Access to Video Conferencing, 59-69 [2024-30501]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59-69]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30501]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 14 and 64

[CG Docket Nos. 23-161, 10-213, 03-123; FCC 24-95; FR ID 268783]


Access to Video Conferencing

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC 
or Commission) seeks comment on whether to amend the accessibility 
rules for interoperable video conferencing services (IVCS) to include 
additional performance objectives addressing text-to-speech and speech-
to-speech functionality; automatic sign-language interpretation; 
additional user interface control functions; access to video 
conferencing for people who are blind or have low vision; and access to 
video conference for people with cognitive or mobility disabilities. 
The Commission also seeks further comment on whether and how the 
telecommunications relay services (TRS) Fund should support team 
interpreting in video conferences and whether additional rules are 
needed to facilitate the integration and appropriate use of TRS with 
video conferencing.

DATES: Comments are due February 3, 2025. Reply comments are due March 
3, 2025.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 23-
161, 10-213, and 03-123 by the following method:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

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

[[Page 60]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), document FCC 24-95, 
adopted on September 26, 2024, released on September 27, 2024, in CG 
Docket Nos. 23-161, 10-213, and 03-123. This summary is based on 
document FCC 24-95, the full text of which can be accessed 
electronically via the Commission's Electronic Document Manage System 
website at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs, or via the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments. Comments may be filed using ECFS.
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be 
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
     Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the 
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701.
     Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, 
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street 
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
    Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a permit-but-
disclose proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 
47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a 
copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In 
proceedings governed by Sec.  1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for 
which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, 
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the 
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and 
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
    Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing 
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires 
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a 
brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary 
of the FNPRM is available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 24-95 may contain proposed new or modified information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information 
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific 
comment on how it might further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

Background

    1. Under section 716 of the Communications Act, as amended (the 
Act), 47 U.S.C. 617, providers of advanced communications services 
(ACS) and manufacturers of equipment used for ACS must make such 
services and equipment accessible to and usable by people with 
disabilities, if achievable. Service providers and manufacturers may 
comply with section 716 of the Act either by building accessibility 
features into their services and equipment or by choosing to use third-
party applications, peripheral devices, software, hardware, or customer 
premises equipment (CPE) that are available to individuals with 
disabilities at nominal cost. If accessibility is not achievable 
through either of these means, then manufacturers and service providers 
must make their products and services compatible with existing 
peripheral devices or specialized CPE commonly used by people with 
disabilities to achieve access, subject to the achievability criterion. 
The Commission is directed to adopt ``performance objectives to ensure 
the accessibility, usability, and compatibility of advanced 
communications services and the equipment used for such services.''
    2. The Act defines advanced communications services as: (A) 
interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) service; (B) non-
interconnected VoIP service; (C) electronic messaging service; (D) 
interoperable video conferencing service; and (E) any audio or video 
communications service used by inmates for the purpose of communicating 
with individuals outside of the correctional facility where the inmate 
is held, regardless of technology used. 47 U.S.C. 153(1). Interoperable 
video conferencing service, in turn, is defined as: A service that 
provides real-time video communications, including audio, to enable 
users to share information of the user's choosing. 47 U.S.C. 153(27).
    3. Telecommunications Relay Services and Interoperable Video 
Conferencing Services. Enacted in 1990, Title IV of the Americans With 
Disabilities Act (ADA), codified as section 225 of the Act, directs the 
Commission to ``ensure that interstate and intrastate

[[Page 61]]

telecommunications relay services are available, to the extent possible 
and in the most efficient manner,'' to people in the United States with 
hearing or speech disabilities. TRS are defined as ``telephone 
transmission services'' enabling such persons to communicate by wire or 
radio ``in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of 
[a person without hearing or speech disabilities] to communicate using 
voice communication services.'' There are currently three forms of 
internet-based TRS: Video Relay Service (VRS) ``allows people with 
hearing or speech disabilities who use sign language to communicate 
with voice telephone users through video equipment and a live 
communications assistant (CA);'' Internet Protocol Relay Service (IP 
Relay) allows an individual with a hearing or speech disability to 
communicate with voice telephone users by transmitting text via the 
internet; and internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) 
permits a person with hearing loss to have a telephone conversation 
while reading captions of what the other party is saying on an 
internet-connected device. The provision of internet-based TRS is 
supported by the Interstate TRS Fund, maintained through mandatory 
contributions from providers of telecommunications service, 
interconnected VoIP service, and non-interconnected VoIP service. Three 
non-internet-based forms of TRS--traditional TRS using text telephony 
(TTY), Captioned Telephone Service (CTS), and Speech-to-Speech Relay 
(STS)--are also supported in part by the TRS Fund and are available 
through state TRS programs.
    4. To address concerns about the availability of TRS on video 
conferencing platforms, the Commission requested the Disability 
Advisory Committee (DAC) to study the matter. In its 2022 report, the 
DAC recommended that the FCC resolve these concerns by: facilitating a 
technical mechanism for TRS providers to natively interconnect TRS 
services, including video, audio, captioning, and text-based relay to 
video conferencing platforms; ensuring that users can seamlessly 
initiate TRS from the provider of their choice on any video 
conferencing platform; addressing the integration of CAs and the 
overall accessibility challenges of video conferencing platforms; and, 
clarifying the legal ability of TRS providers to seek compensation for 
service provided for video conferences from the TRS Fund.
    5. In 2023, the Commission proposed IVCS-specific amendments to the 
performance objectives in the part 14 rules on accessibility of ACS and 
amendments to the TRS rules to authorize and facilitate the provision 
of TRS in video conferences. 88 FR 52088, September 7, 2023 (2023 Video 
Conferencing Notice). Specifically, the Commission proposed to require 
IVCS providers to include speech-to-text (i.e., captioning of all voice 
communications) and text-to-speech capability, to enable the use of 
sign language interpreting, and to include accessibility settings in 
the user interface controls.
    6. Regarding its TRS rules, the Commission proposed to clarify that 
the integrated provision of TRS in video conferences can be supported 
by the Interstate TRS Fund. The Commission also proposed additional 
rule amendments specific to video conferences, addressing VRS user 
validation and call detail supporting compensation requests; 
participation of VRS CAs and the use of multiple CAs and multiple VRS 
providers; and the ability of VRS users and CAs to turn off their 
cameras when not actively participating in a video conference. 
Regarding TRS generally, the Commission proposed to amend the 
confidentiality requirements for TRS CAs and providers in the context 
of video conferences and prohibit exclusivity agreements between TRS 
providers and IVCS providers. Finally, the Commission sought comment on 
how to avoid TRS substituting for accommodations for individuals with 
disabilities that employers, educational institutions, health care 
organizations, and government agencies are required to provide under 
other applicable laws, including whether to allow TRS users to reserve 
a CA in advance of a video conference.
    7. On September 27, 2024, the Commission released the 2024 Video 
Conferencing Second Report and Order (2024 Video Conferencing Order), 
published at 89 FR 100878, December 13, 2024, adopting new or modified 
performance objectives to define the outcomes needed for IVCS 
accessibility.

Part 14 Issues

    8. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks additional comment on whether 
to adopt certain performance objectives proposed in the 2023 Video 
Conferencing Notice or in comments on that Notice, for which the 
current record is insufficient to enable a full assessment.
    9. Given the emergence of video conferencing as a basic 
communication vehicle for almost all Americans, and the inconsistent 
implementation of accessibility to date in the video conferencing 
environment, the Commission seeks to assess whether additional, more 
specific performance objectives are needed for ensuring accessibility 
and usability in the specific context of IVCS. Like all the performance 
objectives currently included in part 14 of the Commission's rules, 
these performance objectives, if adopted, would further define what 
``accessible'' and ``usable'' mean in the IVCS context. IVCS service 
providers and manufacturers would be required to meet these objectives 
to the extent that they are achievable. However, the Commission also 
seeks to ensure that any additional IVCS performance objectives it 
adopts are relevant to various types of IVCS and are currently 
achievable by at least some IVCS providers. The Commission seeks to 
avoid limiting the incentives and opportunities for innovative design 
in this rapidly developing industry sector, or adopting rules so 
specific as to constitute de facto mandatory technical standards. In 
this regard, the Commission notes that Sec.  14.20(b)(1) of its rules 
requires ACS providers and manufacturers to ``consider performance 
objectives set forth in Sec.  14.21 of its rules at the design stage as 
early as possible.'' 47 CFR 14.20(b)(1). In some instances, adopting 
more specific performance objectives may help focus the accessibility 
design processes of IVCS providers on solutions that are most likely to 
be relevant, effective, and achievable. In other instances, more 
specific performance objectives might unnecessarily constrain design 
choices.
    10. Regarding each of the proposals discussed below, the Commission 
seeks further comment on the specific benefits and costs of the 
proposal, including: How would the proposed performance objective 
promote accessibility of IVCS for people with disabilities? Is the 
relevant accessibility problem already sufficiently addressed by the 
more general performance objectives set forth in the existing rules? Is 
the proposed performance objective likely to be achievable for at least 
some IVCS providers? For example, are there commercially available 
products or services that would meet the performance objective? Would 
the proposed performance objective unduly constrain the design of video 
conferencing platforms and services--and if so, how, specifically would 
it do so?
    11. The Commission emphasizes that commercial availability, or lack 
thereof, is not dispositive of whether a performance objective is 
likely to be achievable. However, it may be relevant, along with other 
information, to a preliminary assessment of the overall likelihood that 
a performance objective

[[Page 62]]

can be accomplished by at least some IVCS providers with reasonable 
effort or expense.
    12. The Commission also seeks comment on whether each proposed 
performance objective is relevant and applicable to all IVCS, or only 
certain subcategories of IVCS? The IVCS subcategory encompasses a wide 
variety of video communication services. Some, like Zoom, Google Meet, 
Microsoft Teams, or Facebook Messenger, are globally popular platforms 
with millions of active daily users. Others, like Discord, Signal, or 
Slack, have smaller customer bases and may cater to more targeted 
audiences. Some video conferencing applications are designed primarily 
for one-to-one video calling. For example, Slack's ``Huddles'' feature 
allows for video conference calls, but the free version of the service 
limits the call to two participants. Other possible examples include 
dating apps like Tinder, Bumble, and Hinge. Some of the proposed 
performance objectives may not be relevant on such platforms. The 
relevance of certain kinds of accessibility solutions also may vary 
depending on the type of device used to access a video conference. In 
determining whether to adopt a specific performance objective, to what 
extent should the Commission consider its relevance and applicability 
to a wide range of video conferencing services? The Commission also 
invites commenters to submit information about the range of video 
conferencing services currently offered or under development and how 
they currently address accessibility. For example, are there video 
conferencing platforms that exclusively offer one-on-one communication, 
without the ability to allow group calls? Are there platforms that 
operate exclusively on particular kinds of devices, such as mobile 
phones?
    13. In addition to these general questions, which apply to all the 
part 14 of the Commission's rules proposals discussed herein, the 
Commission seeks comment on certain aspects of individual proposals and 
particular accessibility issues, as discussed below.
    14. Addressing Speech Disabilities. In the 2023 Video Conferencing 
Notice, the Commission proposed to amend Sec.  14.21(b)(1)(ix) of its 
rules, which specifies that ACS be operable in ``at least one mode that 
does not require user speech,'' by adding the further specification 
stating: ``For interoperable video conferencing services, provide at 
least text-to-speech functionality.''
    15. The Commission seeks further comment on whether a more specific 
performance objective is needed to ensure accessibility for people with 
speech disabilities, if achievable. The record reflects that there is 
more than one mode in which IVCS can potentially be made accessible for 
people with speech disabilities, for example, by providing text-to-
speech functionality, or providing speech-to-speech functionality. 
Regarding the latter solution, the record indicates that automatic 
speech recognition technology has been applied to develop products that 
automatically convert speech that is difficult to understand to speech 
that is more understandable. In addition, the Commission notes that 
enabling a connection to VRS or other sign language interpretation 
services can also address accessibility for people with speech 
disabilities who also know ASL. The Commission seeks further comment on 
whether to modify this rule to specify text-to-speech functionality, 
speech-to-speech functionality, or both.
    16. To what extent are text-to-speech and speech-to-speech products 
and services commercially available and widely used by people with 
speech disabilities? What are the potential benefits and costs of 
implementing text-to-speech and speech-to-speech functionality? How can 
such products or services be integrated with videoconferencing 
platforms? How do text-to-speech and speech-to-speech functionalities 
compare, as accessibility solutions?
    17. Sign Language Interpretation. The Commission seeks further 
comment on whether additional specificity is needed in the performance 
objective for sign language interpretation. A commenter argues that 
this performance objective should not merely specify that IVCS enable 
the use of sign language interpretation, but actually provide it (or 
more specifically, provide ASL interpretation). The Commission seeks 
further comment on the need for and feasibility of this proposal. If 
VRS and video remote interpreting (VRI) are generally available to IVCS 
users on an integrated basis, to what extent would there be a need for 
IVCS providers to also provide sign language interpretation? Would such 
a performance objective likely be achievable for IVCS providers, e.g., 
by using automated sign language interpretation software? While ASR 
speech-to-text technology has been in development since 1952 and has 
seen widespread commercial adoption across various sectors, automatic 
sign language interpretation is a nascent technology. To what extent 
has the accuracy and reliability of automatic sign language 
interpretation been established?
    18. User Control of Accessibility Features. In the 2024 Video 
Conferencing Order, recognizing that user control of features is often 
necessary for accessibility, the Commission adopted a new performance 
objective specifying that IVCS and covered equipment and software used 
with such services shall: (i) provide user interface control functions 
that permit users to activate and adjust the display of captions, 
speakers, and signers, and other features for which user interface 
control is necessary for accessibility.
    19. Some commenters sought a more detailed performance objective 
that would list the specific aspects of captions, participant windows, 
and other features that must be subject to user control. For example, a 
commenter recommended that the Commission specify that users be able to 
customize the appearance of captions, including options for font size, 
font edges (i.e., outline, shadow, etc. to work without background) 
color and background (color and transparency level).
    20. The performance objective adopted in the 2024 Video 
Conferencing Order requires IVCS providers to allow video conference 
participants to independently alter the font, size, location, color, 
and opacity of the captions and caption backgrounds appearing on the 
participant's screen. It also requires, where relevant, participant 
access to pinning and multi-pinning, spotlighting, and video window 
reconfiguration features. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
additional user-control performance objectives are necessary to further 
ensure accessibility of IVCS.
    21. A commenter recommends that IVCS performance objectives should 
explicitly address the need for screen-reader verbosity controls. The 
Commission notes that the adopted performance objective specifies that 
users be able to activate and adjust features for which user interface 
control is necessary for accessibility. Thus, verbosity controls, among 
other user controls, are included in the performance objective to the 
extent that they are necessary for accessibility. The Commission seeks 
additional comment on the particular aspects of screen-reader verbosity 
control that are most important in the video conference setting, and 
any other considerations that should be taken into account in framing a 
performance objective that specifically addresses verbosity control.
    22. A commenter also suggests that IVCS users' accessibility 
preferences should be stored and retained within the IVCS platform, so 
users will not

[[Page 63]]

have to change the settings each time they use the service. To what 
extent is this capability necessary for accessibility? Are there 
technical challenges to implementing such a feature? If so, what, and 
how severe, are those challenges? Should the settings be tied to the 
video conferencing service, or to the type of device used to access it? 
For example, should accessibility settings on a mobile version of an 
IVCS platform be retained when accessing the platform's web 
application?
    23. Other Accessibility Proposals. A commenter recommends 
performance objectives specifying that IVCS provide a gallery view mode 
and ensure that a sufficient number of videos is supported without 
degrading the quality of the video or audio. The Commission seeks 
comment on these proposals. In what respect are such performance 
objectives necessary for accessibility? What variables, if any, could 
impact the quality of a user's video or audio if a user elects to have 
numerous video windows displayed? What variables, if any, could impact 
an IVCS provider's ability to provide high-quality videos?
    24. The commenter also suggests a performance objective requiring 
that video functionality, screen sharing, video window re-sizing, and 
video sharing be compatible with tablets. The commenter states that the 
performance objective can be achieved by designing the IVCS user 
interface to be tablet-friendly, i.e., able to adapt between different 
screen sizes and allow for multi-touch gestures and split-screen 
multitasking. Another commenter objects to this proposal, contending 
that tablet compatibility represents a de facto technical mandate. The 
Commission does not mandate that any particular IVCS must be able to be 
used on a tablet. However, the Commission recognizes that many IVCS 
providers choose to make their products available on tablets. 
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on whether to adopt a 
performance objective specifying that, where IVCS is available on 
tablets, it provide the functionalities described in the earlier 
commenter's proposal. Would provision of the functionalities the 
commenter describes, pose unusually difficult design or technical 
challenges? To what degree do current IVCS offerings provide such 
device-specific functionality? Should the Commission consider device-
specific performance objectives?
    25. The Commission also seeks further comment on a commenter's 
proposal to require IVCS providers to offer dedicated text and video 
side channels. According to the commenter, these additional channels 
are necessary to facilitate communication between sign language 
interpreters and sign language users, and between multiple interpreters 
in ``team interpreting'' scenarios. Another commenter objects to this 
proposal, countering that some IVCS platforms do not offer text-based 
communication, and requiring them to do so would constitute a technical 
mandate and an economic burden. Additionally, the commenter contends 
that because side channels are only tangentially related to the video 
conference call itself, the absence of those channels should not affect 
compliance with the video conferencing rules. The Commission seeks 
comment on these arguments, as well as comments on the need for and 
feasibility of this proposal.
    26. Accessibility for People Who Are Blind or Have Low Vision. Part 
14 of the Commission's rules currently includes a generally applicable 
performance objective addressing the availability of visual information 
for people who are blind or have low vision, which specifies that 
visual information be provided through at least one mode in auditory 
form. 47 CFR 14.21(b)(2)(i).
    27. The Commission seeks comment on whether to amend this 
performance objective to specify the provision of audio description and 
visual image descriptive functionality, as well as compatibility with 
third-party visual image descriptive services. The term audio 
description refers to a feature that is required for some television 
and other video programming pursuant to the Commission's part 79 rules. 
Under those rules, an audio description of a program's key visual 
elements must be inserted into natural pauses in the program's 
dialogue. The term ``visual image description'' refers to a related 
feature, described by a commenter as functionality that generates real-
time descriptions of visual information for people who are blind or low 
vision. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which these terms 
refer to different functions in the context of IVCS.
    28. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on other ways that 
relevant visual information could be provided in auditory form. Is the 
provision of audio description of video and visual images implicit in 
the existing performance objective? Would a rule directly specifying 
the provision of audio description or visual image description, or 
both, be helpful as a way of clarifying IVCS provider's obligations 
under the existing rule? To what extent should the FCC mandate 
compatibility with third-party description services, such as AIRA and 
Be My Eyes, if at all? To what extent are third-party description 
services currently being used in conjunction with IVCS, if at all?
    29. The Commission also seeks comment on the scope of visual 
information that should be provided through audio description in IVCS. 
Section 14.21(b)(2) of the Commission's rules currently provides that 
it covers all information necessary to operate and use the product, 
including but not limited to, text, static or dynamic images, icons, 
labels, sounds, or incidental operating cues. Does Sec.  14.21(b)(2) of 
the Commission's rules sufficiently describe the kinds of visual 
information that an IVCS provider is or should be required to make 
available in auditory form, or should we amend it to provide greater 
clarity? For example, should the Commission adopt a commenter's 
recommendation to add ``shared documents,'' to the list of information 
that must be made accessible? Should shared videos be included? Should 
coverage of shared documents or videos be affected by the extent to 
which a video conferencing service enables such sharing of visual 
information by participants?
    30. The Commission also seeks comment on the potential costs and 
benefits of integrating audio description and visual image description 
into IVCS platforms. Are audio description and visual image descriptive 
third-party services commercially available? What are the technical or 
financial challenges, if any, of integrating these services? How would 
conference call participants access this function?
    31. Tactile Mode. Two commenters request that performance 
objectives be adopted or amended to provide that IVCS (and other types 
of ACS) be operable and visual information be available in tactile 
mode. Section 14.21(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules currently states 
that, to be accessible, the input, control, and mechanical functions 
advanced communications services, equipment and software must provide 
at least one mode that does not require user vision. One of these 
commenters urges the Commission to modify this performance objective to 
read: ``Provide auditory and tactile modes that do not require user 
vision.''
    32. In addition, Sec.  14.21(b)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules 
states that, to be accessible, advanced communications services, 
equipment and software must: ``Provide visual information through at 
least one mode in auditory form.'' The same advocacy organization urges 
the Commission to modify this performance objective to read: ``Provide 
visual information in both auditory and tactile forms.''

[[Page 64]]

    33. These changes would make clearer what is required to make IVCS 
(and other types of ACS) accessible to people who are deafblind or who 
otherwise require that controls and information be accessed tactilely. 
The Commission seeks comment on the benefits and costs of these 
proposed changes, including specific examples of how they would improve 
the accessibility of covered services and the equipment and software 
used to access them.
    34. Accessibility for People with Cognitive and Mobility 
Disabilities. The Commission seeks comment on whether more specific 
performance objectives are needed to address the challenges people with 
cognitive and mobility disabilities face when attempting to access 
video conferencing services.
    35. Cognitive Disabilities. Currently, the performance objectives 
set forth in Sec.  14.21 of the Commission's rules include a 
performance objective specifying that IVCS should: ``Provide at least 
one mode that minimizes the cognitive, memory, language, and learning 
skills required of the user.'' 47 CFR 14.21(b)(1)(x). A commenter urges 
the Commission to adopt a more specific performance objective 
specifying the provision of ``a simplified secure modality for 
initiating, authenticating and interfacing with a video conferencing 
session.'' What would such a feature entail, and what is its likely 
cost?
    36. The Commission also seeks comment on a commenter's 
recommendation to adopt a usability-related performance objective for 
people with cognitive disabilities, specifying the provision of ``plain 
and simple language and iconography on instructional materials on how 
to activate a video conferencing session,'' to supplement the current, 
more general usability objective specifying that people with 
disabilities ``have access to the full functionality and documentation 
for the product, including instructions, product information (including 
accessible feature information), documentation and technical support 
functionally equivalent to that provided to individuals without 
disabilities.'' 47 CFR 14.21(c). Commenters are invited to submit 
examples of instruction manuals, tutorials, or guides for other 
products and services that have been produced for people with cognitive 
disabilities.
    37. Usability Generally. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether any other amendments to the usability provision of the rules, 
Sec.  14.21(c) of the Commission's rules, are needed to ensure that 
people with disabilities have access to the ``full functionality and 
documentation'' for IVCS, including ``instructions, product information 
(including accessible feature information), documentation and technical 
support functionally equivalent to that provided to individuals without 
disabilities.''
    38. Mobility Disabilities. Currently, part 14 of the Commission's 
rules prescribes several performance objectives specifying that ACS be 
operable in various ways by users with mobility disabilities. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether any more specific performance 
objectives are needed to ensure that people with mobility disabilities 
can access and use IVCS. For example, a commenter recommends that IVCS 
user controls be accessible via voice activation or other hands-free 
technologies. The Commission seeks comment on the likely costs and 
benefits of such a requirement. Is this performance objective likely to 
be achievable independently of the devices available to the user? For 
example, could an IVCS provider develop or purchase a voice-activation 
application for its user controls that is compatible with commonly used 
user devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets, and PCs), and make it 
available for downloading at no charge, or a nominal charge? What would 
be the likely cost of such a solution? Alternatively, could an IVCS 
provider ensure that its service is compatible with existing peripheral 
devices or specialized customer premises equipment offering voice 
activation?
    39. Application to Covered Equipment and Software. Manufacturers of 
equipment used for IVCS are required to ensure that their equipment and 
software meets the performance objectives of Sec.  14.21 of the 
Commission's rules, except to the extent that is not achievable. See 47 
CFR 14.20(a)(1). The Commission seeks comment on whether additional 
amendments to its part 14 rules are needed to ensure the accessibility 
of equipment and software that is used to provide or use IVCS. What 
kinds of equipment- and software-related challenges do people with 
disabilities currently face in using end-user equipment and software to 
access and use IVCS? Are such challenges sufficiently addressed by the 
current part 14 of the Commission's rules? Are there specific 
performance objectives that are uniquely or peculiarly applicable to 
such equipment and software (as opposed to services), such that the 
Commission should amend Sec.  14.21 of its rules to include them, to 
ensure the accessibility of such equipment and software?

Part 64 Issues

    40. VRS--Team Interpreting and Other CA-Related Issues. The 
Commission seeks further comment on whether to authorize the TRS Fund 
to support team interpreting by two VRS CAs from the same provider 
participating simultaneously in a video conference, and on what 
criteria should be applied for allowing such additional support. Under 
the current rules, providers are free to provide team interpreting as 
they deem necessary, but are only compensated for a single CA per call. 
While guidelines for professional interpreters issued by the Registry 
of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) reference a number of factors, those 
factors are stated in very general terms, leaving much room for 
subjective or discretionary judgment in their application. 
Specifically, RID considers the length and complexity of the 
assignment; unique needs of the persons being served; physical and 
emotional dynamics of the setting; and avoidance of repetitive stress 
injuries for interpreters. The Commission believes it would be 
preferable to adopt a bright-line rule in this area. Two commenters 
assert that the duration and complexity of a call are two important 
factors in determining when team interpreting is needed, but no 
commenter proposes specific, bright-line criteria for assessing these 
or other relevant factors.
    41. With respect to the considerations that may support team 
interpreting, there appear to be significant differences between VRS 
and traditional community interpreting. With community interpreting, 
which is arranged by appointment, there is usually advance knowledge of 
the likely duration and complexity of an assignment. In addition, the 
assigned interpreter(s) cannot be quickly replaced, if that proves 
necessary, after a meeting has begun. Therefore, a community 
interpreting agency usually needs to determine in advance, based on the 
likely duration and complexity of the assignment, how many interpreters 
may be needed, and commit the time of those interpreters for the 
duration. By contrast, with VRS, CAs can be added, as needed, to a call 
or video conference whose duration is not known in advance. The 
Commission seeks comment on these assumptions and how they should 
affect its selection of criteria for authorizing team interpreting in 
VRS.
    42. In light of the above assumptions, would the duration of a 
video conference, standing alone, ever justify

[[Page 65]]

assignment of a second VRS CA to be present simultaneously with the 
first, regardless of the complexity of the video conference? For 
example, for a video conference with only two participants, would team 
interpreting ever be warranted, given that the CA can easily be 
replaced on a long-duration call?
    43. To address call complexity, if the Commission allows team 
interpreting, should it set a minimum number of participants that must 
be present in a video conference, to warrant compensation for a second 
simultaneous VRS CA? If so, what number should that be? Alternatively, 
should the Commission require a minimum number of registered VRS 
users--or of hearing individuals, or both? For video conferences with 
the requisite number of users, should the Commission also set a minimum 
period of time that should elapse before a second VRS CA is added? For 
example, should the Commission set 10 minutes, 30 minutes, or another 
period as the minimum threshold for adding a second simultaneous CA to 
a call? Under current Commission rules, a VRS CA assigned to a call 
must stay with the call for a minimum of 10 minutes, unless the call 
ends earlier. Meanwhile, a commenter cites research suggesting that a 
significant loss of accuracy occurs after approximately thirty minutes 
of interpretation due to mental fatigue and also notes that ASL 
interpretation has an additional physical demand that is especially 
pronounced during long calls. Other studies have found that 87.5% of 
interpreters sampled suffered from some form of repetitive stress 
injury, and that ASL interpretation was one of the highest-risk 
professions for ergonomic injury. Additionally, the commenter states 
that IVCS calls are on average seven times longer than VRS telephone 
calls.
    44. Are there other indicia of complexity that lend themselves to a 
bright-line rule addressing compensation for an additional CA? What 
call scenarios might be better served by having two CAs remain on the 
call taking turns, rather than having a brand new CA enter the call to 
relieve the current CA? Complexity of subject matter may be a 
significant factor influencing whether there is a need for two 
simultaneous CAs; but the subject matter of a video conference will not 
be known to the VRS provider or the CA before it starts. Are there 
objective factors that could be used to define the complexity of the 
subject matter, and which, after a call begins, could be communicated 
by the CA (without violating the Commission's TRS confidentiality rule) 
to indicate to the provider that team interpreting is warranted for the 
video conference?
    45. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the TRS Fund 
should provide compensation for the assignment of additional VRS CAs 
when video conferences are split into breakout groups. The Commission 
seeks comment on the extent to which these scenarios are likely to 
occur, and whether they would justify a special rule. It also seeks 
comment on how to most effectively address such scenarios. For example, 
should the Commission modify the rule which allows a VRS provider to 
respond to only one service request for a video conference (until the 
first requester drops off)--to allow additional CA(s) to be assigned if 
a second VRS user (or more) so requests after ending up in a breakout 
room without a CA? How should the provision of additional service to a 
breakout room be documented in call detail records (CDRs) submitted to 
the TRS Fund administrator? And, how would a second VRS CA find out 
which room to join?
    46. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether to amend its 
rules (1) to provide more specific guidance on how a video conference 
participant who is a registered VRS user may request VRS (if the 
initially requesting VRS user has disconnected) and (2) to enable a 
participant to request the assignment of an additional CA (should the 
user find the number of CAs on the call insufficient for effective 
communication). The rules allow a registered VRS user to request that 
VRS be extended if the requesting user drops off; however, a commenter 
asserts that its system for automatically processing requests for VRS 
in video conferences does not allow such a request while a CA is 
already serving the video conference. Are there alternative, non-
automated means by which such requests could be efficiently made and 
fulfilled, without causing a significant risk of waste, fraud, and 
abuse? Could such a method be adapted to enable a participant to 
request the assignment of an additional CA to a complex video 
conference?
    47. VRS--Use of Specialized CAs in Video Conferences. The 
Commission seeks further comment on whether to amend its rules to 
permit VRS providers to assign the provision of integrated VRS in video 
conferences to CAs that have been specially trained to handle video 
conferences, rather than to the first available CA, as is otherwise 
required. In the 2024 Video Conferencing Order, the Commission finds 
the current record insufficient to support such a rule, noting that not 
every video conference may be sufficiently complex to require a 
specially trained CA, and that speed of answer, as well as the quality 
of TRS provided for traditional telephone calls could be affected if 
the Commission were to authorize the assignment of specially trained 
CAs from a select group to handle the provision of VRS in video 
conferences.
    48. A commenter contends that assigning video conferences to 
specialist CAs will provide a more functionally equivalent experience 
for VRS users participating in video conferences because those CAs will 
be trained on the mechanics and features of various video conferencing 
platforms, and so, will be able to more quickly and efficiently 
interpret for the VRS user. The commenter adds that specially trained 
CAs would be proficient in interpreting in large group settings as well 
as navigating the accessibility features of each specific IVCS 
platform, and that it would not be feasible to train every CA on these 
factors. Another commenter agrees, that handling VRS calls in a video 
conference setting requires CAs to possess specific skills, such as the 
ability to manage multiple users in a video conference and familiarity 
with various IVCS features and functionalities.
    49. The Commission seeks additional comment on the proposal. 
Currently, all VRS calls must be answered in the order received--a 
requirement that is intended to ensure that VRS providers do not 
discriminate against, or in favor of, particular VRS users. The 
Commission recognizes that the assignment of CAs who are specially 
trained to handle video conferences could raise the quality of VRS 
provided in video conferences. On the other hand, it seems reasonable 
to assume that, in general, CAs who qualify for assignment to video 
conferences are also likely to have above-average skills and experience 
in handling and interpreting for traditional telephone calls. The FCC 
seeks comment on this assumption. It also seeks comment on the specific 
challenges of video conferences that require special training for CAs? 
Do all types of video conferences present such challenges, or only 
those video conferences with many participants? How would the benefits 
of improving service quality for video conferences compare with the 
potential harm resulting from removal of highly qualified CAs from the 
queue for voice calls? What steps could the Commission take to minimize 
such potential harm? To limit such potential harm, should the 
Commission require that specially trained CAs participate in both call

[[Page 66]]

queues, so that they can be available to interpret for voice-only calls 
when not needed for a video conference? What other steps could the 
Commission take to limit potential harm to service quality for 
traditional voice calls?
    50. Further, if only a limited number of CAs are trained to handle 
video conferences, what impact would such a limitation have on the 
speed of answer for video conferences? What percentage of VRS minutes 
do providers estimate will involve video conferences, and what 
percentage of CAs would need to receive special training to avoid a 
significant decline in average speed-of-answer for video conferences, 
relative to traditional telephone calls? To avoid excessive delays, 
should the Commission require that a minimum number or percentage of 
CAs be trained to handle video conferences? The Commission notes that 
its speed-of-answer rule for VRS is substantially less strict than the 
rule for other relay services. For most forms of TRS, providers must 
answer 85% of all calls within 10 seconds, measured daily. 47 CFR 
64.604(b)(2)(ii). For VRS, by contrast, providers must answer 80% of 
all VRS calls within 120 seconds, measured on a monthly basis. 47 CFR 
64.604(b)(2)(iii). However, service-quality competition among providers 
generally has resulted in a substantially lower average delay in 
answering VRS calls.
    51. The Commission also seeks comment on the specific amount of 
training that is necessary to ensure acceptable service quality for 
video conferences. What is the estimated cost of such training, on a 
per-CA basis? What would be the cost of training all of a provider's 
CAs to handle video conferences?
    52. Finally, there is some likelihood that, over time, the use of 
VRS in video conferences may increase to a substantial percentage of 
total VRS minutes. If the Commission were to authorize the use of a 
specialist CA queue for video conferences, should it do so as a pilot 
program with a sunset date, to ensure that the impact of this practice 
and the need for it to continue can be assessed before deciding whether 
to adopt a more permanent rule?
    53. Integrated Provision of IP CTS. IP CTS is currently available 
for use in video conferences where participants can connect by dialing 
a telephone number. The Commission's part 14 rules now provide that, 
unless it is not achievable to do so, IVCS providers ``shall enable 
users to connect with third-party captioning services''--a category 
that includes IP CTS--``so that captions provided by such services 
appear on the requesting user's video conference screen.'' The 
Commission also affirms that the TRS Fund supports the provision of 
TRS--including IP CTS--in video conferences on an integrated basis, as 
long as the service is provided in compliance with the TRS rules. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether additional amendments to the rules 
are needed to facilitate the integrated provision of IP CTS on a video 
conferencing platform, that is, to participants who do not connect to a 
video conference by dialing a telephone number, and to prevent waste, 
fraud, or abuse of the TRS Fund.
    54. As a preliminary matter, the Commission seeks comment on the 
extent to which IP CTS is currently used in video conferences, as well 
as the extent of demand and additional benefits likely to result from 
its availability on an integrated basis. There are a number of 
captioning solutions that are now or may soon be available in the video 
conferencing context for people with hearing loss, including captions 
provided by the IVCS provider, CART and other fee-based captioning 
services, and captioning applications provided by various large and 
small technology companies. The Commission seeks comment on the extent 
of additional demand and additional benefits likely to result from the 
availability of integrated IP CTS in video conferences. What factors 
would lead a video conference participant to request integrated IP CTS 
captions when the IVCS platform offers native captioning and 
participants can view captioning from another source on their own 
screen? To what extent do video conference participants who need 
captioning currently use IP CTS rather than other sources of 
captioning, and to what extent would they be likely to use integrated 
IP CTS, if available? If a video conference participant invites IP CTS 
captioning on an integrated basis to the call, will participants be 
able to control the size, font, and placement of the captions? Should 
the Commission adopt any other restrictions on the use of integrated IP 
CTS captions to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse?
    55. The Commission seeks comment on whether any amendments to the 
current call detail requirements of the Commission's rules are 
necessary to facilitate review and approval of compensation requests 
for the provision of IP CTS in video conferences on an integrated 
basis.
    56. To prevent billing of the TRS Fund for duplicative captioning, 
the Commission proposes to adopt a similar rule to that adopted for VRS 
in the 2024 Video Conferencing Order. Specifically, the Commission 
proposes that, if the captions supplied by an IP CTS provider can be 
viewed by all video conference participants (rather than only by the 
individual who requested captioning from an IP CTS provider), then the 
provider shall not submit more than one CDR for that video conference 
and shall not be paid for more than one instance of captioning to that 
video conference. In other words, the total compensation received by a 
single IP CTS provider for captioning a video conference would not 
exceed the applicable compensation rate multiplied by the number of 
minutes in the video conference. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to allow 
compensation for the provision of IP CTS in a video conference to an 
individual registered user, on a non-integrated basis, if the provider 
is already providing IP CTS to all participants on an integrated basis, 
at the request of another registered user. Further, are there any 
circumstances in which more than one IP CTS provider is needed to 
provide integrated IP CTS captioning in a video conference? If not, how 
can the Commission prevent duplicative captioning?
    57. Integration of Other Forms of TRS. The Commission seeks further 
comment on whether and how it should amend its rules to facilitate the 
provision in video conferences of non-internet-based TRS--TTY-based 
TRS, CTS, and STS. These services, offered through state TRS programs, 
are intended for use on an ordinary telephone line. While users of 
these services may be able to participate in a video conference call 
over a voice connection (where available), it is unclear whether or how 
these forms of TRS could be integrated with video conferencing 
platforms. Further, given the availability of IP CTS, which provides 
the functionality of CTS and TTY-based TRS for users with internet 
access, it seems unlikely that there would be significant demand for 
integrated provision of these services in internet-based video 
conferences. The Commission seeks comment on this assessment.
    58. IP Relay is a service often used with refreshable braille 
devices and screen readers and by the deafblind community. Would 
integration of IP Relay with video conferencing service platforms 
improve the ability of these or other consumers to participate in video 
conferencing calls? Are there other steps the Commission should take to 
facilitate an IP Relay user's participation in video conferences? The 
Commission seeks comment on these issues and any rule changes that may 
be necessary to

[[Page 67]]

facilitate the integrated provision of IP Relay in video conferencing 
platforms.
    59. Advancing Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. The Commission, as 
part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, 
including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live 
in rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically 
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty 
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and 
benefits, if any, that may be associated with the proposals and issues 
discussed herein. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how its 
proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, 
inclusion, and accessibility.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    60. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended, the Commission has prepared the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed 
in document FCC 24-95. Written public comments are requested on the 
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be 
filed by the deadlines provided in the item. The Commission will send a 
copy of the entire FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
    61. Need for, and Objective of, Proposed Rules. In document FCC 24-
95, the Commission proposes to adopt additional requirements in part 14 
of its rules to improve the accessibility of IVCS, a form of ACS. 
First, the Commission seeks comment on whether to add a part 14 
performance objective to its rules for video conferencing services to 
provide text-to-speech and speech-to-speech capability for individuals 
with speech disabilities, and whether to require IVCS platforms to 
provide sign language interpretation, and the costs and benefits of 
such actions. The Commission also seeks comment on additional part 14 
performance objectives of its rules for user controls, video window 
characteristics, and audio description and visual image description 
services. Further, the Commission seeks comment on part 14 of its rules 
requirements on IVCS platforms for persons with cognitive and motor 
disabilities. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
additional performance objectives are necessary to ensure that 
equipment and covered software are accessible to people with 
disabilities.
    62. The Commission seeks comment on additional requirements in part 
64 of its rules to facilitate the integration of TRS with video 
conferencing services. The Commission seeks comment on whether there 
are objective, bright-line guidelines that it could use to determine 
when it would be warranted to compensate a VRS provider for sending a 
team of two or more sign language interpreters to a video conference 
call. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt 
additional amendments to its rules to facilitate the integrated 
provision of IP CTS for participants within a video conferencing 
platform and how to prevent waste, fraud, or abuse of the Interstate 
TRS Fund. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how it 
could adopt rules to facilitate use of analog forms of TRS and IP Relay 
on video conferencing calls.
    63. In proposing these amendments to part 14 and part 64 of the 
Commission's rules, the Commission addresses comments in the record 
that recommend specific accessibility requirements for video 
conferencing platforms to enable individuals with hearing, speech, 
vision, cognitive, and mobility disabilities to participate in video 
conference in a manner equivalent to the experience of individuals 
without such disabilities.
    64. Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to 
Sec. Sec.  1, 2, 3, (4)(i), (4)(j), 225, and 716 of the Act, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 617.
    65. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities 
Impacted.
    66. If the proposed rules are adopted, the rules will affect the 
obligations of providers of IVCS and providers of TRS. IVCS can be 
included within the broad economic category of All Other 
Telecommunications.
    67. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of 
internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or VoIP services, via client-
supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this 
industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in 
this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 
had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
    68. (TRS) Providers. TRS enables individuals who are deaf, hard of 
hearing, deafblind, or who have a speech disability to communicate by 
telephone in a manner that is functionally equivalent to using voice 
communication services. Internet-based TRS connects an individual with 
a hearing or a speech disability to a TRS communications assistant 
using an internet Protocol-enabled device via the internet, rather than 
the public switched telephone network. VRS one form of internet-based 
TRS, enables people with hearing or speech disabilities who use sign 
language to communicate with voice telephone users over a broadband 
connection using a video communication device. IP CTS another form of 
internet-based TRS, permits a person with hearing loss to have a 
telephone conversation while reading captions of what the other party 
is saying on an internet-connected device. A third form of internet-
based TRS, IP Relay, permits an individual with a hearing or a speech 
disability to communicate in text using an internet Protocol-enabled 
device via the internet, rather than using a TTY and the public 
switched telephone network. Providers must be certified by the 
Commission to provide VRS and IP CTS and to receive compensation from 
the TRS Fund for TRS provided in accordance with applicable rules. 
Analog forms of TRS, TTY, Speech-to-Speech Relay Service, and Captioned 
Telephone Service, are provided through state TRS programs, which also 
must be certified by the Commission.
    69. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small 
business size standard specifically for TRS Providers. All Other 
Telecommunications is the closest industry with a SBA small business 
size standard. ISPs and VoIP services, via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are included in this industry. The SBA 
small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with 
annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that 
operated for the entire year. Of those

[[Page 68]]

firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on Commission 
data there are 14 certified internet-based TRS providers and two analog 
forms of TRS providers. The Commission however does not compile 
financial information for these providers. Nevertheless, based on 
available information, the Commission estimates that most providers in 
this industry are small entities.
    70. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements. The proposed changes, if adopted, would impose 
new or modified reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance 
obligations on certain small entities that provide TRS, IVCS, or 
manufacturer equipment and software for use with IVCS. Although, the 
Commission cannot, at present, determine whether small entities will 
have to hire professionals to implement and comply with the proposed 
requirements, nor can it quantify the cost of compliance for small 
entities, the Commission anticipates the information received in 
comments, including cost and benefit analyses where requested, will 
help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters 
for small entities, including compliance costs and other burdens that 
may result from the proposals and inquiries the Commission makes. The 
Commission expects that the approaches it proposes will have minimal 
cost implications for covered entities because many of these 
requirements are part of existing reporting processes for these 
entities. Further, the rules themselves include a safeguard to ensure 
that the burden and cost of compliance will not be unreasonable: 
compliance is conditioned on each objective being ``achievable,'' i.e., 
``with reasonable effort or expense.'' An achievability determination 
must consider the nature and cost of the steps needed to meet the 
requirement, the technical and economic impact on the company's 
operation, the type of operations of the company, and the extent to 
which accessible services or equipment are already being offered by the 
company.
    71. Accessibility of IVCS Equipment. Part 14 of the Commission's 
rules requires that providers of ACS--including IVCS--and manufacturers 
of equipment used with ACS ensure that their services and equipment 
(including associated software) are accessible and usable by people 
with disabilities, unless these requirements are not achievable. The 
Commission seeks comment on performance standards for ensuring 
equipment used with IVCS are accessible and usable by people with 
disabilities. Such performance objectives if adopted could modify 
reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance obligations of such entities.
    72. IVCS Recordkeeping. The Commission's existing rules require 
that each provider of ACS (including IVCS) and each manufacturer of 
equipment used to provide IVCS maintain, in the ordinary course of 
business and for a reasonable period, records documenting the efforts 
taken by such manufacturer or service provider to implement section 716 
of the Act: information about the manufacturer's or provider's efforts 
to consult with individuals with disabilities; descriptions of the 
accessibility features of its products and services; and information 
about the compatibility of such products and services with peripheral 
devices or specialized customer premise equipment commonly used by 
individuals with disabilities to achieve access. If the Commission 
adopts additional performance objectives under Part 14 of its rules, it 
may increase the amount of information that entities must retain and 
report under the recordkeeping requirement. The time and resources 
needed to fulfill this additional recordkeeping should be minimal given 
the ongoing obligation to retain such records.
    73. IVCS Reporting. The Commission's existing rules require that an 
officer of each provider of ACS (including IVCS) and an officer of each 
manufacturer of equipment (including software) used to provide ACS 
submit to the Commission an annual certificate that records are being 
kept in accordance with the above recordkeeping requirements, unless 
such manufacturer or provider has been exempted from compliance with 
section 716 of the Act under applicable rules. The Commission 
anticipates that the form and content of the reporting will be 
unchanged, but the office may require additional time to confirm the 
records for any new performance objectives are kept in accordance with 
the reporting requirements.
    74. TRS Amendments. The proposed amendments to the Commission's 
rules governing TRS are designed to facilitate the use of TRS 
communications assistants CAs in video conferences, while minimizing 
the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund. These 
modifications would only apply to an entity that provides TRS to the 
extent that users of that entity opts to participate in video 
conference calls. Otherwise, the TRS compliance and reporting 
requirements remain consistent with existing reporting obligations and 
the Commission's proposals would only clarify those obligations without 
changing the burden to small entities.
    75. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered. Document FCC 24-95, seeks 
comments on a number of alternatives that may impact small entities. 
The proposed part 14 of the Commission's performance objectives would 
be subject to options to make a product or service accessible by 
incorporating accessibility features into the product or service itself 
or by relying on third party applications, peripheral devices, 
software, hardware, or CPE that are available to the consumer at 
nominal cost. All Part 14 performance objectives of the Commission's 
rules are also subject to an ``achievability'' standard that takes into 
account the cost of compliance and the nature of the impact of 
compliance on a specific entity. In addition, the rules provide an 
exemption for customized services and equipment and authorize the grant 
of waivers for multipurpose services and equipment. These flexibility 
and achievability conditions apply equally to all covered entities, 
including small entities.
    76. The proposed requirements would apply equally to all IVCS 
providers and are necessary to ensure video conferencing is accessible 
to and usable by people with disabilities. The amendments to the TRS 
rules will only apply to the extent a small entity TRS provider allows 
its users to participate in integrated IVCS calls. The Commission seeks 
comment on multiple alternatives to ensure it is able to implement 
rules to facilitate the availability of and compensation for multiple 
communications assistants during a video conference call, while 
minimizing the potential risk of waste, fraud, and abuse to the TRS 
Fund in allowing such practices. Further developing this record will 
allow the Commission to minimize potential burdens to small entities, 
while protecting the integrity of the TRS Fund.

[[Page 69]]

    77. Document FCC 24-95 seeks comment from all interested parties. 
Small entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention 
any specific concerns they may have with the proposals outlined. The 
Commission expects to consider the economic impact on, and alternatives 
for, small entities as identified in comments filed in response to 
document FCC 24-95, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action 
in this proceeding.
    78. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with, the 
Commission's Proposals. None.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-30501 Filed 12-31-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P