[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30442-30444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10784]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 14

[CG Docket No. 10-213, DA 22-463; FR ID 86631]


Interoperable Video Conferencing Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 
(CGB or Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or 
Commission) seeks to refresh the record on proposed rules to enable 
people with disabilities to access and use interoperable video 
conferencing services by requesting further comment on the kinds of 
services encompassed by the term ``interoperable video conferencing 
service,'' a type of advanced communications service.

DATES: Comments are due on or before June 21, 2022, and reply comments 
are due on or before July 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted, identified by CG Docket No. 10-
213, by either of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/standard. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments.
    <bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by 
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. Currently, the 
Commission does not accept any hand delivered or messenger delivered 
filings as a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and 
safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. 
All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of 
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see document DA 22-463 at: 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/pn-refresh-record-re-interoperable-video-conferencing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact 
Darryl Cooper at: 202-418-7131; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d193c2f2f2431731e32322d382f1d3b3e3e733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d795c4f4f4451137e52524d584f7d5b5e5e135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public 
Notice, document DA 22-463, released on April 27, 2022, in CG Docket 
No. 10-

[[Page 30443]]

213. The full text of document DA 22-463 is available for public 
inspection and copying via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS) and at https://www.fcc.gov/document/pn-refresh-record-re-interoperable-video-conferencing.
    To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d5b3b6b6e0e5e195b3b6b6fbb2baa3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3b5d58580e0b0f7b5d5858155c544d">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
    This proceeding is a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in 
accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex 
parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a 
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days 
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the 
Sunshine period applies) in the docket(s). Persons making oral ex parte 
presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation 
must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the 
meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize 
all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide 
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of 
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule Sec.  
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by rule 
Sec.  1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for this proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document does not contain proposed information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 
104-13, beyond those already proposed in this proceeding. In addition, 
therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), beyond those already proposed in 
this proceeding.

Synopsis

    1. In document DA 22-463, the Bureau seeks to refresh the record in 
CG Docket No. 10-213 on proposed rules to enable people with 
disabilities to access and use an interoperable video conferencing 
service. The Bureau requests further comment on the kinds of services 
encompassed by the term ``interoperable video conferencing service,'' a 
type of advanced communications service (ACS) subject to section 716 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). 47 U.S.C. 617. 
Other forms of ACS include interconnected voice over internet Protocol 
service, non-interconnected VoIP, and electronic messaging service. 
Section 716 of the Act also requires that service providers and 
equipment manufacturers make advanced communications services and 
equipment accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, unless 
the requirements are not achievable.
    2. In 2011, the Commission adopted rules implementing the 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) in a Report 
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published at 76 FR 
82240, December 30, 2011 and 76 FR 82354, December 30, 2011. See also 
47 CFR part 14. The Commission incorporated into its rules the 
statutory definition of ``interoperable video conferencing service'' as 
``a service that provides real-time video communications, including 
audio, to enable users to share information of the user's choosing.'' 
Noting that a question was raised as to what Congress meant by 
including the word ``interoperable'' in the term ``interoperable video 
conferencing service,'' the Commission found that ``the record is 
insufficient to determine how exactly to define `interoperable' '' in 
this context. The Commission also found that the word ``interoperable'' 
did not indicate a Congressional intent to require that non-
interoperable video conferencing services be made interoperable.
    3. In the 2011 Further Notice, Commission invited further comment 
on the meaning of the term ``interoperable'' in the context of video 
conferencing services and equipment. Based on the record at that time, 
the Commission invited comment on three alternative definitions of an 
``interoperable'' service: (1) Able to function inter-platform, inter-
network, and inter-provider; (2) having published or otherwise agreed-
upon standards that allow for manufacturers or service providers to 
develop products or services that operate with other equipment or 
services operating pursuant to the standards; or (3) able to connect 
users among different video conferencing services, including video 
relay service (VRS). The Commission also asked whether only one of 
these alternatives should be adopted, or whether they should all be 
encompassed in a single definition of ``interoperable,'' such that a 
video conferencing service would be deemed interoperable as long as any 
of the three alternative criteria is satisfied.
    4. In response to the 2011 Further Notice, commenters did not reach 
a consensus on any of the three suggested alternatives. Stating that 
the definition did not apply to then-current services, some commenters 
argued that Congress could not have intended that no existing video 
conferencing services were covered by the statute. Others disagreed, 
while suggesting that video conferencing services might grow in the 
direction of interoperability. Some commenters supported a fourth 
alternative definition of ``interoperable'' that would apply to those 
video conferencing services capable of being used on different types of 
hardware and different types of operating systems.
    5. In response to the Commission's April 7, 2021 Public Notice, 
seeking comment on whether the Commission's accessibility rules should 
be updated, Consumer and Governmental Affairs, Media, and Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureaus Seek Update On Commission's Fulfillment of 
The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, GN 
Docket No. 21-140, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 7108 (2021), the 
Commission received several comments that briefly addressed the issue 
of how to define ``interoperable video conferencing.'' CTIA states that 
standards groups are best suited to define interoperability standards. 
The Accessibility Advocacy and Research Organizations (AARO) urge the 
Commission to resolve the definitional

[[Page 30444]]

issue by ``simply clarify[ing] that the statutory definition of 
`interoperable video conferencing service,' as a `service that uses 
real-time video communications, including audio, to enable users to 
share information of the user's choosing,' is an exhaustive 
articulation of what Congress intended to be covered.''
    6. In February 2022, the Commission's Disability Advisory Committee 
highlighted the issue of the accessibility of video conferencing 
platforms in recommending Commission action to facilitate 
interconnection of such platforms with telecommunications relay 
services (TRS). The Committee also recommended that the Commission 
ensure, at a minimum, that video conferencing platforms include built-
in closed captioning functionality that is available to all users,'' 
and allow users to control the activation and customize the appearance 
of captions and video.
    7. Request for Additional Comment. The Bureau invites the public to 
file additional comments on the questions posed in the 2011 Further 
Notice regarding the meaning of the term ``interoperable'' in the 
context of video conferencing service and equipment. The Bureau invites 
commenters to submit new or additional relevant information about what 
types of services are currently available in the video conferencing 
marketplace, the kinds of interoperability they currently offer, and 
how such developments may assist in reaching an interpretation of 
``interoperable'' that is consistent with the intent of Congress in 
enacting the CVAA. For example, are there video conferencing services 
that can be accessed from a wide range of user equipment, software, and 
device operating systems? How do consumers gain access to video 
conferencing services today? Are telecommunications services, 
interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP, and electronic messaging 
services included in some video conferencing services? Are these ACS 
components of video conferencing services generally accessible and 
usable? The Bureau also invites comment on any other developments that 
the Commission should consider in resolving this issue. While the 2011 
Further Notice proposed three possible definitions for the word 
``interoperable,'' commenters may suggest additional alternatives or 
other types of input on how to interpret that word.

Federal Communications Commission.
Suzanne Singleton,
Chief, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2022-10784 Filed 5-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>