
User Validation and Call Detail. To collect compensation from the
TRS Fund, a VRS provider must validate that the person using a video
connection to place or receive a VRS call is a registered VRS user.
Ordinarily, a person's status as an eligible user is verified by means
of the NANP telephone number from which or to which a call is placed.
By contrast, video conference participants typically enter a video
conference via the internet (e.g., by clicking the link provided by the
host of the video conference) without dialing from a line associated
with a telephone number. As discussed earlier, while some video
conferencing platforms may allow a participant to connect via a voice-
only, dial-up connection, the availability of such a connection for a
particular video conference is up to the conference host or organizer.
Further, VRS users may connect to a video conference without first
contacting their VRS provider. The Commission seeks comment on how VRS
providers can most efficiently and effectively confirm a video
conference participant's eligibility for VRS when the user has not
joined the video conference by placing a call from a NANP telephone
number.
For example, should the Commission amend its rules to specify that,
to validate the integrated provision of VRS in a video conference,
information may be entered in a video conferencing application by a
registered user and transmitted by the IVCS provider to a VRS provider,
along with a request to provide a CA? If so, what information should be
provided? Would a user's NANP telephone number suffice--even though it
is not actually being used to connect with the video conference? Or
should the Commission require a log-in ID and password? Should the
Commission allow the provision of integrated VRS in video conferences
pursuant to an enterprise registration, and if so, would the telephone
number associated with an enterprise videophone suffice for validating
such use? Are there other methods of validation that should be
permitted in the video conferencing context?
The Commission also seeks comment on how the rules should address
video conferences that are initiated informally, without an advance
invitation, by one person dialing the telephone number, entering an
email address, pressing an icon or otherwise contacting one or more
other parties using a service such as GoogleMeet or FaceTime. Are there
currently available or in development any technologies for integrating
a CA with this type of video conference? Do the existing TRS rules and
procedures suffice to verify, for these kinds of video conferences,
that the caller or called party is a registered VRS user? Would this
scenario require any changes to the TRS rules?
In addition, the VRS provider will need to be able to collect and
provide an appropriate call detail record to submit to the TRS Fund
administrator. Because the rules may apply differently to video
conferences in a number of respects, the Commission proposes to require
that call detail records submitted by VRS providers identify, as such,
video conferences in which VRS is provided on an integrated basis. What
other information should the Commission require VRS providers to
collect and submit to the TRS Fund administrator to identify, for
billing purposes, the integrated provision of VRS in a video
conference? What routing information is available for the TRS Fund
administrator to verify the presence of the VRS user and the CA or CAs
in a video conference? Are originating and terminating Uniform Resource
Locators (URLs) needed, and if so, how can they be collected?
Alternatively, is it sufficient to provide the user's phone number or
log-in, in lieu of the originating URL? How would VRS providers comply
with the requirement to employ an automated record keeping system to
capture call record data? How would VRS providers and the TRS Fund
administrator identify non-compensable international calls? How would
VRS providers verify that, based on the parties involved, the provision
of TRS in a video conference is eligible for TRS Fund compensation? For
example, a video conference involving only VRS users does not require a
CA to relay the conversation and so would not be eligible for TRS Fund
compensation. In addition, comment is sought generally on what measures
VRS providers should be required to take to prevent misuse of VRS or
waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund in the context of video
conferencing.
CA-Related Issues. There may be a number of situations in which
more than one VRS CA participates in a video conference. This could
occur, for example, if two or more participants send service requests
to different providers. The Commission seeks comment on whether the TRS
rules should apply differently in this respect to a video conference
than to a teleconference. In a multi-party teleconference involving at
least one hearing user, our rules do not restrict the number of
different TRS providers whose services may be used by various parties
to the call. Given that any VRS provided on an integrated basis will be
available to all participants, are any restrictions warranted on the
number of different providers who may provide VRS in a single video
conference?
The Commission also seeks comment on whether to amend the rules to
authorize a single VRS provider to assign multiple CAs for a video
conference in certain circumstances (and to receive additional
compensation from the TRS Fund for minutes involving multiple CAs).
First, two or more VRS users may each request service from the same VRS
provider on the same video conference. In an analogous teleconference
where two or more users have connected through VRS, compensation would
be paid for multiple calls--with each user's connection through a CA
being treated as a separate call. However, in a video conference with
integrated VRS, unlike a teleconference, it is possible for all
participants to be served by one CA. In such cases, should the TRS Fund
support the provision of a separate CA for each user, or, to prevent
waste (and potential confusion among video conference participants),
the number of CAs provided be limited, and if so, based on what
criteria?
Second, in certain kinds of video conferences, it may be desirable
for two CAs to participate in the call, working as a team--even if only
one participant has requested VRS. Under the current TRS Fund
compensation scheme, additional compensation is not paid to support
multiple CAs in a teleconference if only one participant has connected
through VRS. However, video conferences may often involve dynamic
interaction among multiple participants. According to one ASL
interpreting service, a team of two interpreters may be recommended
based on the dynamics of the interactions and number of participants
involved, for example, for highly interactive meetings, or legal
requests, with multiple Deaf participants.
Should the Commission's rules be amended to allow a VRS provider to
earn additional compensation for providing more than one CA in certain
video conferencing scenarios, and if so, how should those situations be
defined? For example, are there professional interpreter guidelines or
best practices on which the Commission could rely that define when
multiple ASL interpreters should be present at a meeting? The Registry
of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc., states that factors to be
considered in deciding whether to
[[Page 52096]]
provide team interpreting include: the length and complexity of the
assignment; unique needs of the persons being served; physical and
emotional dynamics of the setting; and avoidance of repetitive stress
injuries for interpreters. To what extent are guidelines for community
interpreting applicable in the VRS context? For example, length of an
assignment may be a less relevant factor for VRS because interpreters
can be more efficiently substituted for one another when they do not
need to be physically present at a meeting. Are there any situations
where the TRS Fund should support more than two CAs from a single VRS
provider?
The Commission proposes that, in the ordinary case, if the VRS user
who requested service leaves a video conference, or is disconnected,
before the session ends, then the billable period has ended and the CA
should leave the video conference. In the context of an ordinary VRS
call or conference call, if the TRS user is voluntarily or
involuntarily disconnected from the call, he or she must initiate
another call with a new CA. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal and on what, if any, exceptions should be allowed. For
example, if other registered VRS users are participating in the same
video conference, who were being assisted by the same CA, should the
initial CA be permitted to stay on the video conference for a limited
period to ensure continuity of service, and if so, for how long? Are
other flexible alternatives available to ensure seamless VRS for other
eligible users or ensure a smooth transition between CAs, while
minimizing any risk of waste, fraud, or abuse? Are there any other
issues that may arise when multiple VRS users and other participants
are present in the same IVCS call, and how should they be resolved?
VRS CAs generally must stay on a call for a minimum of 10 minutes,
after which they may be replaced by another CA. 47 CFR 64.604(a)(1)(v).
The Commission seeks comment on whether to adjust this timeframe for
the provision of VRS in video conferences. If so, what timeframe would
be reasonable?
In addition, to ensure a seamless takeover between CAs from the
same VRS provider during a video conference, is it desirable for a
replacement CA to join the video conference and observe or acquire
background information for some period of time before taking over from
the first CA? If so, what would be a reasonable transition period? Is
there a standard timeframe that VRS providers should adhere to, or
should it be left to the discretion of the CAs or the VRS user? Are
there professional guidelines or best practices that shed light on this
question? Should a VRS provider be compensated for each CA's time while
both the initial and replacement CAs are on the call? How can the
Commission encourage uninterrupted VRS call takeovers during video
conferences, while not unduly burdening the TRS Fund and Fund
contributors?
Privacy Screen Rule. The Commission proposes to modify its rules to
allow flexibility for VRS users and CAs to turn off video while
participating in a video conference. The current rules prohibit a VRS
CA from enabling a visual privacy screen or similar feature during a
VRS call and require the CA to disconnect a VRS call if the caller or
called party enables a visual privacy screen or similar feature for
more than five minutes or is otherwise unresponsive or unengaged for
more than five minutes. 47 CFR 64.604(a)(6). A visual privacy screen is
defined as a screen or any other feature that is designed to prevent
one party or both parties on the video leg of a VRS call from viewing
the other party during a call. 47 CFR 64.601(a)(52). The Commission
adopted this rule in 2011 as one of numerous measures aimed at halting
the epidemic of fraud and abuse then plaguing the VRS program. The
rule's stated purpose was to stop illicit schemes that result in calls
running without any communication between the parties for the sole
purpose of fraudulently billing the Fund.
In a multi-party video conference, however, a participant may turn
off his or her video camera for various reasons that may not indicate
lack of engagement with the discussion. For example, in some video
conferences, the host may request that all participants turn off their
videos unless speaking, to make it easier for participants who are deaf
to view a sign language interpreter. Or, an interpreter may stop his or
her video when a second interpreter is present and is interpreting a
particular person's voice or signing. Further, on a video conference
where one or more participants are speaking at length, participants who
are deaf (like other participants) may choose to turn off their videos
until it is their turn to speak.
The Commission proposes to allow VRS CAs to continue providing
relay services integrated with a multi-party video conference when the
VRS user who requested service has turned off his or her video
connection for more than five minutes, as long as at least one other
party is continuing to speak and the VRS user is still connected to the
video conference. Under the proposed amendment, if five minutes elapse
in which no party on a multi-party video conference is responsive or
engaged in conversation, the VRS CA shall follow the current procedure,
i.e., announce that VRS will be terminated and leave the video
conference. The Commission proposes to define multi-party video
conference as a video conference with three or more participants,
excluding VRS CAs and any other participant providing an accommodation
for a participant. It also proposes to allow VRS CAs to turn off their
video connections when taking turns relaying conversation with another
VRS CA on a multi-party video conference. The Commission seeks comment
on these proposals. Are there other steps that should be taken to
ensure that modifying this rule does not lead to misuse of TRS or
fraudulent billing to the TRS Fund? More generally, are there other
precautions the Commission should take to prevent the inappropriate or
excessive provision of TRS in video conferences, with the intention of
increasing a TRS provider's compensable minutes?
Integrating Other Types of TRS With Video Conferencing
The Commission seeks comment generally on the need to facilitate
the integration of non-VRS types of TRS with video conferencing and on
the existence and progress of any efforts to develop technology to
enable such integration. To the extent that such integration is needed
and feasible, should the Commission adopt service-specific rule
changes, e.g., amendments analogous to those proposed above for VRS, to
address the integration of other types of TRS with video conferencing?
What rule changes would facilitate the integrated provision of each
type of TRS with video conferencing, ensure the appropriate use of
these TRS Fund-supported services in that context, and prevent waste,
fraud, and abuse?
IP Relay. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which the
integrated provision of IP Relay in video conferences would facilitate
functionally equivalent communication. Would such integrated provision
of IP Relay enhance functionally equivalent communication in video
conferences for those segments of the TRS-eligible population served by
IP Relay, such as persons who are deafblind and persons with speech
disabilities? As the Commission has noted, IP Relay can be enhanced
with adaptive technologies such as refreshable Braille displays and
[[Page 52097]]
screen readers, making it particularly useful for consumers who are
deafblind. Have methods and technologies been developed to enable such
integrated provision of IP Relay? Could the needs of these communities
be served more efficiently or effectively if IVCS providers make
available text-to-speech and speech-to-text (captioning) functionality,
pursuant to part 14 of the Commission's rules? Alternatively, would IP
Relay be needed for certain populations to effectively participate in a
video conversation in a way that is functionally equivalent?
If the integrated provision of IP Relay with video conferencing is
achievable, what service-specific amendments to the rules would
facilitate such integration, ensure the appropriate provision of IP
Relay in this context, and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse? How can the
Commission ensure that only registered IP Relay users can use IP Relay
in a video conference? Would the same sign-on procedure and request for
a CA work in the context of IP Relay as for VRS? Are there CA-related
issues for IP Relay similar to those proposed above for VRS?
IP CTS. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which the
integrated provision of IP CTS in video conferences would facilitate
functionally equivalent communication for IP CTS users. Have methods
and technologies been developed to enable such integrated provision of
IP CTS? The Commission notes that IVCS providers are permitted to meet
the part 14 performance objective of providing auditory information in
visual form either by implementing a captioning solution on the
platform itself or by using third-party solutions available to
consumers at nominal cost. See 47 CFR 14.20(a)(3), 14.21(b)(2)(iv).
Some IVCS providers currently offer captioning. To the extent that
technology is developed for integrating IP CTS with video conferencing,
are IVCS providers likely to implement such technology, either to
comply with part 14 or to provide an additional captioning option for
users? If the integrated provision of IP CTS with video conferencing is
achievable, what rule changes would ensure appropriate use of such
services in that context, while preventing waste, fraud, and abuse?
Non-Internet-Based TRS. The Commission seeks comment on whether and
how the Commission should amend its rules to facilitate the provision
in video conferences of non-internet-based TRS--Text Telephone (TTY)-
based TRS, Captioned Telephone Service (CTS), and Speech-to-Speech
Relay (STS). For TTY-based TRS, a user calls a relay center and types
the number to be called. The CA makes the telephone call and then
relays the call between the parties by speaking what a text user types,
and typing what a voice telephone user speaks. For STS, a CA (who is
specially trained in understanding a variety of speech disorders)
repeats what the caller says in a manner that makes the caller's words
clear and understandable to the called party. CTS is similar to IP CTS,
with captions being provided over the telephone network instead of the
internet.
These services, offered through state TRS programs, are intended
for use on an ordinary telephone line. While users of these services
may be able to participate in an IVCS call over a dial-up connection
(where available), it is unclear whether or how these forms of TRS
could be integrated with video conferencing platforms. Further, given
the availability of IP CTS and IP Relay, which provide the
functionality of CTS and TTY-based TRS for users with internet access,
it seems unlikely that there would be significant demand for integrated
provision of these services in internet-based video conferences. The
Commission seeks comment on this assumption. STS, however, has no
internet-based equivalent. For STS, would enabling the CA, as well as
the user, to participate in the video portion of a video conference
permit more effective communication for the STS user? If so, have
methods and technologies been developed to enable such integrated
provision of STS? What service-specific rule changes would facilitate
such provision of STS, ensure appropriate use of STS in that context,
and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse?
Rules Applicable to All TRS
The Commission seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that would
be applicable both to VRS and to any other form of TRS that is
integrated with video conferencing.
Confidentiality. The Commission proposes to amend its TRS
confidentiality rule to address the video conferencing context.
Specifically, the Commission proposes to amend the rule to expressly
prohibit CAs from disclosing non-relayed content that is communicated
in a video conference, or maintaining records of such content beyond
the duration of the video conference. It also proposes to amend the
confidentiality rule to codify the current practice that the rule
expressly applies to TRS providers as well as CAs, so that the rule
explicitly covers TRS calls (including but not limited to video
conferences) where TRS is provided via ASR or other automatic
processes, without the involvement of a CA. The rule currently provides
that CAs are prohibited from disclosing the content of any relayed
conversation regardless of content, and from keeping records of the
content of any conversation beyond the duration of a call, even if to
do so would be inconsistent with state or local law. 47 CFR
64.604(a)(2)(i). Some features of video conferences are not explicitly
addressed by this rule. For example, a CA may become aware of sidebar
conversations between two or more video conference participants
(whether in speech or sign language) that the CA concludes are not
intended to be communicated to other participants. Or the CA may review
chat conversations or PowerPoints and other presentation material that
the CA is not asked to relay to participants. Therefore, such content
would not be included in relayed conversation.
The proposed rule would protect this content from disclosure and
would require TRS providers and CAs to destroy any notes or records of
such content upon termination of the call. For example, if a CA keeps
notes during a call of, e.g., party names, specialized vocabulary, such
notes must be destroyed at the end of the call. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal. Are additional amendments to the Commission's
confidentiality rule necessary to protect the privacy of participants?
For example, should the Commission also restrict CAs from disclosing
the identities or other personal information regarding the participants
in a video conference? Should any of the proposed restrictions on non-
relayed content be applicable to other types of calls?
Exclusivity. Consistent with the Disability Advisory Committee's
recommendation, the Commission proposes to prohibit exclusivity
arrangements between TRS providers and IVCS providers. In general, an
exclusivity arrangement is an express or implied agreement between a
TRS provider and an IVCS provider that has the purpose or effect of
preventing other providers from offering similar services to consumers.
Such exclusivity arrangements may deprive consumers of the opportunity
to rely on their chosen provider when using video conferencing
services, contrary to the Commission's policy. Similarly, such
exclusivity arrangements also may deprive conference hosts of the
opportunity to select their preferred IVCS provider. What are the costs
and benefits of exclusivity arrangements between TRS providers and IVCS
providers? What types of arrangements should be
[[Page 52098]]
prohibited as de facto exclusivity agreements? Are there any
arrangements of this kind that should be allowed, e.g., because they
would provide net economic benefits in this context? Should the
Commission also prohibit exclusivity arrangements between TRS providers
and manufacturers or suppliers of video conferencing equipment or
software? Should the Commission require that all contracts between TRS
providers and IVCS service providers (or suppliers of video
conferencing equipment or software) be available for inspection?
TRS vs. Other Accessibility Measures. Video conferencing can
function as a substitute for in-person meetings as well as
teleconferences. Historically, the Commission has prohibited the use of
TRS for in-person meetings. Further, many employers, educational
institutions, health care providers, government agencies, and other
entities currently provide ASL interpreting, captioning and other
accommodations--either voluntarily or to fulfill obligations under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Public Law 101-336, or other
laws--to ensure that persons with hearing and speech disabilities can
fully participate in meetings, classes, and other activities. In these
contexts, dedicated ASL interpreters, captioners, and others may be
trained and gain experience in a specific subject matter and may have
the opportunity to prepare in advance for a scheduled meeting or class.
The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which such
accommodations, as well as accessibility features that may be available
on a video conferencing platform, may be more effective than TRS in
making video conferences accessible. Would the universal availability
of TRS in video conferences reduce the incentives of video conference
organizers and hosts to provide more effective forms of accessibility?
For example, is there a risk that the availability of integrated VRS in
a video conference will dissuade organizers or hosts from voluntarily
offering more effective ASL interpreting services, and if so, what
steps should the Commission take to mitigate that risk? More generally,
how can the Commission ensure that the use of TRS in video conferences
does not detract from the effective implementation of ADA and other
legal requirements?
Further, as stewards of the TRS Fund, the Commission has an
obligation to prevent waste and ensure that TRS is available in the
most efficient manner. When a non-TRS accessibility solution has been
made available by a video conference organizer or an IVCS provider, are
there steps the Commission should take to prevent unnecessary and
potentially confusing provision of a redundant TRS solution? For
example, if a video conference organizer employs or contracts for an
ASL interpreting or captioning service, whether in fulfillment of legal
obligations or voluntarily, should TRS Fund compensation be denied for
the integrated provision of VRS in that video conference? How would
such a restriction be effectuated as a practical matter? For instance,
should the Commission require a VRS provider that offers integrated VRS
to ensure that when VRS is requested for a video conference, the
organizer or host is prompted to confirm whether or not ASL
interpretation is being separately provided? To limit unnecessary
requests for VRS, should the Commission require IVCS providers to make
available a symbol that call organizers can activate in a call
invitation or notice to indicate that ASL interpreters will be supplied
on the call?
As a related matter, the Commission tentatively concludes that TRS
providers must decline requests to reserve a TRS CA in advance of a
scheduled video conference. The provision of ASL interpreting,
captioning, and other assistance by prior reservation is a different
kind of service, which is available from other sources, such as VRI
services. The Commission has long held that the role of TRS is to be
available for calls consumers choose to make, when they choose to make
them, i.e., to be the dial tone for a call that requires assistance for
effective communication. For this reason, the Commission requires TRS
providers to handle service requests in the order in which they are
received, in accordance with speed-of-answer standards. As a
consequence, the Commission has found that the practice of permitting
TRS users to reserve in advance a time at which a CA will handle a call
is inconsistent with the nature of TRS and the functional equivalency
mandate. Allowing TRS CAs to be reserved in advance for certain kinds
of calls, such as video conferences, would raise the risk that service
to other users would be degraded. The Commission seeks comment on this
tentative conclusion.
Costs and Benefits. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and
benefits of each of the proposed rule amendments and other possible
changes discussed above, including: authorizing the integrated
provision of VRS and other types of TRS with video conferences;
specifying modified methods of VRS user validation and call detail
recording for video conferences; addressing the use of multiple VRS
CAs, service to multiple VRS users, and call takeover in video
conferences; changes to the privacy screen rule; changes to the TRS
confidentiality rules; prohibiting exclusivity agreements between TRS
providers and IVCS providers, equipment manufacturers, and software
suppliers; and preventing disincentives for and duplication of the
provision of accommodations by video conference organizers and
providers.
The Commission also seeks comment on the specific costs that
providers of each type of TRS (as opposed to IVCS providers and other
parties) would incur to provide service in video conferences on an
integrated basis. For example, the Commission seeks estimates of the
research and development costs incurred by TRS providers to develop,
and engineering costs to build, test, maintain, and update, those
aspects of integration solutions in which a TRS provider is involved.
It also seeks estimates of the costs TRS providers would incur to adapt
their TRS operations (for example, by adjusting call routing protocols)
to the integrated provision of TRS in video conferences, in accordance
with the proposed rules. To what extent could there be offsetting cost
savings? The Commission also requests that interested parties identify
which costs would be appropriately identified as start-up or one-time
costs, and which costs would be recurring.
How is demand for VRS and other forms of TRS likely to change as a
result of integrating TRS with video conferencing? What is the
projected impact of such increased use on costs and revenues for TRS
providers? To what extent could increases in TRS minutes of use due to
integration of TRS with video conferencing off-set increased costs to
provide such service?
TRS Fund Compensation. In general, the Commission anticipates that
allowable costs incurred by TRS providers to provide service that is
integrated with video conferencing will be recovered pursuant to the
Commission's current processes. That is, such costs will be reported
annually by providers along with other allowable costs and will be
recovered pursuant to compensation formulas determined in the relevant
compensation proceedings for each form of TRS. However, comment is
sought on any changes in cost categories that may be needed to reflect
the costs of integration with IVCS platforms. Will the provision of TRS
on video conferencing platforms require changes to the forms on which
TRS providers annually report cost and demand to the TRS Fund
administrator?
[[Page 52099]]
Are additional limits on allowable costs needed to protect against
waste, fraud, and abuse in the TRS program?
At least one VRS provider indicates it is already able to provide
VRS with one IVCS provider on an integrated basis. Absent a mandate,
any additional costs incurred by VRS providers to provide such service,
if significantly higher than costs reported to the TRS Fund
administrator and reflected in applicable compensation formulas, would
not be recoverable under the Commission's current guidelines for
exogenous cost recovery. For example, one of the criteria for recovery
of exogenous costs for VRS and IP CTS provides that the additional
costs must result from new TRS service requirements or other causes
beyond the provider's control. To encourage VRS providers to develop
methods and technologies for providing VRS integrated with video
conferencing, should the Commission provide a mechanism for additional
cost recovery from the TRS Fund?
Amendment of the Commission's Rule on Multiple CAs
Section 64.604(c)(14) of the Commission's rules authorizes
additional TRS Fund compensation for the involvement of multiple CAs in
handling specified types of calls between two or more TRS users. The
Commission proposes to amend this provision to state generally that
compensation may be paid for the use of multiple CAs to handle TRS
calls between users of different types of TRS where more than one CA is
needed to handle the call. Adopted in 2014, Sec. 64.604(c)(14) of the
Commission's rules currently states that compensation is authorized for
the provision of multiple CAs to handle TRS calls between two or more
users of captioned telephone service--CTS or IP CTS--and for calls
between a captioned telephone service user and a user of TTY-based TRS
or VRS.
The Commission adopted this provision in 2014 to codify certain
existing practices brought to its attention, whereby compensation was
paid for the use of multiple CAs to handle certain types of calls.
Subsequently, the Commission amended the definition of
telecommunications relay services to reflect the statutory definition
of that term as amended by the CVAA. The amended definition provides
that TRS enable functionally equivalent communication between an
individual who is deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or who has a
speech disability and one or more individuals. 47 CFR 64.601(a)(43);
see also 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3). Before enactment of the CVAA, TRS was
defined as enabling functionally equivalent communication between an
individual who has a hearing impairment or speech impairment and an
individual who does not have a hearing impairment or speech impairment.
47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3) (2009). In proposing the 2014 amendment, the
Commission explained that the revised definition would allow
compensation from the TRS Fund for relay calls involving two or more
persons using different forms of relay services, including calls whose
handling may require more than one CA. However, in adopting the amended
definition of TRS, the Commission did not modify the multiple-CA rule
to reflect its stated intent regarding compensation for calls handled
by multiple CAs. As a result, some categories of calls that qualify as
TRS under the amended statutory definition and that may warrant
multiple CAs, are not currently addressed by the multiple-CA rule. For
example, the current rule does not address when the use of two CAs is
appropriate for calls between users of IP Relay and other forms of TRS.
The Commission proposes to amend the multiple-CA rule to broaden
its scope, to more fully reflect the Commission's stated intent in
adopting the amended definition of TRS. Under the proposed amendment,
the rule would state that compensation may be paid for more than one CA
to handle, among other categories, calls between users of different
types of relay services where more than one CA is warranted. Comment is
sought on this proposal.
Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital
equity for all, including people of color, persons with disabilities,
persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have
been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by
persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related
considerations and benefits, if any, that may be associated with the
proposals and issues discussed herein. The term equity is used here
consistent with Executive Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic
fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including
individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied
such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native
American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other
persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with
disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise
adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Specifically,
the Commission seeks comment on how our proposals may promote or
inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in this document. Written public comments
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadline for comments provided in
this document.
Need for, and Objective of, Proposed Rules. The Commission proposes
to amend its rules to improve the accessibility of IVCS, a form of ACS.
First, the Commission proposes to amend part 14 of its rules, which
governs accessibility of ACS. The Commission proposes to add
performance objectives that specifically enable the accessibility of
IVCS. The Commission proposes that such performance objectives include
the provision of speech-to-text (captioning) capabilities; text-to-
speech capabilities; and enabling of ASL interpreting. The Commission
seeks comment on whether additional amendments are needed to ensure
that video conferencing is accessible. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether technical standards are available or could be
fashioned for use as safe harbors.
Second, the Commission proposes to amend part 64 of its rules,
governing TRS, to provide that the Interstate TRS Fund can be used to
support the integrated provision of relay service in video
conferences--whether or not the video conferencing platform can be
accessed via a dial-up telephone call. In addition, the Commission
proposes to modify its rules to facilitate such integration, ensure the
appropriate use of VRS with video conferencing, and prevent waste,
fraud, and abuse.
Legal Basis. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is
contained in sections 1, 2, 3, (4)(i), (4)(j), 225, and 716 of the Act,
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 617.
Small Entities Impacted. The proposed rules will affect the
[[Page 52100]]
obligations of providers of IVCS and providers of TRS. These services
can be included within the broad economic category of All Other
Telecommunications.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. The proposed changes for which comment is
sought in this document, if adopted, would impose new or modified
reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance obligations on certain
small entities that provide IVCS or TRS.
The Commission's existing rules require that each manufacturer of
equipment (including software) used to provide ACS and each provider of
such services not otherwise exempt maintain, in the ordinary course of
business and for a reasonable period, records documenting the efforts
taken by such manufacturer or service provider to implement sections
255 and 716 of the Act, including: information about the manufacturer's
or provider's efforts to consult with individuals with disabilities;
descriptions of the accessibility features of its products and
services; and information about the compatibility of such products and
services with peripheral devices or specialized customer premise
equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve
access.
The Commission's existing rules require that an officer of each
manufacturer of equipment (including software) used to provide ACS and
an officer of each provider of such services submit to the Commission
an annual certificate that records are being kept in accordance with
the above recordkeeping requirements, unless such manufacturer or
provider has been exempted from compliance with section 716 under
applicable rules.
Because of the diverse manufacturers of equipment used to provide
ACS and diverse providers of ACS that may be subject to section 716 of
the Act, the multiple general and entity-specific factors used in
determining, whether for a given manufacturer (or service provider)
accessibility for a particular item of ACS equipment (or a particular
service) is achievable, and the various provisions of section 716 of
the Act and the proposed rules on when and to what extent accessibility
must be incorporated into a given item of ACS equipment or service, it
is difficult to estimate the costs of compliance for those small
entities that may not be covered by a waiver, should the Commission
choose to apply any such waivers. Accordingly, the Commission seeks
comment on the costs of compliance with these proposed rules.
The proposed amendments to the Commission's rules governing TRS are
designed to facilitate the use of TRS CAs in video conferences, ensure
the appropriate use of TRS with video conferencing, and prevent waste,
fraud, and abuse. These modifications would only apply to the extent
that users of a specific small entity TRS provider participate in video
conference calls. Otherwise, the TRS compliance requirements would
remain unchanged.
Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
include the following four alternatives (among others): the
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small
entities; the use of performance rather than design standards; and an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such
small entities.
The Commission seeks comment from all interested parties. Small
entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any
specific concerns they may have with the proposals outlined in this
document. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on
small entities, as identified in comments filed, in reaching its final
conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.
Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission's Proposals. None.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document may contain new or modified information collection(s)
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13
(PRA). If the Commission adopts any new or modified information
collection requirements, they will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the
PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). OMB, the general public, and other federal
agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information
collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 14
Communications, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
47 CFR Part 64
Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications, Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 14 and 64 as
follows:
PART 14--ACCESS TO ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT
BY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 14 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 255, 303, 403, 503, 617, 618, 619
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 14.21 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ix) and (b)(2)(iv)
and adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 14.21 Performance Objectives.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) Operable without speech. Provide at least one mode that does
not require user speech. For interoperable video conferencing services,
provide at least text-to-speech capability.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Availability of auditory information. Provide auditory
information through at least one mode in visual form and, where
appropriate, in tactile form. For interoperable video conferencing
services, provide at least one mode with captions that are accurate and
synchronous. The accuracy and latency of such captions should be
comparable to that provided on TRS Fund-supported captioned telephone
services.
* * * * *
(4) Interoperable Video Conferencing Service.
(i) Sign language interpretation. Interoperable video conferencing
[[Page 52101]]
services shall enable the use of sign language interpretation,
including the transmission of user requests for sign language
interpretation to providers of video relay service and other entities
and the provision of sufficient video quality to support sign language
communication.
(ii) User interface. Interoperable video conferencing services
shall provide user interface control functions that permit users to
adjust the display of captions, speakers and signers, and other
features for which user interface control is necessary for
accessibility.
* * * * *
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
3. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220,
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262,
276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 617, 620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
0
4. The authority citation for subpart F continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-154; 225, 255, 303(r), 616, and 620.
0
5. Amend Sec. 64.601 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(21) through (24) as paragraphs (a)(22)
through (25), and adding new paragraph (a)(21);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(25) and (26) as paragraphs (a)(27) and
(28), and adding new paragraph (a)(26);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(27) through (50) as paragraphs (a)(30)
through (53), and adding new paragraph (29); and
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(51) through (55) as paragraphs (a)(55)
through (59), and adding new paragraph (a)(54).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 64.601 Definitions and provisions of general applicability.
(a) * * *
(21) Integrated VRS. The provision of VRS in a video conference
whereby the CA is included as a participant in the video conference and
communication between the CA and the participants takes place on the
video conferencing platform rather than through a separate connection.
* * * * *
(26) Interoperable video conference service (IVCS). Has the meaning
defined in part 14 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(29) Multi-party video conference. A video conference call with
three or more participants, excluding VRS CAs and any other participant
providing an accommodation for a participant.
* * * * *
(54) Video conference. A session of IVCS involving two-way real-
time communication between two or more IVCS users.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 64.604 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(6);
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(D)(2)(xi);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(E)(2) and (c)(14);
0
d. Adding paragraph (c)(15); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (d).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 64.604 Mandatory minimum standards.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Except as authorized by section 705 of the Communications Act,
47 U.S.C. 605, TRS providers and CAs are prohibited from disclosing the
content of any relayed conversation (and any non-relayed content
communicated in a video conference) regardless of content, and with a
limited exception for STS CAs, from keeping records of the content of
any conversation (and any non-relayed content communicated in a video
conference) beyond the duration of a call, even if to do so would be
inconsistent with state or local law. STS CAs may retain information
from a particular call in order to facilitate the completion of
consecutive calls, at the request of the user. The caller may request
the STS CA to retain such information, or the CA may ask the caller if
he wants the CA to repeat the same information during subsequent calls.
The CA may retain the information only for as long as it takes to
complete the subsequent calls.
* * * * *
(6) Visual privacy screens/idle calls.
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(6)(ii)(A) of this section,
a VRS CA may not enable a visual privacy screen or similar feature
during a VRS call. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(6)(ii)(B) of
this section, a VRS CA must disconnect a VRS call if the caller or the
called party to a VRS call enables a privacy screen or similar feature
for more than five minutes or is otherwise unresponsive or unengaged
for more than five minutes, unless the call is a 9-1-1 emergency call
or the caller or called party is legitimately placed on hold and is
present and waiting for active communications to commence. Prior to
disconnecting the call, the CA must announce to both parties the intent
to terminate the call and may reverse the decision to disconnect if one
of the parties indicates continued engagement with the call.
(ii) A VRS CA providing integrated VRS in a multi-party video
conference:
(A) May temporarily turn off the CA's video camera when engaged in
team interpreting, if the other CA is actively providing ASL
interpretation;
(B) May stay connected to the video conference if the VRS user who
requested service has turned off the user's camera, as long as that
user stays connected to the video conference; and
(C) If five minutes elapse in which no party is responsive or
engaged in conversation, the CA shall announce that VRS will be
terminated and shall disconnect from the video conference.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) * * *
(2) * * *
(xi) For the provision of integrated VRS in a video conference, in
lieu of the information specified in paragraphs (v) and (vi) of this
section, a VRS provider may submit information, in accordance with
instructions issued by the administrator, that sufficiently identifies
the VRS user requesting service and the video conference in which
service was provided.
* * * * *
(E) * * *
(2) TRS minutes of use for purposes of cost recovery from the TRS
Fund are defined as the minutes of use for completed interstate or
internet-based TRS calls placed through the TRS center beginning after
call set-up and concluding after the last message call unit. For video
conferences, a VRS provider's TRS minutes of use begin when a VRS CA is
connected to a video conference and two or more participants are
actively present, and ends when the CA disconnects from the video
conference or when fewer than two participants are actively present,
whichever is earlier.
* * * * *
(14) TRS calls requiring the use of multiple CAs. TRS Fund
compensation may be paid for more than one CA to handle the following
types of calls:
(i) VCO-to-VCO calls between multiple captioned telephone relay
service users, multiple IP CTS users, or captioned telephone relay
service users and IP CTS users;
(ii) Calls between users of different types of relay services for
which more than one CA is warranted; and
[[Page 52102]]
(iii) Video conferences where more than one CA is warranted.
(15) Exclusivity Agreements. A TRS provider may not enter into an
agreement or any other arrangement with an IVCS provider if such
agreement or arrangement would give the TRS provider exclusive access
among TRS providers to the IVCS provider's facilities or such agreement
or arrangement would give the IVCS provider exclusive access among IVCS
providers to the TRS provider's service via a video connection.
(d) The applicable requirements of Sec. 9.14 of this chapter and
Sec. Sec. 64.611, 64.615, 64.621, 64.631, 64.632, 64.644, 64.5105,
64.5107, 64.5108, 64.5109, and 64.5110 are to be considered mandatory
minimum standards.
0
7. Amend Sec. 64.615 by revising paragraph (a)(1)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 64.615 TRS User Registration Database and administrator.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Validation shall occur during the call setup process, prior to
the placement of the call, except that validation of the provision of
integrated VRS in a video conference shall occur prior to the
connection of a VRS CA to the video conference.
* * * * *
0
8. Add Sec. 64.644 to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 64.644 Provision of Integrated VRS in Video Conferences.
(a) A VRS provider may provide integrated VRS in a video conference
upon request by a registered VRS user (or by a person authorized by a
registered enterprise VRS user).
(b) A VRS provider providing integrated VRS in a video conference
shall:
(i) Collect from the party requesting service sufficient
information to confirm the requesting party's registration for VRS
pursuant to the applicable requirements of Sec. Sec. 64.611 and
64.615; and
(ii) Terminate the CA's connection to the video conference no later
than when the requesting VRS user disconnects from the video
conference.
(c) A VRS provider may assign more than one CA to participate in a
multi-party video conference.
[FR Doc. 2023-16672 Filed 8-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 7, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.