Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 19 / Monday, February 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 Commissions 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 providers 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:45 Jan 29, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 20132 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

7685

Small Entities Impacted 33. The rules proposed in document FCC 20132 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 Commissions proposals limit unnecessary regulation of small entities by focusing on assessment of caption delay and caption accuracythe 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 Commissions 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
E:FRFM01FEP1.SGM

01FEP1