[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 19 (Monday, February 1, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7681-7686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01191]


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

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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 7682]]

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/FCC-20-132A1.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Wallace, Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, FCC, at 202-418-2716, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f08363333363e3271083e33333e3c3a1f393c3c71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="15427c79797c74783b42747979747670557376763b727a63">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e3858080d6d3d7a3858080cd848c95"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8bede8e8bebbbfcbede8e8a5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a> 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 Sec.  1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
Sec.  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 performance-
measurement 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

[[Page 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?

[[Page 7684]]

    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 self-measurement 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 provider-sponsored 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 7686]]

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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  64.604 by adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  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


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