Second, adopting exclusively a subjective test to determine who may fall within the exemption would also frustrate the Department's ability to enforce FARA in accordance with its purpose. The Department would have to rebut a person's subjective claim that the “purpose” or the “intent” of the political activities had not been to benefit the public or political interests of the foreign government or foreign political party. Even if the Department were to adopt a test focused on the outward manifestations of a person's intent, rebutting such evidence would pose similar practical challenges for the Department's enforcement capacity. The Department declines to adopt a test that would so constrain its enforcement of the Act.

Other than the purpose or intent test, commenters did not offer any comprehensive test that would apply in all circumstances. Nor does the Department think one is feasible given the fact-dependent nature of the “predominant interest” inquiry. 13 Likewise, commenters proposed a series of tests, each of which would apply in different circumstances such as where state-owned enterprises are or are not at issue, where commercial and non-commercial interests are present, and the like. The Department concluded that this approach would become too unwieldy, given the myriad scenarios to which the exemption may apply.

Rather, based on all the comments received, as well as the Department's decades of experience administering and enforcing the 613(d)(2) exemption, the Department proposes three principal changes to the relevant regulation.

(1) The first change would make clear that this exemption applies to commercial and non-commercial entities alike, so long as the predominant interest being served is not foreign. This change is consistent with the statutory language, which draws no distinction between commercial and noncommercial entities, and addresses the concerns from commenters referenced above (and below in response to Question 5) about the scope of the exemption.

(2) The second change would create a set of four exclusions to the exemption. The exclusions focus only on the relationship (if any) between the activities and a foreign government or foreign political party. If there is no such relationship, then the exclusions will not apply and the exemption will remain available. In each instance, the facts would establish whether the predominant interest served by the activities is foreign. Under the proposal, an agent would be categorically precluded from obtaining the exemption if (1) the intent or purpose of the activities is to benefit the political or public interests of the foreign government or political party; (2) a foreign government or political party influences the activities; (3) the principal beneficiary is a foreign government or political party; or (4) the activities are undertaken on behalf of an entity that is directed or supervised by a foreign government or political party (such as a state-owned enterprise) and promote the political or public interests of that foreign government or political party.

The sources for these proposed exclusions to the 613(d)(2) exemption are the statute, the regulations, relevant legislative history, and the Department's experience over the decades analyzing and applying the exemption. 14

(A) The first proposed exclusion would cover cases in which there is evidence that the activities are intended to promote or benefit the political or public interests of a foreign government or foreign political party. In such cases, FARA registration should be required. There may be multiple motivations in any given case, but where there is evidence that an agent is motivated specifically to advance the political or public interests of the foreign government or foreign political party, there should exist at least a rebuttable presumption that the foreign interest predominates. In addition, because it may be difficult if not impossible to prove definitively which motivation is primary, the existence of an intent or purpose to advance the foreign interest should be determinative.

(B) The second proposed exclusion would cover cases where a foreign government or foreign political party itself is influencing the activities (as opposed to collateral activities outside the scope of FARA). The Department proposes that it should infer that influence is being exercised deliberately to benefit the foreign government or foreign political party. As with the first exclusion, the balance of the benefit accruing to domestic and foreign interests may be difficult to identify with certainty, but the existence of influence by a foreign government or foreign political party justifies withholding the exemption. Such influence may be exerted directly or through an intermediary; as a result, not every person relevant to the registrable conduct may appreciate that the influence originated with the foreign government or foreign political party. Although directing, controlling, owning, financing, and subsidizing are all ways a foreign government or political party may exert influence over the domestic person or the person's activities, and such influence may be exerted “directly or indirectly” ( i.e., through an intermediary), 15 such examples do not encompass the full spectrum of ways a foreign government or foreign political party may exert its influence. This proposed exclusion would allow the Department flexibility to determine if such influence is present in any form; if so, the exemption would not be available.

(C) The third proposed exclusion would cover cases where the principal beneficiary of the activities is a foreign government or foreign political party. The Department looked to the legislative history relating to the section 613(d)(2) exemption as well as, by analogy, a current regulation relating to the LDA exemption. In his remarks about this exemption, Senator Fulbright—who had introduced identical legislation in the previous Congress—stated that the bill “is not designed or intended to impair the normal contacts of company officials with government agencies and the Congress, even if the contacts would constitute `political activities' as defined in the bill, unless the principal beneficiary of the activities is the foreign subsidiary or parent.” 111 Cong. Rec. 6985 (1965) (statement of Sen. Fulbright). Further support for adopting this exclusion comes from the current regulatory test for exempting persons from the LDA, under which circumstantial evidence that the foreign government or foreign political party is in fact directing or controlling the activities prevents persons from using the exemption. 16

(D) The fourth and final proposed exclusion covers cases where a person's activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, or financed in whole or in substantial part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party (such as when a state-owned enterprise is involved) and promote that foreign country's or political party's public or political interests. To describe the second element of the exclusion, the Department proposes retaining language from the current regulation that excludes from the exemption activities that promote the public or political interests of a foreign government or foreign political party, 17 though the Department proposes removing the word “directly” before “promote” from the formulation, for the reasons discussed below in response to Question 4.

(3) The third proposed change would apply when these exclusions do not preclude the exemption. In such cases, the Department has identified a non-exhaustive list of factors to determine whether, given the totality of the circumstances, the predominant interest being served is domestic rather than foreign, such that the exemption should apply. These non-exhaustive factors include, but are not limited to: (1) whether the public and relevant government officials already know about the relationship between the agent and the foreign principal; (2) whether the commercial activities further the commercial interests of a foreign commercial entity more than those of a domestic commercial entity; (3) the degree of influence (including through financing) that foreign sources have over domestic non-commercial entities, such as nonprofits; (4) whether the activities concern U.S. laws and policies applicable to domestic or foreign interests; and (5) the extent to which any foreign principal influences the activities. While in many instances several factors may prove significant, in other instances a single factor may be dispositive; further, depending on the circumstances, the factors may overlap to various degrees (and sometimes completely). The Department expects that advisory opinions and enforcement actions will clarify how these factors apply to a range of activities.

As the discussion below explains, the sources for these factors are the current statute, the current regulations, relevant legislative history, and the Department's experience over the decades analyzing and applying the section 613(d)(2) exemption.

(1) The first proposed factor is whether the public and relevant government officials already know about the relationship between the agent and the foreign principal. The Department derived this factor from former section 611(q) of the Act, 18 which required for the section 613(d)(2) exemption to apply that the “identity of [the] foreign person is disclosed to the agency or official of the United States with whom such activities are conducted.” Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, Amendments, Public Law 89-486, sec. 1(5), 80 Stat. 244, 245 (1966). The Department proposes carrying that transparency concept forward by considering it as a non-exclusive factor in determining whether registration is required.

(2) The second proposed factor is whether the activities further the commercial interests of a foreign commercial entity more than those of a domestic commercial entity. The Department drew this factor from the current regulation as an initial matter, which considers whose commercial interests are furthered. See 28 CFR 5.304(c). Both former section 611(q) and other legislative history reflect the principle that a regulated party ought not lose the exemption simply because its activities further the interests of both the domestic enterprise as well as a related foreign enterprise, so long as the domestic enterprise's interests predominate. See Public Law 89-486, sec. 1(5), 80 Stat. at 245; H.R. Rep. No. 89-1470, at 11 (1966). Further, in the Department's experience, whose commercial interests are furthered most by the activities is a useful metric to consider when determining the predominant interest.

(3) The third proposed factor is the amount of influence, including through financing, that foreign sources (whether governmental or private) have over the activities of domestic non-commercial entities. Financing is only one way a foreign principal may exert influence over a domestic entity and its activities, however. 19 Further, in the Department's experience, assessing the extent of a foreign source's influence over domestic non-commercial entities' activities, whatever form it may take, is a useful metric to consider when determining the predominant interest being served.

(4) The fourth proposed factor is whether the activities concern U.S. laws and policies that are more relevant to domestic interests or to foreign interests. The Department identified this factor by looking to legislative history. As the Senate Report noted, “where the foreign subsidiary of a U.S. parent is concerned with U.S. legislation facilitating investment or expansion of production abroad[,] the locus of the interest will, also, as a general rule, be predominantly (even if not ultimately) foreign.” S. Rep. No. 88-875, at 12 (1964). In this way, the Department proposes considering whether the activities relate to U.S. laws or policies that are principally of interest or would principally benefit the domestic entity or the foreign entity to determine where the locus or the predominant interest lies.

(5) The fifth proposed factor is the extent to which any foreign principal (as defined in the Act, and not limited to a foreign government or a foreign political party in this context) influences the activities. Here, put simply, the greater the foreign influence involved, the greater the likelihood that this factor will favor a finding that the predominant interests served by the activities are foreign.

The Department proposes the foregoing as a non-exhaustive set of factors because the “[a]pplicability of the exemption will have to be judged on the facts of each case.” H.R. Rep. No. 89-1470, at 10. This means there may be other factors that come to light while administering and enforcing this exemption, and the applicability of the exemption must be evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances, taking all relevant factors into account.

Question 4: Is the language in 28 CFR 5.304(b), (c), which provides that the exemptions in sections 613(d)(1) and (d)(2) do not apply to activities that “directly promote” the public or political interests of a foreign government or political party, sufficiently clear? And does that language appropriately describe the full range of activities that are outside the scope of the exemptions because they promote such interests, including indirectly? Should the language be clarified, and, if so, how?

This question elicited responses from eight commenters, all of whom were in favor of clarifying the language referred to in the question. Commenters noted that guidance surrounding the “directly promote” standard was not clear and that revised regulations should make more explicit how the Department interprets that phrase. For example, one commenter indicated that the current regulatory language is unduly vague and subjective on its face and that the Department's interpretation of the term “directly promote” in various advisory opinions fails to provide the regulated community with a clear and consistent standard to facilitate public understanding and compliance.

The Department agrees that the use of the word “directly” in conjunction with “promotes” has led to many questions about the distinction between the direct and indirect promotion of a foreign government's or foreign political party's interests. The Department proposes to address this issue by deleting the word “directly” from the regulations relating to the exemptions at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1) and (d)(2).

The exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1) creates a test for determining whether commercial activities are “private” when state-owned enterprises are at issue. Besides eliminating the ambiguity these commenters referenced, deleting the word “directly” is consistent with the legislative history. For example, the House Report on FARA recognized that a foreign government's otherwise private or commercial activities would not be exempt if “the foreign agent promotes the political and public interests of a foreign governmental principal.” H.R. Rep. No. 89-1470, at 10 (emphasis added); see also S. Rep. No. 89-143, at 11 (same). The report nowhere distinguishes between direct and indirect promotion.

Accordingly, the Department proposes to revise the regulation's language to exclude from the exemption activities that promote—rather than directly promote—the public or political interests of the foreign government or political party.

The Department also proposes to delete the modifier “directly” from the regulation applicable to the exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(2), which covers activities not predominantly serving a foreign interest. Some commenters expressed concern that the “directly promote” test—which forms a key part of the section 613(d)(2) regulation—may require, as one commenter noted, a “privately held and controlled business” to analyze “whether its efforts to advance its own commercial interests could `directly promote . . . public or political interests' ” of a foreign government or foreign political party. By deleting the word “directly” from the proposed rule, the Department has eliminated this concern with respect to such privately held commercial enterprises unless the intent or purpose of their activities is to promote foreign government or foreign political party interests, or a foreign government or foreign political party is the principal beneficiary of the activities. Rather, under the Department's proposed rule, only activities on behalf of an entity that is directed or supervised by a foreign government or political party, such as a state-owned enterprise, that promote the political or public interests of a foreign government or political party would render the agent subject to the exclusion. As with the section 613(d)(1) exemption, removal of the modifier “directly” will remove the ambiguity present in the current regulation.

Question 5: What other changes, if any, should the Department make to the current regulations at 28 CFR 5.304(b) and (c) relating to the exemptions in 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1) and (2)?

Commenters from the nonprofit community suggested revising the regulations implementing section 613(d)(1) and (2) to explicitly include nonprofit activity. For example, one commenter suggested that the Department make clear that the section 613(d)(2) exemption applies equally to charities and commercial organizations. Another commented that the current regulation fails to make clear how a nonprofit organization without trade or commercial operations, as those terms are commonly understood, could benefit from the section 613(d)(2) exemption.

In another instance one commenter stated that the regulation should clarify that the section 613(d)(2) exemption applies in the context of a tax-exempt organization conducting activities in furtherance of its bona fide purpose.

The Department agrees that the proposed rule should make clear that the section 613(d)(2) exemption applies to nonprofit and commercial entities alike, so long as the activities do not serve predominantly foreign interests. The proposed regulatory text at 28 CFR 5.304(c) reflects this change.

Question 6: Should the Department issue additional or clarified regulations regarding this [bona fide religious, scholastic, academic and scientific pursuits or of the fine arts] exemption to clarify the circumstances in which this exemption applies? If so, how should those additional regulations clarify the scope of the exemption?

The seven commenters who offered a view on the section 613(e) exemption primarily wrote to express the view that the exemption should cover a broader scope of activity. One commenter urged the Department to narrow the definition of “political activities” to ensure that term does not capture legitimate and reasonable scholastic, academic, and scientific pursuits.

One commenter suggested that the regulation exempt all architecture, sculpture, painting, music, performing arts, literature, and fictional films. Furthermore, the commenter suggested broadening the applicability of the exemption to include those who engage in political speech, stating that doing so would provide more breathing room to civil society, and would not harm the government's core interest because of parallel protections found in 18 U.S.C. 951.

One commenter suggested that new regulations were not necessary, but that the Department should issue more detailed non-binding interpretive guidance that focuses this exemption on the direction or influence of a foreign government or political party.

The Department does not believe new regulations are necessary to address this exemption. The scope of the exemption has not been a frequently raised question during the advisory-opinion process, as demonstrated by the fact that there have been only five opinions issued on this topic in the last seven years. Given the often context-dependent nature of the inquiry, the Department agrees that it must exercise care and provide reasonable guidance, including through the advisory opinions process, concerning religious, scholastic, academic, and scientific pursuits, and the fine arts. FARA seeks to provide transparency for the U.S. public as to the activities of foreign agents in the United States so that the public can better assess messaging in light of the speaker's status as a foreign agent. The Department encourages the invocation of this exemption for bona fide religious, scholastic, academic and scientific pursuits, or fine arts activity, and encourages parties who are unclear about application of the exemption to their specific circumstances to use the advisory-opinion process pursuant to 28 CFR 5.2.

Question 7: Should the Department amend 28 CFR 5.306(a) to clarify when activities that relate to criminal, civil, or agency proceedings are “in the course of” such proceedings because they are within the bounds of normal legal representation of a client in the matter for purposes of the exemption in 22 U.S.C. 613(g)? If so, how should the Department amend the regulation to address that issue?

Multiple law firms or commenters representing the interests of attorneys submitted comments suggesting that the Department clarify the scope of 28 CFR 5.306(a), which interprets the exemption found at 22 U.S.C. 613(g) for persons qualified to practice law. One respondent commented that the current regulations would appear to require registration for statements to the media that could be made in substantially equivalent form in court without triggering a registration requirement.

Another commenter suggested that the Department identify the types of activities it considers as occurring “in the course” of legal proceedings, proposing that public relations, jury selection, media and social media efforts, and other out-of-court proceedings ancillary to in-court representation would not make a lawyer ineligible for the exemption.

One commenter suggested that it was unclear whether, under the current regulations, requesting an advisory opinion from the Department would qualify for the section 613(g) exemption. Under 22 U.S.C. 611(c)(1), however, an attorney seeking an advisory opinion from the FARA Unit about the applicability of the Act to the attorney's client is not in and of itself an act that requires registration under FARA.

One commenter suggested that the changes referenced in the question were unnecessary, however, and that such a change could be counterproductive in the long term because perspectives could shift over time regarding what kinds of activities by lawyers are within the bounds of normal legal representation.

The Department agrees with the majority of commenters who felt that it should clarify § 5.306(a). As revised, the proposed rule would clarify how the exemption applies in light of the realities of modern legal practice. First, proposed § 5.306(a) rephrases for clarity the language of the statutory exemption for persons qualified to practice law who are engaged in legal representation. Second, and in line with one commenter's suggestion, proposed § 5.306(b) would define the statutory term “legal representation,” clarifying that it includes activities commonly considered part of client representation in the underlying proceeding so long as they do not constitute political activities; for example, making statements outside of the courtroom or agency hearing room could qualify. The proposed rule is therefore consistent with current guidance in the Frequently Asked Questions section of the Department's FARA website. This guidance notes that the legal representation exemption “once triggered, may include an attorney's activities outside [judicial or administrative] proceedings so long as those activities do not go beyond the bounds of normal legal representation of a client within the scope of that matter.” U.S. Dep't of Just., FARA: Frequently Asked Questions (April 10, 2023), https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/frequently-asked-questions. Finally, proposed § 5.306(c) would retain the requirement from the existing regulation that the attorney must disclose that the attorney's representation is on behalf of a specific foreign principal to the court or agency decision maker regardless of whether any court or agency procedures require it.

Question 8: What other changes, if any, should the Department make to 28 CFR 5.306 to clarify the scope of the exemption in 22 U.S.C. 613(g)?

Two commenters commented on the applicability of FARA to non-attorneys. One suggested that non-attorney legal professionals should be eligible for the section 613(g) exemption. That commenter explained that it excludes paralegals and other non-attorney professionals from working on some matters based on a view that otherwise the non-attorney would need to register under FARA. Another commenter opined that registration appears to, but should not be, required for non-attorney researchers who had neither contact with the foreign client nor any role in public outreach on behalf of the foreign client.

The Department does not believe a rule is necessary to address whether non-attorney professionals and other legal support staff engaged in activities supervised by an attorney for or in the interests of a foreign principal are required to register under FARA. To date, no request for an advisory opinion has sought guidance on this issue, and staff supporting exempt legal representation do not commonly register under FARA. The Department also notes that questions regarding activities that are registrable under the Act turn to a significant degree on the nature of the activities themselves rather than the job title(s) of the person(s) engaging in them. While the Department believes that non-attorney legal professionals may fall within an attorney's section 613(g) exemption when providing support services for the exempt work, specific questions about the applicability of the statute to particular facts in such scenarios may be addressed through a request for an advisory opinion rather than formal rulemaking.

Question 9: Are there other aspects of the statutory exemptions that the Department should clarify, whether to make clear additional circumstances in which registration is, or is not, required?

Many commenters who responded to Question 9 requested that the Department clarify the 22 U.S.C. 613(h) exemption from registration under FARA for agents properly registered under the LDA. For example, one commenter stated that the Department had inappropriately narrowed the section 613(h) exemption through its guidance and advisory opinions.

Another commenter wrote to urge the Department to clarify the scope of the section 613(h) exemption. That was especially urgent, the commenter claimed, because of a recent Advisory Opinion noting that the section 613(h) exemption might not apply where a foreign government or political party is one of multiple principal beneficiaries of lobbying activities, which the commenter claimed had engendered significant confusion. The Department acknowledges the confusion to which the commenters refer, and the footnote in the Advisory Opinion to which the commenter referred does not reflect the present enforcement intentions of the Department. 20 The governing standard remains as it is written in the current regulation: “In no case where a foreign government or foreign political party is the principal beneficiary will the exemption under 3(h) be recognized.”  21

One commenter suggested that the Department sharpen its interpretation of the LDA exemption by eliminating the “principal beneficiary” standard from its regulations and replacing it with a purpose-based test. The Department declines to propose this approach for the section 613(h) exemption for the same reasons the Department declined to propose it for the section 613(d)(2) exemption. A purpose-based test would shift the burden to a great extent to the Department to ascertain the purpose of certain activity, as viewed from the outside, when it would be the agent who would possess critical probative evidence: the subjective knowledge as to the purpose of its activities. Such a test would frustrate FARA enforcement and undercut transparency under the Act. Rather, the Department will continue to deny the exemption in 613(h) in any situation where a foreign government or foreign political party is the principal beneficiary of the lobbying activity. This language is a good indicator of direction or control by a foreign government or foreign political party. In other words, in instances where a foreign government or political party is the principal beneficiary of the activities, that principal benefit provides circumstantial evidence supporting the fact that the foreign government or foreign political party is likely, in fact, requesting, ordering, directing, or otherwise controlling the activities.

Additionally, commenters suggested changes to one other exemption and an exclusion under the Act. First, one commenter representing the interests of nonprofit organizations suggested that the humanitarian exemption in 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(3) should be read broadly to include not just soliciting or collecting funds for medical aid, food, or clothing, but a broader array of charitable activities. The statutory language, however, is clear that the exemption applies to “the soliciting or collecting of funds and contributions within the United States to be used only for medical aid and assistance, or for food and clothing to relieve human suffering[.]”  22 The Department cannot expand the scope of a statutory exemption through regulation. See, e.g., Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 25 F.3d 1063, 1070 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

A second commenter suggested that the Department clarify the exception at 22 U.S.C. 611(d). Under that provision, certain news organizations are excluded from the definition of “agent of a foreign principal” when they are engaged in news or journalistic activities including certain activities related to advertising and subscriptions, as long as they are at least 80 percent beneficially owned by U.S. citizens, their directors and officers are U.S. citizens, and they are not influenced in certain ways by a foreign principal or by an agent of a foreign principal. The commenter suggested clarifying that this provision applies to online media platforms that provide news or press services.

The Department agrees with the commenter that there is no sound statutory or policy reason to distinguish between online and traditional print media with respect to this exclusion, and the statutory language does not in fact compel any such distinction. While it is true that an online-only media entity cannot qualify as a publication having mail privileges with the U.S. Postal Service and so cannot rely on that particular criterion in the exclusion, such a media entity could still qualify for the exclusion so long as it otherwise complies with the remaining criteria set forth in section 611(d). 23 Given the plain language of the statute and the generally straightforward interpretation, the Department does not believe that there is any need to clarify section 611(d) by regulation.

The Department asked three questions about the Rule 2 advisory opinion process.

Question 10: Should the Department revise 28 CFR 5.2(i) to allow the National Security Division longer than 30 days to respond to a Rule 2 request, with the time to begin on the date it receives all of the information it needs to evaluate the request? If so, what is a reasonable amount of time?

Those commenters who answered Question 10 were generally opposed to lengthening the 30-day time frame provided in the current iteration of 28 CFR 5.2(i). That said, one commenter offered that a 45- or 60-day response deadline, while problematic for time-sensitive business decisions, would be more realistic if the FARA Unit consistently could issue advisory opinions within those time frames. After considering these comments, the Department is not proposing changes to the current 30-day time frame to respond to advisory opinion requests. The Department notes, however, that 28 CFR 5.2(i) makes clear that the 30-day time frame is tolled for any period when the Department awaits any materials necessary to provide its current enforcement intention.

Question 11: Should the Department include with its published Rule 2 advisory opinions the corresponding request, with appropriate redactions to protect confidential commercial or financial information, so that the public may better understand the factual context of the opinion?

Commenters were generally in favor of the Department publishing the corresponding request with Rule 2 advisory opinions, with six commenters responding that publishing the request would be beneficial. Specifically, one commenter agreed that publishing the corresponding request would provide context helpful for the regulated community. Another responded that releasing the redacted versions of opinion requests would greatly assist the regulated community, but noted the importance of sufficient redactions to protect any trade secrets or similar confidences. On the other hand, one commenter found the current process—in which the Department summarizes the request in the text of the Advisory Opinion—to provide sufficient context without publication of the corresponding request.

After considering comments and reevaluating our current process, the Department is not proposing the publication of incoming requests for advisory opinions. The Department believes doing so would not provide enough benefit to account for the possible drawbacks of the proposed change. Anonymizing and publishing incoming requests would take significant staff hours and would delay the publication online of the redacted advisory opinions as FARA Unit staff consulted with the requester about the proposed redactions. Also, after redaction, this proposed practice is unlikely to provide the regulated community with significantly more material information than the Department's current practice of summarizing all the relevant portions of the incoming request in the published advisory opinion. Finally, the Department is concerned that the possibility of a request being published, with the attendant risk of inadvertent release of confidential business information, could chill interested parties from seeking opinions and thus frustrate the Department's goal of obtaining voluntary compliance with FARA.

Question 12: What other changes, if any, should the Department make to the current process for using advisory opinions pursuant to 28 CFR 5.2?

One commenter suggested that the Department set a specific timeline for posting an advisory opinion after it is issued to a requestor, and that the Department post more conspicuous notices on its website to alert interested parties when new opinions are published online.

The Department already announces publication of new advisory opinions through an announcement on FARA.gov as well as via social media alert, so a new regulation to that effect is unnecessary. And, while the Department believes that a regulation setting a schedule for publishing Rule 2 opinions is also unwarranted because they are already posted in a sequence that appropriately balances expedition with flexibility to accommodate administrative and other particular concerns, the Department is considering setting such a schedule as a matter of internal policy.

Multiple commenters also suggested that the Department should make it easier to search the published advisory opinions for specific text or topics or to access data uploaded to the FARA Unit's website. Again, while the Department does not believe a regulation is necessary to effect this change, it will consider this proposal as part of its efforts to modernize the way such data are made available to the public.

Apart from the commenters' proposals, the Department is also proposing amending its regulations regarding the issuance of advisory opinions to update the method for requesting an advisory opinion, clarify language related to requests for advisory opinions, and expand the information required to be provided with each request for an advisory opinion. The proposed rule would update and streamline the process by requiring that a portal on the FARA website be used for requesting an advisory opinion. In light of some requesters' confusion on this point, the proposed rule would also clarify the current language to emphasize that the Department will not respond to any request for its present enforcement intention that is not in compliance with the regulations. To provide the Department with the context necessary to assess the request, the proposed rule would also expand the information to be provided with each request to include, where applicable, a list of partners, officers, or directors or persons performing the functions of an officer or director, and relevant and material information regarding current or past affiliation(s) with a foreign government or foreign political party. Further, to clarify the required elements of a request for an advisory opinion, the Department is proposing dividing the subparagraphs in the regulation by transferring to its own subparagraph the requirement that all submissions be certified to be true, correct, and complete.

In the ANPRM, the Department posed a series of questions about defining the term “informational materials” as that term appears in 22 U.S.C. 614, labeling informational materials in various contexts, and changing the content of the conspicuous statement on those materials.

Question 13: Should the Department define by regulation what constitutes “informational materials”? If so, how should it define the term?

Recognizing the broad scope of “informational materials” in 22 U.S.C. 614, most commenters responded with only minor suggestions for regulations. For example, one commenter opined that there is no significant confusion about the meaning of “informational materials” at present and encouraged the Department to propose a broad definition if it chooses to propose one at all. Two commenters specifically referenced the need for the Department to address electronic forms of information, including websites, instant messaging, and social media content, especially given the statute's use of the term “prints,” which would seem to exclude electronic materials. Another commenter suggested that the Department should generally provide more guidance as to the types of materials requiring labelling and filing with the Department, and specifically suggested including details as to the content and formats falling within the definition, as well as illustrative examples. Finally, one commenter suggested adopting a definition that, consistent with FARA's original goal of targeting propaganda, focuses on whether the communication is reasonably adapted or intended to influence the recipient or the public with respect to U.S. policy or the interests or foreign relations of a foreign government or political party.

The Department appreciates commenters' suggestions on how best to define “informational materials,” and proposes a new regulation at § 5.100(g) that would tie the definition to the statutory definition of political activities. “Political activities” consists of certain efforts to influence the U.S. public or Government regarding U.S. policies or the interests of foreign governments or political parties. 24 The proposed definition of “informational materials” would also make clear that materials can qualify as informational materials regardless of how they are transmitted. Other proposed regulations about how to label informational materials distributed through a wide array of media also make that point clear. The Department does not propose a regulation that would exhaustively list the myriad ways informational materials may be transmitted in the modern age, however, because such a list would become outdated through technological innovation. Further, in agreement with some commenters, § 5.401(h) of the proposed rule would confirm that the term “political propaganda,” where still found in the Act, is defined to mean the same thing as “informational materials.”

Finally, the proposed rule would also clarify the term “request” in 22 U.S.C. 614(e). Section 614(e) generally requires that information furnished to an agency or official of the Government in the interest of a foreign principal contain a statement that the person is registered under the statute as an agent of that foreign principal. The proposed rule specifies that all communications related to an agent's request regarding information or advice, such as communications to schedule a meeting to discuss the request, are covered by section 614(e). In this way, these “scheduling” communications would also require a conspicuous statement about the agent's relationship to the foreign principal.

Question 14: What changes, if any, should the Department make to the current regulation, 28 CFR 5.402, relating to labeling informational materials to account for the numerous ways informational materials may appear online? For example, how should the Department require conspicuous statements on social media accounts or in other communications, particularly where text space is limited?

Many commenters suggested that the Department issue a regulation requiring conspicuous statements on social and electronic media, but respondents were split on the specific instances where such statements were necessary and on ideas for implementation. For instance, one respondent recommended adopting a flexible, standards-based approach applicable across all media platforms, and providing illustrative examples to assist regulated parties. However, that respondent and several others recommended against requiring a conspicuous statement on every digital communication because doing so would preclude the use of certain digital media platforms with limited space for each communication.

More than one commenter recommended looking to practices of other agencies with similar labeling requirements, including the disclaimer requirements for the digital context adopted by the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.

One commenter specifically suggested adopting a two-pronged approach, in which firms distributing digital communications on behalf of a foreign principal would be required to include a conspicuous statement on the account or profile distributing the propaganda, like the one suggested in a recent legislative initiative by Sens. Shaheen and Young, and would also be required to place a marker like a checkmark on each individual communication indicating that it is being distributed on behalf of a foreign principal. Another commenter suggested that the Department should adopt different requirements for different media. For streaming media like audio and video, the conspicuous statement would need to be included at the beginning and end of every communication. For social media accounts, the conspicuous statement would need to appear on the user's profile and on all posts. For longer form digital media, the conspicuous statements should be included in any biographical information about the writer and at the beginning and end of each post.

In response to the commenters' suggestions, the Department considered the practices of other agencies with respect to social media labeling requirements. While it has incorporated best practices from those agencies' various guidance documents into its proposed rule, the Department did not find any regulations that were appropriate to import wholesale into the FARA context. Instead, in light of the comments received and based on the Department's own analysis of labeling concerns, § 5.401 of the proposed rule would provide a standard labeling requirement for all informational materials that is subject to other requirements in specifically enumerated contexts. Under § 5.401(b) of the proposed rule providing the generally applicable default requirements, the standard label must satisfy the requirements of the conspicuous statement, including a new requirement that it contain the country (or state, territory, or principality) in which the foreign principal is located, and be set forth at the beginning of the materials in the same language as the rest of the materials and in a font and color that are easy to read.

The proposed rule then sets out other contexts that require a different labelling approach. First, as one commenter discussed, for materials that contain the author's byline or biographical information, or the identifying information of a digital author or account, there is a need for transparency through a conspicuous statement in that location. Second, with television and broadcasts (including internet-based audio/visual transmission or television), the Department proposes that different rules need to apply, as set forth in response to Question 15 below. Third, the Department also proposes that still or motion picture films also require different rules to enable the public to see and understand the conspicuous statement in those formats. Fourth, the Department is proposing different requirements to apply when the informational materials are posted on internet websites or platforms. The proposed rule varies depending on whether the registrant has administrative rights (and thus an ability to post conspicuous statements in different parts of the website or platform). In either case, however, the proposed rule would account for situations where the internet platform or website does not provide sufficient space for the full conspicuous statement by requiring that the internet post include an embedded image of the conspicuous statement instead.

Question 15: Should the Department amend the current regulation, 28 CFR 5.402(d), relating to “labeling informational materials” that are “televised or broadcast” by requiring that the conspicuous statement appear at the end of the broadcast (as well as at the beginning), if the broadcast is of sufficient duration, and at least once per hour for each broadcast with a duration of more than one hour, or are there other ways such information should be labeled?

Two commenters were in favor of amending the regulations as described in Question 15. One commenter opined that additional regulations are unnecessary because existing regulations adequately inform recipients about how to find information about the foreign principal.

The Department considered these views and its own experience administering and enforcing the labeling provisions in this context when drafting the proposed rule. Proposed 28 CFR 5.401(d) would add a requirement that informational materials that are broadcast must be both introduced with and concluded by a statement that reasonably conveys that the person responsible for the materials is an agent; in contrast, the current regulation only requires that such a statement introduce such material. This proposed change would account for the fact that viewers or listeners of real-time broadcasts may tune into the programming when it is already underway, thus missing the initial conspicuous statement. Bookending the statements at the beginning and end of programming would increase the likelihood the conspicuous statements will be viewed or heard by consumers of the content. Similarly, the Department proposes adding a requirement that programming which lasts longer than one hour include a conspicuous statement every hour that the programming runs to increase the likelihood that a viewer or listener will see or hear the statement.

Question 16: Should any changes to regulations relating to the labeling of “televised or broadcast” informational materials also address audio and/or visual informational materials carried by an online provider? And, if so, should the regulations addressing labeling of such audio and/or visual information materials be the same as for televised broadcasts or should they be tailored to online materials; and, if so, how?

The few respondents who submitted a comment on this question generally thought that the regulations should be updated so that the requirements for modern information platforms were harmonized with legacy media types. One respondent recommended that the Department strive for parity between digital and analog content so that the resulting filing requirements would be as neutral as possible with respect to technology and platform. Another suggested that the Department update its regulations to account for the growing use of social media influencers in foreign principals' attempts to influence the U.S. public. Finally, another commenter argued that the regulations should require at least the same level of notification for streaming media as they do for traditional televised or broadcast media.

Having considered the foregoing comments, the Department has proposed regulations that would clarify that labeling requirements for “broadcasts” include audio-video transmittals made through internet-based websites and other electronic platforms that are reasonably calculated to reach an audience in the United States.

Question 17: Should the Department amend 28 CFR 5.402 to ensure that the reference to the “foreign principal” in the conspicuous statement includes the country in which the foreign principal is located and the foreign principal's relation, if any, to a foreign government or foreign political party; and, if so, how should the regulations be clarified in this regard?

Neither of the two commenters who responded specifically to Question 17 believed that the benefit that such a change would have on increased transparency outweighed the burden on registrants. Both noted that the information referenced was already on file and publicly available with DOJ.

Despite these comments, the Department assesses that disclosure of the country (or state, territory, or principality) wherein the foreign principal is located is justified in service of FARA's transparency goals. Corporate foreign principals may have business names that provide no context as to the work of the corporation or its geographic location. Adding the name of the country where the principal is located does not make the disclosures significantly more onerous and does provide important information at the point of viewing for those in the audience that do not follow up by viewing the information on the public record. Accordingly, the Department proposes a regulation that would require such location information as part of the conspicuous statement.

Question 18: What changes, if any, should the Department make to its regulations to account for the eFile system that was adopted after the regulations were last updated in 2007?

One commenter responded that the Department should undertake a “comprehensive review” of its regulations and update them to account for eFile. Several other respondents gave suggestions for improvements to eFile itself and how the information should be submitted to the Department ( e.g., in structured data fields to make searches easier).

The Department greatly appreciates these practical recommendations for improvement of its FARA eFile system. The Department has continued to improve upon the eFile system, moving to a web-form fillable format for new registrants in September 2019; that system streamlines the inputting of information, provides for the collection of data in structured data fields, and increases search functionality. The Department finished migration of all active legacy registrants ( i.e., those registered prior to September 23, 2019), who had been uploading fillable PDFs to comply with their registration obligations, to the new structured data format for all future filings ( e.g., amendments, supplemental statements, exhibits, short forms, informational materials) as of May 28, 2022. The Department agrees that some regulatory changes are necessary to account for technological advancements. Accordingly, proposed §§ 5.3, 5.5, and 5.206 would change how registration statements and other documents are filed as well as how registration fees are paid.

Additionally, the proposed rule would clarify that visits to the FARA Public Office are by appointment only. The FARA Public Office is open to the public for review of certain public records, including whether someone is registered. The vast bulk of those records, however—including the FARA Unit's holdings pertaining to active registrations from 1991 to the present, except for certain short form registration statements containing personally identifiable information—are readily available, at no cost to the public, through the Department's FARA website.

Question 19: Should the Department amend 28 CFR 5.1 to require—separate from the registration statements, supplements, and related documentation—that agents provide their business telephone numbers and business email addresses to facilitate better communications with the FARA Unit?

Commenters were generally in favor of this proposal, and two commenters specifically noted, to the extent business contact information was required, the underlying ostensible need for residential contact information would disappear. The Department believes that it needs both business contact information and residential addresses for effective administration and enforcement of the Act, however. In the Department's experience, having such information is necessary to ensure that the Department can effectively seek overdue filings and the curing of deficient ones. Under the proposed rule, the business contact information would be provided to the Department separately from the registration statement and supplements.

The Department has undertaken a review of the current regulations to identify areas in need of clarification and modernization. Based on the comments received in response to the ANPRM and as discussed in greater detail above, the Department proposes to issue new regulations to provide additional guidance in key areas and to revise, clarify, and modernize existing provisions. The proposed changes to the regulations are summarized below in topic-oriented fashion; for additional detail, see the material accompanying the various questions from the ANPRM set forth above.

The Department proposes new regulations regarding (i) exemptions to FARA's registration requirement; (ii) the filing and labeling of informational materials; and (iii) miscellaneous issues largely to ensure the regulations keep pace with technological changes.

FARA contains eight exemptions that allow a person engaging in otherwise covered activities for or in the interests of a foreign principal to be exempt from registration if certain criteria are met. The Department proposes two changes to § 5.304, addressing exemptions for bona fide trade and commerce, or activity that does not serve predominantly a foreign interest, 22 U.S.C. 613(d), and changes to § 5.306 addressing the exemption for activity by attorneys in connection with certain proceedings, investigations, and inquiries, 22 U.S.C. 613(g).

FARA provides exemptions for persons who engage or agree to engage only in either “(1) private and nonpolitical activities in furtherance of the bona fide trade or commerce of such foreign principal; or (2) in other activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest.”  25 With regard to the first exemption, the Department proposes two changes to the regulation. The first, to § 5.304(b), would delete the word “directly” in the phrase “directly promote” to clarify that the exemption does not apply when the agent engages in political activities or where the activities promote—rather than “directly promote,” as the current language reads—the political or public interests of a foreign government or foreign political party. Doing so would remove the ambiguity flagged by commenters and would be consistent with legislative history, as explained in Section III.B.1 of this preamble.

The second proposed change affecting § 5.304(b) of the regulation implementing section 613(d)(1) would allow a person or employee of such person who engages or agrees to engage only in promoting bona fide recreational or business travel to a foreign country to come within this exemption where the agent's relationship to a foreign principal is apparent to the public. In the past, the Department has taken the position that such activities are political because recreational tourism “creates an influx of capital and a host of jobs” for the local population and has therefore required registration for such activities. 26 The Department has reconsidered that position in the course of analyzing revisions to the FARA regulations. The Department now believes that the promotion of recreational or business tourism is too attenuated from the definition of political activities to warrant imposing FARA registration obligations on agents who promote only recreational or business tourism in foreign countries. Moreover, given that “[f]oreign governments engage in private activities of a commercial nature” that—as is the case with promoting recreational tourism—“may not[ ] involve political or policy matters,”  27 the Department concludes that persons engaged only in promoting bona fide recreational or business tourism to foreign countries are engaged in private activities “in furtherance of the bona fide trade or commerce” of a foreign principal. 28 CFR 5.304(b). Those activities do not, for purposes of section 613(d)(1), promote the public or political interests of the foreign government or foreign political party. Even without FARA registration for these persons, however, the Department expects the foreign interests to be apparent to the American public because the activities will necessarily identify the specific country to which recreational or business tourism is being promoted and because entities engaged in such work typically incorporate the name of that country into their own brand names.

Regarding the exemption in section 613(d)(2), the Department proposes substantial revisions to the current regulation, 28 CFR 5.304(c), based on both the public comments and our own experience applying the current regulation over the past two decades. There are three proposed changes. The first change would make explicit that, consistent with the plain meaning of the statutory language, the exemption applies to noncommercial interests as well as commercial interests. The public comments were consistent in their request for such clarity. See Section III.B.1 of this preamble.

The second change would create a set of four exclusions to the exemption. The exclusions focus only on the relationship (if any) between the activities and a foreign government or foreign political party, which is the key relationship animating the need for FARA registration. The Department has selected specific exclusionary circumstances that are appropriate proxies for the statute's predominant-interest test. Under the proposed rule, an agent would be considered to serve a predominantly foreign interest and categorically precluded from qualifying for the exemption if (1) the intent or purpose of the activities is to benefit the political or public interests of the foreign government or political party; (2) a foreign government or political party influences the activities; (3) the principal beneficiary is a foreign government or political party; or (4) activities on behalf of a state-owned enterprise (or an entity that is directed or supervised by a foreign government or political party) promote the political or public interests of that foreign government or political party.

The third change would apply when none of these exclusions are triggered. In those circumstances, the Department is proposing to replace its current test, which applies only when state-owned enterprises are involved. The Department is instead proposing to adopt a totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine whether the activities in question predominantly serve a foreign or domestic interest. To guide that test, the Department is proposing a set of non-exhaustive common factors that it may consider in future cases. The Department declines to propose a bright-line rule; the subjective test offered by commenters is problematic for the reasons explained in Section III.A.B.1(b) of this preamble, and a test that accounts for all scenarios could not otherwise be identified. The Department also declines to propose a series of tests that would apply separately in particular contexts ( e.g., separate tests for the commercial and non-commercial contexts or for cases where a state-owned enterprise was or was not involved) because the Department concluded that these tests quickly became too numerous and unwieldy.

To guide its totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry, the Department proposes factors drawn from components of the legislative history of section 613(d)(2) as well as the Department's decades of experience evaluating this issue. The Department proposes the following non-exhaustive factors: (i) whether the public and relevant government officials already know about the relationship between the agent and the foreign principal; (ii) whether the commercial activities further the interests of the domestic commercial entity more or less than the foreign commercial entity; (iii) the degree of influence (including through financing) that foreign sources have over domestic non-commercial entities such as nonprofits; (iv) whether the activities concern laws and policies applicable to domestic or foreign interests; and (v) the extent to which any foreign principal influences the activities.

FARA provides for an exemption to registration for persons qualified to practice law who engage or agree to engage in legal representation of a disclosed foreign principal before a court or any agency proceedings, investigations, or inquiries. 28 Practitioners have expressed frustration with the regulation's lack of clarity about when activities outside of the courtroom, agency hearing room, or investigation or inquiry may still be covered by the exemption. The proposed rule in § 5.306 would clarify that the attorney of record in any of the covered proceedings, investigations, or inquiries can also provide certain information about the activities to others, such as the press, without losing the exemption. Those hearing or reading the information the attorney provides will recognize that the attorney is acting as the agent of the client and can consider that fact in evaluating the information without the need for the attorney to register.

The proposed rule in § 5.306(b) also would clarify that, to stay within the parameters of the exemption, the attorney's activities outside of the proceeding, investigation, or inquiry must not constitute “political activities” within the meaning of FARA. This means, for example, that the attorney could not qualify for the exemption while seeking to persuade persons who are not involved in the proceeding, investigation, or inquiry—such as the public or Congress—to adopt or change foreign or domestic U.S. policy. Doing so goes beyond the bounds of normal legal representation of a specific client in a specific matter and goes to the heart of the transparency goals of FARA and thus requires registration.

The Department is proposing a comprehensive overhaul of FARA regulations regarding “informational materials,” largely to keep pace with technological advances. 29 FARA states that any agent who distributes “informational materials”  30 to two or more persons must file two copies of those materials with the Department within 48 hours and that, regardless of the number of persons who receive the materials, those materials must contain a conspicuous statement that discloses that they are being distributed on behalf of the foreign principal. 31 Based on the comments received to the ANPRM, as well as the Department's own analysis of the need for regulatory changes, the Department proposes four key changes.

First, in § 5.100(g), the Department proposes defining “informational materials” by regulation (for the first time) as any material that the person disseminating it believes or has reason to believe will, or which the person intends to in any way, influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States, with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party. Informational materials that satisfy the proposed definition would require a conspicuous statement that they are being distributed on behalf of the foreign principal. 32 The definition also makes clear that the way the materials are distributed—in print, online, or by any other method—has no bearing on the statutory requirement to file and label them.

Second, in §§ 5.3-5.5 and 5.206, the Department proposes changes to reflect that the Department has adopted a FARA eFile system that makes it easier for new registrants to keep their registrations current and for the public to search for and download information about FARA registrants. One key change, in § 5.400, is that, absent special circumstances, agents will be required to file their informational materials through the eFile system.

Third, in response to frequent calls to update FARA regulations due to technological advances in how informational materials are disseminated (such as over social media), the Department proposes in § 5.401 significant changes relating to how informational materials must be labeled. 33 To enhance transparency, the Department proposes that the conspicuous statement itself include the name of the country or territory where the foreign principal is located because that information may not be evident from the registration materials. The proposed labeling regulations then set forth a standard labeling requirement that will vary slightly depending on the medium through which the materials are disseminated, such as through television, radio, or social media platforms. Each labeling requirement is intended to maximize transparency while considering the nature and limitations of the medium by which the informational materials are disseminated.

Fourth and finally, the Department proposes in § 5.401(h)(2) to clarify that, when an agent requests information or advice from any agency or official of the government (including Congress), those communications—even when they pertain only to scheduling meetings to discuss the request—must contain a statement about the agent's relationship with a foreign principal. 34 This proposed rule would fill a current gap that allows agents to schedule meetings to discuss a request with government officials without ever having to identify the foreign principal for which the request is going to be made until the agent raises the foreign principal's request at the meeting.

The Department proposes two other categories of regulatory changes and various miscellaneous changes to the existing regulations. The first, in § 5.2, relates to the Department's issuance of advisory opinions. 35 The current regulations provide that a person may submit an inquiry to the Department and obtain, for a small fee, a determination of whether FARA applies to current or contemplated activities. Among other changes, the proposed rule would require the inquiries be submitted through the FARA website, expand the information required to be submitted, and clarify who should sign the inquiry.

The second category, in §§ 5.212, 5.600, and 5.800, is a series of proposed provisions necessitated by recent technological changes. These include how registration statements are filed, how registration fees are paid, the limited need for in-person public examination of registration statements when they are available online, and the Department's need for an agent's business email address to expedite communications with the agent.

In addition, the Department proposes a number of conforming changes to the regulations in light of the other changes proposed in this NPRM.

To the extent not already discussed above, these additional proposed changes are as follows, in the order in which they appear in the proposed rule:

(1) For uniformity, all references to the “FARA Registration Unit” in part 5 would be replaced by the “FARA Unit.”

(2) Section 5.1(c) would be amended to add that copies of the Act, and of the rules, regulations, and non-fillable exemplars of forms, may be obtained from the Department's FARA website in addition to, as is currently the case, in hard-copy form upon request without charge from the FARA Unit.

(3) Section 5.2(c) would be amended to require that payment of the filing fee for a Rule 2 advisory opinion must be made electronically via the Department's FARA website.

(4) Section 5.2(d) would be amended to require that a request for a Rule 2 advisory opinion be submitted in writing to the FARA Unit via the Department's FARA website rather than sent to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security.

(5) Section 5.2(e)(4) would be amended for clarity to require the party to include the statutory or regulatory basis for the exemption claimed only in instances in which the party is claiming such an exemption.

(6) New § 5.2(e)(5) would be added to require that, when a request for a Rule 2 advisory opinion is not regarding an individual, the request must include a list of partners, officers or directors or persons performing the functions of an officer or director of the entity and all relevant and material information regarding their current or past affiliation with a foreign government or foreign political party.

(7) Section 5.2(f), previously titled “Certifications,” would be retitled “Required Signatures.” The substance of the final sentence of current § 5.2(f), which deals with the certification that a request for a Rule 2 advisory opinion is true, complete, and correct, would be incorporated into new § 5.2(h).

(8) The final sentence of § 5.2(g) would be amended to clarify that all subsequent submissions by a party in connection with a request for a Rule 2 advisory opinion should be signed by the same person or persons who signed the original request “except for good cause,” to ensure consistency of attestation as to the contents of the submissions.

(9) New § 5.2(h), “Certifications,” would be added to incorporate the substance of the sentence that is currently at the end of § 5.2(f), as noted above, and to clarify that the required certification must be made in connection with the initial request for a Rule 2 advisory opinion pursuant to § 5.2(f) and any subsequent submissions of additional information pursuant to § 5.2(g).

(10) New § 5.2(o) would be added to make clear that the Department will not respond to a request for a Rule 2 advisory opinion that is not in compliance with all of the requirements of § 5.2.

(11) Section 5.3 would be revised to remove the requirement that all filings be made in hard copy. Instead, all filings would be required to be made electronically through the FARA eFile system, which is available through the Department's FARA website. Documents would be deemed filed upon their submission electronically and the payment of registration fees, all through the FARA eFile system.

(12) Section 5.5 would be revised to require that all registration fees shall be paid electronically through the FARA eFile system, doing away with the requirement of payment by cash, check, or money order.

(13) Section 5.100(a) would be amended to add new subsection (13), establishing “FARA Unit” as a defined term.

(14) Section 5.202(e) would be amended to eliminate the reference to “Form OBD-66” and to state instead that a short form registration statement shall be filed on a form provided by the Department; to require that a short form registrant must file a separate Short Form Registration Statement for each foreign principal represented by such registrant; and that any changes affecting information previously furnished shall be filed as an amendment to the short form registration statement rather than via a new short form registration statement.

(15) Section 5.206(b) would be amended to eliminate typewritten or handwritten filings of registration statements and related documents and to require that all such filings be made through the Department's FARA eFile system.

(16) New § 5.206(e) would be added to specify the circumstances under which a registrant may disclose required information via the uploading of a spreadsheet to the Department's FARA eFile system.

(17) New § 5.212 would be added to require that each registrant provide a business email address and business telephone number, in order to facilitate easier communications with the FARA Unit.

(18) Section 5.302 would be amended to replace the outdated reference to “Notification of Status with a Foreign Government (Form D.S. 394)” with “Notification of Appointment of Foreign Government Employee via the Department of State's electronic system (eGov) or equivalent successor system.”

(19) Section 5.600 would be amended to eliminate the reference to “political propaganda,” to state that registration statements and related material required to be filed by a registrant will be available to the public via the Department's FARA website, and to state that to the extent any registration statements or any other publicly available materials filed pursuant to FARA are not available on the FARA website, they may be viewed at the FARA Unit by appointment, during the posted public hours of operation on an official business day.

(20) To eliminate a discontinuity in the numbering of the regulations, current § 5.402 would be re-numbered as § 5.401.

(21) Section 5.800 would be amended to replace the requirement of deposit in the U.S. mails with submission through the Department's FARA eFile system.

(22) Section 5.1101 would be amended to state that copies of the Report of the Attorney General to the Congress on the Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, shall be made available to the public on the Department's FARA website free of charge, rather than being sold to the public.

Although this topic did not come up in the public comments to the ANPRM, the Department examined whether it would be possible to propose a regulation that would allow FARA Unit personnel to redact the residential addresses of FARA registrants from the registration statements and supplements prior to making them publicly available online. Continuing to make this information available online may create privacy and safety concerns for registrants lawfully complying with the requirements of the Act and may discourage registration.

While these privacy and safety issues are of great concern to the Department, the language of the Act does not permit the redaction of residential address information prior to the posting of registration information online. 22 U.S.C. 612(a) sets forth certain information that must be included in a registration statement. Among other things, that provision requires registration statements to include registrants' residential addresses. 36 22 U.S.C. 616(d)(1) states that the “Attorney General shall maintain, and make available to the public over the internet . . . an electronic database that includes the information contained in registration statements and updates filed under this subchapter; and is searchable and sortable, at a minimum, by each of the categories of information described in Section 612(a) of this title” (emphases added). Section 616(d)(1)(B) requires the database to be searchable and sortable by “each” category of information described in section 612(a), 37 which includes the registrant's residential address. 38

The Attorney General, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this proposed rule and, by approving it, certifies that it would not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. FARA registrants typically tend to fall into several different categories of businesses: law firms, tourist offices operated by foreign governments, advertising agencies, public relations firms, consulting firms, nonprofit organizations, trade associations, foreign political parties, individuals ( e.g., consultants, activists) not associated with any formal organization, non-governmental organizations, media outlets, and government relations lobbying firms. As of the publication of this NPRM, there are only about 517 active FARA registrants. Dividing these FARA registrants into the various categories of businesses, and then into the number of such registrants that also qualify as small entities within each category, reveals that the FARA registrants would represent a minuscule percentage of entities in each category that qualify as small entities.

FARA is an important transparency tool used to address foreign influence in the United States. As noted more fully in Section II of this preamble, FARA ensures that the Government and the American people are aware of persons who are acting within this country as agents of foreign principals and are informed about the activities undertaken by such agents to influence public opinion or governmental action on political or policy matters. Congress enacted FARA as a comprehensive legislative framework to be applied uniformly to all persons and activities that fall within its jurisdiction, i.e., to all persons engaging in registrable activities. All FARA registrants bear the same statutory burden because they have chosen to engage in activities that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Act.

The Department took the economic impact of its proposed rule into account during the drafting of this NPRM, with the intent that any incremental economic burden on agents would be outweighed by the clarity and certainty the rule would give to agents and the transparency they would give to the American public and to American policymakers. For example, the proposed rule would streamline the process of filing registration materials, paying fees, and filing informational materials with the FARA Unit by requiring that all such filings be made via FARA eFile. Additionally, one of the proposed revisions would redound to the benefit of small entities because it would clarify that those who engage only in transparently promoting bona fide recreational or business travel to a foreign country—typically small entities—do not need to register under FARA. And, finally, the proposed rule about labeling informational materials, particularly online, was carefully crafted to require no more labelling than the Department has determined is necessary to ensure adequate transparency, such that it would not unduly burden any FARA registrant, of any size, that is endeavoring to comply with the requirements of the Act.

For these reasons, the Attorney General certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department of Justice solicits comments regarding this determination.

This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this rulemaking is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, this proposed rule has been submitted to OMB for review. This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation; in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation; and in accordance with Executive Order 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review.”

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of using the best available methods to quantify costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

The Department estimates that the proposed revisions and modernization of the implementing regulation will provide greater clarity for all registrants and potential registrants. As discussed in reference to the Regulatory Flexibility Act above, the Department assesses that any incremental economic burden on some agents would be outweighed by the clarity and certainty the regulation would give to all agents and potential agents, and by the transparency the regulation would give to the American public and to American policymakers. For example, the proposed rule will reduce the regulatory burden on those who engage only in transparently promoting bona fide recreational or business travel to a foreign country and will no longer have to register. Likewise, a more detailed system for labeling and filing informational materials will benefit both registrants who disseminate these materials and members of the public who view them.

This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the Department has determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to specify provisions in clear language.

This proposed rule would call for collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-20). 5 CFR 1320.3(c) defines the “collection of information” to include reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar actions. The title and description of the information collection, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection.

The requirements introduced by this proposed rule would be related to the existing collections covered by OMB Numbers 1124-0001, 1124-0002, 1124-0003, 1124-0004, 1124-0005 and 1124-0006. Additionally, this proposed rule would result in a one-time decrease in paperwork burdens of FARA applications due to persons who engage only in transparently promoting bona fide recreational or business travel to a foreign country no longer having to register under FARA. There are currently approximately 56 such registrants, and the total number of FARA registrants will therefore decrease on a one-time basis by 56 as a result, although each such respondent would need to file a statement terminating their registration. As the required frequency of the filing of the six forms listed below varies by form and not all 56 such registrants necessarily file all such forms in a typical year, except as expressly provided otherwise with respect to form OMB Number 1124-0002, it is not possible to accurately estimate the differential impact of this one-time reduction in the number of FARA registrants on the aggregate time burden associated with each of these forms.

OMB Number 1124-0001, Registration Statement of Foreign Agents, is filed once, when the respondent initially registers under FARA. Based on historical data from July 2022 to July 2023, if an estimated 119 respondents register annually, with an estimated time burden of 0.75 hours (45 minutes) per respondent, the total estimated annual time burden on these respondents would be approximately 89 hours.

OMB Number 1124-0002, Supplemental Statement to Registration Statement of Foreign Agents, is filed twice annually as assigned by the FARA Unit. The current number of registrants is approximately 517. If, on a one-time basis, an estimated 56 current registrants who engage only in transparently promoting bona fide recreational or business travel to a foreign country terminate their registrations as a result of this proposed rulemaking, then an estimated 461 respondents would file this form twice annually in the year immediately following the effective date of the final rulemaking. Given an estimated time burden of 1.17 hours (70 minutes) per filing, the total estimated time burden on these respondents would be approximately 1,079 hours in the year immediately following the effective date of the final rulemaking.

OMB Number 1124-0003, Amendment to Registration Statement of Foreign Agents, is filed as needed by respondents. Based on historical data from July 2022 to July 2023, if in a typical year all respondents combined file this form a total of 630 times, with an estimated time burden of 0.75 hours (45 minutes) per filing, the total estimated time burden on these respondents would be approximately 473 hours.

OMB Number 1124-0004, Exhibit B to Registration Statement of Foreign Agents, is filed as needed by respondents. Based on historical data from July 2022 to July 2023, if in a typical year all respondents file this form a total number of 451 times combined, with an estimated time burden of 0.33 hours (20 minutes) per filing, the total estimated time burden on these respondents would be approximately 149 hours.

OMB Number 1124-0005, Short Form to Registration Statement of Foreign Agents, is filed as needed by respondents. Based on historical data from July 2022 to July 2023, if in a typical year all respondents file this form a total of 1,149 times combined, with an estimated time burden of 0.23 hours (14 minutes) per filing, the total estimated time burden on these respondents would be approximately 264 hours.

OMB Number 1124-0006, Exhibit A to Registration Statement of Foreign Agents, is filed as needed by respondents. Based on historical data from July 2022 to July 2023, if in a typical year all respondents file this form a total of 451 times combined, with an estimated time burden of 0.22 hours (13 minutes) per filing, the total estimated time burden on these respondents would be approximately 99 hours.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Attorney General proposes to amend part 5 of chapter I of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

The revision reads as follows:

The additions read as follows:

The addition and revisions read as follows:

The additions read as follows:

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 §§ 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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 § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by § 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.

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.

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 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.

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 § 14.20(b)(1) of its rules requires ACS providers and manufacturers to “consider performance objectives set forth in § 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 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 § 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 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 § 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, § 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. ”

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 § 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, § 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 § 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 § 14.21 of its rules to include them, to ensure the accessibility of such equipment and software?

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 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 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 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.

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 §§ 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 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.