Access to Video Conferencing, 100878-100898 [2024-27479]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 100878-100898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27479]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 14 and 64

[CG Docket Nos. 23-161, 10-213, and 03-123; FCC 24-95; FR ID 261149]


Access to Video Conferencing

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC 
or Commission) takes steps to ensure the accessibility of interoperable 
video conferencing services (IVCS). The Commission provides additional 
clarity on how the Commission's accessibility performance objectives 
apply to interoperable video conferencing services (IVCS), modifies 
those performance objectives to ensure access to IVCS, and addresses 
how the Interstate telecommunications relay services (TRS) Fund will 
support the provision of Video Relay Service (VRS) and other forms of 
TRS in video conferences.

DATES: 
    Effective date: Effective January 13, 2025, except for instruction 
6 (the amendments to Sec.  64.606(g)(6)), which is delayed. The 
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing 
the effective date for the amendments to Sec.  64.606(g)(6).
    Compliance date: The compliance date for Sec. Sec.  14.21(b)(2)(iv) 
and (b)(4) is January 12, 2027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ike Ofobike, Disability Rights Office, 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-1028; email: 
[email protected]; or William Wallace, Disability Rights Office, 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-2716; email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Report and Order, in CG Docket Nos. 23-161, 10-213, and 03-123, 
document FCC 24-95, adopted on September 26, 2024, released on 
September 27, 2024. The Commission previously sought comment on the 
issue in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), published at 88 FR 
52088, August 7, 2023. The full text of this document is available for 
public inspection and copying via the FCC's Electronic Document 
Management System (EDOCS) website at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs and via 
the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at 
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. To request materials in accessible formats 
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, 
audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.

Synopsis

Background

    1. Under section 716 of the Communications Act, as amended (the 
Act), 47 U.S.C. 617, providers of advanced communications services 
(ACS) and manufacturers of equipment used for ACS must make such 
services and equipment accessible to and usable by people with 
disabilities, if achievable. Service providers and manufacturers may 
comply with section 716 of the Act either by building accessibility 
features into their services and equipment or by choosing to use third-
party applications, peripheral devices, software, hardware, or customer 
premises equipment (CPE) that are available to individuals with 
disabilities at nominal cost. If accessibility is not achievable 
through either of these means, then manufacturers and service providers 
must make their products and services compatible with existing 
peripheral devices or specialized CPE commonly used by people with 
disabilities to achieve access, subject to the achievability criterion. 
The Commission is directed to adopt ``performance objectives to ensure 
the accessibility, usability, and compatibility of advanced 
communications services and the equipment used for such services.''
    2. The Act defines advanced communications services as: (A) 
interconnected VoIP service; (B) non-interconnected VoIP service; (C) 
electronic messaging service; (D) interoperable video conferencing 
service; and (E) any audio or video communications service used by 
inmates for the purpose of communicating with individuals outside of 
the correctional facility where the inmate is held, regardless of 
technology used. 47 U.S.C. 153(1). Interoperable video conferencing 
service, in turn, is defined as: [a] service that provides real-time 
video communications, including audio, to enable users to share 
information of the user's choosing. 47 U.S.C. 153(27).
    3. In 2011, when initially adopting rules to implement section 716 
of the Act, the Commission attempted to determine what Congress meant 
by including the word ``interoperable'' as part of the term 
interoperable video conferencing service. Finding that the record 
before it was insufficient to decide this question, the Commission 
sought further comment on the issue.
    4. In June 2023, after refreshing the record on the definition of 
``interoperable video conferencing service,'' the Commission resolved 
this definitional issue. The Commission found no persuasive reason to 
modify or limit the scope of the statutory definition. Therefore, the 
Commission concluded that its part 14 accessibility rules apply to all 
services and equipment that meet the statutory definition. Given the 
extended pendency of questions regarding the application of part 14 of 
the Commission's rules to video conferencing, the Commission recognized 
that some service providers might need additional time to comply with 
those rules, and therefore allowed IVCS providers until September 3, 
2024, to come into compliance with its existing part 14 rules.
    5. Telecommunications Relay Services and Interoperable Video 
Conferencing Services. Enacted in 1990, Title IV of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA), codified as section 225 of the Act, directs the 
Commission to ``ensure that interstate and intrastate 
telecommunications relay services are available, to the extent possible 
and in the most efficient manner,'' to people in the United States with 
hearing or speech disabilities. TRS are defined as

[[Page 100879]]

``telephone transmission services'' enabling such persons to 
communicate by wire or radio ``in a manner that is functionally 
equivalent to the ability of [a person without hearing or speech 
disabilities] to communicate using voice communication services.'' 
There are currently three forms of internet-based TRS: Video Relay 
Service (VRS) ``allows people with hearing or speech disabilities who 
use sign language to communicate with voice telephone users through 
video equipment and a live communications assistant (CA);'' Internet 
Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay) allows an individual with a hearing 
or speech disability to communicate with voice telephone users by 
transmitting text via the internet; and Internet Protocol Captioned 
Telephone Service (IP CTS) permits a person with hearing loss to have a 
telephone conversation while reading captions of what the other party 
is saying on an internet-connected device. The provision of internet-
based TRS is supported by the Interstate TRS Fund, maintained through 
mandatory contributions from providers of telecommunications service, 
interconnected VoIP service, and non-interconnected VoIP service. Three 
non-internet-based forms of TRS--traditional TRS using text telephony 
(TTY), Captioned Telephone Service (CTS), and Speech-to-Speech Relay 
(STS)--are also supported in part by the TRS Fund and are available 
through state TRS programs.
    6. The structure of the Commission's TRS program reflects the fact 
that, historically, most people have used wireline or wireless 
telephone networks to communicate remotely by voice. Thus, North 
American Numbering Plan (NANP) telephone numbers are used to route 
calls between TRS users and the people they are calling, and the 
provision of TRS, to date, has typically been configured to fit within 
the typical structure of a traditional telephone call, with a ``calling 
party'' and ``called party'' and originating and terminating NANP 
numbers. This structure has continued to be used to frame the provision 
of TRS even after the development of internet-based forms of TRS. As a 
result, even though a VRS user's connection with a CA is established 
via an internet video link, the Commission has been able to rely on 
originating and terminating telephone numbers as part of the 
information required to verify the user's eligibility and the minutes 
of service for which TRS providers are compensated.
    7. Video conferencing, however, is generally accessed through the 
internet, without necessarily involving any telephone numbers. While a 
consumer can obtain audio-only access to some video conferences by 
dialing a telephone number, full video access is usually achieved 
directly through the internet, without the use of originating or 
terminating telephone numbers. As a result, for a consumer to use VRS 
to participate in a video conference, a telephone number must be 
available for an audio-only connection to the video conference. The VRS 
consumer must establish a direct video connection to the conference--in 
the same way as other participants, but independently of the VRS 
provider--and establish a second, separate video connection to the VRS 
provider. The CA then establishes a separate, audio-only connection to 
the conference, using the dial-in number. The CA's only connection to 
the VRS user is via the second video connection. Thus, the CA cannot 
see the other video conference participants, and the VRS user can only 
view the CA over the second video connection, often on a separate 
screen.
    8. To address concerns about the availability of TRS on video 
conferencing platforms, the Commission requested the Disability 
Advisory Committee (DAC) to study the matter. In its 2022 report, the 
DAC stated that it is impossible for users of most video conferencing 
platforms and most TRS providers to natively interconnect their 
preferred TRS provider to video conferencing platforms, and that, 
typically, TRS users can only interconnect their preferred TRS provider 
to a video conferencing platform by dialing in via the public switched 
telephone network.
    9. Such a dial-in connection is often unavailable, and even when 
available, dialing into a video conference poses multiple difficulties. 
First, the TRS provider's CA, who is connected to the video conference 
via the audio-only dial-in connection, has no visual access to the 
other video conference participants (including visual cues to indicate 
who is speaking) or any documents or other visual information being 
shown to participants. Further, the CA's audio-only connection may 
result in poor audio quality, causing errors in interpretation or 
captioning. Second, as a commenter explains, these arrangements require 
a TRS user to run two separate applications or devices--one to 
participate in the video portion of the conference, and another to 
communicate with the TRS provider's CA. The commenter adds that 
following the discussion is challenging enough with one application or 
one device; having to toggle between two applications or two devices 
makes meaningful participation even more arduous.
    10. For all these reasons, the DAC recommended that the FCC resolve 
these issues by: facilitating a technical mechanism for TRS providers 
to natively interconnect TRS services, including video, audio, 
captioning, and text-based relay to video conferencing platforms; 
ensuring that users can seamlessly initiate TRS from the provider of 
their choice on any video conferencing platform; addressing the 
integration of CAs and the overall accessibility challenges of video 
conferencing platforms; and, clarifying the legal ability of TRS 
providers to seek compensation for service provided for video 
conferences from the TRS Fund. Since the DAC recommendations were 
published, one VRS provider has reported that it now offers a means of 
integrating its provision of VRS with one video conferencing platform.
    11. In 2023, the Commission proposed IVCS-specific amendments to 
the performance objectives in the part 14 rules on accessibility of ACS 
and amendments to the TRS rules to authorize and facilitate the 
provision of TRS in video conferences. Specifically, the Commission 
proposed to require IVCS providers to include speech-to-text (i.e., 
captioning of all voice communications) and text-to-speech capability, 
to enable the use of sign language interpreting, and to include 
accessibility settings in the user interface controls. The Commission 
also sought comment on whether technical standards are available or 
could be fashioned for use as safe harbors, whereby certain performance 
objectives for IVCS can be satisfied by providing access to relevant 
forms of TRS.
    12. Regarding its TRS rules, the Commission proposed to clarify 
that the integrated provision of TRS in video conferences can be 
supported by the Interstate TRS Fund. The Commission also proposed 
additional rule amendments specific to video conferences, addressing 
VRS user validation and call detail supporting compensation requests; 
participation of VRS CAs and the use of multiple CAs and multiple VRS 
providers; and the ability of VRS users and CAs to turn off their 
cameras when not actively participating in a video conference. 
Regarding TRS generally, the Commission proposed to amend the 
confidentiality requirements for TRS CAs and providers in the context 
of video conferences and prohibit exclusivity agreements between TRS 
providers and IVCS providers. Finally, the Commission sought comment on 
how to avoid TRS substituting for

[[Page 100880]]

accommodations for individuals with disabilities that employers, 
educational institutions, health care organizations, and government 
agencies are required to provide under other applicable laws, including 
whether to allow TRS users to reserve a CA in advance of a video 
conference.

Second Report and Order

Video Conferencing Accessibility

    13. Need for Improvement. The Commission finds that there is a 
continuing need for improvement in making video conferencing 
accessible. Video conferencing has become a routine facet of everyday 
life. Recent data from Gallup show that, as of February 2024, only 20% 
of U.S. employees with remote-capable jobs work exclusively on-site 
(compared to 60% in January 2019); 54% have hybrid work arrangements, 
and 27% have exclusively remote work arrangements. The Pew Research 
Center has found that 78% of remote workers use video or online 
conferencing services at least sometimes, with more than half using 
such services often. A TRS provider points out that video conferencing 
is here to stay as an important component of communications going 
forward. Similarly, a commenter notes that going forward, video 
conferencing and other technologies with accessibility features will 
continue to be a catalyst for post-COVID economic recovery, opening 
important employment opportunities for traditionally underserved and 
underemployed communities. In short, there is no disagreement among 
commenters as to the importance of video conferencing services to 
people's everyday lives or the need to improve the accessibility and 
usability of those services for individuals with disabilities.
    14. The record also reflects that there are significant gaps in the 
accessibility of video conferencing platforms. As the Commission has 
previously noted, some video conferencing platforms have implemented 
accessibility features, such as braille display support, captioning, 
keyboard accessibility features, high-contrast visual elements, 
customizable notifications, verbosity controls, pinning and 
spotlighting, and support for screen readers. However, even with these 
advances, challenges remain. Numerous comments from consumers request 
that the Commission ensure the availability of features and 
enhancements needed to make video conferences more accessible.
    15. A coalition of advocacy organizations notes that often the 
video windows in which speakers and interpreters appear are too small 
for a viewer to be able to read lips or observe sign language 
interpreting. And, while some IVCS providers offer captioning, if the 
video conference host controls the captioning, other users may not be 
able to adjust the captions when the captioning appears too small and 
lacks adequate contrast against the background to be reasonably 
legible. Further, consumers can access video conferences from a wide 
range of internet-enabled devices, increasing the need for customizing 
what they see on their screens. However, each video conferencing 
platform uniquely arranges and identifies its controls and settings, 
which makes it more difficult for unfamiliar users to adjust the 
settings on their devices for optimal presentation as needed during a 
video conference.
    16. Individuals who are blind or have low vision also report 
problems accessing video conferences. An advocacy organization points 
out that creating, hosting, or joining a meeting presents multiple 
accessibility barriers for members of these communities, regardless of 
which platform and device combination are utilized. Users who are blind 
or have low vision may encounter difficulty navigating features, 
controls, and settings of video conferencing platforms with their 
preferred assistive technology. As a commenter states, if, for example, 
certain controls are not operable with assistive technology or are not 
properly labeled, people who are blind or have low vision are not able 
to enter, operate, and conclude a call. Furthermore, if control and 
setting features of the conference platform are purely visual, they may 
be inaccessible to users who are blind or have low vision.
    17. A 2024 study examining the experiences of people with various 
disabilities when using popular video conferencing platforms reveals 
additional challenges, particularly for neurodivergent participants or 
those with physical or motor impairments. For example, some respondents 
with speech, motor, or cognitive disabilities described being unable to 
formulate questions or locate and activate a video conferencing 
platform's ``raise your hand'' function in time to contribute in calls. 
Other respondents described being overwhelmed by the need to learn new 
functions and tools on different video conferencing platforms.
    18. As several commenters point out, these concerns are heightened 
because conference call participants are generally not in a position to 
dictate what video conferencing platform will be used for a particular 
conference. For example, a patient who is deaf may not be able to 
obtain healthcare because the doctor's telehealth conferencing platform 
does not enable a connection to a sign language interpreter or VRS. 
Similarly, visual content shared in the video conferencing platform 
during a video conference is usually not accessible to people who use 
screen readers or braille displays because shared documents typically 
appear only as a flat image without perceivable elements. In these and 
other scenarios, a person with a disability often has no opportunity to 
request a different, accessible video conferencing system.
    19. Compliance with Existing General Performance Objectives. As 
discussed above, IVCS poses a broad range of accessibility issues, 
which often require solutions specifically tailored to the multimedia 
aspect of this subcategory of ACS. Attempts to address these issues 
were delayed while the Commission's interpretation of the term 
interoperable video conferencing service remained unresolved. The 
result is a patchwork of different accessibility features from 
different video conferencing providers, causing a confusing and 
inconsistent landscape for people with disabilities to navigate. In 
addition, because IVCS is so often used for pre-scheduled, multi-party 
communication, consumers with disabilities often have no choice as to 
which service is used for a video conference--that choice is made by 
the person or organization hosting the video conference.
    20. These accessibility gaps can be closed to a substantial extent 
if IVCS providers and equipment manufacturers comply with the 
Commission's current rules. Part 14 of those rules, initially adopted 
in 2011 to implement section 716(e) of the Act, includes a set of 
performance objectives to ensure the accessibility, usability, and 
compatibility of advanced communications services and the equipment 
used for such services. The current performance objectives define, in 
general terms, what providers of IVCS and manufacturers of equipment 
used for IVCS must accomplish to make their services, equipment, and 
software accessible, usable, and compatible. In general, for services, 
equipment, and software to be accessible: input, control, and 
mechanical functions must be locatable, identifiable, and operable by 
people with disabilities; and all information necessary to operate and 
use the product must be available to people with disabilities. 47 CFR 
14.21(b). Within this rubric, the provision sets forth a list of 
performance objectives defining further what accessible means for 
people with specific types of disabilities. For

[[Page 100881]]

example, one provision states that advanced communications services, 
equipment, and software shall be operable without hearing, i.e., shall 
provide at least one mode that does not require user auditory 
perception. 47 CFR 14.21(b)(1)(iv). Like other providers of ACS and 
manufacturers of ACS equipment, IVCS providers and manufacturers are 
required to meet each of these objectives (unless an objective is not 
achievable).
    21. A number of the accessibility improvements sought by commenters 
can be addressed by IVCS providers coming into compliance with the 
existing rules. For example, section 14.21(b)(1) of Commissions rules 
states that, for services, equipment, and software to be accessible to 
people who are blind, input and control functions shall be provided in 
at least one mode that does not require user vision, and all 
information necessary to operate and use the product, including but not 
limited to, text, static or dynamic images, icons, labels shall be 
available through at least one mode in auditory form. Meeting these 
performance objectives (e.g., by providing, among other things, voice-
activated control settings and screen-reader functionality or 
compatibility) would address a commenter's concerns that chat functions 
and control settings on IVCS platforms are often visual only, and thus 
inaccessible to blind and low-vision users. As of September 3, 2024, 
IVCS providers should have rolled out updates to address such 
deficiencies, if achievable.
    22. Additionally, section 14.21(b)(2) of the Commission's rules 
states that in at least one mode, ACS shall permit operation by, and 
provide visual information to, people with visual acuity between 20/70 
and 20/200, without relying on audio. Meeting this objective through, 
e.g., magnification, high-contrast, and color inversion options, as 
well as compatibility with third-party refreshable braille displays, 
would be important steps toward making IVCS platforms accessible to 
low-vision and deafblind users.
    23. Similarly, compliance with the existing rules could 
substantially reduce accessibility gaps faced by people with cognitive 
and mobility disabilities. Section 14.21(b)(1) of the Commission's 
rules specifies that, to be accessible, advanced communications 
services and equipment must have modes that are operable with limited 
manual dexterity, and with limited reach and strength, without 
requiring body contact or close body proximity, and without time-
dependent controls, and at least one mode that minimizes the cognitive, 
memory, language, and learning skills required of the user. Steps that 
providers could take to implement these requirements include providing 
voice- or gesture-based controls, one-button shortcuts, an ``easy-to-
use'' setting, and other features. In an accompanying Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission seeks additional comment on 
whether the performance objectives described above need further 
modification to ensure the accessibility of IVCS.
    24. Need for IVCS-Specific Performance Objectives. While 
accessibility gaps in IVCS can be addressed to some extent by 
implementing the performance objectives of our current rules, the 
record makes clear that, in a number of areas, more specific guidance 
is needed to promote accessibility in the IVCS context. For example, 
captions are an obvious means for IVCS providers to implement the 
existing performance objective specifying that ACS provide auditory 
information through at least one mode in visual form, and many IVCS 
platforms offer automatic speech recognition-generated captioning. 
However, the record indicates that captions are often inaccurate, too 
small, or difficult to turn on and manipulate. As a commenter explains, 
IVCS platforms vary considerably with respect to the ability to 
activate and effectively use automated captions. Users are often at a 
loss as to how to turn on captions and frequently are unable to 
position and otherwise manipulate captions, which is necessary for 
optimal viewing. For example, on some platforms the captions have been 
too small for effective reading. Other platforms fail to ensure a 
sufficient level of captioning quality, resulting in excessive errors 
that make it difficult to follow the dialogue.
    25. In addition, some accessibility concerns are not directly 
addressed at all by the current rules. For example, none of the 
existing performance objectives requires IVCS platforms to facilitate 
the use of sign language and sign language interpretation--a key 
omission for a medium inherently suited to sign language communication. 
Therefore, the Commission amends part 14 of its rules as discussed 
below, to define more specifically the objectives that IVCS providers 
must meet to achieve accessibility and promote more consistency in 
their implementation, thereby enabling people with disabilities to 
participate in video conferences whenever accessibility is achievable.
    26. These outcome-oriented performance objectives maintain 
incentives and opportunities for innovative design in this rapidly 
developing industry sector and avoid straying into the prohibited 
territory of mandatory technical standards. Thus, the Commission finds 
inapposite a commenter's concern that the proposed performance 
objectives do not include reference standards or compliance procedures. 
This is by design, and is true of all the performance objectives in 
part 14 of the Commission's rules. As noted earlier, section 716 of the 
Act expressly requires the Commission to allow flexibility in the 
implementation of accessibility objectives and precludes us from 
imposing mandatory technical standards. 47 U.S.C. 617(a)(2), (e)(1)(D). 
Consistent with section 716 of the Act, these performance objectives 
will allow IVCS providers to choose whether to satisfy their 
accessibility obligations by building certain features directly into 
their applications or by ``using third party applications, peripheral 
devices, software, hardware, or CPE that is available to the consumer 
at nominal cost and that individuals with disabilities can access.''
    27. A commenter recommends that the Commission makes the 
performance objectives optional, contending that mandatory requirements 
would impose significant cost burdens on businesses and impact the 
overall cost for the general public. The new performance objectives are 
subject to the achievability criterion, a criterion that is defined in 
terms of reasonable effort or expense, 47 CFR 14.10(b), as well as the 
special exemption and waiver provisions of the ACS rules. However, the 
statute does not grant the Commission authority to make ACS performance 
objectives optional. See 47 U.S.C. 617(a)(1), (b)(1), (e)(1)(A).
    28. Just as the existing part 14 of the Commission's rules 
performance objectives apply both to advanced communications services 
and to equipment and software used with ACS, the performance objectives 
the Commission adopts for specific application for IVCS also apply to 
equipment and software used for IVCS. Manufacturers of equipment used 
for IVCS must ensure that such equipment, as well as software 
components of such equipment, meet these new and modified objectives, 
unless that is not achievable.
    29. Given the critical importance of access to video conferencing 
for people with disabilities, the Commission finds no cause for further 
delay in providing specific guidance on the necessary steps to make 
video conferencing accessible. Where the adoption of a proposed rule is 
supported by the record, there is no

[[Page 100882]]

persuasive reason to defer its adoption, as some commenters urge, 
pending an assessment of what has been achieved during the extended 
compliance period or the outcome of potential collaboration among 
stakeholders. As a commenter points out, even if some issues may 
require additional time to resolve, implementation of new performance 
objectives can begin while fact-finding and deliberation over more 
complex policy and operational issues proceeds on a parallel track. 
Similarly, although the Commission encourages collaboration among 
stakeholders to further improve the accessibility of features and 
functions of video conferencing services, there is no reason to delay 
the adoption of more specific performance objectives while waiting for 
such collaboration to bear fruit. The record reflects consensus both 
that video conferencing has become a ubiquitous and critical part of 
daily life and that video conferencing accessibility remains a work in 
progress. The untenable result is that people with disabilities are 
unable to participate fully in what is now a routine mode of 
communication. Given the centrality of video conferencing in modern 
American society, and that 14 years have passed since Congress mandated 
the accessibility of IVCS, video conferences should be made accessible 
as soon as it is achievable to do so.
    30. The Commission does recognize, however, that bringing 
accessibility to video conferencing may pose some technical challenges, 
especially for smaller IVCS providers. It may also require substantial 
interaction with other parties, including TRS providers and the 
disability community. Therefore, compliance with part 14 of the 
Commission's rules adopted in document FCC 24-95 will not be required 
until January 12, 2027.

IVCS Performance Objectives

    31. Captions. Section 14.21(b)(2)(iv) of the Commission's rules 
sets forth the performance objective that ACS shall provide auditory 
information through at least one mode in visual form and, where 
appropriate, in tactile form.
    32. The Commission's amendment to this performance objective 
directly addresses one of the most broadly impactful and persistent 
accessibility issues concerning video conferences, i.e., the 
inconsistent availability of accurate captions across video 
conferencing providers. The record is clear that captions play a 
crucial role in allowing people who are deaf or hard of hearing to be 
fully engaged in a video conference conversation. As a commenter notes, 
a lack of captions can make meaningful interaction impossible. While 
the existing rule already makes clear that captioning (the provision of 
auditory information in visual form) is necessary for accessibility, it 
does not address the quality of captions.
    33. As modified, the performance objective states that captions 
must be accurate and synchronous. The Commission does not include the 
language proposed in the NPRM stating that caption quality must be 
``comparable to that provided on TRS Fund-supported captioned telephone 
services.'' As multiple commenters noted, the Commission's TRS rules do 
not currently provide quantitative standards to measure accuracy or 
latency in the IP CTS context. Pending further development of 
quantitative measures, this performance objective reflects a 
qualitative standard, similar to the qualitative standards currently 
applicable to IP CTS and live television programming. The amended rule 
defines accurate to mean that captioning matches the spoken words of a 
conversation, in the order spoken, verbatim, without summarizing or 
paraphrasing. Given that IVCS, like IP CTS or live video programming, 
involves real-time communication without advance scripting, 100% error-
free captioning may not always be achievable. However, captioning 
should be sufficiently accurate to enable a user to understand what is 
being said. Implementation of this performance objective will be 
evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering overall 
understandability and accuracy, the ability of the captions to convey 
the aural content of the call in a manner equivalent to the aural 
communication, and the extent to which captioning errors made the video 
conference inaccessible.
    34. The amended rule defines synchronous to mean that captions must 
coincide with the corresponding spoken words and sounds to the greatest 
extent possible, be delivered fast enough to keep up with the speed of 
those words and sounds, and remain displayed long enough to be read by 
the user. In other words, to the greatest extent possible, the captions 
should begin to appear at the time that the corresponding speech or 
sounds begin and end approximately when the speech or sounds end. 
Captions must be sufficiently synchronous to enable a user to 
participate in real-time in a conversation among video conference 
participants.
    35. While a quantitative standard of caption quality may be 
preferable, the Commission rejects the contention that a qualitative 
standard provides insufficient notice regarding the quality required, 
given that analogous qualitative standards are already in place for 
video programming and TRS. Regarding a commenter's concerns about 
factors outside a provider's control affecting caption quality, the 
Commission notes that the obligation to meet this performance 
objective, like all part 14 of the Commission's rules performance 
objectives, is qualified by the criterion of achievability.
    36. As modified, the performance objective also specifies that IVCS 
enable users to connect with third-party captioning services and enable 
the display of such captions on the requesting party's video conference 
screen. In some instances, participants in video conferences may prefer 
a third-party captioning service, which may provide a higher degree of 
accuracy than can be achieved by using the IVCS provider's native 
captioning. Or, a video conference host may be legally obligated to 
provide (and pay for) captioning service for a video conference that 
poses specific captioning challenges. As the DAC explains, some video 
conferencing services struggle to integrate third-party captioning 
services into their conference calls. In some cases, users must open a 
separate web browser or application to view captions, forcing them to 
split their attention between two screens (if a second screen is even 
available to the user). If deaf and hard of hearing participants are 
forced to split their attention between multiple screens, or multiple 
devices, it often will be difficult to follow the visual conversation 
on one screen while simultaneously reading the captions on another.
    37. To address these problems, the amended performance objective 
provides that IVCS shall enable users to connect with such third-party 
accommodations services, such that the captions provided by third 
parties are viewable on the user's video conference screen, rather than 
on a separate screen. In other words, to be accessible, IVCS must 
enable a user to view on-screen the display of captioning provided by a 
third party. The Commission does not prohibit IVCS providers from 
affording participants the option to view captions on a separate 
screen, which may be preferable in some instances to accommodate 
certain disabilities, peripheral devices, or accessibility software.
    38. Although some commenters focus on a need to access human 
captioners, the amended rule does not limit the kinds of third-party 
captioning services that may be accessed by IVCS users.

[[Page 100883]]

Consistent with the technology-neutral, outcome-oriented nature of 
performance objectives, the rule does not differentiate between 
captioning generated with human involvement and captions created 
entirely with automatic speech recognition technology.
    39. Additionally, the requirement to enable third-party captioning 
does not require an IVCS provider to ensure that third-party captioning 
is available to users at no or nominal cost--unless the IVCS provider 
is relying on a third party to fulfill its primary captioning 
obligation. Similarly, if an IVCS provider is not relying on a third 
party to fulfill its primary captioning obligation, the IVCS provider 
is not responsible for ensuring that captions provided by a third party 
are accurate and synchronous, except to the extent of its obligation to 
not impair or impede accessibility.
    40. One commenter urges the Commission to require video 
conferencing providers to integrate with IP CTS providers, suggesting 
that IVCS providers will not be able to offer captioning services equal 
in quality to IP CTS. IP CTS is one type of a third-party captioning 
service. Accordingly, the amended performance objective requires that 
IVCS providers offer a mechanism for conference hosts and users to 
connect with an IP CTS provider, if that is their preference, unless 
the capability for such connection is not achievable.
    41. This performance objective does not dictate the specifics of 
any technical interface or lock in user interface designs. In 
particular, the Commission does not mandate that an IVCS provider make 
its connection interface for third parties compatible with any specific 
technology that may be used by a particular captioning service or IP 
CTS provider.
    42. Sign Language Interpreting. To ensure that video conferences 
are accessible to users who communicate in sign language, the 
Commission proposed to adopt a new performance objective providing that 
IVCS enable the use of sign language interpretation, including the 
transmission of user requests for sign language interpretation to 
providers of video relay service and other entities and the provision 
of sufficient video quality to support sign language communication.
    43. The Commission adopts the proposed performance objective with a 
few modifications. This performance objective provides that 
accessibility for IVCS includes enabling a video connection for sign 
language interpreters, so that they can view and be viewed by users of 
these services. The performance objective is modified to make clear its 
applicability to both IVCS itself and to equipment and software used 
for IVCS. For additional clarity, the proposed rule is modified by 
inserting the words ``provided by third parties'' after ``enable the 
use of sign language interpretation.'' This change addresses a 
commenter's concern as to whether a sign language interpretation 
function must be integrated into an IVCS platform. The performance 
objective does not require IVCS providers to provide sign language 
interpretation as part of their services; rather, it specifies that an 
IVCS provider shall enable users to access sign language interpretation 
services provided by others.
    44. This performance objective does not differentiate regarding the 
type of sign language service that may be offered by a third party. The 
Commission anticipates that most sign language users who participate in 
video conferences will be using American Sign Language (ASL). However, 
this performance objective is intended to apply broadly to all forms of 
visual language commonly in use by people with disabilities. For 
example, Cued English uses hand shapes, hand placements, and non-manual 
signals on the mouth to provide a transliteration of spoken English for 
some individuals with hearing disabilities. The Commission believes 
that the same technology that facilitates the inclusion of ASL 
interpreters is equally applicable to other forms of interpretation or 
transliteration.
    45. The Commission declines, at this time, to modify this 
performance objective as a commenter proposes: to require IVCS 
platforms to provide sign language interpretation, rather than merely 
enable it. Adopting this recommendation would mean that IVCS providers 
would need to arrange for sign language interpreting to be available to 
users at all times and would be responsible for the quality of the 
service provided. The record is insufficient for the Commission to 
assess this proposal, which likely would be implemented through 
automatic sign language interpretation software, akin to automatic 
speech recognition. The Commission seeks further comment on this 
proposal in the FNPRM.
    46. The commenter contends that the rule must be crafted so that 
ASL interpretation and English Captioning have functional equivalency 
within IVCS platforms. The Commission's goal in the TRS context is to 
devise accessibility requirements that will allow individuals with 
disabilities to have a communication experience that is functionally 
equivalent to the experience of those without such disabilities. The 
Commission does not require different accessibility tools to be equal 
to each other.
    47. Although the Commission does not mandate a particular level of 
video quality, the quality must be sufficient to allow users to see and 
understand interpreters' signing, and for users' own sign language to 
be seen and understood by interpreters and others. The Commission does 
not anticipate--and the record does not indicate--that this criterion 
will pose any undue burden on video conferencing providers. Video 
quality is a fundamental component of a competitive video conferencing 
product. Providers are therefore independently motivated to provide 
high-quality video.
    48. User Interface Controls. To implement the DAC's recommendation 
that the Commission ensure users' ability to control the activation and 
customize the appearance of captions and video interpreters, the 
Commission sought comment on adopting a new performance objective 
providing that IVCS provide user interface control functions that 
permit users to adjust the display of captions, speakers, and signers 
and other features for which user interface control is necessary for 
accessibility.
    49. To ensure that accessibility features can be adjusted to 
address the specific needs of individual users and the various 
circumstances in which IVCS may be used, the Commission adopts the 
performance objective set forth in the NPRM, with modifications. The 
proposed performance objective is modified to ensure that individual 
users have the ability to activate, as well as adjust, features such as 
captions. In addition, the performance objective is modified to make 
clear its applicability to both IVCS itself and to equipment and 
software used for IVCS. Finally, the Commission clarifies that this 
performance objective includes participants' ability to edit their 
display names before or after joining a video conference.
    50. As a commenter explains, given the wide range of IP-enabled 
devices that can be used for video conferences, the need for individual 
users to be able to customize what they see on their screens is 
critical. However, user controls that allow such customization are 
frequently unavailable or insufficient. Further, existing ACS 
performance objectives do not directly address this problem. Although 
Sec.  14.21(b)(1) of the Commission's rules generally requires that 
control functions necessary for a user to operate a covered

[[Page 100884]]

service or product shall be accessible, that performance objective does 
not expressly address the need for control functions to enable a user, 
not only to operate the service, but to ensure its accessibility. 
Accessibility is not a static condition: to ensure that a video 
conferencing service is accessible across the wide range of devices 
that may be used to access it, by users with varying disability-related 
needs, individual users must themselves be able to manipulate 
accessibility-related functions. The performance objective the 
Commission adopts addresses this problem by providing that video 
conference participants be able to control the activation and settings 
of accessibility-related features. The text of the new provision 
reflects that user control is especially important in two areas: 
captioning and the visual display of speakers and signers.
    51. In its 2022 report, the DAC states that, among the platforms 
that offer captions, some do not allow users to customize caption size, 
color, opacity, and other critical settings to ensure readability. A 
coalition of accessibility-focused organizations explain that IVCS 
platforms vary considerably with respect to the ability to activate and 
effectively use automated captions, and that users are often at a loss 
as to how to turn on captions and frequently are unable to position and 
otherwise manipulate captions, which is necessary for optimal viewing. 
To address these concerns, the performance objective the Commission 
adopts requires IVCS providers to allow call participants to 
independently control the activation and display of captions on their 
individual devices. To the degree achievable, call participants must be 
able to alter the size, font, and on-screen location of captions and to 
adjust the color and opacity of both the captions and the caption 
background. This objective generally aligns with the Commission's 
requirements in other contexts, particularly with regard to the 
customizability of captions on digital apparatus. See 47 CFR 
79.103(c)(1)-(10). The character customization requirements for digital 
apparatus mandate the ability to change character size between 50% and 
200% of the default size. Digital apparatus covered by Sec.  79.103 of 
the Commission's rules must also allow captions and caption backgrounds 
that can display the 64 colors and 8 fonts defined in the CEA-708 
standard, as well as allow users to override the authored colors and 
choose from at least 8 specified colors. The Commission does not 
replicate those specific requirements here. However, the CEA-708 
standard may provide a useful reference point for IVCS providers and 
equipment manufacturers in assessing their caption customization 
options. Additionally, the Commission notes that limiting captions to a 
very small character size range may be insufficient to meet the 
performance objective.
    52. The record reveals that additional accessibility challenges 
arise as the number of participants in a video conference grows. For 
example, when faced with numerous, undifferentiated video windows, 
which are automatically enlarged based only on sound cues, it can be 
extremely challenging to determine when an interpreter (or another sign 
language user) is signing. A sign language user who loses sight of the 
interpreter is effectively exiled from the conversation until they 
regain that visual connection. Ensuring that the interpreter's video 
window is always prominently displayed, even if another participant is 
sharing their screen, is therefore vital to maintaining effective 
communication. As a commenter explain, these issues can be partially 
addressed by ``spotlighting'' and ``multi-pinning.'' ``Spotlighting'' 
identifies a particular window as the active speaker, making that 
user's window visible on all other users' screens. Spotlighting 
capability is generally only available to a conference call's host. 
``Pinning'' and ``multi-pinning'' allow a user to disable the active 
speaker view and determine which video window (or windows) will always 
be visible on the user's own screen. Spotlighting interpreters ensures 
that these individuals are easily visible amidst multiple video streams 
or when displayed on small screens. While this is necessary for all 
individuals who rely on interpreters, it is especially important for 
consumers with visual impairments or close vision, who need full 
visibility of an interpreter to actively participate.
    53. To ensure that critical visual information is accessible, users 
also must be able to reconfigure the layout and visibility of video 
windows appearing on the users' own device. Each open video window 
reduces the on-screen real estate available for other windows. As a 
result, a sign language user's window may become too small to allow for 
effective sign language communication. This is true even if the user's 
video window is pinned, because pinning, alone, does not alter the 
relative size of the video windows. A call participant who requires 
sign language must therefore be able to minimize or hide extraneous 
windows, expand the windows of their choice, or relocate particular 
windows. For example, a participant may utilize the multi-pinning 
feature to pin both a presentation leader and an interpreter, move the 
windows so they remain side-by-side, and then expand both windows to 
allow the participant to clearly view the interpreter without missing 
out on visual cues from the speaker. As another example, a sign 
language user on a conference call with multiple other sign language 
users may want to pin all of their windows and place them together to 
ensure all sign language users are visible.
    54. In addition, participants must be able to edit their own 
display names. This allows participants (including interpreters and 
third-party accommodation services) to quickly differentiate themselves 
from other call participants, helping sign language users and 
interpreters find each other more easily, especially in conference 
calls with many participants. Again, every moment a sign language user 
and an interpreter spend trying to connect to each other is a moment of 
lost communication and participation for the user. As a VRS provider 
notes, VRS CAs identify themselves by a CA Number, rather than their 
name, to protect their privacy. As discussed below, the Commission 
amends its TRS rules to require VRS CAs to identify their employer in 
the CA's display name. Compliance with this rule therefore requires 
that participants be able to change their display names.
    55. The record indicates that, while some video conferencing 
providers currently offer spotlighting and multi-pinning capabilities, 
typically they are controlled by the call's host, who must either make 
such adjustments themselves or specifically allow that privilege to a 
requesting participant. A conference call host may also disable the in-
call chat feature, leaving participants unable to contact the host to 
request access to these features. In such scenarios the host may not 
even be aware that accommodations are needed. As a result, individual 
users may be deprived of the ability to directly customize their in-
call experience in a way that works best for them. Commenters therefore 
assert that IVCS providers should enable any participant in a video 
conference to customize their settings for accessibility.
    56. Accordingly, the performance objective the Commission adopts 
specifically provides that users be able to activate and adjust the 
display of speakers and signers. As with captioning controls, the 
relevant or achievable settings may vary for different kinds of IVCS 
(e.g., more

[[Page 100885]]

settings may be needed for a video conferencing service that is 
frequently used for conferences involving large groups, than for one 
whose target market rarely includes participants in large-group video 
conferences). For large-group video conferences, in particular, 
accessibility requires that pinning, multi-pinning, spotlighting, and 
window configuration functionality be available, and that those 
functions can be accessed in individual users' settings menus, without 
having to obtain permission from a call host. The Commission notes that 
while some IVCS calls utilize a ``hosted'' conference room, i.e., a 
single virtual location that all call participants connect to, others 
are designed primarily for unhosted, person-to-person video calls. The 
performance objective adopted here applies to all forms of IVCS.
    57. A commenter raises a general concern that an overly detailed 
performance objective would lock in user interface designs, and urges 
the Commission to resist making regulatory choices that it states will 
necessarily limit the ability of IVCS providers and equipment 
manufacturers to shape and adjust their user interfaces. The Commission 
concludes that this performance objective strikes an appropriate 
balance between flexibility and specificity. As with all part 14 of the 
Commission's rules performance objectives, the new and amended 
objectives are outcome-oriented and do not mandate a technical 
standard. The Commission also emphasizes that the rule it adopts does 
not dictate how IVCS providers must organize their user controls. 
Individual providers may decide what layouts and configurations are 
appropriate for their services, as long as the results comply with 
Commission rules.
    58. The performance objective adopted here also provides that users 
be able to activate and adjust other features for which user interface 
control is necessary for accessibility. Although some commenters argue 
for additional specificity, at this time, the Commission does not 
attempt an exhaustive catalog of all such features. However, the fact 
that a particular feature is not mentioned in the performance objective 
does not imply that it is unnecessary for accessibility. For example, a 
commenter recommends that the Commission include a specific requirement 
for IVCS platforms to include screen reader verbosity controls, and 
notes that some video conferencing platforms currently allow users to 
independently customize their verbosity settings. The Commission agrees 
that this functionality is an important means for blind and low-vision 
users to be able to follow and participate in a video conference, and 
such user control may often be necessary for accessibility. To that 
extent, verbosity controls (as well as other features not specifically 
mentioned) are included in the performance objective. However, to 
individually address this and other user controls recommended by 
commenters, the Commission believes the record would benefit from 
additional information about the specific aspects of interface control 
that are most important to address in the video conference setting. The 
Commission seeks further comment on this issue in the FNPRM.
    59. A commenter suggests that IVCS users' accessibility preferences 
should be stored and retained within the IVCS platform, so that users 
will not have to change the settings each time they use the service. 
However, the record is insufficient to address this proposal. In the 
FNPRM, the Commission seeks additional comment on the need for such an 
objective, how it would apply across devices, and the technical issues 
involved.
    60. Text-to-Speech. To ensure that IVCS is accessible for people 
with speech disabilities, the Commission proposed to amend Sec.  
14.21(b)(1)(ix) of its rules, which specifies that ACS be operable in 
``at least one mode that does not require user speech,'' to specify 
that IVCS provide text-to-speech functionality. The existing rule 
specifies that, to be accessible, IVCS must be operable without user 
speech--for which a logical implementation would be the provision of 
text-to-speech functionality. However, the record indicates that an 
additional way of making IVCS operable by people with speech 
disabilities is available, in the form of speech-to-speech technology 
products, which automatically convert speech that is difficult to 
understand to speech that is more understandable. Therefore, at this 
time the Commission does not adopt the proposed modification. Instead, 
in the FNPRM, the Commission seeks additional comment on modifying 
Sec.  14.21(b)(1)(ix) of its rules to encompass a broader range of 
solutions for people with speech disabilities.
    61. Other Performance Objectives Proposed by Commenters. In the 
NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether additional performance 
objectives should be specified for IVCS to address other accessibility 
concerns. A number of the performance objectives suggested by 
commenters merit the Commission's consideration. In many instances, 
however, the current record is insufficient to address them at this 
time. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks additional comment on these 
proposals. Other commenter proposals appear to be inconsistent with the 
flexible, outcome-oriented approach the statute directs the Commission 
to take.
    62. A commenter recommends adoption of a performance objective 
requiring that video functionality, screen sharing, video window re-
sizing, and video sharing be compatible with tablets. Another commenter 
objects to this proposal, contending that tablet compatibility 
represents a de facto technical mandate. While the Commission 
recognizes that people with disabilities often have particular 
difficulty in accessing IVCS on tablets, the record is insufficient to 
determine whether a performance objective specific to tablets is 
needed, and how it should apply. For example, an IVCS provider may 
choose not to make its service available on tablets, or may not design 
an app specifically for tablets. Further, it is unclear to what extent 
responsibility for tablet compatibility should be placed on tablet 
manufacturers, IVCS providers, or both. In the FNPRM, the Commission 
seeks additional comment on whether a tablet-specific performance 
objective is needed, and whether additional performance objectives 
should apply to manufacturers of tablets and other devices used to 
access IVCS.
    63. The current record is also insufficient to address 
recommendations that performance objectives specify that IVCS provide a 
gallery view mode, ensure that a sufficient number of videos is 
supported without degrading the quality of the video or audio, and 
include dedicated video- and text-based side channels. A commenter 
raises several objections to these proposals, stating variously that 
they are technologically infeasible, implicate variables outside of a 
video conferencing provider's control, exceed the Commission's 
authority, or are technical mandates in all but name. While the 
proposed features can be beneficial, the Commission is concerned that 
unnecessarily specific requirements could dampen incentives for 
entrepreneurship and innovation in this rapidly evolving market. In 
addition, IVCS encompasses a broad variety of video communication 
services, for which the recommended performance objectives may not be 
uniformly applicable or relevant. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks 
additional comment on the need for specific performance objectives in 
these areas, as well as whether such objectives could be implemented 
without adversely

[[Page 100886]]

affecting the benefits of innovation in this sector.
    64. For similar reasons, the Commission also concludes that the 
record is insufficient to address commenters' recommendations that IVCS 
providers be required to enable access for audio description of video 
and visual images, that performance objectives be adopted or amended to 
provide that IVCS be operable and visual information be available in 
tactile mode, and that shared documents be added to the list of 
information that must be made accessible pursuant to Sec.  14.21(b)(2) 
of its rules. However, the Commission stresses that the rules prohibit 
IVCS providers from impeding the use of third-party services, 
equipment, or software to provide audio descriptions. In the FNPRM, the 
Commission seeks additional comment on whether to adopt a performance 
objective specifying these functions.
    65. Relatedly, a commenter urges the Commission to expand TRS 
eligibility to include providers of live audio description and visual 
image descriptive services. Our authority under section 225 of the Act 
is limited to making TRS available for people who are deaf, hard of 
hearing, deafblind, or have a speech disability. An audio description 
service would not fall within this definition, and the Commission lacks 
authority to expand the definition beyond the boundaries dictated by 
Congress.
    66. The Commission declines a commenter's recommendation that the 
Commission require IVCS providers to offer a dial-in option via a ten-
digit telephone number, so that TRS-eligible IVCS users can use TRS in 
video conferences despite the difficulties described elsewhere in 
document FCC 24-95. Such a requirement would entail a major change in 
business practices for IVCS providers, many of whom have not designed 
their platforms to connect with telephone networks. Further, the rules 
adopted here will require IVCS providers to enable users to connect 
with providers of third-party captioning and sign-language 
interpretation services, including IP CTS and VRS. Thus, developments 
are already under way to accomplish the goal the commenter seeks, 
without the need to force disruptive changes in IVCS providers' 
business models. The Commission may revisit whether a dial-in option is 
needed if future developments cast doubt on these assumptions.
    67. The Commission also declines to adopt a commenter's 
recommendation that any accessibility requirements for IVCS should 
apply if a video conference is recorded and subsequently shared. If the 
video conference is recorded and shared by a host, participant, or 
third party, it is not evident why the IVCS provider should be 
responsible for the accessibility of such recordings. Further, many 
IVCS platforms may not include a feature that facilitates or delivers 
such recordings.
    68. The Commission declines to adopt a commenter's recommendations 
to require that all IVCS platforms use the universal captioning symbol 
(CC) to identify captioning settings, and that those settings be on the 
first screen of the settings menu. The commenter also suggests 
requiring consistent accessibility language related to captioning 
across platforms. Performance objectives are outcome-oriented 
requirements that allow flexibility for providers to accomplish the 
objectives in the means best suited to their specific circumstances. 
They should not mandate what symbols IVCS providers must use, where 
they must put those symbols, and what terms they must use when 
describing their accessibility offerings.
    69. Safe Harbor Technical Standards. Section 716 of the Act 
provides that the Commission shall not adopt mandatory technical 
standards for ACS accessibility. However, the Commission may adopt 
technical standards as a safe harbor for such compliance if necessary 
to facilitate the manufacturers' and service providers' compliance. 47 
U.S.C. 617(e)(1)(D). The NPRM sought comment on whether there were any 
technical standards available or in development that could serve as 
safe harbors for IVCS compliance with one or more performance 
objectives.
    70. The Commission does not adopt any safe harbor standards for 
IVCS accessibility at this time, as no relevant standards are 
identified by commenters. Indeed, some commenters express doubts as to 
whether safe harbor standards could be helpful in this context. For 
example, a commenter contends that establishing a safe harbor risks 
locking in de facto technical mandates, thereby inhibiting innovation. 
Another commenter echoes this assessment, noting that specific 
technical standards could stifle the development of new accessibility 
features.
    71. One candidate for a safe harbor standard was suggested by two 
state regulatory agencies, who recommend the real-time text (RTT) 
technical standard as a safe harbor. These commenters appear to be 
referring to RFC 4103, a technical standard that is currently 
referenced by the Commission's rule governing RTT. A state agency 
commenter notes that RTT allows for simultaneous transmission of text, 
audio, video, and data; is already supported on most modern 
smartphones; and has already been implemented in VRS, making it 
relatively easy to further incorporate into video conferencing 
platforms. A public utility commission commenter adds that RTT is a 
widely known, well understood, and user-friendly standard.
    72. However, neither state agency explains which performance 
objectives would be implemented using RTT, or why a safe harbor is 
necessary to facilitate compliance with part 14 of the Commission's 
rules with respect to IVCS. Without a more detailed explanation of why 
an RTT-based safe harbor would further the Commission's goal of 
increasing video conferencing accessibility, the Commission is not 
persuaded that it is needed in this context.
    73. Part 14 Compliance Dates. The Commission allows IVCS providers 
two years to comply with the accessibility requirements. The Commission 
concludes that a full product development cycle should not be needed to 
implement the additional rule provisions added by document FCC 24-95. 
The performance objectives adopted today supplement the existing 
performance objectives for ACS, which became effective in 2012. 
Pursuant to the 2023 Video Conferencing Order, published at 88 FR 
50053, August 1, 2023, IVCS providers were allowed until September 3, 
2024, to meet the existing performance objectives. An additional two-
year period is appropriate for IVCS providers to complete any further 
development, testing, and deployment of modified software, to the 
extent needed to comply with the new provisions.
    74. Although the Commission largely agrees with a commenter that, 
for some service providers, the proposed performance objectives should 
be easily achievable within a relatively short period of time, for 
other (perhaps smaller) providers, compliance may require additional 
preparation and consultation. Additionally, as noted earlier, the 
breadth of IVCS entities now subject to the ACS rules is expansive. 
Providers of small, niche, or startup conferencing services may need to 
prioritize software development to suit their specific circumstances. 
Given these dueling considerations, the most appropriate compliance 
date is January 12, 2027.
    75. Costs and Benefits. The Commission concludes that the 
substantial benefits of its actions in this proceeding outweigh any 
costs those actions are likely to impose. The

[[Page 100887]]

Commission's actions in this proceeding implement Congress' directive 
to adopt performance objectives to ensure the accessibility of ACS, 
including IVCS, without unduly burdening the provision of IVCS. Like 
the existing performance objectives, the amended performance objectives 
are outcome-oriented, preserving flexibility in implementation and 
encouraging the development of efficient accessibility solutions. 
Further, the two-year compliance deadline balances the potentially 
significant industry-wide changes the CVAA requires with the need to 
ensure that people with disabilities can take advantage of the benefits 
of IVCS.
    76. As the COVID pandemic made clear, the benefits of ensuring 
access to video conferencing are enormous. Indeed, video conferencing 
is now a practical necessity for communication, having become, for most 
of the country's population, a mainstay of business, education, health, 
and personal life. Whether talking one-on-one with friends or 
participating in a multi-party conference call, people with 
disabilities benefit enormously from having the same opportunities as 
other Americans to make use of this modern form of communication 
service. As a commenter points out, the near ubiquity of video 
conferencing, and the heavy reliance on it by educators, government, 
and business for virtual meetings and collaboration, not to mention its 
use for social interaction, have made accessibility to, and usability 
of, these services a necessity for our community if we are to aspire to 
full participation in modern life.
    77. Although the NPRM requested comment on the potential costs that 
the Commission's proposals would impose, no specific cost estimates 
from commenters were received. Regardless, the Commission emphasizes 
that, as with the existing part 14 of its rules performance objectives, 
compliance with each of the amended performance objectives adopted here 
is conditioned on the objective being achievable, which means it can be 
achieved with reasonable effort or expense. Therefore, the rules 
themselves include a safeguard to ensure that the burden and cost of 
compliance will not be unreasonable, considering, among other factors, 
the technical and economic impact on the company's operation and the 
extent to which accessible services or equipment are already being 
offered by the company. As a result of this safeguard, which is 
applicable to certain other accessibility obligations imposed by the 
Act, the resulting cost burden is likely to be comparable to the cost 
imposed on other segments of the communications industry by rules 
incorporating an analogous condition--e.g., the cost incurred by other 
ACS providers and manufacturers to comply with the generally applicable 
accessibility requirements of section 617 of the Act. To a significant 
extent, the rules adopted today serve to clarify pre-existing 
obligations of IVCS providers, and for that reason as well are unlikely 
to be more burdensome than existing accessibility requirements.

Providing TRS in Video Conferences

    78. The Commission amends its rules to facilitate the integrated 
provision of TRS to enable functionally equivalent participation in 
video conferences. By ``integrated provision of TRS'' in a video 
conference, the Commission means an arrangement whereby communication 
between the CA (or automated equivalent) and the TRS user, whether by 
text or video, takes place on the video conferencing platform, rather 
than through a separate connection. Just as the TRS Fund has long been 
used to support the provision of TRS with audio-only teleconferencing, 
the Commission finds it is necessary and appropriate that the TRS Fund 
be used to support the provision of TRS with video conferencing, as 
needed for functionally equivalent communication. At this time, the 
Commission does not require any TRS provider to provide TRS in video 
conferences on an integrated basis. Rather, the rules adopted here are 
intended to facilitate the provision of TRS in video conferences while 
protecting the TRS Fund against potential waste, fraud, and abuse.
    79. A commenter contends that funding TRS users' participation in 
video conference calls is somehow a ``profound change'' that will 
negatively impact the deaf community in various areas such as 
healthcare. The TRS Fund already compensates TRS providers for their 
users' participation in video and audio conference calls. The 
obligations of various industry sectors to provide accommodations for 
individuals with disabilities under federal, state, and local laws 
remain unchanged.
    80. Legal Authority. The Commission adopts its tentative conclusion 
that it has statutory authority to direct TRS Fund support to the 
provision of TRS in video conferences on an integrated basis. 
Specifically, the Commission concludes that the integrated provision of 
relay service in a video conference (i.e., without the need for the CA 
to have a voice-only connection to the video conference and a separate 
data or video connection to the TRS user) fits the statutory definition 
of telecommunications relay service as a telephone transmission service 
enabling communication by wire or radio in a manner that is 
functionally equivalent to the ability of a hearing individual who does 
not have a speech disability to communicate using voice communication 
services by wire or radio. See 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3).
    81. Section 225 of the Act defines relay services in terms of their 
purpose--to enable people with hearing or speech disabilities to 
communicate by wire or radio in a manner that is functionally 
equivalent to how people without such disabilities use voice 
communication services. In turn, communication by wire and 
communication by radio are broadly defined by the Act, using terms that 
encompass, among other things, communication via the internet or 
internet Protocol. In addition, IVCS, which is defined to include audio 
communication, is appropriately characterized as a voice communication 
service for purposes of section 225 of the Act.
    82. As for telephone transmission service, which is not defined in 
the Act, the Commission has given this term a broad interpretation, 
noting that it is constrained only by the requirement that such service 
provide a specific functionality, namely the ability to communicate by 
wire or radio in a manner functionally equivalent to voice 
communication. Further, section 225 of the Act directs the Commission 
to ``ensure that regulations prescribed to implement this section 
encourage, consistent with section 7(a) of this Act, the use of 
existing technology and do not discourage or impair the development of 
improved technology.'' 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(2). For example, in prior 
decisions authorizing new forms of TRS, the Commission has repeatedly 
found that internet-based relay services are not limited to a specific 
technical configuration, and has not interpreted telephone transmission 
service as requiring the use of telephone numbers. Consistent with 
these prior decisions, the inclusion of video imaging in the underlying 
service to which TRS is applied does not change the fundamental 
character of TRS itself as a telephone transmission service. Whether 
TRS is used to relay ordinary voice telephone service or the voice 
portion of a video conferencing service, it remains essentially 
telephone transmission service: regardless of the additional content 
that may be included, along with voice, in the underlying 
communication, the essential purpose of TRS is to ensure that the 
telephonic (i.e., voice)

[[Page 100888]]

characteristics of a communication are rendered communicable, in a 
functionally equivalent manner, to people with hearing or speech 
disabilities.
    83. Commenters addressing the issue generally agree with the 
Commission's analysis of section 225 of the Act. As one commenter 
notes, a Senate committee report in the legislative history explains 
that the provisions of section 225 of the Act ``do not seek to entrench 
current technology but rather to allow for new, more advanced, and more 
efficient technology.'' The only dissenter contends, without further 
explanation, that providing interpretation for video calls held on 
privately hosted IVCS platforms falls outside the scope of the TRS 
fund. As explained above, the Commission has previously rejected this 
narrow view of section 225 of the Act.
    84. Timing of Commission Action. The Commission agrees with some 
commenters that collaboration among stakeholders may help accelerate 
efforts to provide TRS in video conferences on an integrated basis. 
However, given the centrality of video conferencing in today's society, 
it is important that the Commission adopt rules addressing the 
provision of TRS in video conferences without undue delay. This is 
especially true for VRS, as alternative sign language interpretation 
services are not always available for video conferences. Therefore, the 
Commission amends its rules in a number of ways to facilitate the 
integrated provision of TRS, and especially VRS, in video conferences. 
Regarding some aspects of VRS, as well as other forms of TRS, the 
current record does not enable the Commission to formulate an 
appropriate rule, and it seeks further comment on such unresolved 
issues in the FNPRM.
    85. The Commission does not see a need to authorize a pilot program 
for the integrated provision of VRS in video conferences, as suggested 
by a commenter. The Commission has conducted pilot programs, such as 
the at-home VRS call handling pilot program and the National Deaf-Blind 
Equipment Distribution Program, in the context of allowing a service or 
a mode of providing a service that was not previously allowed by our 
rules, or when a pilot program is mandated by Congress. With such a 
pilot program, the Commission can study what adjustments to its rules 
may be needed to allow a new service or new program.
    86. However, pilot programs, by their nature, have a sunset date, 
and require affirmative action by the Commission to extend the sunset 
date or convert the pilot program to permanent rules allowing the new 
service. Given the importance and urgency of making VRS available in 
video conferences on an integrated basis, and the progress that has 
been made to date in integrating VRS with IVCS, the more tentative, 
pilot-program approach is not appropriate here. Indeed, the integrated 
provision of VRS on video conference calls has already begun on a 
limited scale. Instituting a pilot program could be incorrectly 
perceived as signaling uncertainty as to the net benefits of such 
integration, potentially causing unnecessary delay in the availability 
of integrated VRS.
    87. It is clear from the comments that TRS and video conferencing 
service providers believe collaboration will continue for the 
foreseeable future. Any insights gleaned from such collaboration can 
inform the Commission's rulemaking process going forward, without the 
need to wait for a pilot program to produce results.
    88. Multiple commenters also suggest that the Commission charter a 
DAC working group composed of representatives of video conferencing 
providers, TRS providers, and accessibility advocates, who would be 
tasked with developing recommendations for further rules. Again, the 
Commission believes it can make significant progress now toward 
improving the accessibility of video conferencing calls. As 
stakeholders continue to collaborate, the Commission can consider 
whether chartering a DAC working group with specific tasks would be 
useful for this effort.
    89. Integrating the Provision of VRS in Video Conferencing. The 
Commission also adopts its tentative conclusion, with which commenting 
parties generally agree, that the integrated provision of VRS with 
video conferencing is often necessary to enable sign language users to 
communicate in a functionally equivalent manner. Integrated provision 
of VRS in a video conference means an arrangement whereby a CA is 
included as a participant in the video conference and all communication 
between the CA and the participants takes place on the video 
conferencing platform rather than through a separate connection. A VRS 
user relying on a CA who appears on a separate screen while connected 
to the conference audio is non-integrated provision of VRS. Non-
integrated provision of VRS remains a compensable form of TRS, and is 
not affected by the rules adopted in this proceeding.
    90. As noted previously, connecting a VRS CA to a video conference 
may not be possible if there is no dial-in connection. Such a 
connection is often unavailable. Assuming the video conferencing 
platform allows a dial-in connection, in a hosted video conference it 
is the host who determines whether to provide such an option. Even if a 
dial-in connection is available, that configuration creates 
difficulties for the VRS user, if, for example, the user must 
constantly navigate between devices. In addition, the CA who, unlike 
other participants, is limited to an audio connection, is unable to 
read documents or other text that may be displayed, interpret facial 
expressions, or attend to other visual cues on which video conference 
participants often rely for effective communication.
    91. A commenter objects to the Commission's approach to integrating 
VRS with video conferencing services, claiming that authorizing TRS 
Fund compensation for VRS integrated with video conferencing platforms 
will ``nationalize'' the ASL interpreting industry, putting out of 
business many Video Remote Interpretation (VRI) services, who currently 
provide translation services for conference calls. Such speculative 
concerns do not justify prohibiting or delaying the integrated 
provision of VRS in video conferences. The rules adopted here do not 
prohibit video conference hosts or participants from using non-VRS 
interpretation services. Indeed, the Commission expects that VRI will 
be preferred for video conferences, as VRI interpreters employed by a 
video conference host generally will have more opportunity to prepare, 
and are more likely to have expertise in the specific subject matter of 
a video conference. Many organizers and hosts of video conferences 
calls have obligations under the ADA or other laws to provide 
accommodations for people with disabilities, including English-to-ASL 
interpretation, for which the use of VRS often may not be suitable.
    92. To facilitate the integration of VRS with IVCS, the Commission 
amends its rules, as set forth below, to ensure the appropriate use of 
VRS with video conferencing and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. The 
rules adopted today are designed to allow VRS providers to integrate 
their services with video conferencing so that VRS customers can 
participate in a video conference call with the presence of a VRS CA on 
the video platform, while protecting the TRS Fund from waste, fraud, 
and abuse. As video conferencing service evolves and VRS providers and 
the Commission gain more experience with the integrated provision of 
VRS in video conferences, some of the rules below may be revisited.

[[Page 100889]]

    93. Permissive Approach. At this time, the Commission does not 
require VRS providers to provide VRS in video conferences on an 
integrated basis. VRS and video conferencing providers need to continue 
collaborating to ensure that VRS is available to sign language users on 
IVCS platforms, and the Commission generally encourages all VRS and 
video conferencing providers to be receptive to such collaboration. 
However, the Commission recognizes that integration of VRS with video 
conferencing services, including all necessary user verification, 
billing, and other requirements, may present technical issues for both 
VRS and video conferencing providers. The record does not provide 
useful information on how much time IVCS providers and TRS providers 
may require to develop integration solutions, nor the extent to which a 
solution may be applicable to multiple video conferencing platforms.
    94. The Commission is concerned that mandating integration of VRS 
with video conferencing services at this early stage in the 
technological development of the service could stymie experimentation 
with different technologies. Allowing experimentation and innovation, 
including technical collaboration among stakeholders will result in 
better integration of VRS, and is therefore consistent with the 
statutory mandate that TRS services are to be provided to ``the extent 
possible'' and in the ``most efficient manner.''
    95. User Validation. VRS is available only to eligible users, i.e., 
persons authorized to use VRS pursuant to a registration in the User 
Database. Ordinarily, a person's status as an eligible VRS user is 
verified by means of the NANP telephone number from which or to which a 
call is placed. By contrast, video conference participants typically 
enter a video conference via the internet (e.g., by clicking a link 
provided by the host of a video conference, or entering a URL in a 
search engine or app) without dialing from a line associated with a 
telephone number. In further contrast with ordinary telephone calls, 
the video conference format invites VRS users to connect directly, 
rather than through their VRS providers.
    96. Consistent with the requirement for other VRS calls, the 
Commission requires that, when VRS is provided in video conferences, 
VRS providers must validate eligibility by collecting the user's 
assigned 10-digit NANP telephone number, even if the number is not 
technically used to connect to the video conference. For example, the 
VRS provider may request registered users to enter their VRS telephone 
number in an application or plug-in that the VRS provider makes 
available to video conference participants to request a VRS CA. 
Whatever the process, the VRS provider must verify that the user's 
telephone number is registered in the User Database before allowing the 
assigned CA(s) to participate in the call. The Commission encourages 
video conferencing service providers and VRS providers to collaborate 
on development of such sign-on procedures.
    97. Call Detail Requirements. To collect compensation from the TRS 
Fund for a particular call, a VRS provider must submit call detail 
records (CDRs) to the TRS Fund administrator with the information 
required by the Commission's rules. To take account of the distinctive 
characteristics of and special requirements applicable to video 
conferencing (including special criteria for counting CA minutes of use 
and limitations on the number of CAs that may be assigned to a multi-
party video conference), the Commission amends the Call Data Rule to 
require that a VRS provider's CDRs identify each video conference in 
which integrated VRS is provided. IP addresses can be used, in the 
context of video conferences, to identify the internet location to 
which participants all connect, and a conference provider's URL can 
assist the Fund administrator's oversight of this new application of 
TRS by identifying which video conferencing provider is responsible for 
handling the underlying communication. However, to ensure flexibility 
in the administration of TRS, the rule the Commission adopts authorizes 
the TRS Fund administrator to determine, and provide specific guidance 
to VRS providers regarding, the specific information and format that 
are needed to indicate that integrated VRS was provided in a video 
conference and to sufficiently identify the particular video conference 
involved, taking account of the need to provide an auditable record, as 
well as any legitimate security or data protection concerns. For 
example, the administrator might determine that an IP address is needed 
to identify the specific internet location of the video conference, and 
that the provision of a short-form URL will sufficiently identify the 
IVCS provider while limiting any security or privacy risk that might 
result from requiring the submission of a long-form URL. However, the 
Commission emphasizes that the rule adopted here does not determine the 
specific additional or alternative information regarding video 
conferences that shall be submitted in CDRs. Rather, the Commission 
relies on the TRS Fund administrator to make that determination, based 
on its expertise and experience. In this regard, the Commission directs 
the administrator to collect, and by extension to use, process, store, 
and maintain, only information--insofar as it may qualify as personally 
identifiable information--that is directly relevant and necessary to 
accomplish its specific purpose. If necessary, the administrator may 
also provide instructions to ensure that providers correctly identify 
non-compensable international video conferences and other instances 
where, based on the parties involved, the provision of VRS in a video 
conference is not eligible for TRS Fund compensation.
    98. When Compensable Time Starts. The CDRs submitted by TRS 
providers must record when compensable call time begins and ends. For 
an ordinary VRS call, compensable call time usually starts when the 
called party answers, because at that point the CA is already present. 
Identifying a start time is not so obvious for video conferences. The 
CA may not be present when a video conference begins. Further, the need 
for interpretation in a video conference does not always start as soon 
as two participants have logged on; for example, both of the first two 
participants may be signers, or hearing users; and, on some calls, 
participants may be placed in a ``waiting room'' before entering the 
call. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed that, for video conferences, 
a VRS provider's TRS minutes of use begin when a VRS CA is connected to 
a video conference and two or more participants are actively present.
    99. The Commission adopts a modified version of the proposed rule 
to facilitate the automatic provision of conversation start times in 
CDRs, so that a CA does not ordinarily need to make a determination 
when compensable time begins. Compensable time for a video conference 
shall begin when a VRS CA enters the video conference, provided that 
the CA identifies the requesting VRS user within five minutes of 
entering the video conference. If, within that time, the CA cannot 
identify the requesting VRS user, or it becomes evident that VRS is not 
needed (e.g., if no hearing users log on and all participants 
communicate using sign language), then the call must be identified as 
non-compensable.
    100. At this time, the Commission declines to allow compensation 
for periods when CAs are in a waiting room before joining a video 
conference. There is a significant difference between being ``on hold'' 
for a voice telephone call and

[[Page 100890]]

being in a ``waiting room'' prior to joining a video conference. When a 
VRS user and CA are ``on hold,'' they are in communication with each 
other, and the CA is able to interpret any oral announcements or other 
audio information conveyed by the other party's answering device. In a 
video conference ``waiting room,'' however, the CA may be the only one 
``waiting,'' and even if a registered VRS user is also ``waiting,'' 
communication between them may not be possible. Further, if 
announcements by the conference host are conveyed by text (as appears 
to be the usual case), instead of orally, no VRS interpretation of such 
announcements is needed.
    101. The Commission recognizes that the VRS user and CA may not be 
able to control when they are admitted to a video conference from a 
waiting room. However, compensation for time in a waiting room, or 
other pre-conference statuses where the VRS user and CA are unable, or 
have no need, to communicate, would expend TRS funds without even the 
possibility for the provision of interpretation services.
    102. CA-Related Issues. As acknowledged in the NPRM, there may be a 
number of situations in which more than one VRS CA potentially may be 
asked to interpret a video conference. For example: two or more 
participants may request VRS from different providers in the same video 
conference; two or more VRS users may each request VRS from the same 
provider on the same video conference; or the nature of the video 
conference may be such that a VRS provider determines that more than 
one CA (i.e., team interpreting) is needed for effective communication. 
In the NPRM, the Commission asked whether the TRS rules should apply 
differently in this respect to a video conference than to a 
teleconference. The Commission also proposed that, in the ordinary 
case, if the VRS user who requested service leaves a video conference, 
or is disconnected, before the session ends, then the billable period 
has ended and the CA should leave the video conference.
    103. At this time, the Commission does not prohibit multiple 
providers from responding to service requests from different users for 
the same video conference. Implementing such a rule would require 
logistics and coordination procedures among VRS providers, about which 
the record is nonexistent. However, the Commission's rules do not 
prohibit TRS providers from reaching agreements for the efficient use 
of CAs. For example, the restrictions on VRS contracting do not 
preclude a VRS provider from authorizing another VRS provider to 
provide interpretation service to the first provider's registered 
users. Thus, VRS providers may arrange for their registered users 
participating in the same video conference to be served by a single CA 
as long as there is no double-billing of the TRS Fund for the services 
of that CA.
    104. In an audio-only teleconference, where two or more registered 
VRS users are participating, the TRS Fund supports the provision of a 
CA for each registered user--with each user's connection through a CA 
being treated as a separate call because the VRS CAs are connected to 
the VRS users on separate screens. However, in a video conference with 
integrated VRS, unlike a teleconference, it is possible for all 
participants to be served by one CA from the same VRS provider. To 
prevent unnecessary, redundant provision of interpreting by the same 
VRS provider, and to limit the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse, the 
Commission requires that, when a VRS provider receives two requests for 
VRS for a single video conference, the VRS provider shall only bill the 
TRS Fund for VRS provided to the first requesting user. If a CA joins a 
video conferencing call and detects that a VRS CA from the same VRS 
provider is already present on the call, the later-in-time CA should 
terminate participation in the call, and no separate CDR shall be 
submitted to seek compensation for that CA's presence on the call. To 
facilitate implementation of this practice, the Commission requires 
that VRS CAs identify themselves as such in a video conference, 
including the name of their VRS employer. CAs may identify themselves 
for this purpose by indicating in their display name that they are an 
interpreter and identifying the VRS provider with which they are 
affiliated. In certain situations, the two VRS CAs may not immediately 
know which is the ``later-in-time.'' Communication between the two CAs 
may be possible, in which case they can decide who drops off, or VRS 
providers may want to establish their own protocols for which CA drops 
off in this situation.
    105. Under the Commission's rules, VRS providers are not prohibited 
from assigning an additional CA to a particular VRS call, if deemed 
necessary. However, no additional compensation is paid for the second 
CA. The Commission recognizes that video conferences often involve 
longer conversations with more complex interaction among multiple 
participants. The current record does not enable the formulation of a 
bright-line rule defining the circumstances, if any, that warrant TRS 
Fund compensation for the addition of a second CA, nor an appropriate 
rate of compensation for team interpreting.
    106. The Commission adopts its proposal that, in the ordinary case, 
if the VRS user who requested service leaves a video conference, or is 
disconnected, before the session ends, then the billable period has 
ended and the CA should leave the video conference. As an exception, 
the Commission will allow the continuation of TRS Fund-supported 
service to a video conference after the initiating user drops off, 
provided that a registered VRS user who remains in the video conference 
has made a request for service. (In addition, at least one non-signing 
user must remain on the call.) In implementing this exception, VRS 
providers may choose to include in their software for managing service 
to video conferences the capability to hold in reserve any extra 
service requests from video conference participants that were not 
fulfilled when made because another participant already requested VRS 
for the conference. By holding an additional request in reserve, it can 
be automatically fulfilled if the first-in-line requester leaves the 
conference early. If there are no requests held in reserve, and the CA 
is aware that other sign language users may remain in the video 
conference, the CA may delay exiting the conference for up to five 
minutes of additional compensable time, to allow a new (replacement) 
registered user to request service. Upon verification of the new 
registered user, the CA (or a replacement) may continue service to the 
video conference beyond the five-minute grace period. The second 
registered VRS user's telephone number must be included in the call 
data submitted for compensation. The Commission directs the TRS Fund 
administrator to provide appropriate guidance to VRS providers on how 
an extension of service, in response to a remaining participant's 
request, should be reflected in the CDRs submitted by a provider in 
support of compensation requests. The Commission notes that this rule 
only applies when two registered VRS users initiate an invitation to 
the same conference call through the same VRS provider.
    107. A VRS provider, raises a concern that its current system for 
responding to requests for integrated VRS does not allow a new request 
for VRS to be made until the initial CA has disconnected from the video 
conference. As a result, any users remaining in a video conference 
after the first requesting user drops off would not be able to request

[[Page 100891]]

service during the five-minute period allowed for that purpose. The 
current record is insufficient to allow the Commission to assess the 
nature and extent of such limitations and fully consider the possible 
alternatives for addressing the provider's concerns. In the FNPRM, the 
Commission seeks additional comment on this issue. In addition, the 
Commission notes that VRS providers may request relief pursuant to the 
Commission's waiver process.
    108. The Commission is not persuaded that a VRS provider should 
continue to receive TRS Fund compensation for extended service to ASL 
users who are not registered VRS users, as a commenter recommends. The 
TRS program is premised on service to individuals who meet the 
eligibility criteria of section 225 of the Act and the Commission's 
implementing rules. Further, allowing compensation for service to users 
who are not confirmed as eligible by a TRS provider may result in 
longer wait times for relay service requested by eligible users on 
other calls.
    109. The Commission does not modify the current rule requiring that 
VRS CAs stay on a call for a minimum of 10 minutes before being 
replaced by another CA. At this time, the Commission also declines 
commenters' recommendation to allow additional compensation for the 
presence of multiple CAs if the replacement CA enters the call early to 
observe or acquire background information before taking over the first 
CA's duties. The record does not clearly demonstrate to what extent 
there is a material difference between call takeovers in a video 
conference and call takeovers in an ordinary telephone call or 
teleconference of comparable duration, such that the Commission's rules 
should allow extra compensation for transitional observation periods. 
If further experience warrants, the Commission may revisit this issue 
in a future proceeding.
    110. The Commission's rules require that call detail, including the 
start and end of conversation time, be recorded automatically. Given 
that the rules adopted here require CAs to make certain 
determinations--e.g., as to when they must exit a video conference 
because none of the remaining participants has requested VRS--the 
Commission amends its rules to provide that the generation of a CDR 
based on a CA's exit from a video conference in accordance with our 
rules does not violate the automatic recording rule. To assist in 
review and auditing of compensation payments, the Commission requires 
VRS providers to include in their annual compliance reports a detailed 
explanation of the guidance they provide to CAs regarding when 
compensable time starts and stops, in the various circumstances 
discussed above.
    111. Privacy Screen Rule. The current rules, which were adopted 
before video conferencing became widespread, prohibit a VRS CA from 
enabling a visual privacy screen or similar feature during a VRS call 
and require the CA to disconnect a VRS call if the caller or called 
party enables a visual privacy screen or similar feature for more than 
five minutes or is otherwise unresponsive or unengaged for more than 
five minutes. A visual privacy screen is defined as a screen or any 
other feature that is designed to prevent one party or both parties on 
the video leg of a VRS call from viewing the other party during a call. 
The rule's original purpose was to stop illicit schemes that result in 
calls ``running'' without any communication between the parties for the 
sole purpose of fraudulently billing the Fund. In the NPRM, the 
Commission recognized that in a multi-party video conference, 
participants may turn off their video cameras for various reasons 
wholly unrelated to the reason for the rule. Therefore, the Commission 
proposed to amend the rule to allow more flexibility in the activation 
of cameras when VRS is provided in a video conference on an integrated 
basis. The Commission also waived the privacy screen rule, in part, 
pending the outcome of this rulemaking.
    112. The Commission adopts the proposed amendment to the privacy 
screen rule. The record supports the Commission's assumption that in 
multi-party video conferences, there are a variety of reasons why VRS 
users and CAs, like other participants, may turn off their videos 
without any fraudulent intent, and without thereby indicating lack of 
interest or engagement in the video conference. For example, in some 
video conferences, the host may request that all participants turn off 
their videos unless speaking, to make it easier for participants who 
are deaf to view a sign language interpreter. Further, in a video 
conference where one or more participants are speaking at length, 
participants who are deaf may (like other participants) choose to turn 
off their videos until it is their turn to speak.
    113. The revised privacy screen rule allows VRS CAs to continue 
providing relay services integrated with a multi-party video conference 
when the VRS user who requested service has turned off his or her video 
connection for more than five minutes, as long as at least one other 
party is continuing to speak and the VRS user is still connected to the 
video conference. If five minutes elapse in which no party on a multi-
party video conference is responsive or engaged in conversation, the 
VRS CA shall follow the current procedure, i.e., announce that VRS will 
be terminated and leave the video conference. The amended rule also 
allows VRS CAs to turn off their video connections when not actively 
relaying a conversation, e.g., with another VRS CA as a team on a 
multi-party video conference. (Although the TRS Fund does not currently 
provide additional compensation for team interpreting, the Commission's 
rules do not prohibit team interpreting in video conferences.) Finally, 
the Commission adopts its proposed definition of multi-party video 
conference as a video conference with three or more participants, 
excluding VRS CAs and any other participant providing an accommodation 
for a participant.
    114. Integrating Other Types of TRS with Video Conferencing. In the 
NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the need to facilitate the 
integration of non-VRS types of TRS with video conferencing and on the 
existence and progress of any efforts to develop technology to enable 
such integration. Limited comments were received on this issue. At this 
time, the Commission adopts certain rules, discussed below, for 
application to non-VRS TRS, to the extent that IP CTS providers have 
developed methods of providing this service on an integrated basis. 
However, the record is insufficient to resolve some issues, and the 
Commission seeks additional comment on those in the FNPRM.
    115. IP CTS. Currently, registered IP CTS users can use IP CTS with 
video conferencing on a non-integrated basis. For example, a video 
conferencing participant can access IP CTS captioning when a telephone 
connection to the video conference is available. In this configuration, 
IP CTS captions are only visible to the requesting user--and may 
require a separate screen. Further, in this configuration, a human 
captioner cannot see the video conference participants. However, 
captioning is currently available as a native feature on some IVCS 
platforms, with captions displayed on the same screen as the video 
conference. As discussed above, the Commission amends part 14 of its 
rules to expressly require that IVCS providers make captioning 
available on their video conferencing platforms (unless that is not 
achievable). In

[[Page 100892]]

addition, the part 14 of the Commission's rules amendments require IVCS 
providers to enable the connection of IVCS users to third-party 
captioning services (including IP CTS providers) and to display such 
captions on the user's video conference screen (unless these 
requirements are not achievable). Some people with hearing loss may 
prefer to use third-party captions produced by an IP CTS provider 
rather than those provided by the IVCS provider or a fee-based 
captioning service.
    116. With multiple captioning options already available, the extent 
of the need for integrated provision of IP CTS (i.e., so that captions 
are displayed on the IP CTS user's video conference screen) is 
currently unclear. Consistent with its determination that the TRS Fund 
can support the provision of TRS in video conferences, the Commission 
allows IP CTS providers to seek compensation for providing video 
conference captioning on an integrated basis, in compliance with the 
current TRS rules. However, the Commission does not require IP CTS 
providers to do so. IP CTS providers that seek compensation for 
providing captioning in video conferences on an integrated basis may 
use the same billing and CDR guidelines discussed above for VRS. In the 
FNPRM, the Commission seeks further comment on whether amendments to 
its rules are needed to facilitate the integrated provision of IP CTS 
while preventing waste, fraud, and abuse.

Rules Applicable to All TRS

    117. Confidentiality. Section 225 of the Act specifically requires 
the Commission to prescribe regulations that prohibit relay operators 
from disclosing the content of any relayed conversation and from 
keeping records of the content of any such conversation beyond the 
duration of the call. 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(1)(F). The confidentiality 
provision of the Commission's TRS rules thus provides that, except as 
authorized by section 705 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 605, CAs are prohibited 
from disclosing the content of any relayed conversation regardless of 
content, and from keeping records of the content of any conversation 
beyond the duration of a call, even if to do so would be inconsistent 
with state or local law. 47 CFR 64.604(a)(2)(i). Some features of video 
conferences are not explicitly addressed by this rule. For example, a 
CA may become aware of ``sidebar'' conversations between two or more 
video conference participants (whether in speech or sign language), 
which the CA concludes are not intended to be communicated to other 
participants. Or a CA may review the text of ``chat'' conversations or 
PowerPoints and other presentation material shared among participants, 
even though this information may not be orally recited or discussed and 
thus may not be relayed by the CA. Such content may not be covered by 
the current rule.
    118. The Commission amends the TRS confidentiality rule to 
expressly prohibit CAs from disclosing non-relayed content (as 
described above) communicated in a video conference or from maintaining 
records of such content beyond the duration of the video conference. 
The amended rule prohibits a TRS provider and its CAs from disclosing 
``sidebar'' conversations, chat, presentation material, and other 
content that may be observed by a CA, and requires TRS providers and 
CAs to destroy any notes or records of such content upon termination of 
the call. For example, if a CA keeps notes during a call of, e.g., 
names, specialized vocabulary, etc., such notes must be destroyed at 
the end of the call. The Commission also amends the confidentiality 
rule to codify the Commission's prior rulings indicating that the rule 
expressly applies to TRS providers as well as to CAs, so that the rule 
explicitly covers TRS calls (including but not limited to video 
conferences) where TRS is provided without the involvement of a CA.
    119. As with ordinary telephone calls, video conference 
participants typically have an expectation that, unless the 
circumstances indicate otherwise, the content of their communications 
will not be disclosed to non-participants. Further, section 225 of the 
Act specifically mandates that the confidentiality of relayed 
conversations be protected, highlighting the paramount importance of 
privacy for TRS users. TRS providers and their CAs are invited into the 
communication process for the sole purpose of enabling people with 
hearing and speech disabilities to participate in telephonic 
conversations in a functionally equivalent manner. They are not 
authorized to be sources of information about the conversations they 
facilitate, except in narrowly defined circumstances.
    120. The Commission's expansion of the rule to cover non-relayed 
content observed by a CA reflects that, unlike an ordinary telephone 
call, the multimedia nature of a video conference may expose a CA to 
textual or other non-aural information shared among some or all 
participants, as to which they may have a legitimate expectation of 
privacy. Although the rule that section 225 of the Act expressly 
directs the Commission to adopt only covers the content of any relayed 
conversation, this specific direction is part of a general direction to 
the Commission to ``prescribe regulations to implement this section.'' 
47 U.S.C. 225(d)(1). The Commission does not interpret section 225 of 
the Act as precluding the Commission from modifying its confidentiality 
rule to cover additional information to which TRS CAs may be exposed in 
the course of their work.
    121. A commenter asks the Commission to clarify that VRS providers 
may not retain video transcripts of calls to use in training artificial 
intelligence (AI) programs. The Commission's TRS confidentiality rule 
already prohibits TRS providers from keeping records of the content of 
any conversation beyond the duration of a call. The Commission will 
investigate any alleged violation of this rule if brought to its 
attention through the complaint process.
    122. The Commission emphasizes that the TRS confidentiality rule 
only applies to TRS CAs and TRS providers (i.e., entities seeking 
compensation from the TRS Fund). Neither IVCS providers nor the 
participants in a video conference (other than CAs) are subject to the 
rule. Therefore, there is no basis for concern that expanding the scope 
of the rule as described above would somehow curb the participants' 
ability to use common and legitimate video conferencing features such 
as open captioning, recording and cloud-stored transcripts. As far as 
the TRS rules are concerned, IVCS providers and video conference 
participants remain free to provide and use captioning and recording 
features, or disclose information to non-participants, subject to 
whatever restrictions may apply under other laws.
    123. Exclusivity Agreements. The Commission adopts its proposal to 
prohibit exclusivity agreements between TRS providers and video 
conferencing providers. This rule was recommended by the DAC, and no 
party opposes it. In general, an exclusivity agreement is an express or 
implied agreement between a TRS provider and a video conferencing 
provider that has the purpose or effect of preventing other providers 
from offering similar services to consumers. As stated in the NPRM, 
exclusivity agreements may deprive consumers of the opportunity to rely 
on their chosen TRS provider when using video conferencing services, 
contrary to the Commission's policy. Similarly, such exclusivity 
agreements may restrict the ability of conference hosts and TRS

[[Page 100893]]

users to select a preferred video conferencing provider.
    124. Although the NPRM also sought comment on addressing 
arrangements that create de facto exclusivity but do not constitute 
express or implied exclusivity agreements, the resulting record is 
insufficient. However, the Commission stresses that its part 14 rules 
prohibit IVCS providers from installing network features, functions, or 
capabilities that impede accessibility or usability. Although the 
application of this rule to network features, functions, and 
capabilities is determined on a case-by-case basis, the Commission 
emphasizes that software applications that are installed, e.g., to 
enable IVCS users to request a VRS CA, must not impede the ability of 
users to request service from their preferred provider.
    125. Scheduling the Provision of TRS. In the NPRM, the Commission 
took note that video conferencing can function as a substitute for in-
person meetings as well as teleconferences, and that many employers, 
educational institutions, health care providers, government agencies, 
and other entities currently provide ASL interpreting, captioning and 
other accommodations--either voluntarily or to fulfill obligations 
under the ADA or other laws. In these contexts, dedicated ASL 
interpreters, captioners, and others may be trained and gain experience 
in a specific subject matter and may have the opportunity to prepare in 
advance for a scheduled meeting or class. The Commission sought comment 
on the implications of this for the provision of TRS. The Commission 
also asked how the Commission can ensure that the use of TRS in video 
conferences does not detract from the effective implementation of ADA 
and other legal requirements. In particular, the Commission sought 
comment on a tentative conclusion that TRS providers must continue to 
decline requests to reserve a TRS CA in advance of a scheduled video 
conference.
    126. The Commission adopts the tentative conclusion in the NPRM 
that TRS providers must continue to decline requests to reserve a TRS 
CA in advance of a scheduled video conference. The Commission has long 
held that the role of TRS is to be available for calls consumers choose 
to make, when they choose to make them, i.e., to be the ``dial tone'' 
for a call that requires assistance for effective communication. For 
this reason, the Commission requires TRS providers to handle service 
requests in the order in which they are received, in accordance with 
``speed-of-answer'' standards. As a consequence, the Commission has 
found that the practice of permitting TRS users to reserve in advance a 
time at which a CA will handle a call is inconsistent with the nature 
of TRS and the functional equivalency mandate. The provision of ASL 
interpreting, captioning, and other assistance by prior reservation is 
a different kind of service, which is available from other sources, 
such as VRI and CART service providers. Commenters urging the 
Commission to modify the rule against advance scheduling do not provide 
persuasive reasons why such a change is necessary, given the 
availability of non-TRS services.
    127. One commenter suggests that the first-come, first-served rule 
for TRS will somehow interfere with language access to various services 
mandated by the federal government. The first-come, first-served rule 
only applies to TRS CAs responding to requests for TRS. The rule does 
not apply outside that context. The general accessibility of federal 
programs will not be affected in any new or comprehensive way by this 
determination.
    128. At this time, the Commission also declines to authorize VRS 
providers to assign a specialized CA to handle a video conference, 
rather than assigning the first available CA, as is currently required. 
Based on the current record, the Commission is not persuaded that every 
video conference call will be so complex as to require specially 
trained CAs. Further, Sorenson's proposal raises substantial concerns 
about speed of answer and how the quality of TRS provided for ordinary 
telephone calls would be affected, were the Commission to adopt a rule 
authorizing CAs with special training--who likely would be among the 
most talented and experienced TRS CAs--to be assigned specifically to 
the provision of video conferences. The Commission seeks additional 
comment on this proposal in the FNPRM. The Commission also notes that 
there is precedent indicating that the Commission's rules allow the 
assignment of VRS calls to CAs based on the technical capability of the 
equipment at a CA station, as opposed to the skills of a particular CA. 
Document FCC 24-95 does not overrule prior precedent or alter the 
Commission's current rules in this regard.

Amendment of the Commission's Rules for TRS Calls With Multiple CAs

    129. Section 64.604(c)(14) of the Commission's rules states that 
compensation is authorized for the provision of multiple CAs to handle 
TRS calls between two or more users of captioned telephone service--CTS 
or IP CTS--and for calls between a captioned telephone service user and 
a user of TTY-based TRS or VRS. Subsequently, the Commission amended 
the definition of telecommunications relay service to reflect the 
statutory definition of that term as amended by the CVAA. The amended 
definition provides that TRS enables functionally equivalent 
communication between ``an individual who is deaf, hard of hearing, 
deaf-blind, or who has a speech disability'' and ``one or more 
individuals.'' Previously, TRS was defined as enabling functionally 
equivalent communication between ``an individual who has a hearing 
impairment or speech impairment'' and ``an individual who does not have 
a hearing impairment or speech impairment.'' The Commission explained 
that the revised definition will allow compensation from the TRS Fund 
for relay calls involving two or more persons using different forms of 
relay services, including calls whose handling may require more than 
one CA. However, in adopting the amended definition of TRS, the 
Commission did not modify the multiple-CA rule to reflect its stated 
intent regarding compensation for calls handled by multiple CAs. As a 
result, some categories of calls that qualify as TRS under the amended 
statutory definition and that may warrant multiple CAs, are not 
currently addressed by the multiple-CA rule. For example, the current 
rule does not address when the use of two CAs is appropriate for calls 
between users of IP Relay and other forms of TRS. In the NPRM, the 
Commission proposed to amend this rule to address these gaps, to 
harmonize this rule with the current definition of TRS.
    130. The Commission adopts the proposed amendment to the multiple-
CA rule, which states that compensation may be paid for more than one 
CA to handle, among other categories, calls between users of different 
types of relay services where more than one CA is warranted. This 
amendment broadens the scope of the rule to more fully reflect the 
Commission's stated intent in adopting the amended definition of TRS. 
The Commission also clarifies that, for purposes of this rule, CA can 
refer to an automated CA equivalent, such as an ASR program used to 
provide ASR-only IP CTS.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    131. Need For, and Objectives of, the Report and Order. In document 
FCC 24-95, the Commission amends its rules to ensure that people with 
disabilities are able to access and use interoperable video 
conferencing service (IVCS), a category of advanced communication

[[Page 100894]]

service (ACS). As video conferencing has grown from a niche product to 
an essential vehicle of communication, the need for accessibility has 
become acute; yet, there remain significant gaps in the accessibility 
of video conferencing services. Therefore, the Commission amends its 
part 14 rules, which govern accessibility of ACS, adding performance 
objectives that specifically enable the accessibility of IVCS. These 
performance objectives include: (1) providing speech-to-text 
(captioning); (2) enabling access to sign language interpreting 
provided by third parties, including video relay service (VRS); and (3) 
providing user interface controls for video conferences. In addition, 
the Commission amends its part 64 rules governing telecommunications 
relay services (TRS) to reflect that the Interstate TRS Fund can 
support the integrated provision of relay services in video 
conferences--whether or not the video conferencing platform can be 
accessed via a dial-up telephone call. The Commission modifies the TRS 
rules to facilitate such integration and prevent waste, fraud, and 
abuse. Finally, the Commission amends the TRS rule governing use of 
multiple forms of TRS on the same call to ensure that individuals with 
differing forms of disability can communicate using their preferred 
form of TRS.
    132. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in 
Response to the IRFA. There were no comments filed that specifically 
addressed the proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.
    133. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act 
of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond 
to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of 
any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. 
The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed 
rules in this proceeding.
    134. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
which the Rules will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a 
description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small 
entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    135. The Commission's decisions in document FCC 24-95 will affect 
the obligations of providers of interoperable video conferencing 
services and telecommunications relay services. These services can be 
included within the broad economic category of All Other 
Telecommunications.
    136. This industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged 
in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite 
tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This 
industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing 
satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with 
one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting 
telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite 
systems. Providers of internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or voice 
over internet protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The 
SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms 
with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry 
that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of 
less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms can be 
considered small.
    137. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements. The amendments to the Commission's rules 
adopted in document FCC 24-95 may modify certain reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance obligations of certain small entities 
that provide IVCS or TRS. Compliance with these amended rules will be 
required January 12, 2027. The performance objectives adopted 
clarifying existing obligations, and are subject to existing 
achievability criterion. As a result, small entities should not find 
compliance with these rules overly burdensome.
    138. Part 14 of the Commission's rules requires that providers of 
ACS--including IVCS--and manufacturers of equipment used with ACS 
ensure that their services and equipment (including associated 
software) are accessible and usable by people with disabilities, unless 
these requirements are not achievable. The IVCS-specific performance 
objectives adopted by the Commission must be implemented by IVCS 
providers and manufacturers, including small entities, unless they are 
not achievable. The Commission establishes performance objectives to 
ensure flexibility in allowing entities to meet the statutory 
obligations of ensuring services and equipment are accessible to people 
with disabilities.
    139. The Commission's existing rules require that each provider of 
ACS (including IVCS) and each manufacturer of equipment used to provide 
ACS maintain, in the ordinary course of business and for a reasonable 
period, records documenting the efforts taken by such service provider 
or manufacturer to implement section 716 of the Act, as amended, 
including: information about the manufacturer's or provider's efforts 
to consult with individuals with disabilities; descriptions of the 
accessibility features of its products and services; and information 
about the compatibility of such products and services with peripheral 
devices or specialized customer premise equipment commonly used by 
individuals with disabilities to achieve access. Providers of IVCS and 
manufacturers of equipment used for IVCS are subject to these existing 
requirements. In adopting additional performance objectives for IVCS, 
the Commission increases the amount of information that entities must 
retain and report under the recordkeeping. The time and resources 
needed to fulfill this additional recordkeeping should be minimal given 
the ongoing obligation to retain such records.
    140. The Commission's existing rules require that an officer of 
each provider of ACS (including IVCS) and an officer of each 
manufacturer of ACS equipment must submit to the Commission an annual 
certificate that records are being kept in accordance with the above 
recordkeeping requirements, unless such manufacturer or provider has 
been exempted from compliance with section 716 of the Act under 
applicable rules. The form and content of the reporting will be 
unchanged, but the officer may require additional time to confirm the 
records for the new performance objectives are kept in accordance with 
the recordkeeping requirements.
    141. As discussed in document FCC 24-95, the Commission received no 
specific cost estimates from commenters. Due to the diversity of IVCS 
service providers and IVCS equipment manufacturers subject to section 
716 of the Act, as well as the multiple general and entity-specific

[[Page 100895]]

factors used in determining whether, for a given service provider or 
manufacturer, accessibility for a particular service item of IVCS 
equipment (or a particular) is achievable, it is difficult to estimate 
the costs of compliance for those small entities covered by the amended 
rules. However, the rules themselves include a safeguard to ensure that 
the burden and cost of compliance will not be unreasonable: compliance 
is conditioned on each objective being ``achievable,'' i.e., ``with 
reasonable effort or expense.'' An achievability determination must 
consider the nature and cost of the steps needed to meet the 
requirement, the technical and economic impact on the company's 
operation, the type of operations of the company, and the extent to 
which accessible services or equipment are already being offered by the 
company.
    142. The amendments to the Commission's rules governing TRS are 
designed to facilitate the use of TRS Communications Assistants (CAs) 
in video conferences while minimizing the risk of waste, fraud, and 
abuse of the TRS Fund. These modifications only apply to a small entity 
TRS provider to the extent that users of the provider's TRS participate 
in video conference calls. Otherwise, the TRS compliance requirements 
would remain unchanged. Most of the TRS rule changes are a 
clarification of the extent of a rule's application to provision of TRS 
in video conferences. For example, providers of VRS, a form of TRS, 
must continue to meet user validation and call detail record reporting 
obligations when opting to provide VRS in video conferences. Call 
detail records must be recorded automatically. VRS providers must also 
include a detailed explanation of the guidance they provide to CAs 
regarding when compensable time starts and stops in their annual 
compliance reports. To collect compensation from the TRS Fund for a 
particular call, a VRS provider must submit call detail record to the 
TRS Fund administrator identifying video conferences where VRS is 
provided on integrated basis. These compliance and reporting 
requirements are consistent with existing obligations that VRS 
providers must meet in providing VRS and do not change the burdens of 
such entities.
    143. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to 
provide ``a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize 
the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a 
statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the 
alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other 
significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which 
affect the impact on small entities was rejected.''
    144. The requirements for ACS in part 14 of the Commission's rules 
were adopted in 2011. When the Commission confirmed the definition of 
IVCS in the 2023 IVCS Definition Order, it gave all IVCS providers one 
year to come into compliance with the existing ACS accessibility 
requirements in part 14 of its rules. In document FCC 24-95, the 
Commission considered a number of alternatives in adopting performance 
objectives for achieving accessibility applicable to IVCS. The 
Commission provides all entities subject to the new rules until January 
12, 2027 to come into compliance. This will allow for product 
development and implementation within typical product upgrade and 
development cycles and minimize development burdens on small entities. 
Like all performance objectives in part 14 of the Commission's rules, 
these modified requirements are subject to options to make a product or 
service accessible by incorporating accessibility features into the 
product or service itself, or by relying third party applications, 
peripheral devices, software, hardware, or CPE that are available to 
the consumer at nominal cost. All part 14 of the Commission's rules 
performance objectives are also subject to an ``achievability'' 
standard that takes into account the cost of compliance and the nature 
of the impact of compliance on a specific entity. In addition, the 
rules provide an exemption for customized services and equipment and 
authorize the grant of waivers for multipurpose services and equipment. 
These flexibility and achievability conditions apply equally to all 
covered entities, including small entities and are necessary to ensure 
video conferencing is accessible to people with disabilities.
    145. The amendments to the TRS rules are designed to facilitate 
access to TRS on video conferencing platforms. In document FCC 24-95, 
the Commission determines that TRS provided on video conferences are 
compensable from the TRS Fund and detail the applicability of the 
existing TRS rules to such rules to minimize the potential for waste, 
fraud, and abuse from the expansion of services. In allowing a 
voluntary approach to integrating TRS, the Commission allows providers 
to opt into the provision of such services and flexibility in the 
method of developing such integrated services. In clarifying the extent 
to which existing rules are applicable and amending such rules to 
account for TRS provided in video conferences the Commission ensures 
providers are able to receive TRS Fund compensation for their provision 
of TRS in video conferences, while continuing to protect the TRS Fund 
from potential waste, fraud, and abuse if existing protections were 
thought inapplicable. The Commission also determined to further develop 
the record and give providers the opportunity to experience providing 
integrated services before addressing additional proposals from the 
NPRM, minimizing the potential burden of implementing requirements 
before fully understanding the benefits and burdens of those proposals.

Congressional Review Act

    146. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional 
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission sent a copy of document FCC 
24-95 to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    147. Document FCC 24-95 contains modified information collection 
requirements, which are not effective until approval is obtained from 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the Commission will invite the 
general public to comment on the information collection requirements as 
required by the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The Commission will 
publish a separate document in the Federal Register announcing approval 
of the information collection requirements. Pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought comment on how the 
Commission might ``further reduce the information burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' 88 FR 52088, August 
7, 2023.

Ordering Clauses

    148. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 3, 225 and 716 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 225, 
617, document FCC 24-95 is adopted.

[[Page 100896]]

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 14

    Communications, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

47 CFR Part 64

    Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 14 and 64 as follows:

PART 14--ACCESS TO ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT 
BY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 14 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151-154, 255, 303, 403, 503, 617, 618, 619 
unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  14.21 by revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv) and adding 
paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  14.21  Performance Objectives.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Availability of auditory information. Provide auditory 
information through at least one mode in visual form and, where 
appropriate, in tactile form. For interoperable video conferencing 
services, beginning January 12, 2027, provide at least one mode with 
captions that accurately and synchronously display the spoken 
communications in a video conference, and enable users to connect with 
third-party captioning services so that captions provided by such 
services appear on the requesting user's video conference screen. In 
this paragraph (b)(2)(iv):
    (A) Accurately means that captioning matches the spoken words of a 
conversation, in the order spoken, verbatim, without summarizing or 
paraphrasing, sufficiently to enable a user to understand what is being 
said.
    (B) Synchronously means that, to the greatest extent possible, the 
captions begin to appear at the time that the corresponding speech or 
sounds begin and end approximately when the speech or sounds end, are 
delivered fast enough to keep up with the speed of those words and 
sounds, and remain displayed long enough to be read by the user.
* * * * *
    (4) Interoperable Video Conferencing Service. In addition to the 
other requirements of this section, beginning January 12, 2027, 
interoperable video conferencing services and covered equipment and 
software used with such services shall:
    (i) Enable the use of sign language interpretation provided by 
third parties, including the transmission of user requests for sign 
language interpretation to providers of video relay service and other 
entities and the provision of sufficient video quality to support sign 
language communication.
    (ii) Provide user interface control functions that permit users to 
activate and adjust the display of captions, speakers, and signers and 
other features for which user control is necessary for accessibility. 
In this paragraph (ii):
    (A) Adjust the display of captions means that a video conference 
participant can alter the size, font, and on-screen location of 
captions and adjust the color and opacity of both the captions and the 
caption background.
    (B) Adjust the display of speakers and signers means that video 
conference participants can minimize or hide extraneous windows, expand 
the windows of their choice, or relocate particular windows; and edit 
their own display names before or after joining a video conference.
* * * * *

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

0
3. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 
276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise 
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.

Subpart F--Telecommunications Relay Services and Related Customer 
Premises Equipment for Persons With Disabilities

0
4. Amend Sec.  64.601(a) by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (23) through (26) as (24) through (27), 
(27) and (28) as paragraphs (29) and (30), paragraphs (29) through (52) 
as paragraphs (32) through (55), and paragraphs (53) through (58) as 
paragraphs (57) through (61); and
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (23), (28), (31), and (56).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  64.601  Definitions and provisions of general applicability.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (23) Integrated VRS. The provision of VRS in a video conference 
whereby the CA is included as a participant in the video conference and 
communication between the CA and the participants takes place on the 
video conferencing platform rather than through a separate connection.
* * * * *
    (28) Interoperable video conferencing service (IVCS). Has the 
meaning given in part 14 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (31) Multi-party video conference. A video conference call with 
three or more participants, excluding VRS CAs and any other participant 
providing an accommodation for a participant.
* * * * *
    (56) Video conference. A session of IVCS involving two-way real-
time communication between two or more IVCS users.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  64.604 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (c)(5)(iii)(D)(4)(ii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(D)(9);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(E)(2) and (c)(14);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (c)(15);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (d)(5), and (e); and
0
f. Adding paragraph (f).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  64.604  Mandatory minimum standards.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Except as authorized by section 705 of the Communications Act, 
47 U.S.C. 605, TRS providers and CAs are prohibited from disclosing the 
content of any relayed conversation (and any non-relayed content 
communicated in a video conference) regardless of content, and with a 
limited exception for STS CAs, from keeping records of the content of 
any conversation (and any non-relayed content communicated in a video 
conference) beyond the duration of a call, even if to do so would be 
inconsistent with state or local law. STS CAs may retain information 
from a particular call in order to facilitate the completion of 
consecutive calls, at the request of the user. The caller may request 
the STS CA to retain such information, or the CA may ask the caller if 
he wants the CA to repeat the same information during subsequent calls. 
The CA may retain the

[[Page 100897]]

information only for as long as it takes to complete the subsequent 
calls.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (D) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Submit such data electronically, in a standardized format. For 
purposes of this subparagraph, an automated record keeping system is a 
system that captures data in a computerized and electronic format that 
does not allow human intervention during the call session for either 
conversation or session time; provided that, this subparagraph 
(c)(5)(iii)(D)(4) does not prohibit the submission of a CDR in which 
the end of conversation or session time is automatically determined by 
a CA's exit from a video conference prior to its termination, in 
accordance with the Commission's applicable rules.
* * * * *
    (9) A VRS provider's call data shall identify each video conference 
in which integrated VRS is provided. For such video conferences, in 
lieu of the information specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(D)(1)(v) 
and (vi) of this section, a VRS provider may submit information, as 
specified in instructions issued by the administrator, that identifies 
the VRS user requesting service and the video conference session in 
which service was provided.
* * * * *
    (E) * * *
    (2) TRS minutes of use for purposes of cost recovery from the TRS 
Fund are defined as the minutes of use for completed interstate or 
internet-based TRS calls placed through the TRS center beginning after 
call set-up and concluding after the last message call unit, except 
that for the provision of integrated VRS in a video conference, a VRS 
provider's TRS minutes of use are defined in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (14) TRS calls requiring the use of multiple CAs. TRS Fund 
compensation may be paid for more than one CA (or automated equivalent 
of a CA, when authorized) to handle the following types of calls:
    (i) VCO-to-VCO calls between multiple captioned telephone relay 
service users, multiple IP CTS users, or captioned telephone relay 
service users and IP CTS users; and
    (ii) Calls between users of different types of relay services for 
which more than one CA is warranted.
    (15) Exclusivity Agreements. A TRS provider may not enter into an 
agreement with an IVCS provider if such agreement would give the TRS 
provider exclusive access among TRS providers to the IVCS provider's 
facilities or such agreement would give the IVCS provider exclusive 
access among IVCS providers to the TRS provider's service via a video 
connection.
    (d) * * *
    (5) Visual privacy screens/idle calls.
    (i) Except as provided in this paragraph (d)(5), a VRS CA shall not 
enable a visual privacy screen or similar feature during a VRS call and 
must disconnect a VRS call if the caller or the called party enables a 
privacy screen or similar feature for more than five minutes or is 
otherwise unresponsive or unengaged for more than five minutes, unless 
the call is a 9-1-1 emergency call or the caller or called party is 
legitimately placed on hold and is present and waiting for active 
communications to commence. Prior to disconnecting the call, the CA 
must announce to both parties the intent to terminate the call and may 
reverse the decision to disconnect if one of the parties indicates 
continued engagement with the call.
    (ii) A VRS CA providing integrated VRS in a multi-party video 
conference:
    (A) may temporarily turn off the CA's video camera when engaged in 
team interpreting, if the other CA is actively providing ASL 
interpretation;
    (B) may stay connected to the video conference if the VRS user who 
requested service has turned off the user's camera, as long as that 
user stays connected to the video conference; and,
    (C) if five minutes elapse in which no party is responsive or 
engaged in conversation, shall announce that VRS will be terminated and 
the CA shall disconnect from the video conference.
* * * * *
    (e) Provision of integrated VRS in video conferences. (1) A VRS 
provider may provide integrated VRS in a video conference upon request 
by a registered VRS user (or by a person authorized by a registered 
enterprise VRS user).
    (2) A VRS provider providing integrated VRS in a video conference 
shall:
    (i) Collect from the party requesting service sufficient 
information to confirm the requesting party's registration for VRS;
    (ii) Require CAs, when joining a video conference, to self-identify 
as a CA and provide the name of the VRS provider (e.g., by editing 
their display name); and
    (iii) Treat each video conference as a single call for compensation 
purposes, except as specifically authorized by the Commission.
    (3) For the purpose of TRS Fund compensation for the provision of 
integrated VRS in a video conference, a VRS provider's TRS minutes of 
use begin when a CA enters the video conference, provided that the CA 
identifies the requesting VRS user within five minutes of entering the 
video conference. If, within that time, the CA cannot identify the 
requesting VRS user, or it is evident that VRS is not needed, then the 
call must be identified as non-compensable.
    (4) For the purpose of TRS Fund compensation for the provision of 
integrated VRS in a video conference, a VRS provider's TRS minutes of 
use end when the earliest of the following events occurs:
    (i) The CA disconnects from the video conference;
    (ii) All non-signing participants disconnect from the video 
conference;
    (iii) All signing participants disconnect from the video 
conference; or
    (iv) The registered VRS user who initially requested service 
disconnects from the video conference and five minutes elapse without a 
further request for service by a registered VRS user participant.
    (f) Other standards. The applicable requirements of Sec.  9.14 of 
this chapter and Sec. Sec.  64.611, 64.615, 64.621, 64.631, 64.632, 
64.644, 64.5105, 64.5107, 64.5108, 64.5109, and 64.5110 are to be 
considered mandatory minimum standards.

0
6. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec.  64.606 by adding paragraph (g)(6) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  64.606  internet-based TRS provider and TRS program 
certification.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (6) If a VRS provider provides integrated VRS in video conferences, 
its annual report shall provide a detailed explanation of the 
instructions and training provided to CAs on implementation of Sec.  
64.604(e), including guidance on how to make the determinations 
required by Sec.  64.604(e)(3).

0
7. Amend Sec.  64.615 by revising paragraph (a)(1)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  64.615  TRS User Registration Database and administrator.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Validation shall occur during the call setup process, prior to 
the placement of the call, except that validation of the provision of 
integrated VRS in a video conference shall occur

[[Page 100898]]

prior to the connection of a VRS CA to the video conference.

[FR Doc. 2024-27479 Filed 12-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P