100878 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 73.5555 of this chapter concerning 

multiple ownership. 

(h) A program originating FM booster 

station, when originating programming 

pursuant to the limits set forth in 

§ 74.1201(f)(2), may not broadcast 

programming that is not permitted by its 

primary station’s authorization (e.g., a 

program originating FM booster station 

licensed to a noncommercial 

educational primary station may only 

originate programming consistent with 

§ 73.503 of this chapter). 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Add § 74.1290 to read as follows: 

§ 74.1290 Political programming rules 

applicable to program originating FM 

booster stations. 

To the extent a program originating 

FM booster station originates 

programming different than that 

broadcast by its FM primary station, 

pursuant to the limits set forth in 

§ 74.1201(f)(2), it shall comply with the 

requirements in §§ 73.1212, 73.1940, 

73.1941, 73.1942, 73.1943, and 73.1944 

of this chapter. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29290 Filed 12–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

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 § 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 § 64.606(g)(6). 

Compliance date: The compliance 

date for §§ 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: 

Ike.Ofobike@fcc.gov; or William 

Wallace, Disability Rights Office, 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, at (202) 418–2716; email: 

William.Wallace@fcc.gov. 

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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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) noninterconnected 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 noninterconnected VoIP service. Three noninternet-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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100880 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 postCOVID 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, highcontrast 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, multiparty 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 timedependent 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 voiceor 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100882 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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% errorfree 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-bycase 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 thirdparty 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 thirdparty 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 

§ 14.21(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules 

generally requires that control functions 

necessary for a user to operate a covered 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100884 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 accessibilityfocused 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 § 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 ‘‘multipinning’’ 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 sideby-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 multipinning 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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, outcomeoriented 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100886 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 dialin 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 outcomeoriented 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 preexisting 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) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100888 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 longform 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 noncompensable 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100890 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 laterin-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 ‘‘laterin-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 Fundsupported 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 fiveminute 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 multiparty 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 multiparty 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 nonVRS 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100892 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonrelayed 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 caseby-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 multipleCA 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 multipleCA 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 ASRonly 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100894 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100896 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 14.21 by revising 

paragraph (b)(2)(iv) and adding 

paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 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 thirdparty 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 

■ 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 

■ 4. Amend § 64.601(a) by: 

■ 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 

■ b. Adding new paragraphs (23), (28), 

(31), and (56). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 64.604 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and 

(c)(5)(iii)(D)(4)(ii); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(D)(9); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(E)(2) 

and (c)(14); 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (c)(15); 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (d)(5), and (e); 

and 

■ f. Adding paragraph (f). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 9.14 of this chapter 

and §§ 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. 

■ 6. Delayed indefinitely, amend 

§ 64.606 by adding paragraph (g)(6) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 64.604(e), 

including guidance on how to make the 

determinations required by 

§ 64.604(e)(3). 

■ 7. Amend § 64.615 by revising 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100898 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 25 

[IB Docket No. 21–456; FCC 24–117; FR ID 

265639] 

Spectrum Sharing Rules for NGSO 

Fixed-Satellite Service Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; denial of 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) clarifies the methodology 

to be used in compatibility analyses by 

non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) 

fixed-satellite service (FSS) system 

licensees. The Second Report and Order 

adopts specific degraded throughput 

methodology criteria that NGSO FSS 

systems licensed in a later processing 

round must include in compatibility 

analyses, in absence of a coordination 

agreement, to demonstrate that they can 

operate compatibly with and protect 

NGSO FSS systems authorized in earlier 

processing rounds. The Second Report 

and Order clarifies these methodologies 

to promote market entry, regulatory 

certainty, and spectrum efficiency 

through good-faith coordination. The 

Commission also adopts an Order on 

Reconsideration dismissing in part and, 

on alternative and independent 

grounds, denying a petition for 

reconsideration. 

DATES: Effective on January 13, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Carolyn Mahoney, 

Satellite Programs and Policy Division, 

Space Bureau, at (202) 418–7168 or 

carolyn.mahoney@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration, in IB Docket No. 21– 

456, FCC 24–117, adopted on November 

5, 2024 and released on November 15, 

2024. The full text of this document is 

available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/FCC-24-117A1.pdf. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, as amended (RFA), requires that 

an agency prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for notice and 

comment rulemakings, unless the 

agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not, 

if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ Accordingly, 

the Commission has prepared a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

concerning the potential impact of the 

rule changes contained in the Second 

Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration. The FRFA is set forth 

in the appendix of the document 

available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/FCC-24-117A1.pdf and a 

summary is included in the Procedural 

Matters section below. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 

The Second Report and Order 

contains modified information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. It will be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, other 

Federal agencies, and the general public 

will be invited to comment on the 

modified information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document. 

The Commission assessed the effects 

of requiring later-round NGSO FSS 

grantees to submit compatibility 

showings with respect to earlier-round 

grantees with whom coordination has 

not yet been reached. The Commission 

finds that doing so will serve the public 

interest and is unlikely to directly affect 

businesses with fewer than 25 

employees. 

Congressional Review Act 

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 will 

send a copy of the Second Report and 

Order and Order on Reconsideration to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

Synposis 

I. Introduction 

In the Second Report and Order, the 

Commission continues to refine the 

Commission’s rules governing spectrum 

sharing among a new generation of 

broadband satellite constellations to 

promote market entry, regulatory 

certainty, and spectrum efficiency 

through good-faith coordination. 

Specifically, the Commission clarifies 

certain details of the degraded 

throughput methodology that, in the 

absence of a coordination agreement, 

must be used in compatibility analyses 

by non-geostationary satellite orbit, 

fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) 

system licensees authorized through 

later processing rounds to show they 

can operate compatibly with, and 

protect, NGSO FSS systems authorized 

through earlier processing rounds. The 

Commission adopts a 3 percent timeweighted average throughput 

degradation as a long-term interference 

protection criterion, a 0.4 percent 

absolute increase in link unavailability 

as a short-term interference protection 

criterion, and declines to adopt 

additional protection metrics or to adopt 

an aggregate limit on interference from 

later-round NGSO FSS systems into 

earlier-round NGSO FSS systems. In an 

accompanying Order on 

Reconsideration, the Commission 

denies a Petition for Reconsideration (88 

FR 58540, August 28, 2023) of the 

Report and Order (88 FR 39783, June 30, 

2023). These actions continue the 

Commission’s efforts to promote 

development and competition in 

broadband NGSO satellite services. 

II. Background 

The Commission is committed to 

updating and refining its rules 

governing NGSO FSS systems, at a time 

when these systems are being deployed 

at unprecedented scale. NGSO FSS 

satellites traveling in low- and mediumEarth orbit provide broadband services 

to industry, enterprise, and residential 

customers with lower latency and wider 

coverage than previously available by 

satellite. 

Processing Round Procedure 

Overview. Applications for NGSO FSS 

system licenses and petitions for 

declaratory ruling seeking U.S. market 

access for non-U.S.-licensed NGSO FSS 

systems are considered in groups based 

on filing date, under a processing round 

procedure. Pursuant to the 

Commission’s rules, a license 

application for ‘‘NGSO-like’’ satellite 

operation, including operation of an 

NGSO FSS system, that satisfies the 

acceptability for filing requirements is 

reviewed to determine whether it is a 

‘‘competing application’’ or a ‘‘lead 

application.’’ A competing application 

is one filed in response to a public 

notice initiating a processing round. 

Any other application is a lead 

application. The public notice for a lead 

application initiates a processing round 

and establishes a cut-off date for 

competing NGSO-like satellite system 

applications. After the close of the 

processing round, the Commission 

grants all the applications for which the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES