Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 19 / Monday, February 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 7681 

that is filed for a space station 

transmitting in any portion of the 17.3– 

17.8 GHz band no later than two years 

after license grant for the space station. 

(c) No later than two months prior to 

launch, each licensee of a space station 

transmitting in any portion of the 17.3– 

17.8 GHz band must update the 

predicted transmitting antenna off-axis 

gain information provided in 

accordance with paragraph (a) of this 

section by submitting measured 

transmitting antenna off-axis gain 

information over the angular ranges, 

measurement frequencies and 

polarizations specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5) of this section. The 

transmitting antenna off-axis gain 

information should be measured under 

conditions as close to flight 

configuration as possible. 

(d) No later than two months prior to 

launch, or when applying for authority 

to change the location of a space station 

transmitting in any portion of the 17.3– 

17.8 GHz band that is already in orbit, 

each such space station licensee must 

provide pfd calculations based on the 

measured off-axis gain data submitted in 

accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section, as follows: 

(1) * * * 

(ii) At the location of any 

subsequently filed U.S. DBS space 

station where the pfd level in the 17.3– 

17.8 GHz band calculated on the basis 

of measured gain data exceeds ¥117 

dBW/m2/100 kHz. In this rule, the term 

‘‘subsequently filed U.S. DBS space 

station’’ refers to any co-frequency 

Direct Broadcast Satellite service space 

station proposed in a license application 

filed with the Commission after the 

operator of a space station transmitting 

in any portion of the 17.3–17.8 GHz 

band submitted the predicted data 

required by paragraphs (a) through (b) of 

this section but before submission of the 

measured data required by this 

paragraph. Subsequently filed U.S. DBS 

space stations may include foreignlicensed DBS space stations seeking 

authority to serve the United States 

market. The term does not include any 

applications (or authorizations) that 

have been denied, dismissed, or are 

otherwise no longer valid, nor does it 

include foreign-licensed DBS space 

stations that have not filed applications 

with the Commission for market access 

in the United States. 

(2) The pfd calculations must take 

into account the maximum permitted 

longitudinal station-keeping tolerance, 

orbital inclination and orbital 

eccentricity of both the transmitting 

17.3–17.8 GHz and DBS space stations, 

and must: 

* * * * * 

(e) If the aggregate pfd level calculated 

from the measured data submitted in 

accordance with paragraph (d) of this 

section is in excess of the threshold pfd 

level of ¥117 dBW/m2/100 kHz: 

(1) At the location of any prior-filed 

U.S. DBS space station as defined in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, then the 

operator of the space station 

transmitting in any portion of the 17.3– 

17.8 GHz band must either: 

* * * * * 

(2) At the location of any 

subsequently filed U.S. DBS space 

station as defined in paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section, where the aggregate pfd 

level submitted in accordance with 

paragraph (d) of this section is also in 

excess of the pfd level calculated on the 

basis of the predicted data submitted in 

accordance with paragraph (a) of this 

section that were on file with the 

Commission at the time the DBS space 

station application was filed, then the 

operator of the space station 

transmitting in the 17.3–17.8 GHz band 

must either: 

* * * * * 

(3) No coordination or adjustment of 

operating parameters is required in 

cases where there is no overlap in 

frequencies assigned to the DBS and the 

space station transmitting in the 17.3– 

17.8 GH band. 

(f) The applicant or licensee for the 

space station transmitting in the 17.3– 

17.8 GHz band must modify its license, 

or amend its application, as appropriate, 

based upon new information: 

(1) * * * 

(2) If the operator of the space station 

transmitting in the 17.3–17.8 GHz band 

adjusts its operating parameters in 

accordance with paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) or 

(e)(2)(ii) or this section. 

(g) Absent an explicit agreement 

between operators to permit more 

closely spaced operations, U.S. 

authorized 17/24 GHz BSS or FSS space 

stations transmitting in the 17.3–17.8 

GHz band and U.S. authorized DBS 

space stations with co-frequency 

assignments may not be licensed to 

operate at locations separated by less 

than 0.5 degrees in orbital longitude. 

(h) All operational space stations 

transmitting in the 17.3–17.8 GHz band 

must be maintained in geostationary 

orbits that: 

* * * * * 

(i) U.S. authorized DBS networks may 

claim protection from space path 

interference arising from the reverseband operations of U.S. authorized 

space stations transmitting in the 17.3– 

17.8 GHz band to the extent that the 

DBS space station operates within the 

bounds of inclination and eccentricity 

listed below. When the geostationary 

orbit of the DBS space station exceeds 

these bounds on inclination and 

eccentricity, it may not claim protection 

from any additional space path 

interference arising as a result of its 

inclined or eccentric operations and 

may only claim protection as if it were 

operating within the bounds listed 

below: 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–00047 Filed 1–29–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket Nos. 13–24, 03–123, and 10– 

51; FCC 20–132; FRS 17392] 

Captioned Telephone Services Quality 

Metrics 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) proposes to amend the 

mandatory minimum standards 

applicable to internet Protocol 

Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) 

and Captioned Telephone Service (CTS) 

to include metrics for accuracy and 

caption delay and to define how testing 

and measurement of IP CTS and CTS 

provider performance should be 

conducted. 

DATES: Comments are due March 3, 

2021; reply comments are due April 2, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CG Docket Nos. 13–24, 03– 

123, and 10–51, by either of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the Commission’s Electronic 

Filing System (ECFS): https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

website for submitting comments. For 

ECFS filers, in completing the 

transmittal screen, filers should include 

their full name, U.S. Postal service 

mailing address, and CG Docket Nos. 

13–24, 03–123, and 10–51. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. Filings can be sent by hand or 

7682 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 19 / Monday, February 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. 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 FCC 20–132 at https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC20-132A1.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Wallace, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, FCC, at 

202–418–2716, or William.Wallace@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further 

Notice), document FCC 20–132, adopted 

on September 30, 2020, released on 

October 2, 2020, in CG Docket Nos. 13– 

24, 03–123, and 10–51. The Report and 

Order and Order on Reconsideration in 

document FCC 20–132 was published at 

85 FR 64971, October 14, 2020. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection and copying via the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (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. 

This proceeding shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with 

§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

§ 1.49(f) or for which the Commission 

has made available a method of 

electronic filing, written ex parte 

presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

The Further Notice in document FCC 

20–132 seeks comment on proposed 

rule amendments that may result in 

modified information collection 

requirements. If the Commission adopts 

any modified information collection 

requirements, the Commission will 

publish another document in the 

Federal Register inviting the public to 

comment on the requirements, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. Public Law 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 

3501–3520. In addition, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, the Commission seeks comment 

on how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. Public Law 107–198; 44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis 

1. The Commission seeks comment on 

proposed rules to enable the 

Commission to better evaluate the 

efficacy of the IP CTS and CTS programs 

and the performance of individual 

service providers. The Commission 

proposes to amend its rules to provide 

for robust, efficient, objective, and 

quantifiable measurement of the quality 

of service offered by each CTS and IP 

CTS provider and by the telephone 

caption service program as a whole. The 

Commission’s objective is to adopt 

minimum performance standards that 

will allow it to evaluate progress toward 

achieving the Congressional objectives 

set forth in section 225 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (the Act). 47 U.S.C. 225. 

2. IP CTS is a form of 

Telecommunications Relay Service 

(TRS) that permits an individual who 

can speak but who has difficulty hearing 

over the telephone to use a telephone 

and an internet Protocol-enabled device 

via the internet to simultaneously listen 

to the other party and read captions of 

what the other party is saying. CTS is 

another form of telephone captioning, 

offered through state TRS programs, that 

functions similarly to IP CTS but 

without using the internet for the 

delivery of captions. 

3. The Commission proposes to 

amend the minimum TRS standards 

applicable to CTS and IP CTS to provide 

quantifiable, measurable benchmarks for 

caption delay and accuracy. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should modify any other minimum 

TRS standards to provide more specific 

service-quality standards for CTS and IP 

CTS. The Commission also proposes to 

amend its rules to define how testing 

and measurement should be conducted 

to gauge provider performance in 

relation to these standards and to 

measure progress by the telephone 

caption service program as a whole 

toward achieving the statutory goals in 

section 225 of the Act. In addition, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

such performance assessment is best 

carried out by the Commission, by 

individual providers, or by an entity 

selected and overseen by all providers. 

More generally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether these proposals 

will advance the relevant statutory 

objectives in section 225 of the Act, or 

‘‘performance goals’’—technological 

currency and efficiency, and the 

overarching statutory goal of ‘‘functional 

equivalence.’’ What types of 

measurements are needed to ensure that 

service quality for telephone caption 

services is not only functionally 

equivalent but technologically current, 

and does not impede the development 

of improved technology? 

4. The Commission invites 

commenters to propose performancemeasurement alternatives that would 

advance the statutory goals and 

objectives, and the Commission seeks 

comment on the costs and benefits of its 

proposal and any alternatives. For 

example, would quantifiable, 

measurable benchmarks for caption 

delay and accuracy—or methods for 

measuring performance against such 

benchmarks—be more effectively and 

efficiently developed by a voluntary, 

consensus standards organization? If so, 

which standards-setting organization 

would be appropriate for developing 

such benchmarks and methods? What 

steps would be needed to ensure all 

stakeholders are able to participate 

effectively? How could a consensus 

process be managed so as not to unduly 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 19 / Monday, February 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 7683 

delay the establishment of service 

quality standards? Should the 

Commission adopt default standards in 

these areas, pending completion of 

consensus standards? 

Adding CTS/IP CTS Metrics to TRS 

Minimum Standards 

5. Caption Delay. The Commission 

proposes to adopt a minimum standard 

for caption delay and proposes the 

following definition: 

Caption delay is the difference in time (in 

seconds) between when a word can be heard 

in the audio and when that word appears in 

the stream of captions on the caption user’s 

primary display. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

how to specify more precisely what is 

meant by ‘‘when [a captioned word] 

appears’’ in the transcript or stream of 

captions. Should such ‘‘appearance’’ be 

defined as the initial ‘‘appearance’’ of 

the word (i.e., prior to any correction 

that may be provided subsequently) or 

its ‘‘final displayed appearance’’ (i.e., so 

that the caption delay includes any time 

involved in providing a corrected 

version of the word)? Would measuring 

caption delay based on the initial 

appearance of a word provide an 

undesirable incentive for providers to 

prematurely deliver inaccurate 

captions? Conversely, would measuring 

caption delay based on the final 

displayed appearance provide an 

undesirable disincentive to correct 

mistakes in previously delivered 

captions? 

6. Caption delay may vary over the 

course of a call. The Commission 

proposes that testing procedures should 

ensure that caption delay measurements 

for any service include measurements 

taken from various segments in the 

duration of captioned calls. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

above proposals and their costs and 

benefits. Should caption delays during a 

single test call be averaged together, 

with each test call given a score, and the 

score for each test call given equal 

weight in the overall average? Or should 

caption delay be averaged on some other 

basis, e.g., total delays divided by the 

total number of minutes tested? Should 

‘‘seconds’’ be measured to the nearest 

tenth of a second or some other 

measure? Also, for IP CTS, what internet 

speed(s) should be used to measure 

caption delay? Should delay be 

measured at more than one internet 

speed? 

7. The Commission seeks comment on 

setting the applicable metric, i.e., the 

maximum average caption delay that 

should be allowed by the FCC’s 

minimum TRS standards. Testing of 

fully automatic telephone captioning 

indicates that such services are capable 

of delivering captions within one or two 

seconds, on average. How many seconds 

of delay should be considered the 

maximum acceptable delay for any form 

of captioning, in light of the capabilities 

of current technology, the expectations 

of caption consumers, and the impact of 

delay on a user’s ability to carry on a 

natural telephone conversation? Should 

the FCC’s minimum standards specify 

other limits on caption delay, in 

addition to the maximum average delay? 

8. Accuracy. The Commission 

proposes to amend its rules to provide 

more specific standards and metrics for 

the accuracy of telephone captioning, 

including fully automatic IP CTS with 

captions created by an automatic speech 

recognition (ASR) program. The 

Commission proposes to combine 

accuracy with completeness in a single 

metric, ‘‘Word Error Rate,’’ which is 

likely to be easier to administer. Word 

Error Rate is comprised of individual 

counts of words that are incorrectly 

inserted, deleted, or substituted in the 

captions delivered to the caller. 

9. For purposes of measuring 

compliance with the standard, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

following definition of Word Error Rate: 

The Word Error Rate for a captioned 

telephone conversation is (i) the number of 

word substitutions, omissions, and insertions 

in the captions divided by (ii) the total 

number of words in the voice 

communications being captioned. Accuracy 

shall be assessed for a caption as delivered 

to the caption user’s device within the 

minimum TRS standard for caption delay. A 

substitution error occurs when a spoken 

word is replaced with another word, an 

omission error involves the omission of a 

spoken word, and an insertion error consists 

of the addition of a word that has not been 

spoken. 

10. The Commission seeks comment 

on this proposal and its costs and 

benefits. To implement this definition of 

Word Error Rate, should the 

Commission define what constitutes a 

‘‘word’’? For example, should 

interjected sounds such as ‘‘umm’’ and 

‘‘ah’’ or garbled speech count as words? 

If a speaker uses a regional dialect or 

foreign phrase that has no standard 

English spelling, can there be an error 

in transcription? The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether to insert a 

qualifier in the above definition to limit 

the word errors that are counted to 

‘‘major errors,’’ which a group of IP CTS 

providers define as errors that 

significantly alter, obscure, or reverse 

the meaning of the original speech. Does 

this definition provide a consistent, 

repeatable determination of what 

constitutes a ‘‘major’’ error, and if not, 

can it be modified to do so? Would 

limiting counted errors to major errors 

produce materially different results in 

the overall assessment of CTS and IP 

CTS providers? More specifically, 

would any improvements from counting 

only major errors be sufficient to justify 

(1) the additional costs and burdens 

involved in classifying errors as major 

or minor and (2) the greater likelihood 

of disputes over which errors count as 

major errors? 

11. Alternatively, if a distinction is 

needed between major and minor errors, 

should ‘‘minor errors’’ (i.e., word 

substitutions (such as misspellings), 

deletions, or insertions that do not alter 

or obscure the meaning of the original 

speech) still be counted but given less 

weight than major errors? For example, 

even though minor errors may not 

prevent a user from understanding the 

gist of a conversation, they still may be 

a distraction and force the CTS or IP 

CTS user to work harder to decipher the 

captions. Or should the standard the 

Commission adopts be based on a 

combination of two measurements, one 

that is limited to major errors and one 

that takes all errors—including 

substitutions, deletions, and insertions 

whether major or minor—into account? 

12. Should readability (a concept that 

includes correct capitalization and 

punctuation) be included in the Word 

Error Rate standard, and if so, how 

should it be measured? 

13. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the maximum Word Error 

Rate that should be specified for caption 

service in the FCC’s minimum TRS 

standards, and how this standard 

should apply to variable call conditions. 

Should the Commission set the accuracy 

standard based on the expectations of 

users and the impact of inaccuracies on 

a user’s ability to carry on a natural 

telephone conversation, and if so, how 

should these be determined? 

Alternatively, in order to set an initial 

standard as expeditiously as possible, 

should the Commission initially set the 

maximum permitted Word Error Rate 

based on the current performance of IP 

CTS providers, and subsequently reset 

the standard based on measures of user 

expectations and understanding? If a 

current-performance-based approach is 

initially used, should the maximum 

level be set based on the Word Error 

Rate achieved by the average provider, 

or at some other defined value on the 

spectrum of baseline accuracy 

measurements? Should a different 

standard be applied to calls with poor 

audio quality? How would such a 

determination be made? 

7684 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 19 / Monday, February 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

14. Speed of Answer. Commission 

rules currently provide a metric for 

speed of answer, which is that 85 

percent of all captioned telephone calls 

be answered within ten seconds of a 

user’s initiation of contact with the 

captioning center and the start of 

captioning, measured daily. The rules 

currently require TRS providers 

themselves to measure speed of answer 

and to submit speed-of-answer data for 

every call in their monthly call detail 

reports. 

15. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to strengthen the applicable 

speed-of-answer standard for telephone 

captions. With fully automatic 

captioning, for example, an IP CTS 

provider can begin delivering 

captioning almost instantaneously upon 

receiving notice that a registered user is 

making a call for which captioning is 

desired. Would it be reasonable to 

require all providers to meet a standard 

that approximates what is feasible with 

fully automatic captioning? For 

example, even though a provider may 

find it desirable, for other reasons, to 

continue using CAs for some or most 

calls, could fully automatic captioning 

be used as a stopgap measure for calls 

for which a CA is not immediately 

available? 

16. Other Standards. The Commission 

tentatively concludes that no rule 

amendments are needed to quantify 

standards for transcription speed and 

usage data. The Commission seeks 

comment on this tentative conclusion. If 

the Commission adopts a caption delay 

standard, as proposed, should it also 

amend the rule on CA typing speed to 

make clear that it no longer applies to 

CTS and IP CTS? 

17. The Commission seeks further 

comment on whether its minimum TRS 

standards should be modified to provide 

more specific and quantified 

performance standards for service 

outages and for dropped or 

disconnected calls. If the Commission 

adopts such standards, how should they 

be measured and what should be the 

minimum metric for compliance? 

18. Should the Commission direct the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau to conduct rulemakings or 

otherwise determine more granular 

metrics for caption delay, accuracy, or 

other TRS standards? 

Testing and Measurement 

Methodologies 

19. The Commission proposes that the 

methodologies used to assess provider 

performance shall produce objective, 

quantifiable, repeatable, and verifiable 

service quality measurements. The 

Commission also proposes that such 

methodologies be technologically 

neutral and not designed to favor any 

particular service provider. However, to 

the extent a provider’s service is 

designed to work only with a particular 

device (such as a proprietary phone or 

a smartphone), the Commission 

proposes that the provider’s service be 

tested when used with that device. 

20. The Commission proposes the 

following additional guidelines for 

service quality testing: 

(1) Sample size (i.e., the number of test 

calls) should be calculated to provide reliable 

and accurate information; 

(2) Test calls should mimic the proper use 

of the service (e.g., both parties to a call 

should not be in the same room); 

(3) Test calls should follow the structure of 

a natural telephone conversation; 

(4) Test calls should not be detectable as 

‘‘test calls’’ by CAs (e.g., test calls should not 

start with a loud dual-tone multi-frequency 

tone followed by live conversation); 

(5) Testing should be designed to evaluate 

service performance over a range of 

telephone audio conditions (e.g., static, 

distortion, inaudible or unintelligible 

conversation, and background noises), 

accents, and dialects that are likely to be 

encountered by CTS and IP CTS users. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

these proposed guidelines. Do they 

appropriately balance the benefits of 

precision and fairness with the need for 

efficient methods of measurement? 

Should the Commission adopt these 

guidelines as recommended or 

mandatory? Should test calls include 

conversations in languages other than 

English? Are there additional guidelines 

the Commission should consider for 

testing the quality of service provided to 

IP CTS users with hearing loss and low 

vision or who are deafblind? 

21. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the specifics of how tests 

and measurements for caption delay and 

accuracy should be conducted, and how 

the Commission can best ensure that 

such methods and procedures are 

transparent. Should the Commission 

specify the sample size and frequency of 

such testing, and if so, how? To what 

extent can document scoring, technical 

parameters, recording conditions, or 

other parameters affect test values, and 

what guidance should the FCC’s rules 

provide regarding these matters? Should 

the Commission direct the Consumer 

and Governmental Affairs Bureau to 

conduct rulemakings or otherwise make 

more granular determinations on how to 

conduct performance testing and 

measurement in relation to caption 

delay, accuracy, or other TRS standards? 

Alternatively, should test methods be 

subject to a peer review process? 

22. The Commission also seeks 

comment on what specific 

consequences should result if testing 

shows that a provider is failing to meet 

the minimum standard for caption delay 

or accuracy. If test results conducted in 

accordance with applicable 

methodological guidelines indicate that 

a provider is not meeting the 

Commission’s minimum standard for 

caption delay or accuracy, should the 

service be retested on a weekly basis, 

with compensation withheld until such 

time as testing shows the problem with 

caption delay or accuracy has been 

fixed? Alternatively, should the 

provider be given some period of time 

to rectify the problem, with withholding 

to begin if the problem cannot be 

rectified within that time period? 

Should the Commission formalize a 

compliance ladder approach, similar to 

the one used for closed captioning 

quality problems, which would be 

triggered whenever testing shows that a 

provider did not meet an applicable 

service quality standard? 

Responsibilities for Measuring Service 

Quality 

23. The Commission tentatively 

concludes that to obtain authoritative 

assessments of IP CTS providers’ 

performance in relation to caption delay 

and caption accuracy, it would not be 

practicable to rely on provider selfmeasurement and reporting (e.g., as in 

speed-of-answer compliance). 

Measurement of provider performance 

in these areas raises more complicated 

methodological issues than those 

involved in speed-of-answer reporting, 

such that effective oversight of the 

testing undertaken by individual 

providers would impose undue 

administrative burdens on both 

providers and the Commission. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

tentative conclusion. 

24. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether authoritative 

testing and measurement of caption 

delay and accuracy would be most 

effectively and reliably performed by 

the Commission or by an entity selected 

and supervised by the providers 

themselves, through some type of joint 

undertaking. Could a providersponsored entity conduct such 

assessments in a manner that is 

objective and unbiased? How should the 

Commission ensure that such an entity 

remains unbiased and independent of 

improper influence by any TRS provider 

or group of providers? 

25. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether an entity designated to 

conduct performance testing should be 

authorized to conduct testing and 

measurement in additional areas other 

than caption delay and accuracy. To 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 19 / Monday, February 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 7685 

ensure that any entity designated to 

conduct performance testing has the 

ability to conduct sufficient testing and 

collect sufficient data to develop 

reliable performance assessments, 

should the Commission require that IP 

CTS providers submit user devices, 

software, and other material or 

information needed for testing, as well 

as provider-generated testing protocols 

and results, to such an entity upon 

reasonable request? 

26. The Commission proposes that the 

results of testing and measurement of 

CTS and IP CTS providers’ performance, 

both in the aggregate and for individual 

providers, be made available to the 

public on a regular basis, in reports on 

the Commission’s website. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal and the frequency of such 

reports. In addition, the Commission 

seeks comment on the specificity of the 

results to be posted. Should the results 

only indicate whether each individual 

provider met the tested or measured 

minimum standard? Should the 

performance results for service quality 

standards other than caption delay and 

accuracy be reported? Should the 

performance results be reported in a 

way that allows consumers to compare 

providers’ results? Should the reports 

include a rank or score for the 

provider’s performance results? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether to test and measure 

performance of publicly available 

captioning services for voice calls 

offered by entities that do not provide 

CTS or IP CTS and make such results 

available to the public in the CTS and 

IP CTS performance reports. 

27. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to mandate a system or 

procedure for CTS and IP CTS users to 

rate the quality and performance of 

captioning services, on a call-by-call or 

other appropriate basis, with 

publication of average ratings for each 

provider, and how such a system or 

procedure can be most effectively 

implemented and overseen. Would a 

five-star rating system provide sufficient 

granularity for meaningful user ratings 

of IP CTS providers? Should the rating 

system have more specific quality or 

usability ratings, such as on a scale of 

one to ten? For those users who choose 

to rate their TRS calls, should the 

Commission allow them the choice to 

identify themselves or should the 

ratings be strictly anonymous? 

28. If testing of providers is conducted 

by a third party, how should the 

Commission ensure that providers (and 

their ASR technologies) respond to test 

calls as they would to any call, i.e., how 

should the Commission ensure that tests 

are conducted so that the provider does 

not know its service is being tested? 

Should the Commission require that 

scripts used to conduct test calls not be 

given or identified to TRS providers or 

applicants prior to the execution of the 

tests? Should the Commission amend its 

rules to authorize the completion of test 

calls by registered CTS and IP CTS users 

via connections to providers’ platforms, 

without disclosure to providers of the 

nature of the call, and with payment of 

TRS Fund compensation for such calls 

in the same manner as any TRS call? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether waivers of Commission rules 

are necessary and appropriate for this 

purpose, and more generally whether 

any rule provisions need to be waived 

to allow for effective testing and 

measurement of CTS and IP CTS. 

29. The Commission seeks comment 

on the above proposals and their costs 

and benefits, and the beliefs and 

assumptions stated above. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

30. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, the 

Commission has prepared this Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in the Further Notice. Written 

public comments are requested on this 

IRFA. Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadline for comments on the 

Further Notice specified in the DATES

section. The Commission sent a copy of 

document FCC 20–132 to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). 

Need for, and Objectives of the 

Proposed Rules 

31. In the Further Notice, the 

Commission proposes to amend its rules 

to provide for robust, efficient, 

objective, and quantifiable measurement 

of the quality of service offered by CTS 

and IP CTS providers. This 

measurement program will enable the 

Commission to better evaluate the 

efficacy of the IP CTS and CTS programs 

and the performance of individual 

service providers in relation to the 

statutory goals of functional 

equivalence, technological currency, 

and efficiency. 

Legal Basis 

32. The authority for this proposed 

rulemaking is contained in sections 1, 2, 

and 225 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended. 

Small Entities Impacted 

33. The rules proposed in document 

FCC 20–132 will affect the obligations of 

CTS and IP CTS providers. These 

services can be included within the 

broad economic category of All Other 

Telecommunications. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

34. All CTS and IP CTS providers 

would be required to meet or exceed 

any quantitative performance standards 

adopted by the Commission for caption 

delay, accuracy, or other aspects of 

provider performance. Because the 

Commission tentatively concludes that 

provider self-measurement and 

reporting is not a practicable approach 

to assessing caption delay and accuracy, 

no specific reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements are proposed. However, 

the Commission asks whether providers 

should be required to submit user 

devices, software, and other material or 

information needed for testing, as well 

as provider-generated testing protocols 

and results, upon request, if the 

Commission authorizes a third-party 

entity to conduct the testing and 

measurement. Such requirements, if 

adopted, may involve some additional 

recordkeeping and reporting. 

Steps Taken to Minimize Significant 

Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

35. Only CTS and IP CTS providers 

certified to receive compensation from 

the TRS Fund would be subject to the 

testing and measurement requirements, 

if the rules are adopted. The 

Commission’s proposals limit 

unnecessary regulation of small entities 

by focusing on assessment of caption 

delay and caption accuracy—the two 

metrics that interested parties generally 

designate as most important to 

captioning service quality. Opting some 

providers out of the program or limiting 

the extent of testing for some providers 

is not proposed because it would 

prevent the availability of 

comprehensive performance 

information to the Commission and 

consumers. 

36. The Further Notice seeks 

comment from all interested parties. 

Small entities are encouraged to bring to 

the Commission’s attention any specific 

concerns they may have with the 

proposals outlined in the Further 

Notice. The Commission expects to 

consider the economic impact on small 

entities, as identified in comments filed 

in response to the Further Notice, in 

7686 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 19 / Monday, February 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

reaching its final conclusions and taking 

action in this proceeding. 

Federal Rules That Duplicate, Overlap, 

or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 

37. None. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Individuals with disabilities, 

Telecommunications, Telephones. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend Title 47 

of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 1. 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), 262, 276, 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401–1473, unless 

otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115–141, Div. P, sec. 

503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091. 

■ 2. Amend § 64.604 by adding 

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

§ 64.604 Mandatory minimum standards. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) Additional operational standards 

for captioned telephone service and IP 

CTS. Providers of captioned telephone 

service and IP CTS shall meet or exceed 

service quality standards for caption 

delay and accuracy. 

(i) Caption delay. Caption delay is the 

difference in time (in seconds) between 

when a word can be heard in the audio 

and when that word appears in the 

stream of captions on the caption user’s 

primary display. Average caption delay 

shall be no greater than [X.X] seconds. 

(ii) Caption accuracy. The accuracy of 

a captioned telephone conversation 

shall be measured as the Word Error 

Rate, with a lower Word Error Rate 

indicating a higher degree of accuracy. 

The Word Error Rate for a captioned 

telephone conversation is: 

(A) The number of word substitutions, 

omissions, and insertions in the 

captions divided by; 

(B) The total number of words in the 

voice communications being captioned. 

Accuracy shall be assessed for a caption 

as delivered to the caption user’s device 

within the minimum TRS standard for 

caption delay. A substitution error 

occurs when a spoken word is replaced 

with another word, an omission error 

involves the omission of a spoken word, 

and an insertion error consists of the 

addition of a word that has not been 

spoken. The average Word Error Rate 

shall be no more than [XX.X%]. 

(iii) Testing methodologies and 

procedures for caption delay and 

accuracy. (A) Sample size should be 

calculated to provide reliable and 

statistically significant information. 

(B) Test calls should mimic the proper 

use of the service. 

(C) Test calls should follow the 

structure of a natural telephone 

conversation. 

(D) Test calls should not be detectable 

as ‘‘test calls’’ by CAs. 

(E) Testing should be designed to 

evaluate service performance over a 

range of telephone audio conditions, 

accents, and dialects that are likely to be 

encountered by CTS and IP CTS users. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–01191 Filed 1–29–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 226 

[Docket No. 201228–0357 and 201228–0358] 

RIN 0648–BC56, 0648–BJ65 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the 

Arctic Subspecies of the Ringed Seal 

and Designation of Critical Habitat for 

the Beringia Distinct Population 

Segment of the Bearded Seal; Public 

Hearings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notification of public hearings. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, will hold three 

public hearings on both our January 8, 

2021, revised proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for the threatened Arctic 

subspecies of the ringed seal (Pusa 

hispida hispida) and our proposed rule 

to designate critical habitat for the 

threatened Beringia distinct population 

segment (DPS) of the Pacific bearded 

seal subspecies (Erignathus barbatus 

nauticus) under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). 

DATES: Public hearing conference calls 

will be held, convening at 4 p.m. and 

concluding no later than 7 p.m. Alaska 

Standard Time (AKST), on each of the 

following dates: February 23, 2021 

(Yukon-Kuskokwim and southwest 

Alaska); February 24, 2021 (Northwest 

Arctic Borough and northern Bering 

Sea); and February 25, 2021 (North 

Slope Borough). NMFS may close the 

hearings 15 minutes after the conclusion 

of public testimony and after 

responding to any clarifying questions 

from hearing participants about the 

proposed critical habitat designations. 

For each hearing, we encourage 

participation by members of the public 

wishing to provide oral comments 

specific to the regions indicated 

parenthetically. However, all hearings 

are open to all interested parties and at 

each hearing we will accept testimony 

regarding any area or aspect of the 

proposed critical habitat designations. 

Written comments must be received by 

March 9, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The public hearings will be 

held by conference calls rather than at 

physical locations. Conference call 

information for all three hearings is the 

same: Telephone: (800) 201–3962, 

Conference Code: 651174. 

You may submit written data, 

information, or comments regarding the 

revised proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for the Arctic ringed seal, 

identified by Docket ID NOAA–NMFS– 

2013–0114, and the proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat for the Beringia 

DPS of the bearded seal, identified by 

Docket ID NOAA–NMFS–2020–0029, by 

either of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic comments via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov, search for the 

relevant Docket ID indicated above, 

click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ or 

‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete the required 

fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Jon Kurland, Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Protected Resources, 

Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: James 

Bruschi, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99082–1668. 

Instructions: NMFS may not consider 

comments sent by any other method, to 

any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. All comments received are a 

part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address), confidential 

business information, or otherwise 

sensitive information submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous).