Rule2024-27479
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
December 13, 2024
Effective
January 13, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) takes steps to ensure the accessibility of interoperable video conferencing services (IVCS). The Commission provides additional clarity on how the Commission's accessibility performance objectives apply to interoperable video conferencing services (IVCS), modifies those performance objectives to ensure access to IVCS, and addresses how the Interstate telecommunications relay services (TRS) Fund will support the provision of Video Relay Service (VRS) and other forms of TRS in video conferences.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 240 (Friday, December 13, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 100878-100898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27479]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 14 and 64
[CG Docket Nos. 23-161, 10-213, and 03-123; FCC 24-95; FR ID 261149]
Access to Video Conferencing
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) takes steps to ensure the accessibility of interoperable
video conferencing services (IVCS). The Commission provides additional
clarity on how the Commission's accessibility performance objectives
apply to interoperable video conferencing services (IVCS), modifies
those performance objectives to ensure access to IVCS, and addresses
how the Interstate telecommunications relay services (TRS) Fund will
support the provision of Video Relay Service (VRS) and other forms of
TRS in video conferences.
DATES:
Effective date: Effective January 13, 2025, except for instruction
6 (the amendments to Sec. 64.606(g)(6)), which is delayed. The
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing
the effective date for the amendments to Sec. 64.606(g)(6).
Compliance date: The compliance date for Sec. Sec. 14.21(b)(2)(iv)
and (b)(4) is January 12, 2027.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ike Ofobike, Disability Rights Office,
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-1028; email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#470e2c2269082128252e2c220721242469202831"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c881a3ade687aea7aaa1a3ad88aeababe6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>; or William Wallace, Disability Rights Office,
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-2716; email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e5b28c89898c8488cbb2848989848680a5838686cb828a93"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="37605e5b5b5e565a1960565b5b5654527751545419505841">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Report and Order, in CG Docket Nos. 23-161, 10-213, and 03-123,
document FCC 24-95, adopted on September 26, 2024, released on
September 27, 2024. The Commission previously sought comment on the
issue in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), published at 88 FR
52088, August 7, 2023. The full text of this document is available for
public inspection and copying via the FCC's Electronic Document
Management System (EDOCS) website at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/edocs">https://www.fcc.gov/edocs</a> and via
the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>. 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#d1b7b2b2e4e1e591b7b2b2ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="55333636606561153336367b323a23">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
Synopsis
Background
1. Under section 716 of the Communications Act, as amended (the
Act), 47 U.S.C. 617, 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, if achievable. Service providers and manufacturers may
comply with section 716 of the Act either by building accessibility
features into their services and equipment or by choosing to use third-
party applications, peripheral devices, software, hardware, or customer
premises equipment (CPE) that are available to individuals with
disabilities at nominal cost. 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 criterion.
The Commission is directed to adopt ``performance objectives to ensure
the accessibility, usability, and compatibility of advanced
communications services and the equipment used for such services.''
2. The Act defines advanced communications services as: (A)
interconnected VoIP service; (B) non-interconnected VoIP service; (C)
electronic messaging service; (D) interoperable video conferencing
service; and (E) any audio or video communications service used by
inmates for the purpose of communicating with individuals outside of
the correctional facility 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).
3. In 2011, when initially adopting rules to implement section 716
of the Act, the Commission attempted to determine what Congress meant
by including the word ``interoperable'' as part of the term
interoperable video conferencing service. Finding that the record
before it was insufficient to decide this question, the Commission
sought further comment on the issue.
4. In June 2023, after refreshing the record on the definition of
``interoperable video conferencing service,'' the Commission resolved
this definitional issue. The Commission found no persuasive reason to
modify or limit the scope of the statutory definition. Therefore, the
Commission concluded that its part 14 accessibility rules apply to all
services and equipment that meet the statutory definition. Given the
extended pendency of questions regarding the application of part 14 of
the Commission's rules to video conferencing, the Commission recognized
that some service providers might need additional time to comply with
those rules, and therefore allowed IVCS providers until September 3,
2024, to come into compliance with its existing part 14 rules.
5. Telecommunications Relay Services and Interoperable Video
Conferencing Services. Enacted in 1990, Title IV of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 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 people in the United States with
hearing or speech disabilities. TRS are defined as
[[Page 100879]]
``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.''
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 and a live communications assistant (CA);'' 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. The provision of internet-
based TRS is supported by the Interstate TRS Fund, maintained through
mandatory contributions from providers of telecommunications service,
interconnected VoIP service, and non-interconnected VoIP service. Three
non-internet-based forms of TRS--traditional TRS using text telephony
(TTY), Captioned Telephone Service (CTS), and Speech-to-Speech Relay
(STS)--are also supported in part by the TRS Fund and are available
through state TRS programs.
6. 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 the people they are calling, and the
provision of TRS, to date, has typically been configured to fit within
the typical structure of a traditional telephone call, with a ``calling
party'' and ``called party'' and originating and terminating NANP
numbers. This structure has continued to be used to frame the provision
of TRS even after the development of internet-based forms of TRS. As a
result, even though a VRS user's connection with a CA is established
via an internet video link, the Commission has been able to rely on
originating and terminating telephone numbers as part of the
information required to verify the user's eligibility and the minutes
of service for which TRS providers are compensated.
7. Video conferencing, however, is generally accessed through the
internet, without necessarily involving any telephone numbers. While a
consumer can obtain audio-only access to some video conferences by
dialing a telephone number, full video access is usually achieved
directly through the internet, without the use of originating or
terminating telephone numbers. As a result, for a consumer to use VRS
to participate in a video conference, a telephone number must be
available for an audio-only connection to the video conference. The VRS
consumer must establish a direct video connection to the conference--in
the same way as other participants, but independently of the VRS
provider--and establish a second, separate video connection to the VRS
provider. The CA then establishes a separate, audio-only connection to
the conference, using the dial-in number. The CA's only connection to
the VRS user is via the second video connection. Thus, the CA cannot
see the other video conference participants, and the VRS user can only
view the CA over the second video connection, often on a separate
screen.
8. To address concerns about the availability of TRS on video
conferencing platforms, the Commission requested the Disability
Advisory Committee (DAC) to study the matter. In its 2022 report, the
DAC stated that it is impossible for users of most video conferencing
platforms and most TRS providers to natively interconnect their
preferred TRS provider to video conferencing platforms, and that,
typically, TRS users can only interconnect their preferred TRS provider
to a video conferencing platform by dialing in via the public switched
telephone network.
9. Such a dial-in connection is often unavailable, and even when
available, dialing into a video conference poses multiple difficulties.
First, the TRS provider's CA, who is connected to the video conference
via the audio-only dial-in connection, has no visual access to the
other video conference participants (including visual cues to indicate
who is speaking) or any documents or other visual information being
shown to participants. Further, the CA's audio-only connection may
result in poor audio quality, causing errors in interpretation or
captioning. Second, as a commenter explains, these arrangements require
a TRS user to run two separate applications or devices--one to
participate in the video portion of the conference, and another to
communicate with the TRS provider's CA. The commenter adds that
following the discussion is challenging enough with one application or
one device; having to toggle between two applications or two devices
makes meaningful participation even more arduous.
10. For all these reasons, the DAC recommended 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 video
conferencing platforms; and, clarifying the legal ability of TRS
providers to seek compensation for service provided for video
conferences from the TRS Fund. Since the DAC 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.
11. In 2023, the Commission proposed IVCS-specific amendments to
the performance objectives in the part 14 rules on accessibility of ACS
and amendments to the TRS rules to authorize and facilitate the
provision of TRS in video conferences. Specifically, the Commission
proposed to require IVCS providers to include speech-to-text (i.e.,
captioning of all voice communications) and text-to-speech capability,
to enable the use of sign language interpreting, and to include
accessibility settings in the user interface controls. The Commission
also sought 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.
12. Regarding its TRS rules, the Commission proposed to clarify
that the integrated provision of TRS in video conferences can be
supported by the Interstate TRS Fund. The Commission also proposed
additional rule amendments specific to video conferences, addressing
VRS user validation and call detail supporting compensation requests;
participation of VRS CAs and the use of multiple CAs and multiple VRS
providers; and the ability of VRS users and CAs to turn off their
cameras when not actively participating in a video conference.
Regarding TRS generally, the Commission proposed to amend the
confidentiality requirements for TRS CAs and providers in the context
of video conferences and prohibit exclusivity agreements between TRS
providers and IVCS providers. Finally, the Commission sought comment on
how to avoid TRS substituting for
[[Page 100880]]
accommodations for individuals with disabilities that employers,
educational institutions, health care organizations, and government
agencies are required to provide under other applicable laws, including
whether to allow TRS users to reserve a CA in advance of a video
conference.
Second Report and Order
Video Conferencing Accessibility
13. Need for Improvement. The Commission finds that there is a
continuing need for improvement in making video conferencing
accessible. Video conferencing has become a routine facet of everyday
life. Recent data from Gallup show that, as of February 2024, only 20%
of U.S. employees with remote-capable jobs work exclusively on-site
(compared to 60% in January 2019); 54% have hybrid work arrangements,
and 27% have exclusively remote work arrangements. The Pew Research
Center has found that 78% of remote workers use video or online
conferencing services at least sometimes, with more than half using
such services often. A TRS provider points out that video conferencing
is here to stay as an important component of communications going
forward. Similarly, a commenter notes that going forward, video
conferencing and other technologies with accessibility features will
continue to be a catalyst for post-COVID economic recovery, opening
important employment opportunities for traditionally underserved and
underemployed communities. In short, there is no disagreement among
commenters as to the importance of video conferencing services to
people's everyday lives or the need to improve the accessibility and
usability of those services for individuals with disabilities.
14. The record also reflects that there are significant gaps in the
accessibility of video conferencing platforms. As the Commission has
previously noted, some video conferencing platforms have implemented
accessibility features, such as braille display support, captioning,
keyboard accessibility features, high-contrast visual elements,
customizable notifications, verbosity controls, pinning and
spotlighting, and support for screen readers. However, even with these
advances, challenges remain. Numerous comments from consumers request
that the Commission ensure the availability of features and
enhancements needed to make video conferences more accessible.
15. A coalition of advocacy organizations notes that often the
video windows in which speakers and interpreters appear are too small
for a viewer to be able to read lips or observe sign language
interpreting. And, while some IVCS providers offer captioning, if the
video conference host controls the captioning, other users may not be
able to adjust the captions when the captioning appears too small and
lacks adequate contrast against the background to be reasonably
legible. Further, consumers can access video conferences from a wide
range of internet-enabled devices, increasing the need for customizing
what they see on their screens. However, each video conferencing
platform uniquely arranges and identifies its controls and settings,
which makes it more difficult for unfamiliar users to adjust the
settings on their devices for optimal presentation as needed during a
video conference.
16. Individuals who are blind or have low vision also report
problems accessing video conferences. An advocacy organization points
out that creating, hosting, or joining a meeting presents multiple
accessibility barriers for members of these communities, regardless of
which platform and device combination are utilized. Users who are blind
or have low vision may encounter difficulty navigating features,
controls, and settings of video conferencing platforms with their
preferred assistive technology. As a commenter states, if, for example,
certain controls are not operable with assistive technology or are not
properly labeled, people who are blind or have low vision are not able
to enter, operate, and conclude a call. Furthermore, if control and
setting features of the conference platform are purely visual, they may
be inaccessible to users who are blind or have low vision.
17. A 2024 study examining the experiences of people with various
disabilities when using popular video conferencing platforms reveals
additional challenges, particularly for neurodivergent participants or
those with physical or motor impairments. For example, some respondents
with speech, motor, or cognitive disabilities described being unable to
formulate questions or locate and activate a video conferencing
platform's ``raise your hand'' function in time to contribute in calls.
Other respondents described being overwhelmed by the need to learn new
functions and tools on different video conferencing platforms.
18. As several commenters point out, these concerns are heightened
because conference call participants are generally not in a position to
dictate what video conferencing platform will be used for a particular
conference. For example, a patient who is deaf may not be able to
obtain healthcare because the doctor's telehealth conferencing platform
does not enable a connection to a sign language interpreter or VRS.
Similarly, visual content shared in the video conferencing platform
during a video conference is usually not accessible to people who use
screen readers or braille displays because shared documents typically
appear only as a flat image without perceivable elements. In these and
other scenarios, a person with a disability often has no opportunity to
request a different, accessible video conferencing system.
19. Compliance with Existing General Performance Objectives. As
discussed above, IVCS poses a broad range of accessibility issues,
which often require solutions specifically tailored to the multimedia
aspect of this subcategory of ACS. Attempts to address these issues
were delayed while the Commission's interpretation of the term
interoperable video conferencing service remained unresolved. The
result is a patchwork of different accessibility features from
different video conferencing providers, causing a confusing and
inconsistent landscape for people with disabilities to navigate. In
addition, because IVCS is so often used for pre-scheduled, multi-party
communication, consumers with disabilities often have no choice as to
which service is used for a video conference--that choice is made by
the person or organization hosting the video conference.
20. These accessibility gaps can be closed to a substantial extent
if IVCS providers and equipment manufacturers comply with the
Commission's current rules. Part 14 of those rules, initially adopted
in 2011 to implement section 716(e) of the Act, includes a set of
performance objectives to ensure the accessibility, usability, and
compatibility of advanced communications services and the equipment
used for such services. The current performance objectives define, in
general terms, what providers of IVCS and manufacturers of equipment
used for IVCS must accomplish to make their services, equipment, and
software accessible, usable, and compatible. In general, for services,
equipment, and software to be accessible: input, control, and
mechanical functions must be locatable, identifiable, and operable by
people with disabilities; and all information necessary to operate and
use the product must be available to people with disabilities. 47 CFR
14.21(b). Within this rubric, the provision sets forth a list of
performance objectives defining further what accessible means for
people with specific types of disabilities. For
[[Page 100881]]
example, one provision states that advanced communications services,
equipment, and software shall be operable without hearing, i.e., shall
provide at least one mode that does not require user auditory
perception. 47 CFR 14.21(b)(1)(iv). Like other providers of ACS and
manufacturers of ACS equipment, IVCS providers and manufacturers are
required to meet each of these objectives (unless an objective is not
achievable).
21. A number of the accessibility improvements sought by commenters
can be addressed by IVCS providers coming into compliance with the
existing rules. For example, section 14.21(b)(1) of Commissions rules
states that, for services, equipment, and software to be accessible to
people who are blind, input and control functions shall be provided in
at least one mode that does not require user vision, and all
information necessary to operate and use the product, including but not
limited to, text, static or dynamic images, icons, labels shall be
available through at least one mode in auditory form. Meeting these
performance objectives (e.g., by providing, among other things, voice-
activated control settings and screen-reader functionality or
compatibility) would address a commenter's concerns that chat functions
and control settings on IVCS platforms are often visual only, and thus
inaccessible to blind and low-vision users. As of September 3, 2024,
IVCS providers should have rolled out updates to address such
deficiencies, if achievable.
22. Additionally, section 14.21(b)(2) of the Commission's rules
states that in at least one mode, ACS shall permit operation by, and
provide visual information to, people with visual acuity between 20/70
and 20/200, without relying on audio. Meeting this objective through,
e.g., magnification, high-contrast, and color inversion options, as
well as compatibility with third-party refreshable braille displays,
would be important steps toward making IVCS platforms accessible to
low-vision and deafblind users.
23. Similarly, compliance with the existing rules could
substantially reduce accessibility gaps faced by people with cognitive
and mobility disabilities. Section 14.21(b)(1) of the Commission's
rules specifies that, to be accessible, advanced communications
services and equipment must have modes that are operable with limited
manual dexterity, and with limited reach and strength, without
requiring body contact or close body proximity, and without time-
dependent controls, and at least one mode that minimizes the cognitive,
memory, language, and learning skills required of the user. Steps that
providers could take to implement these requirements include providing
voice- or gesture-based controls, one-button shortcuts, an ``easy-to-
use'' setting, and other features. In an accompanying Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission seeks additional comment on
whether the performance objectives described above need further
modification to ensure the accessibility of IVCS.
24. Need for IVCS-Specific Performance Objectives. While
accessibility gaps in IVCS can be addressed to some extent by
implementing the performance objectives of our current rules, the
record makes clear that, in a number of areas, more specific guidance
is needed to promote accessibility in the IVCS context. For example,
captions are an obvious means for IVCS providers to implement the
existing performance objective specifying that ACS provide auditory
information through at least one mode in visual form, and many IVCS
platforms offer automatic speech recognition-generated captioning.
However, the record indicates that captions are often inaccurate, too
small, or difficult to turn on and manipulate. As a commenter explains,
IVCS platforms vary considerably with respect to the ability to
activate and effectively use automated captions. Users are often at a
loss as to how to turn on captions and frequently are unable to
position and otherwise manipulate captions, which is necessary for
optimal viewing. For example, on some platforms the captions have been
too small for effective reading. Other platforms fail to ensure a
sufficient level of captioning quality, resulting in excessive errors
that make it difficult to follow the dialogue.
25. In addition, some accessibility concerns are not directly
addressed at all by the current rules. For example, none of the
existing performance objectives requires IVCS platforms to facilitate
the use of sign language and sign language interpretation--a key
omission for a medium inherently suited to sign language communication.
Therefore, the Commission amends part 14 of its rules as discussed
below, to define more specifically the objectives that IVCS providers
must meet to achieve accessibility and promote more consistency in
their implementation, thereby enabling people with disabilities to
participate in video conferences whenever accessibility is achievable.
26. These outcome-oriented performance objectives maintain
incentives and opportunities for innovative design in this rapidly
developing industry sector and avoid straying into the prohibited
territory of mandatory technical standards. Thus, the Commission finds
inapposite a commenter's concern that the proposed performance
objectives do not include reference standards or compliance procedures.
This is by design, and is true of all the performance objectives in
part 14 of the Commission's rules. As noted earlier, section 716 of the
Act expressly requires the Commission to allow flexibility in the
implementation of accessibility objectives and precludes us from
imposing mandatory technical standards. 47 U.S.C. 617(a)(2), (e)(1)(D).
Consistent with section 716 of the Act, these performance objectives
will allow IVCS providers to choose whether to satisfy their
accessibility obligations by building certain features directly into
their 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.''
27. A commenter recommends that the Commission makes the
performance objectives optional, contending that mandatory requirements
would impose significant cost burdens on businesses and impact the
overall cost for the general public. The new performance objectives are
subject to the achievability criterion, a criterion that is defined in
terms of reasonable effort or expense, 47 CFR 14.10(b), as well as the
special exemption and waiver provisions of the ACS rules. However, the
statute does not grant the Commission authority to make ACS performance
objectives optional. See 47 U.S.C. 617(a)(1), (b)(1), (e)(1)(A).
28. Just as the existing part 14 of the Commission's rules
performance objectives apply both to advanced communications services
and to equipment and software used with ACS, the performance objectives
the Commission adopts for specific application for IVCS also apply to
equipment and software used for IVCS. Manufacturers of equipment used
for IVCS must ensure that such equipment, as well as software
components of such equipment, meet these new and modified objectives,
unless that is not achievable.
29. Given the critical importance of access to video conferencing
for people with disabilities, the Commission finds no cause for further
delay in providing specific guidance on the necessary steps to make
video conferencing accessible. Where the adoption of a proposed rule is
supported by the record, there is no
[[Page 100882]]
persuasive reason to defer its adoption, as some commenters urge,
pending an assessment of what has been achieved during the extended
compliance period or the outcome of potential collaboration among
stakeholders. As a commenter points out, even if some issues may
require additional time to resolve, implementation of new performance
objectives can begin while fact-finding and deliberation over more
complex policy and operational issues proceeds on a parallel track.
Similarly, although the Commission encourages collaboration among
stakeholders to further improve the accessibility of features and
functions of video conferencing services, there is no reason to delay
the adoption of more specific performance objectives while waiting for
such collaboration to bear fruit. The record reflects consensus both
that video conferencing has become a ubiquitous and critical part of
daily life and that video conferencing accessibility remains a work in
progress. The untenable result is that people with disabilities are
unable to participate fully in what is now a routine mode of
communication. Given the centrality of video conferencing in modern
American society, and that 14 years have passed since Congress mandated
the accessibility of IVCS, video conferences should be made accessible
as soon as it is achievable to do so.
30. The Commission does recognize, however, that bringing
accessibility to video conferencing may pose some technical challenges,
especially for smaller IVCS providers. It may also require substantial
interaction with other parties, including TRS providers and the
disability community. Therefore, compliance with part 14 of the
Commission's rules adopted in document FCC 24-95 will not be required
until January 12, 2027.
IVCS Performance Objectives
31. Captions. Section 14.21(b)(2)(iv) of the Commission's rules
sets forth the performance objective that ACS shall provide auditory
information through at least one mode in visual form and, where
appropriate, in tactile form.
32. The Commission's amendment to this performance objective
directly addresses one of the most broadly impactful and persistent
accessibility issues concerning video conferences, i.e., the
inconsistent availability of accurate captions across video
conferencing providers. The record is clear that captions play a
crucial role in allowing people who are deaf or hard of hearing to be
fully engaged in a video conference conversation. As a commenter notes,
a lack of captions can make meaningful interaction impossible. While
the existing rule already makes clear that captioning (the provision of
auditory information in visual form) is necessary for accessibility, it
does not address the quality of captions.
33. As modified, the performance objective states that captions
must be accurate and synchronous. The Commission does not include the
language proposed in the NPRM stating that caption quality must be
``comparable to that provided on TRS Fund-supported captioned telephone
services.'' As multiple commenters noted, the Commission's TRS rules do
not currently provide quantitative standards to measure accuracy or
latency in the IP CTS context. Pending further development of
quantitative measures, this performance objective reflects a
qualitative standard, similar to the qualitative standards currently
applicable to IP CTS and live television programming. The amended rule
defines accurate to mean that captioning matches the spoken words of a
conversation, in the order spoken, verbatim, without summarizing or
paraphrasing. Given that IVCS, like IP CTS or live video programming,
involves real-time communication without advance scripting, 100% error-
free captioning may not always be achievable. However, captioning
should be sufficiently accurate to enable a user to understand what is
being said. Implementation of this performance objective will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering overall
understandability and accuracy, the ability of the captions to convey
the aural content of the call in a manner equivalent to the aural
communication, and the extent to which captioning errors made the video
conference inaccessible.
34. The amended rule defines synchronous to mean that captions must
coincide with the corresponding spoken words and sounds to the greatest
extent possible, be delivered fast enough to keep up with the speed of
those words and sounds, and remain displayed long enough to be read by
the user. In other words, to the greatest extent possible, the captions
should begin to appear at the time that the corresponding speech or
sounds begin and end approximately when the speech or sounds end.
Captions must be sufficiently synchronous to enable a user to
participate in real-time in a conversation among video conference
participants.
35. While a quantitative standard of caption quality may be
preferable, the Commission rejects the contention that a qualitative
standard provides insufficient notice regarding the quality required,
given that analogous qualitative standards are already in place for
video programming and TRS. Regarding a commenter's concerns about
factors outside a provider's control affecting caption quality, the
Commission notes that the obligation to meet this performance
objective, like all part 14 of the Commission's rules performance
objectives, is qualified by the criterion of achievability.
36. As modified, the performance objective also specifies that IVCS
enable users to connect with third-party captioning services and enable
the display of such captions on the requesting party's video conference
screen. In some instances, participants in video conferences may prefer
a third-party captioning service, which may provide a higher degree of
accuracy than can be achieved by using the IVCS provider's native
captioning. Or, a video conference host may be legally obligated to
provide (and pay for) captioning service for a video conference that
poses specific captioning challenges. As the DAC explains, some video
conferencing services struggle to integrate third-party captioning
services into their conference calls. In some cases, users must open a
separate web browser or application to view captions, forcing them to
split their attention between two screens (if a second screen is even
available to the user). If deaf and hard of hearing participants are
forced to split their attention between multiple screens, or multiple
devices, it often will be difficult to follow the visual conversation
on one screen while simultaneously reading the captions on another.
37. To address these problems, the amended performance objective
provides that IVCS shall enable users to connect with such third-party
accommodations services, such that the captions provided by third
parties are viewable on the user's video conference screen, rather than
on a separate screen. In other words, to be accessible, IVCS must
enable a user to view on-screen the display of captioning provided by a
third party. The Commission does not prohibit IVCS providers from
affording participants the option to view captions on a separate
screen, which may be preferable in some instances to accommodate
certain disabilities, peripheral devices, or accessibility software.
38. Although some commenters focus on a need to access human
captioners, the amended rule does not limit the kinds of third-party
captioning services that may be accessed by IVCS users.
[[Page 100883]]
Consistent with the technology-neutral, outcome-oriented nature of
performance objectives, the rule does not differentiate between
captioning generated with human involvement and captions created
entirely with automatic speech recognition technology.
39. Additionally, the requirement to enable third-party captioning
does not require an IVCS provider to ensure that third-party captioning
is available to users at no or nominal cost--unless the IVCS provider
is relying on a third party to fulfill its primary captioning
obligation. Similarly, if an IVCS provider is not relying on a third
party to fulfill its primary captioning obligation, the IVCS provider
is not responsible for ensuring that captions provided by a third party
are accurate and synchronous, except to the extent of its obligation to
not impair or impede accessibility.
40. One commenter urges the Commission to require video
conferencing providers to integrate with IP CTS providers, suggesting
that IVCS providers will not be able to offer captioning services equal
in quality to IP CTS. IP CTS is one type of a third-party captioning
service. Accordingly, the amended performance objective requires that
IVCS providers offer a mechanism for conference hosts and users to
connect with an IP CTS provider, if that is their preference, unless
the capability for such connection is not achievable.
41. This performance objective does not dictate the specifics of
any technical interface or lock in user interface designs. In
particular, the Commission does not mandate that an IVCS provider make
its connection interface for third parties compatible with any specific
technology that may be used by a particular captioning service or IP
CTS provider.
42. Sign Language Interpreting. To ensure that video conferences
are accessible to users who communicate in sign language, the
Commission proposed to adopt a new performance objective providing that
IVCS 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.
43. The Commission adopts the proposed performance objective with a
few modifications. This performance objective provides that
accessibility for IVCS includes enabling a video connection for sign
language interpreters, so that they can view and be viewed by users of
these services. The performance objective is modified to make clear its
applicability to both IVCS itself and to equipment and software used
for IVCS. For additional clarity, the proposed rule is modified by
inserting the words ``provided by third parties'' after ``enable the
use of sign language interpretation.'' This change addresses a
commenter's concern as to whether a sign language interpretation
function must be integrated into an IVCS platform. The performance
objective does not require IVCS providers to provide sign language
interpretation as part of their services; rather, it specifies that an
IVCS provider shall enable users to access sign language interpretation
services provided by others.
44. This performance objective does not differentiate regarding the
type of sign language service that may be offered by a third party. The
Commission anticipates that most sign language users who participate in
video conferences will be using American Sign Language (ASL). However,
this performance objective is intended to apply broadly to all forms of
visual language commonly in use by people with disabilities. 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. The Commission believes
that the same technology that facilitates the inclusion of ASL
interpreters is equally applicable to other forms of interpretation or
transliteration.
45. The Commission declines, at this time, to modify this
performance objective as a commenter proposes: to require IVCS
platforms to provide sign language interpretation, rather than merely
enable it. Adopting this recommendation would mean that IVCS providers
would need to arrange for sign language interpreting to be available to
users at all times and would be responsible for the quality of the
service provided. The record is insufficient for the Commission to
assess this proposal, which likely would be implemented through
automatic sign language interpretation software, akin to automatic
speech recognition. The Commission seeks further comment on this
proposal in the FNPRM.
46. The commenter contends that the rule must be crafted so that
ASL interpretation and English Captioning have functional equivalency
within IVCS platforms. The Commission's goal in the TRS context is to
devise accessibility requirements that will allow individuals with
disabilities to have a communication experience that is functionally
equivalent to the experience of those without such disabilities. The
Commission does not require different accessibility tools to be equal
to each other.
47. Although the Commission does not mandate a particular level of
video quality, the quality must be sufficient to allow users to see and
understand interpreters' signing, and for users' own sign language to
be seen and understood by interpreters and others. The Commission does
not anticipate--and the record does not indicate--that this criterion
will pose any undue burden on video conferencing providers. Video
quality is a fundamental component of a competitive video conferencing
product. Providers are therefore independently motivated to provide
high-quality video.
48. User Interface Controls. To implement the DAC's recommendation
that the Commission ensure users' ability to control the activation and
customize the appearance of captions and video interpreters, the
Commission sought comment on adopting a new performance objective
providing that IVCS 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.
49. To ensure that accessibility features can be adjusted to
address the specific needs of individual users and the various
circumstances in which IVCS may be used, the Commission adopts the
performance objective set forth in the NPRM, with modifications. The
proposed performance objective is modified to ensure that individual
users have the ability to activate, as well as adjust, features such as
captions. In addition, the performance objective is modified to make
clear its applicability to both IVCS itself and to equipment and
software used for IVCS. Finally, the Commission clarifies that this
performance objective includes participants' ability to edit their
display names before or after joining a video conference.
50. As a commenter explains, given the wide range of IP-enabled
devices that can be used for video conferences, the need for individual
users to be able to customize what they see on their screens is
critical. However, user controls that allow such customization are
frequently unavailable or insufficient. Further, existing ACS
performance objectives do not directly address this problem. Although
Sec. 14.21(b)(1) of the Commission's rules generally requires that
control functions necessary for a user to operate a covered
[[Page 100884]]
service or product shall be accessible, that performance objective does
not expressly address the need for control functions to enable a user,
not only to operate the service, but to ensure its accessibility.
Accessibility is not a static condition: to ensure that a video
conferencing service is accessible across the wide range of devices
that may be used to access it, by users with varying disability-related
needs, individual users must themselves be able to manipulate
accessibility-related functions. The performance objective the
Commission adopts addresses this problem by providing that video
conference participants be able to control the activation and settings
of accessibility-related features. The text of the new provision
reflects that user control is especially important in two areas:
captioning and the visual display of speakers and signers.
51. In its 2022 report, the DAC states that, among the platforms
that offer captions, some do not allow users to customize caption size,
color, opacity, and other critical settings to ensure readability. A
coalition of accessibility-focused organizations explain that IVCS
platforms vary considerably with respect to the ability to activate and
effectively use automated captions, and that users are often at a loss
as to how to turn on captions and frequently are unable to position and
otherwise manipulate captions, which is necessary for optimal viewing.
To address these concerns, the performance objective the Commission
adopts requires IVCS providers to allow call participants to
independently control the activation and display of captions on their
individual devices. To the degree achievable, call participants must be
able to alter the size, font, and on-screen location of captions and to
adjust the color and opacity of both the captions and the caption
background. This objective generally aligns with the Commission's
requirements in other contexts, particularly with regard to the
customizability of captions on digital apparatus. See 47 CFR
79.103(c)(1)-(10). The character customization requirements for digital
apparatus mandate the ability to change character size between 50% and
200% of the default size. Digital apparatus covered by Sec. 79.103 of
the Commission's rules must also allow captions and caption backgrounds
that can display the 64 colors and 8 fonts defined in the CEA-708
standard, as well as allow users to override the authored colors and
choose from at least 8 specified colors. The Commission does not
replicate those specific requirements here. However, the CEA-708
standard may provide a useful reference point for IVCS providers and
equipment manufacturers in assessing their caption customization
options. Additionally, the Commission notes that limiting captions to a
very small character size range may be insufficient to meet the
performance objective.
52. The record reveals that additional accessibility challenges
arise as the number of participants in a video conference grows. For
example, when faced with numerous, undifferentiated video windows,
which are automatically enlarged based only on sound cues, it can be
extremely challenging to determine when an interpreter (or another sign
language user) is signing. A sign language user who loses sight of the
interpreter is effectively exiled from the conversation until they
regain that visual connection. Ensuring that the interpreter's video
window is always prominently displayed, even if another participant is
sharing their screen, is therefore vital to maintaining effective
communication. As a commenter explain, these issues can be partially
addressed by ``spotlighting'' and ``multi-pinning.'' ``Spotlighting''
identifies a particular window as the active speaker, making that
user's window visible on all other users' screens. Spotlighting
capability is generally only available to a conference call's host.
``Pinning'' and ``multi-pinning'' allow a user to disable the active
speaker view and determine which video window (or windows) will always
be visible on the user's own screen. Spotlighting interpreters ensures
that these individuals are easily visible amidst multiple video streams
or when displayed on small screens. While this is necessary for all
individuals who rely on interpreters, it is especially important for
consumers with visual impairments or close vision, who need full
visibility of an interpreter to actively participate.
53. To ensure that critical visual information is accessible, users
also must be able to reconfigure the layout and visibility of video
windows appearing on the users' own device. Each open video window
reduces the on-screen real estate available for other windows. As a
result, a sign language user's window may become too small to allow for
effective sign language communication. This is true even if the user's
video window is pinned, because pinning, alone, does not alter the
relative size of the video windows. A call participant who requires
sign language must therefore be able to minimize or hide extraneous
windows, expand the windows of their choice, or relocate particular
windows. For example, a participant may utilize the multi-pinning
feature to pin both a presentation leader and an interpreter, move the
windows so they remain side-by-side, and then expand both windows to
allow the participant to clearly view the interpreter without missing
out on visual cues from the speaker. As another example, a sign
language user on a conference call with multiple other sign language
users may want to pin all of their windows and place them together to
ensure all sign language users are visible.
54. In addition, participants must be able to edit their own
display names. This allows participants (including interpreters and
third-party accommodation services) to quickly differentiate themselves
from other call participants, helping sign language users and
interpreters find each other more easily, especially in conference
calls with many participants. Again, every moment a sign language user
and an interpreter spend trying to connect to each other is a moment of
lost communication and participation for the user. As a VRS provider
notes, VRS CAs identify themselves by a CA Number, rather than their
name, to protect their privacy. As discussed below, the Commission
amends its TRS rules to require VRS CAs to identify their employer in
the CA's display name. Compliance with this rule therefore requires
that participants be able to change their display names.
55. The record indicates that, while some video conferencing
providers currently offer spotlighting and multi-pinning capabilities,
typically they are controlled by the call's host, who must either make
such adjustments themselves or specifically allow that privilege to a
requesting participant. A conference call host may also disable the in-
call chat feature, leaving participants unable to contact the host to
request access to these features. In such scenarios the host may not
even be aware that accommodations are needed. As a result, individual
users may be deprived of the ability to directly customize their in-
call experience in a way that works best for them. Commenters therefore
assert that IVCS providers should enable any participant in a video
conference to customize their settings for accessibility.
56. Accordingly, the performance objective the Commission adopts
specifically provides that users be able to activate and adjust the
display of speakers and signers. As with captioning controls, the
relevant or achievable settings may vary for different kinds of IVCS
(e.g., more
[[Page 100885]]
settings may be needed for a video conferencing service that is
frequently used for conferences involving large groups, than for one
whose target market rarely includes participants in large-group video
conferences). For large-group video conferences, in particular,
accessibility requires that pinning, multi-pinning, spotlighting, and
window configuration functionality be available, and that those
functions can be accessed in individual users' settings menus, without
having to obtain permission from a call host. The Commission notes that
while some IVCS calls utilize a ``hosted'' conference room, i.e., a
single virtual location that all call participants connect to, others
are designed primarily for unhosted, person-to-person video calls. The
performance objective adopted here applies to all forms of IVCS.
57. A commenter raises a general concern that an overly detailed
performance objective would lock in user interface designs, and urges
the Commission to resist making regulatory choices that it states will
necessarily limit the ability of IVCS providers and equipment
manufacturers to shape and adjust their user interfaces. The Commission
concludes that this performance objective strikes an appropriate
balance between flexibility and specificity. As with all part 14 of the
Commission's rules performance objectives, the new and amended
objectives are outcome-oriented and do not mandate a technical
standard. The Commission also emphasizes that the rule it adopts does
not dictate how IVCS providers must organize their user controls.
Individual providers may decide what layouts and configurations are
appropriate for their services, as long as the results comply with
Commission rules.
58. The performance objective adopted here also provides that users
be able to activate and adjust other features for which user interface
control is necessary for accessibility. Although some commenters argue
for additional specificity, at this time, the Commission does not
attempt an exhaustive catalog of all such features. However, the fact
that a particular feature is not mentioned in the performance objective
does not imply that it is unnecessary for accessibility. For example, a
commenter recommends that the Commission include a specific requirement
for IVCS platforms to include screen reader verbosity controls, and
notes that some video conferencing platforms currently allow users to
independently customize their verbosity settings. The Commission agrees
that this functionality is an important means for blind and low-vision
users to be able to follow and participate in a video conference, and
such user control may often be necessary for accessibility. To that
extent, verbosity controls (as well as other features not specifically
mentioned) are included in the performance objective. However, to
individually address this and other user controls recommended by
commenters, the Commission believes the record would benefit from
additional information about the specific aspects of interface control
that are most important to address in the video conference setting. The
Commission seeks further comment on this issue in the FNPRM.
59. A commenter suggests that IVCS users' accessibility preferences
should be stored and retained within the IVCS platform, so that users
will not have to change the settings each time they use the service.
However, the record is insufficient to address this proposal. In the
FNPRM, the Commission seeks additional comment on the need for such an
objective, how it would apply across devices, and the technical issues
involved.
60. Text-to-Speech. To ensure that IVCS is accessible for people
with speech disabilities, the Commission proposed to amend Sec.
14.21(b)(1)(ix) of its rules, which specifies that ACS be operable in
``at least one mode that does not require user speech,'' to specify
that IVCS provide text-to-speech functionality. The existing rule
specifies that, to be accessible, IVCS must be operable without user
speech--for which a logical implementation would be the provision of
text-to-speech functionality. However, the record indicates that an
additional way of making IVCS operable by people with speech
disabilities is available, in the form of speech-to-speech technology
products, which automatically convert speech that is difficult to
understand to speech that is more understandable. Therefore, at this
time the Commission does not adopt the proposed modification. Instead,
in the FNPRM, the Commission seeks additional comment on modifying
Sec. 14.21(b)(1)(ix) of its rules to encompass a broader range of
solutions for people with speech disabilities.
61. Other Performance Objectives Proposed by Commenters. In the
NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether additional performance
objectives should be specified for IVCS to address other accessibility
concerns. A number of the performance objectives suggested by
commenters merit the Commission's consideration. In many instances,
however, the current record is insufficient to address them at this
time. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks additional comment on these
proposals. Other commenter proposals appear to be inconsistent with the
flexible, outcome-oriented approach the statute directs the Commission
to take.
62. A commenter recommends adoption of a performance objective
requiring that video functionality, screen sharing, video window re-
sizing, and video sharing be compatible with tablets. Another commenter
objects to this proposal, contending that tablet compatibility
represents a de facto technical mandate. While the Commission
recognizes that people with disabilities often have particular
difficulty in accessing IVCS on tablets, the record is insufficient to
determine whether a performance objective specific to tablets is
needed, and how it should apply. For example, an IVCS provider may
choose not to make its service available on tablets, or may not design
an app specifically for tablets. Further, it is unclear to what extent
responsibility for tablet compatibility should be placed on tablet
manufacturers, IVCS providers, or both. In the FNPRM, the Commission
seeks additional comment on whether a tablet-specific performance
objective is needed, and whether additional performance objectives
should apply to manufacturers of tablets and other devices used to
access IVCS.
63. The current record is also insufficient to address
recommendations that performance objectives specify that IVCS provide a
gallery view mode, ensure that a sufficient number of videos is
supported without degrading the quality of the video or audio, and
include dedicated video- and text-based side channels. A commenter
raises several objections to these proposals, stating variously that
they are technologically infeasible, implicate variables outside of a
video conferencing provider's control, exceed the Commission's
authority, or are technical mandates in all but name. While the
proposed features can be beneficial, the Commission is concerned that
unnecessarily specific requirements could dampen incentives for
entrepreneurship and innovation in this rapidly evolving market. In
addition, IVCS encompasses a broad variety of video communication
services, for which the recommended performance objectives may not be
uniformly applicable or relevant. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks
additional comment on the need for specific performance objectives in
these areas, as well as whether such objectives could be implemented
without adversely
[[Page 100886]]
affecting the benefits of innovation in this sector.
64. For similar reasons, the Commission also concludes that the
record is insufficient to address commenters' recommendations that IVCS
providers be required to enable access for audio description of video
and visual images, that performance objectives be adopted or amended to
provide that IVCS be operable and visual information be available in
tactile mode, and that shared documents be added to the list of
information that must be made accessible pursuant to Sec. 14.21(b)(2)
of its rules. However, the Commission stresses that the rules prohibit
IVCS providers from impeding the use of third-party services,
equipment, or software to provide audio descriptions. In the FNPRM, the
Commission seeks additional comment on whether to adopt a performance
objective specifying these functions.
65. Relatedly, a commenter urges the Commission to expand TRS
eligibility to include providers of live audio description and visual
image descriptive services. Our authority under section 225 of the Act
is limited to making TRS available for people who are deaf, hard of
hearing, deafblind, or have a speech disability. An audio description
service would not fall within this definition, and the Commission lacks
authority to expand the definition beyond the boundaries dictated by
Congress.
66. The Commission declines a commenter's recommendation that the
Commission require IVCS providers to offer a dial-in option via a ten-
digit telephone number, so that TRS-eligible IVCS users can use TRS in
video conferences despite the difficulties described elsewhere in
document FCC 24-95. Such a requirement would entail a major change in
business practices for IVCS providers, many of whom have not designed
their platforms to connect with telephone networks. Further, the rules
adopted here will require IVCS providers to enable users to connect
with providers of third-party captioning and sign-language
interpretation services, including IP CTS and VRS. Thus, developments
are already under way to accomplish the goal the commenter seeks,
without the need to force disruptive changes in IVCS providers'
business models. The Commission may revisit whether a dial-in option is
needed if future developments cast doubt on these assumptions.
67. The Commission also declines to adopt a commenter's
recommendation that any accessibility requirements for IVCS should
apply if a video conference is recorded and subsequently shared. If the
video conference is recorded and shared by a host, participant, or
third party, it is not evident why the IVCS provider should be
responsible for the accessibility of such recordings. Further, many
IVCS platforms may not include a feature that facilitates or delivers
such recordings.
68. The Commission declines to adopt a commenter's recommendations
to require that all IVCS platforms use the universal captioning symbol
(CC) to identify captioning settings, and that those settings be on the
first screen of the settings menu. The commenter also suggests
requiring consistent accessibility language related to captioning
across platforms. Performance objectives are outcome-oriented
requirements that allow flexibility for providers to accomplish the
objectives in the means best suited to their specific circumstances.
They should not mandate what symbols IVCS providers must use, where
they must put those symbols, and what terms they must use when
describing their accessibility offerings.
69. 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 manufacturers' and service providers' compliance. 47
U.S.C. 617(e)(1)(D). The NPRM sought comment on whether there were any
technical standards available or in development that could serve as
safe harbors for IVCS compliance with one or more performance
objectives.
70. The Commission does not adopt any safe harbor standards for
IVCS accessibility at this time, as no relevant standards are
identified by commenters. Indeed, some commenters express doubts as to
whether safe harbor standards could be helpful in this context. For
example, a commenter contends that establishing a safe harbor risks
locking in de facto technical mandates, thereby inhibiting innovation.
Another commenter echoes this assessment, noting that specific
technical standards could stifle the development of new accessibility
features.
71. One candidate for a safe harbor standard was suggested by two
state regulatory agencies, who recommend the real-time text (RTT)
technical standard as a safe harbor. These commenters appear to be
referring to RFC 4103, a technical standard that is currently
referenced by the Commission's rule governing RTT. A state agency
commenter notes that RTT allows for simultaneous transmission of text,
audio, video, and data; is already supported on most modern
smartphones; and has already been implemented in VRS, making it
relatively easy to further incorporate into video conferencing
platforms. A public utility commission commenter adds that RTT is a
widely known, well understood, and user-friendly standard.
72. However, neither state agency explains which performance
objectives would be implemented using RTT, or why a safe harbor is
necessary to facilitate compliance with part 14 of the Commission's
rules with respect to IVCS. Without a more detailed explanation of why
an RTT-based safe harbor would further the Commission's goal of
increasing video conferencing accessibility, the Commission is not
persuaded that it is needed in this context.
73. Part 14 Compliance Dates. The Commission allows IVCS providers
two years to comply with the accessibility requirements. The Commission
concludes that a full product development cycle should not be needed to
implement the additional rule provisions added by document FCC 24-95.
The performance objectives adopted today supplement the existing
performance objectives for ACS, which became effective in 2012.
Pursuant to the 2023 Video Conferencing Order, published at 88 FR
50053, August 1, 2023, IVCS providers were allowed until September 3,
2024, to meet the existing performance objectives. An additional two-
year period is appropriate for IVCS providers to complete any further
development, testing, and deployment of modified software, to the
extent needed to comply with the new provisions.
74. Although the Commission largely agrees with a commenter that,
for some service providers, the proposed performance objectives should
be easily achievable within a relatively short period of time, for
other (perhaps smaller) providers, compliance may require additional
preparation and consultation. Additionally, as noted earlier, the
breadth of IVCS entities now subject to the ACS rules is expansive.
Providers of small, niche, or startup conferencing services may need to
prioritize software development to suit their specific circumstances.
Given these dueling considerations, the most appropriate compliance
date is January 12, 2027.
75. Costs and Benefits. The Commission concludes that the
substantial benefits of its actions in this proceeding outweigh any
costs those actions are likely to impose. The
[[Page 100887]]
Commission's actions in this proceeding implement Congress' directive
to adopt performance objectives to ensure the accessibility of ACS,
including IVCS, without unduly burdening the provision of IVCS. Like
the existing performance objectives, the amended performance objectives
are outcome-oriented, preserving flexibility in implementation and
encouraging the development of efficient accessibility solutions.
Further, the two-year compliance deadline balances the potentially
significant industry-wide changes the CVAA requires with the need to
ensure that people with disabilities can take advantage of the benefits
of IVCS.
76. As the COVID pandemic made clear, the benefits of ensuring
access to video conferencing are enormous. Indeed, video conferencing
is now a practical necessity for communication, having become, for most
of the country's population, a mainstay of business, education, health,
and personal life. Whether talking one-on-one with friends or
participating in a multi-party conference call, people with
disabilities benefit enormously from having the same opportunities as
other Americans to make use of this modern form of communication
service. As a commenter points out, the near ubiquity of video
conferencing, and the heavy reliance on it by educators, government,
and business for virtual meetings and collaboration, not to mention its
use for social interaction, have made accessibility to, and usability
of, these services a necessity for our community if we are to aspire to
full participation in modern life.
77. Although the NPRM requested comment on the potential costs that
the Commission's proposals would impose, no specific cost estimates
from commenters were received. Regardless, the Commission emphasizes
that, as with the existing part 14 of its rules performance objectives,
compliance with each of the amended performance objectives adopted here
is conditioned on the objective being achievable, which means it can be
achieved with reasonable effort or expense. Therefore, the rules
themselves include a safeguard to ensure that the burden and cost of
compliance will not be unreasonable, considering, among other factors,
the technical and economic impact on the company's operation and the
extent to which accessible services or equipment are already being
offered by the company. As a result of this safeguard, which is
applicable to certain other accessibility obligations imposed by the
Act, the resulting cost burden is likely to be comparable to the cost
imposed on other segments of the communications industry by rules
incorporating an analogous condition--e.g., the cost incurred by other
ACS providers and manufacturers to comply with the generally applicable
accessibility requirements of section 617 of the Act. To a significant
extent, the rules adopted today serve to clarify pre-existing
obligations of IVCS providers, and for that reason as well are unlikely
to be more burdensome than existing accessibility requirements.
Providing TRS in Video Conferences
78. The Commission amends its rules to facilitate the integrated
provision of TRS to enable functionally equivalent participation in
video conferences. By ``integrated provision of TRS'' in a video
conference, the Commission means an arrangement whereby communication
between the CA (or automated equivalent) and the TRS user, whether by
text or video, takes place on the video conferencing platform, rather
than through a separate connection. Just as the TRS Fund has long been
used to support the provision of TRS with audio-only teleconferencing,
the Commission finds it is necessary and appropriate that the TRS Fund
be used to support the provision of TRS with video conferencing, as
needed for functionally equivalent communication. At this time, the
Commission does not require any TRS provider to provide TRS in video
conferences on an integrated basis. Rather, the rules adopted here are
intended to facilitate the provision of TRS in video conferences while
protecting the TRS Fund against potential waste, fraud, and abuse.
79. A commenter contends that funding TRS users' participation in
video conference calls is somehow a ``profound change'' that will
negatively impact the deaf community in various areas such as
healthcare. The TRS Fund already compensates TRS providers for their
users' participation in video and audio conference calls. The
obligations of various industry sectors to provide accommodations for
individuals with disabilities under federal, state, and local laws
remain unchanged.
80. Legal Authority. The Commission adopts its tentative conclusion
that it has statutory authority to direct TRS Fund support to the
provision of TRS in video conferences on an integrated basis.
Specifically, the Commission concludes that the integrated provision of
relay service in a video conference (i.e., without the need for the CA
to have a voice-only connection to the video conference and a separate
data or video connection to the TRS user) fits the statutory definition
of telecommunications relay service as a telephone transmission service
enabling 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. See 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3).
81. Section 225 of the Act defines relay services in terms of their
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. In turn, communication by wire and
communication by radio are broadly defined by the Act, using terms that
encompass, among other things, communication via the internet or
internet Protocol. In addition, IVCS, which is defined to include audio
communication, is appropriately characterized as a voice communication
service for purposes of section 225 of the Act.
82. As for telephone transmission service, which is not defined in
the Act, the Commission has given this term a broad interpretation,
noting that it 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 this section
encourage, consistent with section 7(a) of this Act, the use of
existing technology and do not discourage or impair the development of
improved technology.'' 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(2). For example, in prior
decisions authorizing new forms of TRS, the Commission has repeatedly
found that internet-based relay services are not limited to a specific
technical configuration, and has not interpreted telephone transmission
service as requiring the use of telephone numbers. Consistent with
these prior decisions, the inclusion of video imaging in the underlying
service to which TRS is applied does not change the fundamental
character of TRS itself as a telephone transmission service. Whether
TRS is used to relay ordinary voice telephone service or the voice
portion of a video conferencing service, it remains essentially
telephone transmission service: regardless of the additional content
that may be included, along with voice, in the underlying
communication, the essential purpose of TRS is to ensure that the
telephonic (i.e., voice)
[[Page 100888]]
characteristics of a communication are rendered communicable, in a
functionally equivalent manner, to people with hearing or speech
disabilities.
83. Commenters addressing the issue generally agree with the
Commission's analysis of section 225 of the Act. As one commenter
notes, a Senate committee report in the legislative history explains
that the provisions of section 225 of the Act ``do not seek to entrench
current technology but rather to allow for new, more advanced, and more
efficient technology.'' The only dissenter contends, without further
explanation, that providing interpretation for video calls held on
privately hosted IVCS platforms falls outside the scope of the TRS
fund. As explained above, the Commission has previously rejected this
narrow view of section 225 of the Act.
84. Timing of Commission Action. The Commission agrees with some
commenters that collaboration among stakeholders may help accelerate
efforts to provide TRS in video conferences on an integrated basis.
However, given the centrality of video conferencing in today's society,
it is important that the Commission adopt rules addressing the
provision of TRS in video conferences without undue delay. This is
especially true for VRS, as alternative sign language interpretation
services are not always available for video conferences. Therefore, the
Commission amends its rules in a number of ways to facilitate the
integrated provision of TRS, and especially VRS, in video conferences.
Regarding some aspects of VRS, as well as other forms of TRS, the
current record does not enable the Commission to formulate an
appropriate rule, and it seeks further comment on such unresolved
issues in the FNPRM.
85. The Commission does not see a need to authorize a pilot program
for the integrated provision of VRS in video conferences, as suggested
by a commenter. The Commission has conducted pilot programs, such as
the at-home VRS call handling pilot program and the National Deaf-Blind
Equipment Distribution Program, in the context of allowing a service or
a mode of providing a service that was not previously allowed by our
rules, or when a pilot program is mandated by Congress. With such a
pilot program, the Commission can study what adjustments to its rules
may be needed to allow a new service or new program.
86. However, pilot programs, by their nature, have a sunset date,
and require affirmative action by the Commission to extend the sunset
date or convert the pilot program to permanent rules allowing the new
service. Given the importance and urgency of making VRS available in
video conferences on an integrated basis, and the progress that has
been made to date in integrating VRS with IVCS, the more tentative,
pilot-program approach is not appropriate here. Indeed, the integrated
provision of VRS on video conference calls has already begun on a
limited scale. Instituting a pilot program could be incorrectly
perceived as signaling uncertainty as to the net benefits of such
integration, potentially causing unnecessary delay in the availability
of integrated VRS.
87. It is clear from the comments that TRS and video conferencing
service providers believe collaboration will continue for the
foreseeable future. Any insights gleaned from such collaboration can
inform the Commission's rulemaking process going forward, without the
need to wait for a pilot program to produce results.
88. Multiple commenters also suggest that the Commission charter a
DAC working group composed of representatives of video conferencing
providers, TRS providers, and accessibility advocates, who would be
tasked with developing recommendations for further rules. Again, the
Commission believes it can make significant progress now toward
improving the accessibility of video conferencing calls. As
stakeholders continue to collaborate, the Commission can consider
whether chartering a DAC working group with specific tasks would be
useful for this effort.
89. Integrating the Provision of VRS in Video Conferencing. The
Commission also adopts its tentative conclusion, with which commenting
parties generally agree, that the integrated provision of VRS with
video conferencing is often necessary to enable sign language users to
communicate in a functionally equivalent manner. Integrated provision
of VRS in a video conference 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. A VRS
user relying on a CA who appears on a separate screen while connected
to the conference audio is non-integrated provision of VRS. Non-
integrated provision of VRS remains a compensable form of TRS, and is
not affected by the rules adopted in this proceeding.
90. As noted previously, connecting a VRS CA to a video conference
may not be possible if there is no dial-in connection. Such a
connection is often unavailable. Assuming the video conferencing
platform allows a dial-in connection, in a hosted video conference it
is the host who determines whether to provide such an option. Even if a
dial-in connection is available, that configuration creates
difficulties for the VRS user, if, for example, the user must
constantly navigate between devices. 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.
91. A commenter objects to the Commission's approach to integrating
VRS with video conferencing services, claiming that authorizing TRS
Fund compensation for VRS integrated with video conferencing platforms
will ``nationalize'' the ASL interpreting industry, putting out of
business many Video Remote Interpretation (VRI) services, who currently
provide translation services for conference calls. Such speculative
concerns do not justify prohibiting or delaying the integrated
provision of VRS in video conferences. The rules adopted here do not
prohibit video conference hosts or participants from using non-VRS
interpretation services. Indeed, the Commission expects that VRI will
be preferred for video conferences, as VRI interpreters employed by a
video conference host generally will have more opportunity to prepare,
and are more likely to have expertise in the specific subject matter of
a video conference. Many organizers and hosts of video conferences
calls have obligations under the ADA or other laws to provide
accommodations for people with disabilities, including English-to-ASL
interpretation, for which the use of VRS often may not be suitable.
92. To facilitate the integration of VRS with IVCS, the Commission
amends its rules, as set forth below, to ensure the appropriate use of
VRS with video conferencing and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. The
rules adopted today are designed to allow VRS providers to integrate
their services with video conferencing so that VRS customers can
participate in a video conference call with the presence of a VRS CA on
the video platform, while protecting the TRS Fund from waste, fraud,
and abuse. As video conferencing service evolves and VRS providers and
the Commission gain more experience with the integrated provision of
VRS in video conferences, some of the rules below may be revisited.
[[Page 100889]]
93. Permissive Approach. At this time, the Commission does not
require VRS providers to provide VRS in video conferences on an
integrated basis. VRS and video conferencing providers need to continue
collaborating to ensure that VRS is available to sign language users on
IVCS platforms, and the Commission generally encourages all VRS and
video conferencing providers to be receptive to such collaboration.
However, the Commission recognizes that integration of VRS with video
conferencing services, including all necessary user verification,
billing, and other requirements, may present technical issues for both
VRS and video conferencing providers. The record does not provide
useful information on how much time IVCS providers and TRS providers
may require to develop integration solutions, nor the extent to which a
solution may be applicable to multiple video conferencing platforms.
94. The Commission is concerned that mandating integration of VRS
with video conferencing services at this early stage in the
technological development of the service could stymie experimentation
with different technologies. Allowing experimentation and innovation,
including technical collaboration among stakeholders will result in
better integration of VRS, and is therefore consistent with the
statutory mandate that TRS services are to be provided to ``the extent
possible'' and in the ``most efficient manner.''
95. User Validation. VRS is available only to eligible users, i.e.,
persons authorized to use VRS pursuant to a registration in the User
Database. Ordinarily, a person's status as an eligible VRS 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 a link
provided by the host of a video conference, or entering a URL in a
search engine or app) without dialing from a line associated with a
telephone number. In further contrast with ordinary telephone calls,
the video conference format invites VRS users to connect directly,
rather than through their VRS providers.
96. Consistent with the requirement for other VRS calls, the
Commission requires that, when VRS is provided in video conferences,
VRS providers must validate eligibility by collecting the user's
assigned 10-digit NANP telephone number, even if the number is not
technically used to connect to the video conference. For example, the
VRS provider may request registered users to enter their VRS telephone
number in an application or plug-in that the VRS provider makes
available to video conference participants to request a VRS CA.
Whatever the process, the VRS provider must verify that the user's
telephone number is registered in the User Database before allowing the
assigned CA(s) to participate in the call. The Commission encourages
video conferencing service providers and VRS providers to collaborate
on development of such sign-on procedures.
97. Call Detail Requirements. To collect compensation from the TRS
Fund for a particular call, a VRS provider must submit call detail
records (CDRs) to the TRS Fund administrator with the information
required by the Commission's rules. To take account of the distinctive
characteristics of and special requirements applicable to video
conferencing (including special criteria for counting CA minutes of use
and limitations on the number of CAs that may be assigned to a multi-
party video conference), the Commission amends the Call Data Rule to
require that a VRS provider's CDRs identify each video conference in
which integrated VRS is provided. IP addresses can be used, in the
context of video conferences, to identify the internet location to
which participants all connect, and a conference provider's URL can
assist the Fund administrator's oversight of this new application of
TRS by identifying which video conferencing provider is responsible for
handling the underlying communication. However, to ensure flexibility
in the administration of TRS, the rule the Commission adopts authorizes
the TRS Fund administrator to determine, and provide specific guidance
to VRS providers regarding, the specific information and format that
are needed to indicate that integrated VRS was provided in a video
conference and to sufficiently identify the particular video conference
involved, taking account of the need to provide an auditable record, as
well as any legitimate security or data protection concerns. For
example, the administrator might determine that an IP address is needed
to identify the specific internet location of the video conference, and
that the provision of a short-form URL will sufficiently identify the
IVCS provider while limiting any security or privacy risk that might
result from requiring the submission of a long-form URL. However, the
Commission emphasizes that the rule adopted here does not determine the
specific additional or alternative information regarding video
conferences that shall be submitted in CDRs. Rather, the Commission
relies on the TRS Fund administrator to make that determination, based
on its expertise and experience. In this regard, the Commission directs
the administrator to collect, and by extension to use, process, store,
and maintain, only information--insofar as it may qualify as personally
identifiable information--that is directly relevant and necessary to
accomplish its specific purpose. If necessary, the administrator may
also provide instructions to ensure that providers correctly identify
non-compensable international video conferences and other instances
where, based on the parties involved, the provision of VRS in a video
conference is not eligible for TRS Fund compensation.
98. When Compensable Time Starts. The CDRs submitted by TRS
providers must record when compensable call time begins and ends. For
an ordinary VRS call, compensable call time usually starts when the
called party answers, because at that point the CA is already present.
Identifying a start time is not so obvious for video conferences. The
CA may not be present when a video conference begins. Further, the need
for interpretation in a video conference does not always start as soon
as two participants have logged on; for example, both of the first two
participants may be signers, or hearing users; and, on some calls,
participants may be placed in a ``waiting room'' before entering the
call. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed that, 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.
99. The Commission adopts a modified version of the proposed rule
to facilitate the automatic provision of conversation start times in
CDRs, so that a CA does not ordinarily need to make a determination
when compensable time begins. Compensable time for a video conference
shall begin when a VRS CA enters the video conference, provided that
the CA identifies the requesting VRS user within five minutes of
entering the video conference. If, within that time, the CA cannot
identify the requesting VRS user, or it becomes evident that VRS is not
needed (e.g., if no hearing users log on and all participants
communicate using sign language), then the call must be identified as
non-compensable.
100. At this time, the Commission declines to allow compensation
for periods when CAs are in a waiting room before joining a video
conference. There is a significant difference between being ``on hold''
for a voice telephone call and
[[Page 100890]]
being in a ``waiting room'' prior to joining a video conference. When a
VRS user and CA are ``on hold,'' they are in communication with each
other, and the CA is able to interpret any oral announcements or other
audio information conveyed by the other party's answering device. In a
video conference ``waiting room,'' however, the CA may be the only one
``waiting,'' and even if a registered VRS user is also ``waiting,''
communication between them may not be possible. Further, if
announcements by the conference host are conveyed by text (as appears
to be the usual case), instead of orally, no VRS interpretation of such
announcements is needed.
101. The Commission recognizes that the VRS user and CA may not be
able to control when they are admitted to a video conference from a
waiting room. However, compensation for time in a waiting room, or
other pre-conference statuses where the VRS user and CA are unable, or
have no need, to communicate, would expend TRS funds without even the
possibility for the provision of interpretation services.
102. CA-Related Issues. As acknowledged in the NPRM, there may be a
number of situations in which more than one VRS CA potentially may be
asked to interpret a video conference. For example: two or more
participants may request VRS from different providers in the same video
conference; two or more VRS users may each request VRS from the same
provider on the same video conference; or the nature of the video
conference may be such that a VRS provider determines that more than
one CA (i.e., team interpreting) is needed for effective communication.
In the NPRM, the Commission asked whether the TRS rules should apply
differently in this respect to a video conference than to a
teleconference. The Commission also proposed 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.
103. At this time, the Commission does not prohibit multiple
providers from responding to service requests from different users for
the same video conference. Implementing such a rule would require
logistics and coordination procedures among VRS providers, about which
the record is nonexistent. However, the Commission's rules do not
prohibit TRS providers from reaching agreements for the efficient use
of CAs. For example, the restrictions on VRS contracting do not
preclude a VRS provider from authorizing another VRS provider to
provide interpretation service to the first provider's registered
users. Thus, VRS providers may arrange for their registered users
participating in the same video conference to be served by a single CA
as long as there is no double-billing of the TRS Fund for the services
of that CA.
104. In an audio-only teleconference, where two or more registered
VRS users are participating, the TRS Fund supports the provision of a
CA for each registered user--with each user's connection through a CA
being treated as a separate call because the VRS CAs are connected to
the VRS users on separate screens. However, in a video conference with
integrated VRS, unlike a teleconference, it is possible for all
participants to be served by one CA from the same VRS provider. To
prevent unnecessary, redundant provision of interpreting by the same
VRS provider, and to limit the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse, the
Commission requires that, when a VRS provider receives two requests for
VRS for a single video conference, the VRS provider shall only bill the
TRS Fund for VRS provided to the first requesting user. If a CA joins a
video conferencing call and detects that a VRS CA from the same VRS
provider is already present on the call, the later-in-time CA should
terminate participation in the call, and no separate CDR shall be
submitted to seek compensation for that CA's presence on the call. To
facilitate implementation of this practice, the Commission requires
that VRS CAs identify themselves as such in a video conference,
including the name of their VRS employer. CAs may identify themselves
for this purpose by indicating in their display name that they are an
interpreter and identifying the VRS provider with which they are
affiliated. In certain situations, the two VRS CAs may not immediately
know which is the ``later-in-time.'' Communication between the two CAs
may be possible, in which case they can decide who drops off, or VRS
providers may want to establish their own protocols for which CA drops
off in this situation.
105. Under the Commission's rules, VRS providers are not prohibited
from assigning an additional CA to a particular VRS call, if deemed
necessary. However, no additional compensation is paid for the second
CA. The Commission recognizes that video conferences often involve
longer conversations with more complex interaction among multiple
participants. The current record does not enable the formulation of a
bright-line rule defining the circumstances, if any, that warrant TRS
Fund compensation for the addition of a second CA, nor an appropriate
rate of compensation for team interpreting.
106. The Commission adopts its proposal 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. As an exception,
the Commission will allow the continuation of TRS Fund-supported
service to a video conference after the initiating user drops off,
provided that a registered VRS user who remains in the video conference
has made a request for service. (In addition, at least one non-signing
user must remain on the call.) In implementing this exception, VRS
providers may choose to include in their software for managing service
to video conferences the capability to hold in reserve any extra
service requests from video conference participants that were not
fulfilled when made because another participant already requested VRS
for the conference. By holding an additional request in reserve, it can
be automatically fulfilled if the first-in-line requester leaves the
conference early. If there are no requests held in reserve, and the CA
is aware that other sign language users may remain in the video
conference, the CA may delay exiting the conference for up to five
minutes of additional compensable time, to allow a new (replacement)
registered user to request service. Upon verification of the new
registered user, the CA (or a replacement) may continue service to the
video conference beyond the five-minute grace period. The second
registered VRS user's telephone number must be included in the call
data submitted for compensation. The Commission directs the TRS Fund
administrator to provide appropriate guidance to VRS providers on how
an extension of service, in response to a remaining participant's
request, should be reflected in the CDRs submitted by a provider in
support of compensation requests. The Commission notes that this rule
only applies when two registered VRS users initiate an invitation to
the same conference call through the same VRS provider.
107. A VRS provider, raises a concern that its current system for
responding to requests for integrated VRS does not allow a new request
for VRS to be made until the initial CA has disconnected from the video
conference. As a result, any users remaining in a video conference
after the first requesting user drops off would not be able to request
[[Page 100891]]
service during the five-minute period allowed for that purpose. The
current record is insufficient to allow the Commission to assess the
nature and extent of such limitations and fully consider the possible
alternatives for addressing the provider's concerns. In the FNPRM, the
Commission seeks additional comment on this issue. In addition, the
Commission notes that VRS providers may request relief pursuant to the
Commission's waiver process.
108. The Commission is not persuaded that a VRS provider should
continue to receive TRS Fund compensation for extended service to ASL
users who are not registered VRS users, as a commenter recommends. The
TRS program is premised on service to individuals who meet the
eligibility criteria of section 225 of the Act and the Commission's
implementing rules. Further, allowing compensation for service to users
who are not confirmed as eligible by a TRS provider may result in
longer wait times for relay service requested by eligible users on
other calls.
109. The Commission does not modify the current rule requiring that
VRS CAs stay on a call for a minimum of 10 minutes before being
replaced by another CA. At this time, the Commission also declines
commenters' recommendation to allow additional compensation for the
presence of multiple CAs if the replacement CA enters the call early to
observe or acquire background information before taking over the first
CA's duties. The record does not clearly demonstrate to what extent
there is a material difference between call takeovers in a video
conference and call takeovers in an ordinary telephone call or
teleconference of comparable duration, such that the Commission's rules
should allow extra compensation for transitional observation periods.
If further experience warrants, the Commission may revisit this issue
in a future proceeding.
110. The Commission's rules require that call detail, including the
start and end of conversation time, be recorded automatically. Given
that the rules adopted here require CAs to make certain
determinations--e.g., as to when they must exit a video conference
because none of the remaining participants has requested VRS--the
Commission amends its rules to provide that the generation of a CDR
based on a CA's exit from a video conference in accordance with our
rules does not violate the automatic recording rule. To assist in
review and auditing of compensation payments, the Commission requires
VRS providers to include in their annual compliance reports a detailed
explanation of the guidance they provide to CAs regarding when
compensable time starts and stops, in the various circumstances
discussed above.
111. Privacy Screen Rule. The current rules, which were adopted
before video conferencing became widespread, 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. 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.
The rule's original 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 the NPRM, the
Commission recognized that in a multi-party video conference,
participants may turn off their video cameras for various reasons
wholly unrelated to the reason for the rule. Therefore, the Commission
proposed to amend the rule to allow more flexibility in the activation
of cameras when VRS is provided in a video conference on an integrated
basis. The Commission also waived the privacy screen rule, in part,
pending the outcome of this rulemaking.
112. The Commission adopts the proposed amendment to the privacy
screen rule. The record supports the Commission's assumption that in
multi-party video conferences, there are a variety of reasons why VRS
users and CAs, like other participants, may turn off their videos
without any fraudulent intent, and without thereby indicating lack of
interest or engagement in the video conference. 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. Further, in a video
conference where one or more participants are speaking at length,
participants who are deaf may (like other participants) choose to turn
off their videos until it is their turn to speak.
113. The revised privacy screen rule allows 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. 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 amended rule also
allows VRS CAs to turn off their video connections when not actively
relaying a conversation, e.g., with another VRS CA as a team on a
multi-party video conference. (Although the TRS Fund does not currently
provide additional compensation for team interpreting, the Commission's
rules do not prohibit team interpreting in video conferences.) Finally,
the Commission adopts its proposed definition of 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.
114. Integrating Other Types of TRS with Video Conferencing. In the
NPRM, the Commission sought comment 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. Limited comments were received on this issue. At this
time, the Commission adopts certain rules, discussed below, for
application to non-VRS TRS, to the extent that IP CTS providers have
developed methods of providing this service on an integrated basis.
However, the record is insufficient to resolve some issues, and the
Commission seeks additional comment on those in the FNPRM.
115. IP CTS. Currently, registered IP CTS users can use IP CTS with
video conferencing on a non-integrated basis. For example, a video
conferencing participant can access IP CTS captioning when a telephone
connection to the video conference is available. In this configuration,
IP CTS captions are only visible to the requesting user--and may
require a separate screen. Further, in this configuration, a human
captioner cannot see the video conference participants. However,
captioning is currently available as a native feature on some IVCS
platforms, with captions displayed on the same screen as the video
conference. As discussed above, the Commission amends part 14 of its
rules to expressly require that IVCS providers make captioning
available on their video conferencing platforms (unless that is not
achievable). In
[[Page 100892]]
addition, the part 14 of the Commission's rules amendments require IVCS
providers to enable the connection of IVCS users to third-party
captioning services (including IP CTS providers) and to display such
captions on the user's video conference screen (unless these
requirements are not achievable). Some people with hearing loss may
prefer to use third-party captions produced by an IP CTS provider
rather than those provided by the IVCS provider or a fee-based
captioning service.
116. With multiple captioning options already available, the extent
of the need for integrated provision of IP CTS (i.e., so that captions
are displayed on the IP CTS user's video conference screen) is
currently unclear. Consistent with its determination that the TRS Fund
can support the provision of TRS in video conferences, the Commission
allows IP CTS providers to seek compensation for providing video
conference captioning on an integrated basis, in compliance with the
current TRS rules. However, the Commission does not require IP CTS
providers to do so. IP CTS providers that seek compensation for
providing captioning in video conferences on an integrated basis may
use the same billing and CDR guidelines discussed above for VRS. In the
FNPRM, the Commission seeks further comment on whether amendments to
its rules are needed to facilitate the integrated provision of IP CTS
while preventing waste, fraud, and abuse.
Rules Applicable to All TRS
117. Confidentiality. Section 225 of the Act specifically requires
the Commission to prescribe regulations that prohibit relay operators
from disclosing the content of any relayed conversation and from
keeping records of the content of any such conversation beyond the
duration of the call. 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(1)(F). The confidentiality
provision of the Commission's TRS rules thus provides that, except as
authorized by section 705 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 605, 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),
which the CA concludes are not intended to be communicated to other
participants. Or a CA may review the text of ``chat'' conversations or
PowerPoints and other presentation material shared among participants,
even though this information may not be orally recited or discussed and
thus may not be relayed by the CA. Such content may not be covered by
the current rule.
118. The Commission amends the TRS confidentiality rule to
expressly prohibit CAs from disclosing non-relayed content (as
described above) communicated in a video conference or from maintaining
records of such content beyond the duration of the video conference.
The amended rule prohibits a TRS provider and its CAs from disclosing
``sidebar'' conversations, chat, presentation material, and other
content that may be observed by a CA, and requires 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.,
names, specialized vocabulary, etc., such notes must be destroyed at
the end of the call. The Commission also amends the confidentiality
rule to codify the Commission's prior rulings indicating that the rule
expressly applies to TRS providers as well as to CAs, so that the rule
explicitly covers TRS calls (including but not limited to video
conferences) where TRS is provided without the involvement of a CA.
119. As with ordinary telephone calls, video conference
participants typically have an expectation that, unless the
circumstances indicate otherwise, the content of their communications
will not be disclosed to non-participants. Further, section 225 of the
Act specifically mandates that the confidentiality of relayed
conversations be protected, highlighting the paramount importance of
privacy for TRS users. TRS providers and their CAs are invited into the
communication process for the sole purpose of enabling people with
hearing and speech disabilities to participate in telephonic
conversations in a functionally equivalent manner. They are not
authorized to be sources of information about the conversations they
facilitate, except in narrowly defined circumstances.
120. The Commission's expansion of the rule to cover non-relayed
content observed by a CA reflects that, unlike an ordinary telephone
call, the multimedia nature of a video conference may expose a CA to
textual or other non-aural information shared among some or all
participants, as to which they may have a legitimate expectation of
privacy. Although the rule that section 225 of the Act expressly
directs the Commission to adopt only covers the content of any relayed
conversation, this specific direction is part of a general direction to
the Commission to ``prescribe regulations to implement this section.''
47 U.S.C. 225(d)(1). The Commission does not interpret section 225 of
the Act as precluding the Commission from modifying its confidentiality
rule to cover additional information to which TRS CAs may be exposed in
the course of their work.
121. A commenter asks the Commission to clarify that VRS providers
may not retain video transcripts of calls to use in training artificial
intelligence (AI) programs. The Commission's TRS confidentiality rule
already prohibits TRS providers from keeping records of the content of
any conversation beyond the duration of a call. The Commission will
investigate any alleged violation of this rule if brought to its
attention through the complaint process.
122. The Commission emphasizes that the TRS confidentiality rule
only applies to TRS CAs and TRS providers (i.e., entities seeking
compensation from the TRS Fund). Neither IVCS providers nor the
participants in a video conference (other than CAs) are subject to the
rule. Therefore, there is no basis for concern that expanding the scope
of the rule as described above would somehow curb the participants'
ability to use common and legitimate video conferencing features such
as open captioning, recording and cloud-stored transcripts. As far as
the TRS rules are concerned, IVCS providers and video conference
participants remain free to provide and use captioning and recording
features, or disclose information to non-participants, subject to
whatever restrictions may apply under other laws.
123. Exclusivity Agreements. The Commission adopts its proposal to
prohibit exclusivity agreements between TRS providers and video
conferencing providers. This rule was recommended by the DAC, and no
party opposes it. In general, an exclusivity agreement is an express or
implied agreement between a TRS provider and a video conferencing
provider that has the purpose or effect of preventing other providers
from offering similar services to consumers. As stated in the NPRM,
exclusivity agreements may deprive consumers of the opportunity to rely
on their chosen TRS provider when using video conferencing services,
contrary to the Commission's policy. Similarly, such exclusivity
agreements may restrict the ability of conference hosts and TRS
[[Page 100893]]
users to select a preferred video conferencing provider.
124. Although the NPRM also sought comment on addressing
arrangements that create de facto exclusivity but do not constitute
express or implied exclusivity agreements, the resulting record is
insufficient. However, the Commission stresses that its part 14 rules
prohibit IVCS providers from installing network features, functions, or
capabilities that impede accessibility or usability. Although the
application of this rule to network features, functions, and
capabilities is determined on a case-by-case basis, the Commission
emphasizes that software applications that are installed, e.g., to
enable IVCS users to request a VRS CA, must not impede the ability of
users to request service from their preferred provider.
125. Scheduling the Provision of TRS. In the NPRM, the Commission
took note that video conferencing can function as a substitute for in-
person meetings as well as teleconferences, and that 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 ADA or other laws. 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 sought comment
on the implications of this for the provision of TRS. The Commission
also asked how the Commission can ensure that the use of TRS in video
conferences does not detract from the effective implementation of ADA
and other legal requirements. In particular, the Commission sought
comment on a tentative conclusion that TRS providers must continue to
decline requests to reserve a TRS CA in advance of a scheduled video
conference.
126. The Commission adopts the tentative conclusion in the NPRM
that TRS providers must continue to decline requests to reserve a TRS
CA in advance of a scheduled video conference. 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. 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 and CART service providers. Commenters urging the
Commission to modify the rule against advance scheduling do not provide
persuasive reasons why such a change is necessary, given the
availability of non-TRS services.
127. One commenter suggests that the first-come, first-served rule
for TRS will somehow interfere with language access to various services
mandated by the federal government. The first-come, first-served rule
only applies to TRS CAs responding to requests for TRS. The rule does
not apply outside that context. The general accessibility of federal
programs will not be affected in any new or comprehensive way by this
determination.
128. At this time, the Commission also declines to authorize VRS
providers to assign a specialized CA to handle a video conference,
rather than assigning the first available CA, as is currently required.
Based on the current record, the Commission is not persuaded that every
video conference call will be so complex as to require specially
trained CAs. Further, Sorenson's proposal raises substantial concerns
about speed of answer and how the quality of TRS provided for ordinary
telephone calls would be affected, were the Commission to adopt a rule
authorizing CAs with special training--who likely would be among the
most talented and experienced TRS CAs--to be assigned specifically to
the provision of video conferences. The Commission seeks additional
comment on this proposal in the FNPRM. The Commission also notes that
there is precedent indicating that the Commission's rules allow the
assignment of VRS calls to CAs based on the technical capability of the
equipment at a CA station, as opposed to the skills of a particular CA.
Document FCC 24-95 does not overrule prior precedent or alter the
Commission's current rules in this regard.
Amendment of the Commission's Rules for TRS Calls With Multiple CAs
129. Section 64.604(c)(14) of the Commission's rules 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. Subsequently, the Commission amended
the definition of telecommunications relay service to reflect the
statutory definition of that term as amended by the CVAA. The amended
definition provides that TRS enables 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.'' Previously, 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.'' The Commission explained
that the revised definition will 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. In the NPRM, the
Commission proposed to amend this rule to address these gaps, to
harmonize this rule with the current definition of TRS.
130. The Commission adopts the proposed amendment to the multiple-
CA rule, which states 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. This
amendment broadens the scope of the rule to more fully reflect the
Commission's stated intent in adopting the amended definition of TRS.
The Commission also clarifies that, for purposes of this rule, CA can
refer to an automated CA equivalent, such as an ASR program used to
provide ASR-only IP CTS.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
131. Need For, and Objectives of, the Report and Order. In document
FCC 24-95, the Commission amends its rules to ensure that people with
disabilities are able to access and use interoperable video
conferencing service (IVCS), a category of advanced communication
[[Page 100894]]
service (ACS). As video conferencing has grown from a niche product to
an essential vehicle of communication, the need for accessibility has
become acute; yet, there remain significant gaps in the accessibility
of video conferencing services. Therefore, the Commission amends its
part 14 rules, which govern accessibility of ACS, adding performance
objectives that specifically enable the accessibility of IVCS. These
performance objectives include: (1) providing speech-to-text
(captioning); (2) enabling access to sign language interpreting
provided by third parties, including video relay service (VRS); and (3)
providing user interface controls for video conferences. In addition,
the Commission amends its part 64 rules governing telecommunications
relay services (TRS) to reflect that the Interstate TRS Fund can
support the integrated provision of relay services in video
conferences--whether or not the video conferencing platform can be
accessed via a dial-up telephone call. The Commission modifies the TRS
rules to facilitate such integration and prevent waste, fraud, and
abuse. Finally, the Commission amends the TRS rule governing use of
multiple forms of TRS on the same call to ensure that individuals with
differing forms of disability can communicate using their preferred
form of TRS.
132. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
Response to the IRFA. There were no comments filed that specifically
addressed the proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.
133. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act
of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond
to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of
any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.
The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed
rules in this proceeding.
134. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
which the Rules will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a
description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small
entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
135. The Commission's decisions in document FCC 24-95 will affect
the obligations of providers of interoperable video conferencing
services and telecommunications relay services. These services can be
included within the broad economic category of All Other
Telecommunications.
136. This industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged
in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite
tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This
industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing
satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with
one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting
telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite
systems. Providers of internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or voice
over internet protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The
SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms
with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry
that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of
less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates
that the majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms can be
considered small.
137. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. The amendments to the Commission's rules
adopted in document FCC 24-95 may modify certain reporting,
recordkeeping or other compliance obligations of certain small entities
that provide IVCS or TRS. Compliance with these amended rules will be
required January 12, 2027. The performance objectives adopted
clarifying existing obligations, and are subject to existing
achievability criterion. As a result, small entities should not find
compliance with these rules overly burdensome.
138. Part 14 of the Commission's rules requires that providers of
ACS--including IVCS--and manufacturers of equipment used with ACS
ensure that their services and equipment (including associated
software) are accessible and usable by people with disabilities, unless
these requirements are not achievable. The IVCS-specific performance
objectives adopted by the Commission must be implemented by IVCS
providers and manufacturers, including small entities, unless they are
not achievable. The Commission establishes performance objectives to
ensure flexibility in allowing entities to meet the statutory
obligations of ensuring services and equipment are accessible to people
with disabilities.
139. The Commission's existing rules require that each provider of
ACS (including IVCS) and each manufacturer of equipment used to provide
ACS maintain, in the ordinary course of business and for a reasonable
period, records documenting the efforts taken by such service provider
or manufacturer to implement section 716 of the Act, as amended,
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. Providers of IVCS and
manufacturers of equipment used for IVCS are subject to these existing
requirements. In adopting additional performance objectives for IVCS,
the Commission increases the amount of information that entities must
retain and report under the recordkeeping. The time and resources
needed to fulfill this additional recordkeeping should be minimal given
the ongoing obligation to retain such records.
140. The Commission's existing rules require that an officer of
each provider of ACS (including IVCS) and an officer of each
manufacturer of ACS equipment must 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 of the Act under
applicable rules. The form and content of the reporting will be
unchanged, but the officer may require additional time to confirm the
records for the new performance objectives are kept in accordance with
the recordkeeping requirements.
141. As discussed in document FCC 24-95, the Commission received no
specific cost estimates from commenters. Due to the diversity of IVCS
service providers and IVCS equipment manufacturers subject to section
716 of the Act, as well as the multiple general and entity-specific
[[Page 100895]]
factors used in determining whether, for a given service provider or
manufacturer, accessibility for a particular service item of IVCS
equipment (or a particular) is achievable, it is difficult to estimate
the costs of compliance for those small entities covered by the amended
rules. However, the rules themselves include a safeguard to ensure that
the burden and cost of compliance will not be unreasonable: compliance
is conditioned on each objective being ``achievable,'' i.e., ``with
reasonable effort or expense.'' An achievability determination must
consider the nature and cost of the steps needed to meet the
requirement, the technical and economic impact on the company's
operation, the type of operations of the company, and the extent to
which accessible services or equipment are already being offered by the
company.
142. The amendments to the Commission's rules governing TRS are
designed to facilitate the use of TRS Communications Assistants (CAs)
in video conferences while minimizing the risk of waste, fraud, and
abuse of the TRS Fund. These modifications only apply to a small entity
TRS provider to the extent that users of the provider's TRS participate
in video conference calls. Otherwise, the TRS compliance requirements
would remain unchanged. Most of the TRS rule changes are a
clarification of the extent of a rule's application to provision of TRS
in video conferences. For example, providers of VRS, a form of TRS,
must continue to meet user validation and call detail record reporting
obligations when opting to provide VRS in video conferences. Call
detail records must be recorded automatically. VRS providers must also
include a detailed explanation of the guidance they provide to CAs
regarding when compensable time starts and stops in their annual
compliance reports. To collect compensation from the TRS Fund for a
particular call, a VRS provider must submit call detail record to the
TRS Fund administrator identifying video conferences where VRS is
provided on integrated basis. These compliance and reporting
requirements are consistent with existing obligations that VRS
providers must meet in providing VRS and do not change the burdens of
such entities.
143. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to
provide ``a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize
the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a
statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the
alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other
significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which
affect the impact on small entities was rejected.''
144. The requirements for ACS in part 14 of the Commission's rules
were adopted in 2011. When the Commission confirmed the definition of
IVCS in the 2023 IVCS Definition Order, it gave all IVCS providers one
year to come into compliance with the existing ACS accessibility
requirements in part 14 of its rules. In document FCC 24-95, the
Commission considered a number of alternatives in adopting performance
objectives for achieving accessibility applicable to IVCS. The
Commission provides all entities subject to the new rules until January
12, 2027 to come into compliance. This will allow for product
development and implementation within typical product upgrade and
development cycles and minimize development burdens on small entities.
Like all performance objectives in part 14 of the Commission's rules,
these modified requirements are subject to options to make a product or
service accessible by incorporating accessibility features into the
product or service itself, or by relying third party applications,
peripheral devices, software, hardware, or CPE that are available to
the consumer at nominal cost. All part 14 of the Commission's rules
performance objectives are also subject to an ``achievability''
standard that takes into account the cost of compliance and the nature
of the impact of compliance on a specific entity. In addition, the
rules provide an exemption for customized services and equipment and
authorize the grant of waivers for multipurpose services and equipment.
These flexibility and achievability conditions apply equally to all
covered entities, including small entities and are necessary to ensure
video conferencing is accessible to people with disabilities.
145. The amendments to the TRS rules are designed to facilitate
access to TRS on video conferencing platforms. In document FCC 24-95,
the Commission determines that TRS provided on video conferences are
compensable from the TRS Fund and detail the applicability of the
existing TRS rules to such rules to minimize the potential for waste,
fraud, and abuse from the expansion of services. In allowing a
voluntary approach to integrating TRS, the Commission allows providers
to opt into the provision of such services and flexibility in the
method of developing such integrated services. In clarifying the extent
to which existing rules are applicable and amending such rules to
account for TRS provided in video conferences the Commission ensures
providers are able to receive TRS Fund compensation for their provision
of TRS in video conferences, while continuing to protect the TRS Fund
from potential waste, fraud, and abuse if existing protections were
thought inapplicable. The Commission also determined to further develop
the record and give providers the opportunity to experience providing
integrated services before addressing additional proposals from the
NPRM, minimizing the potential burden of implementing requirements
before fully understanding the benefits and burdens of those proposals.
Congressional Review Act
146. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission sent a copy of document FCC
24-95 to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
147. Document FCC 24-95 contains modified information collection
requirements, which are not effective until approval is obtained from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the Commission will invite the
general public to comment on the information collection requirements as
required by the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The Commission will
publish a separate document in the Federal Register announcing approval
of the information collection requirements. Pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought comment on how the
Commission might ``further reduce the information burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' 88 FR 52088, August
7, 2023.
Ordering Clauses
148. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 3, 225 and 716 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 225,
617, document FCC 24-95 is adopted.
[[Page 100896]]
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 14
Communications, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
47 CFR Part 64
Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 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 paragraph (b)(2)(iv) and adding
paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 14.21 Performance Objectives.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(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, beginning January 12, 2027, provide at least one mode with
captions that accurately and synchronously display the spoken
communications in a video conference, and enable users to connect with
third-party captioning services so that captions provided by such
services appear on the requesting user's video conference screen. In
this paragraph (b)(2)(iv):
(A) Accurately means that captioning matches the spoken words of a
conversation, in the order spoken, verbatim, without summarizing or
paraphrasing, sufficiently to enable a user to understand what is being
said.
(B) Synchronously means that, to the greatest extent possible, the
captions begin to appear at the time that the corresponding speech or
sounds begin and end approximately when the speech or sounds end, are
delivered fast enough to keep up with the speed of those words and
sounds, and remain displayed long enough to be read by the user.
* * * * *
(4) Interoperable Video Conferencing Service. In addition to the
other requirements of this section, beginning January 12, 2027,
interoperable video conferencing services and covered equipment and
software used with such services shall:
(i) Enable the use of sign language interpretation provided by
third parties, 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) Provide user interface control functions that permit users to
activate and adjust the display of captions, speakers, and signers and
other features for which user control is necessary for accessibility.
In this paragraph (ii):
(A) Adjust the display of captions means that a video conference
participant can alter the size, font, and on-screen location of
captions and adjust the color and opacity of both the captions and the
caption background.
(B) Adjust the display of speakers and signers means that video
conference participants can minimize or hide extraneous windows, expand
the windows of their choice, or relocate particular windows; and edit
their own display names before or after joining a video conference.
* * * * *
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, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
Subpart F--Telecommunications Relay Services and Related Customer
Premises Equipment for Persons With Disabilities
0
4. Amend Sec. 64.601(a) by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (23) through (26) as (24) through (27),
(27) and (28) as paragraphs (29) and (30), paragraphs (29) through (52)
as paragraphs (32) through (55), and paragraphs (53) through (58) as
paragraphs (57) through (61); and
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (23), (28), (31), and (56).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 64.601 Definitions and provisions of general applicability.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(23) 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.
* * * * *
(28) Interoperable video conferencing service (IVCS). Has the
meaning given in part 14 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(31) 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.
* * * * *
(56) Video conference. A session of IVCS involving two-way real-
time communication between two or more IVCS users.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 64.604 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (c)(5)(iii)(D)(4)(ii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(D)(9);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(E)(2) and (c)(14);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (c)(15);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (d)(5), and (e); and
0
f. Adding paragraph (f).
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
[[Page 100897]]
information only for as long as it takes to complete the subsequent
calls.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Submit such data electronically, in a standardized format. For
purposes of this subparagraph, an automated record keeping system is a
system that captures data in a computerized and electronic format that
does not allow human intervention during the call session for either
conversation or session time; provided that, this subparagraph
(c)(5)(iii)(D)(4) does not prohibit the submission of a CDR in which
the end of conversation or session time is automatically determined by
a CA's exit from a video conference prior to its termination, in
accordance with the Commission's applicable rules.
* * * * *
(9) A VRS provider's call data shall identify each video conference
in which integrated VRS is provided. For such video conferences, in
lieu of the information specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(D)(1)(v)
and (vi) of this section, a VRS provider may submit information, as
specified in instructions issued by the administrator, that identifies
the VRS user requesting service and the video conference session 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, except
that for the provision of integrated VRS in a video conference, a VRS
provider's TRS minutes of use are defined in paragraph (e) of this
section.
* * * * *
(14) TRS calls requiring the use of multiple CAs. TRS Fund
compensation may be paid for more than one CA (or automated equivalent
of a CA, when authorized) 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; and
(ii) Calls between users of different types of relay services for
which more than one CA is warranted.
(15) Exclusivity Agreements. A TRS provider may not enter into an
agreement with an IVCS provider if such agreement would give the TRS
provider exclusive access among TRS providers to the IVCS provider's
facilities or such agreement would give the IVCS provider exclusive
access among IVCS providers to the TRS provider's service via a video
connection.
(d) * * *
(5) Visual privacy screens/idle calls.
(i) Except as provided in this paragraph (d)(5), a VRS CA shall not
enable a visual privacy screen or similar feature during a VRS call and
must disconnect a VRS call if the caller or the called party 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, shall announce that VRS will be terminated and
the CA shall disconnect from the video conference.
* * * * *
(e) Provision of integrated VRS in video conferences. (1) 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).
(2) 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;
(ii) Require CAs, when joining a video conference, to self-identify
as a CA and provide the name of the VRS provider (e.g., by editing
their display name); and
(iii) Treat each video conference as a single call for compensation
purposes, except as specifically authorized by the Commission.
(3) For the purpose of TRS Fund compensation for the provision of
integrated VRS in a video conference, a VRS provider's TRS minutes of
use begin when a CA enters the video conference, provided that the CA
identifies the requesting VRS user within five minutes of entering the
video conference. If, within that time, the CA cannot identify the
requesting VRS user, or it is evident that VRS is not needed, then the
call must be identified as non-compensable.
(4) For the purpose of TRS Fund compensation for the provision of
integrated VRS in a video conference, a VRS provider's TRS minutes of
use end when the earliest of the following events occurs:
(i) The CA disconnects from the video conference;
(ii) All non-signing participants disconnect from the video
conference;
(iii) All signing participants disconnect from the video
conference; or
(iv) The registered VRS user who initially requested service
disconnects from the video conference and five minutes elapse without a
further request for service by a registered VRS user participant.
(f) Other standards. 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
6. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 64.606 by adding paragraph (g)(6)
to read as follows:
Sec. 64.606 internet-based TRS provider and TRS program
certification.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(6) If a VRS provider provides integrated VRS in video conferences,
its annual report shall provide a detailed explanation of the
instructions and training provided to CAs on implementation of Sec.
64.604(e), including guidance on how to make the determinations
required by Sec. 64.604(e)(3).
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
[[Page 100898]]
prior to the connection of a VRS CA to the video conference.
[FR Doc. 2024-27479 Filed 12-12-24; 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 December 13, 2024.
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.