[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59-69]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30501]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 14 and 64
[CG Docket Nos. 23-161, 10-213, 03-123; FCC 24-95; FR ID 268783]
Access to Video Conferencing
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) seeks comment on whether to amend the accessibility
rules for interoperable video conferencing services (IVCS) to include
additional performance objectives addressing text-to-speech and speech-
to-speech functionality; automatic sign-language interpretation;
additional user interface control functions; access to video
conferencing for people who are blind or have low vision; and access to
video conference for people with cognitive or mobility disabilities.
The Commission also seeks further comment on whether and how the
telecommunications relay services (TRS) Fund should support team
interpreting in video conferences and whether additional rules are
needed to facilitate the integration and appropriate use of TRS with
video conferencing.
DATES: Comments are due February 3, 2025. Reply comments are due March
3, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 23-
161, 10-213, and 03-123 by the following method:
Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Wallace, Disability Rights
Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-2716, or
[email protected]; or Ike Ofobike, Disability Rights Office,
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-1028, or
[email protected].
[[Page 60]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), document FCC 24-95,
adopted on September 26, 2024, released on September 27, 2024, in CG
Docket Nos. 23-161, 10-213, and 03-123. This summary is based on
document FCC 24-95, the full text of which can be accessed
electronically via the Commission's Electronic Document Manage System
website at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs, or via the Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments. Comments may be filed using ECFS.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a permit-but-
disclose proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.
47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a
copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for
which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a
brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary
of the FNPRM is available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Document FCC 24-95 may contain proposed new or modified information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific
comment on how it might further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
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 Voice over internet Protocol (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. 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
[[Page 61]]
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 ``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.
4. 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 recommended that the FCC resolve these concerns 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.
5. 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. 88 FR 52088, September 7, 2023 (2023 Video
Conferencing Notice). 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.
6. 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 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.
7. On September 27, 2024, the Commission released the 2024 Video
Conferencing Second Report and Order (2024 Video Conferencing Order),
published at 89 FR 100878, December 13, 2024, adopting new or modified
performance objectives to define the outcomes needed for IVCS
accessibility.
Part 14 Issues
8. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks additional comment on whether
to adopt certain performance objectives proposed in the 2023 Video
Conferencing Notice or in comments on that Notice, for which the
current record is insufficient to enable a full assessment.
9. Given the emergence of video conferencing as a basic
communication vehicle for almost all Americans, and the inconsistent
implementation of accessibility to date in the video conferencing
environment, the Commission seeks to assess whether additional, more
specific performance objectives are needed for ensuring accessibility
and usability in the specific context of IVCS. Like all the performance
objectives currently included in part 14 of the Commission's rules,
these performance objectives, if adopted, would further define what
``accessible'' and ``usable'' mean in the IVCS context. IVCS service
providers and manufacturers would be required to meet these objectives
to the extent that they are achievable. However, the Commission also
seeks to ensure that any additional IVCS performance objectives it
adopts are relevant to various types of IVCS and are currently
achievable by at least some IVCS providers. The Commission seeks to
avoid limiting the incentives and opportunities for innovative design
in this rapidly developing industry sector, or adopting rules so
specific as to constitute de facto mandatory technical standards. In
this regard, the Commission notes that Sec. 14.20(b)(1) of its rules
requires ACS providers and manufacturers to ``consider performance
objectives set forth in Sec. 14.21 of its rules at the design stage as
early as possible.'' 47 CFR 14.20(b)(1). In some instances, adopting
more specific performance objectives may help focus the accessibility
design processes of IVCS providers on solutions that are most likely to
be relevant, effective, and achievable. In other instances, more
specific performance objectives might unnecessarily constrain design
choices.
10. Regarding each of the proposals discussed below, the Commission
seeks further comment on the specific benefits and costs of the
proposal, including: How would the proposed performance objective
promote accessibility of IVCS for people with disabilities? Is the
relevant accessibility problem already sufficiently addressed by the
more general performance objectives set forth in the existing rules? Is
the proposed performance objective likely to be achievable for at least
some IVCS providers? For example, are there commercially available
products or services that would meet the performance objective? Would
the proposed performance objective unduly constrain the design of video
conferencing platforms and services--and if so, how, specifically would
it do so?
11. The Commission emphasizes that commercial availability, or lack
thereof, is not dispositive of whether a performance objective is
likely to be achievable. However, it may be relevant, along with other
information, to a preliminary assessment of the overall likelihood that
a performance objective
[[Page 62]]
can be accomplished by at least some IVCS providers with reasonable
effort or expense.
12. The Commission also seeks comment on whether each proposed
performance objective is relevant and applicable to all IVCS, or only
certain subcategories of IVCS? The IVCS subcategory encompasses a wide
variety of video communication services. Some, like Zoom, Google Meet,
Microsoft Teams, or Facebook Messenger, are globally popular platforms
with millions of active daily users. Others, like Discord, Signal, or
Slack, have smaller customer bases and may cater to more targeted
audiences. Some video conferencing applications are designed primarily
for one-to-one video calling. For example, Slack's ``Huddles'' feature
allows for video conference calls, but the free version of the service
limits the call to two participants. Other possible examples include
dating apps like Tinder, Bumble, and Hinge. Some of the proposed
performance objectives may not be relevant on such platforms. The
relevance of certain kinds of accessibility solutions also may vary
depending on the type of device used to access a video conference. In
determining whether to adopt a specific performance objective, to what
extent should the Commission consider its relevance and applicability
to a wide range of video conferencing services? The Commission also
invites commenters to submit information about the range of video
conferencing services currently offered or under development and how
they currently address accessibility. For example, are there video
conferencing platforms that exclusively offer one-on-one communication,
without the ability to allow group calls? Are there platforms that
operate exclusively on particular kinds of devices, such as mobile
phones?
13. In addition to these general questions, which apply to all the
part 14 of the Commission's rules proposals discussed herein, the
Commission seeks comment on certain aspects of individual proposals and
particular accessibility issues, as discussed below.
14. Addressing Speech Disabilities. In the 2023 Video Conferencing
Notice, 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,'' by adding the further specification
stating: ``For interoperable video conferencing services, provide at
least text-to-speech functionality.''
15. The Commission seeks further comment on whether a more specific
performance objective is needed to ensure accessibility for people with
speech disabilities, if achievable. The record reflects that there is
more than one mode in which IVCS can potentially be made accessible for
people with speech disabilities, for example, by providing text-to-
speech functionality, or providing speech-to-speech functionality.
Regarding the latter solution, the record indicates that automatic
speech recognition technology has been applied to develop products that
automatically convert speech that is difficult to understand to speech
that is more understandable. In addition, the Commission notes that
enabling a connection to VRS or other sign language interpretation
services can also address accessibility for people with speech
disabilities who also know ASL. The Commission seeks further comment on
whether to modify this rule to specify text-to-speech functionality,
speech-to-speech functionality, or both.
16. To what extent are text-to-speech and speech-to-speech products
and services commercially available and widely used by people with
speech disabilities? What are the potential benefits and costs of
implementing text-to-speech and speech-to-speech functionality? How can
such products or services be integrated with videoconferencing
platforms? How do text-to-speech and speech-to-speech functionalities
compare, as accessibility solutions?
17. Sign Language Interpretation. The Commission seeks further
comment on whether additional specificity is needed in the performance
objective for sign language interpretation. A commenter argues that
this performance objective should not merely specify that IVCS enable
the use of sign language interpretation, but actually provide it (or
more specifically, provide ASL interpretation). The Commission seeks
further comment on the need for and feasibility of this proposal. If
VRS and video remote interpreting (VRI) are generally available to IVCS
users on an integrated basis, to what extent would there be a need for
IVCS providers to also provide sign language interpretation? Would such
a performance objective likely be achievable for IVCS providers, e.g.,
by using automated sign language interpretation software? While ASR
speech-to-text technology has been in development since 1952 and has
seen widespread commercial adoption across various sectors, automatic
sign language interpretation is a nascent technology. To what extent
has the accuracy and reliability of automatic sign language
interpretation been established?
18. User Control of Accessibility Features. In the 2024 Video
Conferencing Order, recognizing that user control of features is often
necessary for accessibility, the Commission adopted a new performance
objective specifying that IVCS and covered equipment and software used
with such services shall: (i) 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 interface
control is necessary for accessibility.
19. Some commenters sought a more detailed performance objective
that would list the specific aspects of captions, participant windows,
and other features that must be subject to user control. For example, a
commenter recommended that the Commission specify that users be able to
customize the appearance of captions, including options for font size,
font edges (i.e., outline, shadow, etc. to work without background)
color and background (color and transparency level).
20. The performance objective adopted in the 2024 Video
Conferencing Order requires IVCS providers to allow video conference
participants to independently alter the font, size, location, color,
and opacity of the captions and caption backgrounds appearing on the
participant's screen. It also requires, where relevant, participant
access to pinning and multi-pinning, spotlighting, and video window
reconfiguration features. The Commission seeks comment on whether
additional user-control performance objectives are necessary to further
ensure accessibility of IVCS.
21. A commenter recommends that IVCS performance objectives should
explicitly address the need for screen-reader verbosity controls. The
Commission notes that the adopted performance objective specifies that
users be able to activate and adjust features for which user interface
control is necessary for accessibility. Thus, verbosity controls, among
other user controls, are included in the performance objective to the
extent that they are necessary for accessibility. The Commission seeks
additional comment on the particular aspects of screen-reader verbosity
control that are most important in the video conference setting, and
any other considerations that should be taken into account in framing a
performance objective that specifically addresses verbosity control.
22. A commenter also suggests that IVCS users' accessibility
preferences should be stored and retained within the IVCS platform, so
users will not
[[Page 63]]
have to change the settings each time they use the service. To what
extent is this capability necessary for accessibility? Are there
technical challenges to implementing such a feature? If so, what, and
how severe, are those challenges? Should the settings be tied to the
video conferencing service, or to the type of device used to access it?
For example, should accessibility settings on a mobile version of an
IVCS platform be retained when accessing the platform's web
application?
23. Other Accessibility Proposals. A commenter recommends
performance objectives specifying that IVCS provide a gallery view mode
and ensure that a sufficient number of videos is supported without
degrading the quality of the video or audio. The Commission seeks
comment on these proposals. In what respect are such performance
objectives necessary for accessibility? What variables, if any, could
impact the quality of a user's video or audio if a user elects to have
numerous video windows displayed? What variables, if any, could impact
an IVCS provider's ability to provide high-quality videos?
24. The commenter also suggests a performance objective requiring
that video functionality, screen sharing, video window re-sizing, and
video sharing be compatible with tablets. The commenter states that the
performance objective can be achieved by designing the IVCS user
interface to be tablet-friendly, i.e., able to adapt between different
screen sizes and allow for multi-touch gestures and split-screen
multitasking. Another commenter objects to this proposal, contending
that tablet compatibility represents a de facto technical mandate. The
Commission does not mandate that any particular IVCS must be able to be
used on a tablet. However, the Commission recognizes that many IVCS
providers choose to make their products available on tablets.
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on whether to adopt a
performance objective specifying that, where IVCS is available on
tablets, it provide the functionalities described in the earlier
commenter's proposal. Would provision of the functionalities the
commenter describes, pose unusually difficult design or technical
challenges? To what degree do current IVCS offerings provide such
device-specific functionality? Should the Commission consider device-
specific performance objectives?
25. The Commission also seeks further comment on a commenter's
proposal to require IVCS providers to offer dedicated text and video
side channels. According to the commenter, these additional channels
are necessary to facilitate communication between sign language
interpreters and sign language users, and between multiple interpreters
in ``team interpreting'' scenarios. Another commenter objects to this
proposal, countering that some IVCS platforms do not offer text-based
communication, and requiring them to do so would constitute a technical
mandate and an economic burden. Additionally, the commenter contends
that because side channels are only tangentially related to the video
conference call itself, the absence of those channels should not affect
compliance with the video conferencing rules. The Commission seeks
comment on these arguments, as well as comments on the need for and
feasibility of this proposal.
26. Accessibility for People Who Are Blind or Have Low Vision. Part
14 of the Commission's rules currently includes a generally applicable
performance objective addressing the availability of visual information
for people who are blind or have low vision, which specifies that
visual information be provided through at least one mode in auditory
form. 47 CFR 14.21(b)(2)(i).
27. The Commission seeks comment on whether to amend this
performance objective to specify the provision of audio description and
visual image descriptive functionality, as well as compatibility with
third-party visual image descriptive services. The term audio
description refers to a feature that is required for some television
and other video programming pursuant to the Commission's part 79 rules.
Under those rules, an audio description of a program's key visual
elements must be inserted into natural pauses in the program's
dialogue. The term ``visual image description'' refers to a related
feature, described by a commenter as functionality that generates real-
time descriptions of visual information for people who are blind or low
vision. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which these terms
refer to different functions in the context of IVCS.
28. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on other ways that
relevant visual information could be provided in auditory form. Is the
provision of audio description of video and visual images implicit in
the existing performance objective? Would a rule directly specifying
the provision of audio description or visual image description, or
both, be helpful as a way of clarifying IVCS provider's obligations
under the existing rule? To what extent should the FCC mandate
compatibility with third-party description services, such as AIRA and
Be My Eyes, if at all? To what extent are third-party description
services currently being used in conjunction with IVCS, if at all?
29. The Commission also seeks comment on the scope of visual
information that should be provided through audio description in IVCS.
Section 14.21(b)(2) of the Commission's rules currently provides that
it covers all information necessary to operate and use the product,
including but not limited to, text, static or dynamic images, icons,
labels, sounds, or incidental operating cues. Does Sec. 14.21(b)(2) of
the Commission's rules sufficiently describe the kinds of visual
information that an IVCS provider is or should be required to make
available in auditory form, or should we amend it to provide greater
clarity? For example, should the Commission adopt a commenter's
recommendation to add ``shared documents,'' to the list of information
that must be made accessible? Should shared videos be included? Should
coverage of shared documents or videos be affected by the extent to
which a video conferencing service enables such sharing of visual
information by participants?
30. The Commission also seeks comment on the potential costs and
benefits of integrating audio description and visual image description
into IVCS platforms. Are audio description and visual image descriptive
third-party services commercially available? What are the technical or
financial challenges, if any, of integrating these services? How would
conference call participants access this function?
31. Tactile Mode. Two commenters request that performance
objectives be adopted or amended to provide that IVCS (and other types
of ACS) be operable and visual information be available in tactile
mode. Section 14.21(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules currently states
that, to be accessible, the input, control, and mechanical functions
advanced communications services, equipment and software must provide
at least one mode that does not require user vision. One of these
commenters urges the Commission to modify this performance objective to
read: ``Provide auditory and tactile modes that do not require user
vision.''
32. In addition, Sec. 14.21(b)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules
states that, to be accessible, advanced communications services,
equipment and software must: ``Provide visual information through at
least one mode in auditory form.'' The same advocacy organization urges
the Commission to modify this performance objective to read: ``Provide
visual information in both auditory and tactile forms.''
[[Page 64]]
33. These changes would make clearer what is required to make IVCS
(and other types of ACS) accessible to people who are deafblind or who
otherwise require that controls and information be accessed tactilely.
The Commission seeks comment on the benefits and costs of these
proposed changes, including specific examples of how they would improve
the accessibility of covered services and the equipment and software
used to access them.
34. Accessibility for People with Cognitive and Mobility
Disabilities. The Commission seeks comment on whether more specific
performance objectives are needed to address the challenges people with
cognitive and mobility disabilities face when attempting to access
video conferencing services.
35. Cognitive Disabilities. Currently, the performance objectives
set forth in Sec. 14.21 of the Commission's rules include a
performance objective specifying that IVCS should: ``Provide at least
one mode that minimizes the cognitive, memory, language, and learning
skills required of the user.'' 47 CFR 14.21(b)(1)(x). A commenter urges
the Commission to adopt a more specific performance objective
specifying the provision of ``a simplified secure modality for
initiating, authenticating and interfacing with a video conferencing
session.'' What would such a feature entail, and what is its likely
cost?
36. The Commission also seeks comment on a commenter's
recommendation to adopt a usability-related performance objective for
people with cognitive disabilities, specifying the provision of ``plain
and simple language and iconography on instructional materials on how
to activate a video conferencing session,'' to supplement the current,
more general usability objective specifying that people with
disabilities ``have access to the full functionality and documentation
for the product, including instructions, product information (including
accessible feature information), documentation and technical support
functionally equivalent to that provided to individuals without
disabilities.'' 47 CFR 14.21(c). Commenters are invited to submit
examples of instruction manuals, tutorials, or guides for other
products and services that have been produced for people with cognitive
disabilities.
37. Usability Generally. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether any other amendments to the usability provision of the rules,
Sec. 14.21(c) of the Commission's rules, are needed to ensure that
people with disabilities have access to the ``full functionality and
documentation'' for IVCS, including ``instructions, product information
(including accessible feature information), documentation and technical
support functionally equivalent to that provided to individuals without
disabilities.''
38. Mobility Disabilities. Currently, part 14 of the Commission's
rules prescribes several performance objectives specifying that ACS be
operable in various ways by users with mobility disabilities. The
Commission seeks comment on whether any more specific performance
objectives are needed to ensure that people with mobility disabilities
can access and use IVCS. For example, a commenter recommends that IVCS
user controls be accessible via voice activation or other hands-free
technologies. The Commission seeks comment on the likely costs and
benefits of such a requirement. Is this performance objective likely to
be achievable independently of the devices available to the user? For
example, could an IVCS provider develop or purchase a voice-activation
application for its user controls that is compatible with commonly used
user devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets, and PCs), and make it
available for downloading at no charge, or a nominal charge? What would
be the likely cost of such a solution? Alternatively, could an IVCS
provider ensure that its service is compatible with existing peripheral
devices or specialized customer premises equipment offering voice
activation?
39. Application to Covered Equipment and Software. Manufacturers of
equipment used for IVCS are required to ensure that their equipment and
software meets the performance objectives of Sec. 14.21 of the
Commission's rules, except to the extent that is not achievable. See 47
CFR 14.20(a)(1). The Commission seeks comment on whether additional
amendments to its part 14 rules are needed to ensure the accessibility
of equipment and software that is used to provide or use IVCS. What
kinds of equipment- and software-related challenges do people with
disabilities currently face in using end-user equipment and software to
access and use IVCS? Are such challenges sufficiently addressed by the
current part 14 of the Commission's rules? Are there specific
performance objectives that are uniquely or peculiarly applicable to
such equipment and software (as opposed to services), such that the
Commission should amend Sec. 14.21 of its rules to include them, to
ensure the accessibility of such equipment and software?
Part 64 Issues
40. VRS--Team Interpreting and Other CA-Related Issues. The
Commission seeks further comment on whether to authorize the TRS Fund
to support team interpreting by two VRS CAs from the same provider
participating simultaneously in a video conference, and on what
criteria should be applied for allowing such additional support. Under
the current rules, providers are free to provide team interpreting as
they deem necessary, but are only compensated for a single CA per call.
While guidelines for professional interpreters issued by the Registry
of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) reference a number of factors, those
factors are stated in very general terms, leaving much room for
subjective or discretionary judgment in their application.
Specifically, RID considers the length and complexity of the
assignment; unique needs of the persons being served; physical and
emotional dynamics of the setting; and avoidance of repetitive stress
injuries for interpreters. The Commission believes it would be
preferable to adopt a bright-line rule in this area. Two commenters
assert that the duration and complexity of a call are two important
factors in determining when team interpreting is needed, but no
commenter proposes specific, bright-line criteria for assessing these
or other relevant factors.
41. With respect to the considerations that may support team
interpreting, there appear to be significant differences between VRS
and traditional community interpreting. With community interpreting,
which is arranged by appointment, there is usually advance knowledge of
the likely duration and complexity of an assignment. In addition, the
assigned interpreter(s) cannot be quickly replaced, if that proves
necessary, after a meeting has begun. Therefore, a community
interpreting agency usually needs to determine in advance, based on the
likely duration and complexity of the assignment, how many interpreters
may be needed, and commit the time of those interpreters for the
duration. By contrast, with VRS, CAs can be added, as needed, to a call
or video conference whose duration is not known in advance. The
Commission seeks comment on these assumptions and how they should
affect its selection of criteria for authorizing team interpreting in
VRS.
42. In light of the above assumptions, would the duration of a
video conference, standing alone, ever justify
[[Page 65]]
assignment of a second VRS CA to be present simultaneously with the
first, regardless of the complexity of the video conference? For
example, for a video conference with only two participants, would team
interpreting ever be warranted, given that the CA can easily be
replaced on a long-duration call?
43. To address call complexity, if the Commission allows team
interpreting, should it set a minimum number of participants that must
be present in a video conference, to warrant compensation for a second
simultaneous VRS CA? If so, what number should that be? Alternatively,
should the Commission require a minimum number of registered VRS
users--or of hearing individuals, or both? For video conferences with
the requisite number of users, should the Commission also set a minimum
period of time that should elapse before a second VRS CA is added? For
example, should the Commission set 10 minutes, 30 minutes, or another
period as the minimum threshold for adding a second simultaneous CA to
a call? Under current Commission rules, a VRS CA assigned to a call
must stay with the call for a minimum of 10 minutes, unless the call
ends earlier. Meanwhile, a commenter cites research suggesting that a
significant loss of accuracy occurs after approximately thirty minutes
of interpretation due to mental fatigue and also notes that ASL
interpretation has an additional physical demand that is especially
pronounced during long calls. Other studies have found that 87.5% of
interpreters sampled suffered from some form of repetitive stress
injury, and that ASL interpretation was one of the highest-risk
professions for ergonomic injury. Additionally, the commenter states
that IVCS calls are on average seven times longer than VRS telephone
calls.
44. Are there other indicia of complexity that lend themselves to a
bright-line rule addressing compensation for an additional CA? What
call scenarios might be better served by having two CAs remain on the
call taking turns, rather than having a brand new CA enter the call to
relieve the current CA? Complexity of subject matter may be a
significant factor influencing whether there is a need for two
simultaneous CAs; but the subject matter of a video conference will not
be known to the VRS provider or the CA before it starts. Are there
objective factors that could be used to define the complexity of the
subject matter, and which, after a call begins, could be communicated
by the CA (without violating the Commission's TRS confidentiality rule)
to indicate to the provider that team interpreting is warranted for the
video conference?
45. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the TRS Fund
should provide compensation for the assignment of additional VRS CAs
when video conferences are split into breakout groups. The Commission
seeks comment on the extent to which these scenarios are likely to
occur, and whether they would justify a special rule. It also seeks
comment on how to most effectively address such scenarios. For example,
should the Commission modify the rule which allows a VRS provider to
respond to only one service request for a video conference (until the
first requester drops off)--to allow additional CA(s) to be assigned if
a second VRS user (or more) so requests after ending up in a breakout
room without a CA? How should the provision of additional service to a
breakout room be documented in call detail records (CDRs) submitted to
the TRS Fund administrator? And, how would a second VRS CA find out
which room to join?
46. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether to amend its
rules (1) to provide more specific guidance on how a video conference
participant who is a registered VRS user may request VRS (if the
initially requesting VRS user has disconnected) and (2) to enable a
participant to request the assignment of an additional CA (should the
user find the number of CAs on the call insufficient for effective
communication). The rules allow a registered VRS user to request that
VRS be extended if the requesting user drops off; however, a commenter
asserts that its system for automatically processing requests for VRS
in video conferences does not allow such a request while a CA is
already serving the video conference. Are there alternative, non-
automated means by which such requests could be efficiently made and
fulfilled, without causing a significant risk of waste, fraud, and
abuse? Could such a method be adapted to enable a participant to
request the assignment of an additional CA to a complex video
conference?
47. VRS--Use of Specialized CAs in Video Conferences. The
Commission seeks further comment on whether to amend its rules to
permit VRS providers to assign the provision of integrated VRS in video
conferences to CAs that have been specially trained to handle video
conferences, rather than to the first available CA, as is otherwise
required. In the 2024 Video Conferencing Order, the Commission finds
the current record insufficient to support such a rule, noting that not
every video conference may be sufficiently complex to require a
specially trained CA, and that speed of answer, as well as the quality
of TRS provided for traditional telephone calls could be affected if
the Commission were to authorize the assignment of specially trained
CAs from a select group to handle the provision of VRS in video
conferences.
48. A commenter contends that assigning video conferences to
specialist CAs will provide a more functionally equivalent experience
for VRS users participating in video conferences because those CAs will
be trained on the mechanics and features of various video conferencing
platforms, and so, will be able to more quickly and efficiently
interpret for the VRS user. The commenter adds that specially trained
CAs would be proficient in interpreting in large group settings as well
as navigating the accessibility features of each specific IVCS
platform, and that it would not be feasible to train every CA on these
factors. Another commenter agrees, that handling VRS calls in a video
conference setting requires CAs to possess specific skills, such as the
ability to manage multiple users in a video conference and familiarity
with various IVCS features and functionalities.
49. The Commission seeks additional comment on the proposal.
Currently, all VRS calls must be answered in the order received--a
requirement that is intended to ensure that VRS providers do not
discriminate against, or in favor of, particular VRS users. The
Commission recognizes that the assignment of CAs who are specially
trained to handle video conferences could raise the quality of VRS
provided in video conferences. On the other hand, it seems reasonable
to assume that, in general, CAs who qualify for assignment to video
conferences are also likely to have above-average skills and experience
in handling and interpreting for traditional telephone calls. The FCC
seeks comment on this assumption. It also seeks comment on the specific
challenges of video conferences that require special training for CAs?
Do all types of video conferences present such challenges, or only
those video conferences with many participants? How would the benefits
of improving service quality for video conferences compare with the
potential harm resulting from removal of highly qualified CAs from the
queue for voice calls? What steps could the Commission take to minimize
such potential harm? To limit such potential harm, should the
Commission require that specially trained CAs participate in both call
[[Page 66]]
queues, so that they can be available to interpret for voice-only calls
when not needed for a video conference? What other steps could the
Commission take to limit potential harm to service quality for
traditional voice calls?
50. Further, if only a limited number of CAs are trained to handle
video conferences, what impact would such a limitation have on the
speed of answer for video conferences? What percentage of VRS minutes
do providers estimate will involve video conferences, and what
percentage of CAs would need to receive special training to avoid a
significant decline in average speed-of-answer for video conferences,
relative to traditional telephone calls? To avoid excessive delays,
should the Commission require that a minimum number or percentage of
CAs be trained to handle video conferences? The Commission notes that
its speed-of-answer rule for VRS is substantially less strict than the
rule for other relay services. For most forms of TRS, providers must
answer 85% of all calls within 10 seconds, measured daily. 47 CFR
64.604(b)(2)(ii). For VRS, by contrast, providers must answer 80% of
all VRS calls within 120 seconds, measured on a monthly basis. 47 CFR
64.604(b)(2)(iii). However, service-quality competition among providers
generally has resulted in a substantially lower average delay in
answering VRS calls.
51. The Commission also seeks comment on the specific amount of
training that is necessary to ensure acceptable service quality for
video conferences. What is the estimated cost of such training, on a
per-CA basis? What would be the cost of training all of a provider's
CAs to handle video conferences?
52. Finally, there is some likelihood that, over time, the use of
VRS in video conferences may increase to a substantial percentage of
total VRS minutes. If the Commission were to authorize the use of a
specialist CA queue for video conferences, should it do so as a pilot
program with a sunset date, to ensure that the impact of this practice
and the need for it to continue can be assessed before deciding whether
to adopt a more permanent rule?
53. Integrated Provision of IP CTS. IP CTS is currently available
for use in video conferences where participants can connect by dialing
a telephone number. The Commission's part 14 rules now provide that,
unless it is not achievable to do so, IVCS providers ``shall enable
users to connect with third-party captioning services''--a category
that includes IP CTS--``so that captions provided by such services
appear on the requesting user's video conference screen.'' The
Commission also affirms that the TRS Fund supports the provision of
TRS--including IP CTS--in video conferences on an integrated basis, as
long as the service is provided in compliance with the TRS rules. The
Commission seeks comment on whether additional amendments to the rules
are needed to facilitate the integrated provision of IP CTS on a video
conferencing platform, that is, to participants who do not connect to a
video conference by dialing a telephone number, and to prevent waste,
fraud, or abuse of the TRS Fund.
54. As a preliminary matter, the Commission seeks comment on the
extent to which IP CTS is currently used in video conferences, as well
as the extent of demand and additional benefits likely to result from
its availability on an integrated basis. There are a number of
captioning solutions that are now or may soon be available in the video
conferencing context for people with hearing loss, including captions
provided by the IVCS provider, CART and other fee-based captioning
services, and captioning applications provided by various large and
small technology companies. The Commission seeks comment on the extent
of additional demand and additional benefits likely to result from the
availability of integrated IP CTS in video conferences. What factors
would lead a video conference participant to request integrated IP CTS
captions when the IVCS platform offers native captioning and
participants can view captioning from another source on their own
screen? To what extent do video conference participants who need
captioning currently use IP CTS rather than other sources of
captioning, and to what extent would they be likely to use integrated
IP CTS, if available? If a video conference participant invites IP CTS
captioning on an integrated basis to the call, will participants be
able to control the size, font, and placement of the captions? Should
the Commission adopt any other restrictions on the use of integrated IP
CTS captions to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse?
55. The Commission seeks comment on whether any amendments to the
current call detail requirements of the Commission's rules are
necessary to facilitate review and approval of compensation requests
for the provision of IP CTS in video conferences on an integrated
basis.
56. To prevent billing of the TRS Fund for duplicative captioning,
the Commission proposes to adopt a similar rule to that adopted for VRS
in the 2024 Video Conferencing Order. Specifically, the Commission
proposes that, if the captions supplied by an IP CTS provider can be
viewed by all video conference participants (rather than only by the
individual who requested captioning from an IP CTS provider), then the
provider shall not submit more than one CDR for that video conference
and shall not be paid for more than one instance of captioning to that
video conference. In other words, the total compensation received by a
single IP CTS provider for captioning a video conference would not
exceed the applicable compensation rate multiplied by the number of
minutes in the video conference. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to allow
compensation for the provision of IP CTS in a video conference to an
individual registered user, on a non-integrated basis, if the provider
is already providing IP CTS to all participants on an integrated basis,
at the request of another registered user. Further, are there any
circumstances in which more than one IP CTS provider is needed to
provide integrated IP CTS captioning in a video conference? If not, how
can the Commission prevent duplicative captioning?
57. Integration of Other Forms of TRS. The Commission seeks further
comment on whether and how it should amend its rules to facilitate the
provision in video conferences of non-internet-based TRS--TTY-based
TRS, CTS, and STS. These services, offered through state TRS programs,
are intended for use on an ordinary telephone line. While users of
these services may be able to participate in a video conference call
over a voice connection (where available), it is unclear whether or how
these forms of TRS could be integrated with video conferencing
platforms. Further, given the availability of IP CTS, which provides
the functionality of CTS and TTY-based TRS for users with internet
access, it seems unlikely that there would be significant demand for
integrated provision of these services in internet-based video
conferences. The Commission seeks comment on this assessment.
58. IP Relay is a service often used with refreshable braille
devices and screen readers and by the deafblind community. Would
integration of IP Relay with video conferencing service platforms
improve the ability of these or other consumers to participate in video
conferencing calls? Are there other steps the Commission should take to
facilitate an IP Relay user's participation in video conferences? The
Commission seeks comment on these issues and any rule changes that may
be necessary to
[[Page 67]]
facilitate the integrated provision of IP Relay in video conferencing
platforms.
59. Advancing Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. The Commission, as
part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all,
including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live
in rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and
benefits, if any, that may be associated with the proposals and issues
discussed herein. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how its
proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity,
inclusion, and accessibility.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
60. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended, the Commission has prepared the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed
in document FCC 24-95. Written public comments are requested on the
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines provided in the item. The Commission will send a
copy of the entire FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
61. Need for, and Objective of, Proposed Rules. In document FCC 24-
95, the Commission proposes to adopt additional requirements in part 14
of its rules to improve the accessibility of IVCS, a form of ACS.
First, the Commission seeks comment on whether to add a part 14
performance objective to its rules for video conferencing services to
provide text-to-speech and speech-to-speech capability for individuals
with speech disabilities, and whether to require IVCS platforms to
provide sign language interpretation, and the costs and benefits of
such actions. The Commission also seeks comment on additional part 14
performance objectives of its rules for user controls, video window
characteristics, and audio description and visual image description
services. Further, the Commission seeks comment on part 14 of its rules
requirements on IVCS platforms for persons with cognitive and motor
disabilities. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether
additional performance objectives are necessary to ensure that
equipment and covered software are accessible to people with
disabilities.
62. The Commission seeks comment on additional requirements in part
64 of its rules to facilitate the integration of TRS with video
conferencing services. The Commission seeks comment on whether there
are objective, bright-line guidelines that it could use to determine
when it would be warranted to compensate a VRS provider for sending a
team of two or more sign language interpreters to a video conference
call. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt
additional amendments to its rules to facilitate the integrated
provision of IP CTS for participants within a video conferencing
platform and how to prevent waste, fraud, or abuse of the Interstate
TRS Fund. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how it
could adopt rules to facilitate use of analog forms of TRS and IP Relay
on video conferencing calls.
63. In proposing these amendments to part 14 and part 64 of the
Commission's rules, the Commission addresses comments in the record
that recommend specific accessibility requirements for video
conferencing platforms to enable individuals with hearing, speech,
vision, cognitive, and mobility disabilities to participate in video
conference in a manner equivalent to the experience of individuals
without such disabilities.
64. Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to
Sec. Sec. 1, 2, 3, (4)(i), (4)(j), 225, and 716 of the Act, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 617.
65. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
Impacted.
66. If the proposed rules are adopted, the rules will affect the
obligations of providers of IVCS and providers of TRS. IVCS can be
included within the broad economic category of All Other
Telecommunications.
67. All Other Telecommunications. 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 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.
68. (TRS) Providers. TRS enables individuals who are deaf, hard of
hearing, deafblind, or who have a speech disability to communicate by
telephone in a manner that is functionally equivalent to using voice
communication services. Internet-based TRS connects an individual with
a hearing or a speech disability to a TRS communications assistant
using an internet Protocol-enabled device via the internet, rather than
the public switched telephone network. VRS one form of internet-based
TRS, enables people with hearing or speech disabilities who use sign
language to communicate with voice telephone users over a broadband
connection using a video communication device. IP CTS another form of
internet-based TRS, 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. A third form of internet-
based TRS, IP Relay, permits an individual with a hearing or a speech
disability to communicate in text using an internet Protocol-enabled
device via the internet, rather than using a TTY and the public
switched telephone network. Providers must be certified by the
Commission to provide VRS and IP CTS and to receive compensation from
the TRS Fund for TRS provided in accordance with applicable rules.
Analog forms of TRS, TTY, Speech-to-Speech Relay Service, and Captioned
Telephone Service, are provided through state TRS programs, which also
must be certified by the Commission.
69. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small
business size standard specifically for TRS Providers. All Other
Telecommunications is the closest industry with a SBA small business
size standard. ISPs and VoIP services, via client-supplied
telecommunications connections are 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
[[Page 68]]
firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on Commission
data there are 14 certified internet-based TRS providers and two analog
forms of TRS providers. The Commission however does not compile
financial information for these providers. Nevertheless, based on
available information, the Commission estimates that most providers in
this industry are small entities.
70. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. The proposed changes, if adopted, would impose
new or modified reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance
obligations on certain small entities that provide TRS, IVCS, or
manufacturer equipment and software for use with IVCS. Although, the
Commission cannot, at present, determine whether small entities will
have to hire professionals to implement and comply with the proposed
requirements, nor can it quantify the cost of compliance for small
entities, the Commission anticipates the information received in
comments, including cost and benefit analyses where requested, will
help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters
for small entities, including compliance costs and other burdens that
may result from the proposals and inquiries the Commission makes. The
Commission expects that the approaches it proposes will have minimal
cost implications for covered entities because many of these
requirements are part of existing reporting processes for these
entities. Further, 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.
71. Accessibility of IVCS Equipment. 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
Commission seeks comment on performance standards for ensuring
equipment used with IVCS are accessible and usable by people with
disabilities. Such performance objectives if adopted could modify
reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance obligations of such entities.
72. IVCS Recordkeeping. The Commission's existing rules require
that each provider of ACS (including IVCS) and each manufacturer of
equipment used to provide IVCS maintain, in the ordinary course of
business and for a reasonable period, records documenting the efforts
taken by such manufacturer or service provider to implement section 716
of the Act: 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. If the Commission
adopts additional performance objectives under Part 14 of its rules, it
may increase the amount of information that entities must retain and
report under the recordkeeping requirement. The time and resources
needed to fulfill this additional recordkeeping should be minimal given
the ongoing obligation to retain such records.
73. IVCS Reporting. The Commission's existing rules require that an
officer of each provider of ACS (including IVCS) and an officer of each
manufacturer of equipment (including software) used to provide ACS
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 Commission
anticipates that the form and content of the reporting will be
unchanged, but the office may require additional time to confirm the
records for any new performance objectives are kept in accordance with
the reporting requirements.
74. TRS Amendments. The proposed 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 would only apply to an entity that provides TRS to the
extent that users of that entity opts to participate in video
conference calls. Otherwise, the TRS compliance and reporting
requirements remain consistent with existing reporting obligations and
the Commission's proposals would only clarify those obligations without
changing the burden to small entities.
75. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered. Document FCC 24-95, seeks
comments on a number of alternatives that may impact small entities.
The proposed part 14 of the Commission's performance objectives would
be subject to options to make a product or service accessible by
incorporating accessibility features into the product or service itself
or by relying on third party applications, peripheral devices,
software, hardware, or CPE that are available to the consumer at
nominal cost. All Part 14 performance objectives of the Commission's
rules 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.
76. The proposed requirements would apply equally to all IVCS
providers and are necessary to ensure video conferencing is accessible
to and usable by people with disabilities. The amendments to the TRS
rules will only apply to the extent a small entity TRS provider allows
its users to participate in integrated IVCS calls. The Commission seeks
comment on multiple alternatives to ensure it is able to implement
rules to facilitate the availability of and compensation for multiple
communications assistants during a video conference call, while
minimizing the potential risk of waste, fraud, and abuse to the TRS
Fund in allowing such practices. Further developing this record will
allow the Commission to minimize potential burdens to small entities,
while protecting the integrity of the TRS Fund.
[[Page 69]]
77. Document FCC 24-95 seeks comment from all interested parties.
Small entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention
any specific concerns they may have with the proposals outlined. The
Commission expects to consider the economic impact on, and alternatives
for, small entities as identified in comments filed in response to
document FCC 24-95, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action
in this proceeding.
78. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with, the
Commission's Proposals. None.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-30501 Filed 12-31-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P