Closed Captioning of Video Programming; Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Petition for Rulemaking, 17093-17106 [2014-06755]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9908–
41–Region–3]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion
of the Moyer’s Landfill Superfund Site
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region III is issuing a
Notice of Intent to Delete the Moyer’s
Landfill Superfund Site (Site) located in
Lower Providence Township,
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,
from the National Priorities List (NPL)
and requests public comments on this
proposed action. The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is
an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
through the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP),
have determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, other
than operation, maintenance, and fiveyear reviews, have been completed.
However, this deletion does not
preclude future actions under
Superfund.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received by
April 28, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: fang.sharon@epa.gov.
• Fax: (215) 814–3002, Attn: Sharon
Fang
• Mail: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, Attn:
Sharon Fang (3HS21), 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, Attn:
Sharon Fang (3HS21), 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029; Phone:
215–814–3018; Business Hours: Mon.
thru Fri.—9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–
0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket
All documents in the docket are listed
in the https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in the hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. EPA Region III, Superfund Records
Center, 6th Floor, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029; (215)
814–3157, Monday through Friday
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Lower Providence Township
Building, 100 Parkland Drive,
Eagleville, PA 19403; phone (610)
539–8020. Monday through Friday
8:00 a.m.–4:30 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sharon Fang, Remedial Project Manager
(3HS21), U.S. Environmental Protection
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17093
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029; (215)
814–3018; email: fang.sharon@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ Section of
today’s Federal Register, we are
publishing a direct final Notice of
Deletion of the Moyer’s Landfill
Superfund Site without prior Notice of
Intent to Delete because EPA views this
as a noncontroversial revision and
anticipates no adverse comment. We
have explained our reasons for this
deletion in the preamble to the direct
final Notice of Deletion, and those
reasons are incorporated herein. If we
receive no adverse comment(s) on this
deletion action, we will not take further
action on this Notice of Intent to Delete.
If we receive adverse comment(s), we
will withdraw the direct final Notice of
Deletion and it will not take effect. We
will, as appropriate, address all public
comments in a subsequent final Notice
of Deletion based on this Notice of
Intent to Delete. We will not institute a
second comment period on this Notice
of Intent to Delete. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at
this time.
For additional information, see the
direct final Notice of Deletion, which is
located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
waste, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,
3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Dated: February 27, 2014.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3.
[FR Doc. 2014–06812 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 79
[CG Docket No. 05–231; FCC 14–12]
Closed Captioning of Video
Programming; Telecommunications for
the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Petition
for Rulemaking
Federal Communications
Commission.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
17094
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Proposed rule.
In this document, the
Commission issues a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) seeking
comment on options and proposals to
further enhance accessibility to
television programming and to improve
the Commission’s procedural rules
regarding closed captioning.
DATES: Comments on the section
entitled Responsibilities for Meeting the
Closed Captioning Requirements
(paragraphs 1–8) are due on or before
April 28, 2014, and reply comments are
due on or before May 27, 2014.
Comments on remaining sections are
due on or before June 25, 2014, and
reply comments are due on or before
July 25, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by CG Docket No. 05–231, by
any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), through
the Commission’s Web site https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should
follow the instructions provided on the
Web site 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 No. 05–
231.
• Paper filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies 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 (although the Commission
continues to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
• Commercial Mail sent by overnight
mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be
sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail should be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
D In addition, parties must serve one
copy of each pleading with the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, or via email to
fcc@bcpiweb.com.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliot
Greenwald, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability
Rights Office, at (202) 418–2235 or
email Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Closed
Captioning of Video Programming;
Telecommunications for the Deaf and
Hard of Hearing, Inc. Petition for
Rulemaking, Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FNPRM), document FCC
14–12, adopted on February 20, 2014
and released on February 24, 2014, in
CG Docket No. 05–231. In document
FCC 14–12, the Commission adopted an
accompanying Report and Order (Report
and Order), which is summarized in a
separate Federal Register Publication.
The full text of document FCC 14–12
will be available for public inspection
and copying via ECFS, and during
regular business hours at the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II,
445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. It also may be
purchased from the Commission’s
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC
20554, telephone: (800) 378–3160, fax:
(202) 488–5563, or Internet:
www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 14–
12 can also be downloaded in Word or
Portable Document Format (PDF) at
https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/
disability-rights-office-headlines. https://
www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/closedcaptioning-video-programmingtelevision. 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 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (TTY).
This proceeding shall be treated as 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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentations 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
§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule § 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 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
Document FCC 14–12 seeks comment
on potential new information collection
requirements. If the Commission adopts
any new information collection
requirements, the Commission will
publish another notice in the Federal
Register inviting the public to comment
on the requirements, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.
L. 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
the Commission might ‘‘further reduce
the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than
25 employees.’’
Synopsis
Responsibilities for Meeting the Closed
Captioning Obligations
1. The Commission has previously
placed direct responsibility for
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
compliance with the closed captioning
requirements on VPDs. Closed
Captioning and Video Description of
Video Programming, Implementation of
Section 305 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, Video Programming
Accessibility, MM Docket No. 95–176,
Report and Order, (1997 Closed
Captioning Report and Order);
published at 62 FR 48487, September
16, 1997, reconsideration granted in
part, MM Docket No. 95–176, Order on
Reconsideration, (Closed Captioning
Reconsideration Order); published at 63
FR 55959, October 20, 1998. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
the Commission should extend some of
the responsibilities for compliance with
the Commission’s closed captioning
quality standards for programming
shown on television to video
programmers, which are a subset of
video programming providers (VPPs). In
the television captioning context, VPPs
include VPDs as well as video
programmers, i.e., ‘‘any other entity that
provides video programming that is
intended for distribution to residential
households including, but not limited to
broadcast and non-broadcast television
network and the owners of such
programming.’’ See 47 CFR 79.1(a)(3). In
the Report and Order, the Commission
defines a video programmer as ‘‘entities
that provide video programming that is
intended for distribution to residential
households including, but not limited
to, broadcast or non-broadcast television
networks and the owners of such
programming.’’ The Commission also
seeks comment on whether this
definition is sufficiently broad in scope
to hold accountable all entities with
direct control over caption quality or
whether the Commission should expand
the definition to cover other categories
of entities and, if so, what other entities
should be covered. Commenters
advocating covering other entities
should address the Commission’s
authority to regulate those entities.
2. In addition to VPPs, the definition
of video programmers includes ‘‘the
owners of such programming.’’ The
Commission has defined the term video
programming owners (VPOs) for
purposes of ensuring captions on video
programming delivered via Internet
protocol, but not for purposes of
delivering television programs with
captions. The Commission seeks
comment on whether the Commission
should define the term VPO for
purposes of the television closed
captioning rules. The Commission seeks
comment on an appropriate definition
for VPOs in the television context with
respect to the provision of closed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
captioning. For example, should the
Commission include in the definition of
VPO a person or entity that licenses
video programming to a video
programming distributor or provider
that makes the video programming
available directly to the end user? What
other entities should be covered under
the definition of VPO in this context,
and why?
3. Some interested parties support
extension of the responsibility for
caption quality to other entities in the
captioning chain, in addition to VPDs,
in the television context. For example,
Comcast/NBCUniversal (Comcast)
proposes adopting a ‘‘burden-shifting
enforcement model’’ that extends some
captioning responsibilities to VPOs. It
appears that the category of VPOs
Comcast proposes to reach would be
covered under the Commission’s
definition of ‘‘video programmers’’ as
defined in the accompanying Report
and Order, i.e., ‘‘entities that provide
video programming that is intended for
distribution to residential households
including, but not limited to, broadcast
or non-broadcast television networks,
and the owners of such programming.’’
The Comcast proposal would give a
VPD the initial burden of addressing
and investigating matters brought to its
attention concerning the closed
captioning quality rules adopted in the
accompanying Report and Order. If the
problem at issue relates to the passthrough of captions or the VPD’s
equipment, the VPD would be
responsible for fixing it and bear any
associated liability in an enforcement
proceeding if one were to be initiated,
because these are problems within the
VPD’s direct control. If, however, the
VPD learns that the problems raised are
within the control of the VPO, the
compliance burden would shift to the
VPO, which would be charged with
fixing the problem and bear any
associated liability in an enforcement
proceeding.
4. The Commission seeks comment on
Comcast’s burden-shifting proposal and
whether it would result in an
appropriate allocation of responsibilities
for addressing failures to meet the
Commission’s captioning quality rules.
Is this approach likely to achieve a
prompter and more effective resolution
of captioning quality problems brought
to the VPD’s attention? Will this model
provide strong incentives for the various
parties associated with program
production and delivery to work
cooperatively to improve captioning
quality, as suggested by Comcast?
Finally, the Commission notes that
under the Comcast proposal, a VPD
would be relieved of any liabilities
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17095
associated with captioning problems
once it determined that the problems
raised are within the control of the VPO.
The Commission seeks comment on
how the Commission can be assured
that when responsibility for captioning
problems are shifted to other
programming entities, VPDs will have
appropriately transferred such liability.
Should each VPD be obligated to report
to the Commission when they shift this
burden, with information about the
results of its initial investigation to
warrant this shift? Should the VPD
remain jointly responsible with the
programmer after informing the
programmer about the need for the
programmer to address the problem?
The Commission asks commenters
generally to provide input on the
advantages and disadvantages of
adopting Comcast’s proposal, including
its feasibility, as well as the costs and
benefits of shifting responsibility for
direct compliance with the
Commission’s closed captioning
requirements to other entities
responsible for the production and
delivery of video programming.
5. Are there other approaches the
Commission should consider using to
apportion responsibilities for
compliance with the television caption
quality rules among entities involved in
the production and delivery of video
programming? Should any changes to
the apportionment of these
responsibilities apply generally to all
captioning obligations, or only to the
newly adopted captioning quality rules?
To what extent should responsibilities
be joint and several among specific
entities? For example, is it preferable to
place the ultimate responsibility for
compliance with a single entity or are
there benefits to imposing joint
responsibility on or dividing up
responsibility among the responsible
entities? What effect would the sharing
of obligations across multiple entities
have on consumers and industry, and to
what extent can any negative effects be
mitigated?
6. The Commission also seeks
comment on the effect, if any, that
extending responsibility for compliance
to entities other than VPDs would have
on the Commission’s ability to
efficiently monitor and enforce the
closed captioning television rules. To
what extent would the Commission’s
earlier predictions that VPDs would
privately negotiate with VPOs and other
VPPs regarding ‘‘an efficient allocation
of captioning responsibilities’’ and that
VPOs and other VPPs would ‘‘cooperate
with distributors to ensure that
nonexempt programming is closed
captioned in accordance with [the
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17096
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Commission’s] rules’’ apply to the
caption quality context? In the IP
captioning context, the Commission
determined that although VPDs and
VPOs may enter into private contracts
placing some obligations on VPOs,
leaving VPOs’ responsibilities to be
defined entirely by private contractual
arrangements would be more costly and
less efficient than appropriately
allocating certain responsibilities among
both VPOs and VPDs by Commission
rule. IP Captioning Report and Order
Closed Captioning of Internet ProtocolDelivered Video Programming:
Implementation of the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010, MB Docket
No. 11–154, Report and Order, (IP
Captioning Report and Order);
published at 77 FR 19480, March 30,
2012. Would a division of
responsibilities for caption quality in
the television context reduce or improve
the Commission’s efficiencies in
overseeing the captioning rules? Is there
a ‘‘liability gap’’ left by the
Commission’s decision in the 1997
Closed Captioning Report and Order to
limit regulatory oversight to VPDs that
needs to be addressed with respect to
the general implementation of the
Commission’s television captioning
rules by extending regulatory oversight
to VPOs, video programmers or other
entities? For example, as noted above,
§ 79.1(g)(6) of the Commission’s rules
permits VPDs to rely on certifications
from programming suppliers to
demonstrate compliance with the
Commission’s captioning requirements.
47 CFR 79.1(g)(6). Will imposing shared
responsibilities on other entities in the
programming chain help to alleviate
concerns that could arise if a VPD relies
on such certifications without taking
any additional steps to ensure that the
programming at issue has in fact been
delivered to the consumers with the
captions intact and of a quality that now
meets the Commission’s captioning
quality standards?
7. To the extent the Commission
decides to impose some obligations
directly on other programming entities,
the Commission also seeks comment on
whether any other changes to the rules
or Best Practices adopted in the Report
and Order are appropriate. For example,
if the Commission extends obligations
for compliance with the captioning
quality standards directly to
programmers, should the Commission
allow such programmers to assert a safe
harbor, which could then entitle them to
take corrective actions to demonstrate
compliance prior to being subject to
enforcement action—akin to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
compliance ladder adopted for stations
in compliance with the new enhanced
ENT procedures? Should the
Commission similarly allow VPDs to
assert a safe harbor, which would also
entitle them to take corrective actions to
demonstrate compliance prior to being
subject to enforcement action, in the
event certain obligations for compliance
with the captioning quality standards
are placed on VPDs? If the Commission
were to extend direct compliance
responsibility with its closed captioning
requirements to video programmers or
other programming entities, would it no
longer be necessary to include
§ 79.1(g)(6) in the Commission’s rules?
In addition, the Commission seeks
comment on whether there are
similarities or differences between the
television and the IP closed captioning
contexts or the Commission’s
emergency information rule that justify
similar or different regulatory
approaches. The Commission seeks
comment on any other issues related to
extending some or all responsibility for
compliance with the Commission’s
closed captioning requirements to other
programming entities and asks
commenters to address the costs and
benefits of making any such adjustments
to the Commission’s rules.
8. Finally, the Commission invites
parties generally to provide any
information that they believe will
contribute to a better understanding
about which entities are ultimately
better positioned to ensure compliance
with the Commission’s captioning
quality standards.
Minimum Captioning Quality
Standards
9. Live Programming. The
Commission seeks comment on
technical solutions for improving the
synchronicity between the audio track
and captions on live programming to
facilitate understanding of a program’s
content. For example, would providing
the captioner advance delivery of the
audio by a few seconds help to reduce
captioning latency? The Commission
asks commenters to provide input on
this and other techniques to achieve
greater synchronicity, and to explain
how the incremental costs and burdens
of utilizing any of the techniques they
propose compare with the benefits of
greater accessibility to television
programming. The Commission asks
commenters to indicate whether VPDs,
programmers or other entities should be
responsible for implementing such
technical solutions.
10. The Commission also seeks
additional information about methods to
provide captions that capture the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
entirety of the program’s aural content,
including, for example (1) sending the
audio feed to the live captioner in a way
that alerts the captioner that the
program’s end is imminent, so that the
captioner can paraphrase or abbreviate
the remaining text before the program
cuts off; (2) fading out the program after
its last scene to add a few seconds for
the transition to the next program or
commercial content; (3) providing
advance delivery of the audio to
captioners by a few seconds; and (4)
allowing captions remaining at the end
of a program’s audio to be placed in a
location on the screen during the
subsequent advertisement (or program)
in a manner that does not overlap with
the captions on that advertisement or
program. The Commission seeks
comment on the feasibility, costs and
other concerns associated with requiring
the use of one or more of these
techniques to ensure that captioning of
live programming is complete. Are there
other technologies or techniques in
addition to these that the Commission
should consider requiring for this
purpose, and if so, what are their costs,
benefits and technical feasibility? If the
Commission adopts more specific
latency requirements, should the
Commission also identify any
exceptions for circumstances where it is
not possible to ensure completeness,
and if so, what circumstances would
those be? If the Commission requires
any new methods to ensure that
captions capture the entirety of the
program’s aural content, should VPDs,
programmers or other entities be
responsible for implementing these
methods? Finally, the Commission asks
commenters to explain how the
incremental costs and burdens of
utilizing any of the techniques they
propose compare with the benefits of
greater accessibility to television
programming.
11. Near-Live Programming. In the
Report and Order, the Commission
identifies measures that are likely to
result in an improved quality of
captions for both near-live programming
and rebroadcasts of live programming,
including programmers providing an
advance script, a near-completed
program, or a live feed of the advance
taping to a captioning agency, which the
agency can then use to create a caption
file that is later combined
simultaneously with the program when
it is aired. The Commission seeks
comment on whether there are other
measures in addition to these that can
be used to improve the quality of nearlive programming, as well as whether
the Commission should require any
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
such measures. In this regard, the
Commission requests input on the
feasibility, costs and other concerns that
would be associated with such
requirements, and how those compare
with the benefits of greater accessibility
to television programming. The
Commission asks commenters to
indicate how to apportion
responsibilities among VPDs,
programmers or other entities for
ensuring compliance with any measures
adopted to improve the quality of nearlive programming.
12. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether its current
definition of near-live programming is
appropriate for purposes of the quality
standards that the Commission adopted
in the Report and Order. Commission
rules pertaining to the IP captioning
requirements currently define near-live
programming as programming that is
performed and recorded within 24
hours prior to when it is first aired on
television. 47 CFR 79.4(a)(8). Consumer
Groups recommend that the
Commission ‘‘presumptively limit ‘nearlive’ programming to programming
recorded and performed less than
double its length prior to air—e.g., two
hours before the airing of a one-hour
program—and deem ‘pre-recorded’ all
programming recorded and performed
more than double its length prior to
air.’’ Consumer Groups also recommend
that the Commission require the use of
offline captioning where doing so is
achievable and that ‘‘VPDs delivering
near-live programming using real-time
captions maintain records of the reason
that offline captioning is not
achievable.’’
13. Although consumers recommend
that VPDs be required to maintain such
records, it may be more appropriate for
programmers who are directly
responsible for the delivery of programs
with captions to bear this obligation.
The Commission seeks comment on
establishing such a requirement, as well
as the other proposals made by the
Consumer Groups. Is the Commission’s
current definition of near-live
programming adequate to achieve the
goal of promoting caption quality? Is it
technically and financial feasible to
caption programming performed less
than 24 hours prior to air offline instead
of in real-time? Is the Consumer Groups’
proposal to limit near-live programming
to programming recorded and
performed less than double its length
prior to air feasible? Does it better
promote quality captioning? The
Commission also seeks specific cost
information on the impact of changing
the definition of near-live programming
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
for purposes of the Commission’s
caption quality rules.
14. Live and Near-Live Program Refeeds. For live and near-live programs
that were originally captioned using
real-time captioning techniques but that
are later re-aired on television after the
effective date of the caption quality
standards, the Commission asks
whether the Commission should require
the use of offline captioning or other
measures that the Commission
encouraged in the Report and Order to
improve the quality of closed
captioning. For example, should the
Commission adopt a requirement to
correct errors inadvertently made and
timing lags that occurred when the
program was first aired with real-time
captions? Are there other measures that
can be taken between the time of the
first and subsequent showings that can
help improve the caption viewer
experience of such programs? If any
rules were to be adopted requiring
correction of captioning errors and
timing lags on re-feeds of live and nearlive programming, should such rules
include threshold error rates or time
lags before correction is required, and if
so what should those thresholds be? The
Commission asks commenters to
provide feedback on the feasibility,
costs and burdens that would be
associated with such requirements to
take certain measures to improve
captions on re-feeds, and to compare
these with the benefits of greater
accessibility to television programming.
The Commission also seeks input on the
minimum interval needed between the
original airing and the re-feed that
would make such measures feasible.
Finally, the Commission seeks comment
on who should be responsible for
implementing measures that will
improve the accuracy, synchronicity,
completeness and placement of captions
on program re-feeds—VPDs,
programmers, or other entities.
Use of Electronic Newsroom Technique
by Non-Broadcast Channels
15. The Commission seeks comment
on whether to apply the ENT
requirements adopted for broadcasters
in the Report and Order to nonbroadcast networks. What effect, if any,
will these proposals have on the
availability of news and public affairs
programming as well as other live
programming on non-broadcast
networks serving less than 50 percent of
all homes subscribing to MVPD
services? What are the benefits and
disadvantages of these proposals for
consumers seeking full access to news
programming? The Commission also
seeks other information that will help
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17097
the Commission to assess the costs and
benefits if it were to apply these
proposed obligations on non-broadcast
networks.
Compliance
16. Technical Equipment Checks. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
to establish specific intervals by which
equipment checks codified in the Report
and Order should take place and, if so,
how frequently these checks should be
performed to ensure that captioning is
reliably delivered and video
programming is fully accessible to
consumers. The Commission seeks
comment on the extent to which
measures other than regular equipment
checks, such as automated technologies
that can be used to ensure that captions
are passed through to consumers,
should be permitted as alternative
methodologies for monitoring.
Commenters are asked to weigh the
costs of these proposals as well as the
costs of particular time intervals against
the benefits of increasing reliable access
to video programming by people who
are deaf and hard of hearing.
17. Resolution of Consumer
Complaints. The National Cable and
Telecommunications Association
(NCTA) proposes in its Best Practices
that VPDs take the following actions
designed to improve the prompt
resolution of consumer’s captioning
concerns.
• Consumer care awareness and
training. Maintain consumer support
and escalation for captioning issues and
provide targeted information or conduct
training for customer care agents or
television station personnel, as
appropriate, to help with and assist in
the resolution of caption quality and
other captioning support issues.
• Identification and remediation of
recurring captioning issues. Make
reasonable efforts to identify consumer
complaints received about captioning
issues and periodically review these
complaints to identify and resolve
recurring captioning problems.
The Commission seeks comment on
whether to adopt these practices noted
above. The Commission asks
commenters to address their
experiences with the resolution of
complaints filed directly with VPDs and
whether adherence to the above
practices would affect either positively
or negatively the resolution of such
complaints. The Commission asks
commenters to also address the costs
and benefits of requiring VPDs to
implement these complaint handling
practices.
18. Consumer Groups recommend
that the Commission provide the public
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17098
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
with information about all captioningrelated complaints as part of a
Commission-wide ‘‘dashboard.’’ The
Commission seeks comment on having
the Commission make such information
available to the public.
19. Outages. The Commission seeks
comment on whether VPDs should be
required to notify both consumers and
the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau (CGB) when captioning outages
occur. Such outage reporting would
only be required where there is an
underlying obligation to provide
captions, not where programming
entities are exempt or otherwise
excused from the captioning obligations.
Given that some programming is exempt
from the Commission’s captioning rules,
the Commission also seeks comment on
whether and how consumers should be
informed when captions are not
required on particular programs. The
Commission also seeks input on the
duration and frequency of outages that
should trigger any notification
requirements. The Commission requests
that parties provide comments on the
practical and technical feasibility of
notifying the public of a captioning
outage on VPD Web sites and via
periodic crawls on affected programs.
For example, to what extent do the
causes of outages impact the ability of
the VPD to notify customers of the
outage? Should VPDs be required to
provide timely updates of service status
that they are working on so that
consumers are aware while watching
the program? In this regard, the
Commission also seeks comment about
the length of time it generally takes to
repair an outage after it has been
discovered. Next, the Commission seeks
comment on the appropriate passage of
time after such outage commences
before a VPD should be required to
notify consumers and the Commission
that an outage has occurred. VPDs
should also comment on how they can
become aware of captioning outages and
how that will affect their ability to
notify consumers. How do the costs and
burdens of providing such notifications
compare with the benefits of greater
consumer access to information about
captioning outages?
20. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the Commission
should require the VPD to submit an
outage report to CGB, on the contents
and timing of such a report, and how
the report should be filed. What
minimum outage time should trigger the
filing of a report? If outage reports are
required, what information should be
included in the report? For example,
should it include a list of the VPD’s
affected programs, the geographic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
locations affected by the outage, the
dates and times for the start and end of
the outage, and the cause of the outage?
If the outage lasts for more than one day,
should the VPD be required to seek out
other captioning sources while repairing
equipment? How soon after the outage
starts and ends should the report be
filed with CGB? As an alternative to
submitting outage reports, should VPDs
be required to maintain records of their
outages and for what length of time?
How do the costs and burdens of filing
captioning outage reports with CGB or
keeping outage records compare with
the benefits of achieving improved
enforcement of the closed captioning
obligations for consumers? In addition,
the Commission notes that the
obligation under § 79.2 of the
Commission’s rules to make emergency
information visually accessible exists
even if closed captioning is not
available, and that the VPD may use
scrolls, crawls, or other visual
alternatives to fulfill that obligation. See
47 CFR 79.2. The Commission also
notes that it does not intend for the
notification and reporting requirements
proposed herein to relieve VPDs of their
obligations to prevent foreseeable and
avoidable situations created by inaction
or delay. Finally, the Commission asks
interested parties to provide comment
on how any responsibilities associated
with the outage reporting obligations
should be apportioned among VPDs,
programmers, program owners, or other
entities.
21. Amending § 79.1(i)(3) of the
Commission’s Rules to Require All
Contact Information Be Submitted to the
VPD Registry. Over the past three years,
the Commission has found that the VPD
Registry offers the most efficient and
accurate means of collecting VPD
contact information for the receipt and
handling of immediate captioning
concerns raised by consumers while
they are watching television as well as
for closed captioning complaints. The
Commission proposes to amend its rules
to require VPD contact information
required under § 79.1(i)(1) and (2) of the
Commission’s rules to be submitted to
the Commission directly to the VPD
Registry through the web form method
and seeks comment on this proposal.
How do the costs of transitioning to a
mandatory web form method of filing
compare with the ease and accuracy of
filing and benefits derived from such
mandatory system?
22. Treatment of Consumer
Complaints by a VPD that Is Not the
Responsible Party. In the 2008 Closed
Captioning Decision, the Commission
adopted § 79.1(g)(3) of the Commission’s
rules, 47 CFR 79.1(g)(3), which requires
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a VPD that receives a closed captioning
complaint for a program for which it
does not have closed captioning
responsibility, to forward that complaint
to the responsible entity within seven
days of receiving the complaint, and
then to notify the complainant that the
complaint was forwarded. 2008 Closed
Captioning Decision. On June 10, 2009,
Time Warner Cable (Time Warner) filed
an ex parte letter identifying potential
conflicts between the Commission’s
amended § 79.1(g)(3) and the obligations
of cable companies to protect a
subscriber’s privacy under section
631(c)(1) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. 551(c)(1).
23. On December 11, 2009, the
Commission released an Order
temporarily staying the effective date of
the forwarding provision of amended
§ 79.1(g)(3) of the Commission’s rules.
See Closed Captioning of Video
Programming, CG Docket No. 05–231,
Order Suspending Effective Date, (2009
Suspension Order); published at 75 FR
7369, February 19, 2010. Noting the
potential conflict between amended
§ 79.1(g)(3) of the Commission’s rules
and sections 631(c) and 338(i)(4) of the
Act (the latter creating the same
prohibitions for satellite providers), the
Commission found good cause to
temporarily suspend the effective date
for § 79.1(g)(3) of the Commission’s
rules, pending the completion of further
rulemaking proceedings to determine
how closed captioning complaints sent
to the incorrect entity should be
handled.
24. In order for a third party video
programming provider to respond to a
forwarded complaint, that complaint
must include the complainant’s name,
address, telephone number and other
personally identifiable information. Yet,
sections 631(c) and 338(i)(4) of the Act
appear to prohibit the forwarding of
such information without the
complainant’s consent.
25. Accordingly, the Commission
proposes amending § 79.1(g)(3) of the
Commission’s rules to require that
within seven days after a VPD receives
a complaint regarding programming of a
broadcast television licensee or
programming over which the VPD does
not exercise editorial control, it be
required to notify the complainant—
using the complainant’s preferred
method of communication—of the
appropriate party to whom the
complaint should be sent, and give the
complainant the option of either (1)
asking the VPD to forward the
complaint to the appropriate party
electronically or in writing, or (2)
submitting the complaint directly to the
appropriate party on his or her own. In
addition, the Commission proposes that
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
the VPD, after taking such action,
inform the Commission that it has so
notified the complainant by providing
the Commission with copies of all
written or electronic correspondence or
a written description of all
communications that were not either in
electronic or written form. Under this
proposal, if the VPD is asked by the
complainant to forward the complaint to
the appropriate party, the VPD would be
required to do so within seven days of
receiving such request, and if the VPD
is not asked to forward the complaint,
it would have no further responsibility.
The Commission seeks comment on
these proposals, including whether the
second prong of the proposed
requirement—requiring the VPD to
notify the Commission that it has
informed the complainant of the
available options—would itself be a
violation of sections 631(c)(1) and
338(i)(4) of the Act in instances where
the consumer files his or her complaint
with the VPD only and does not
authorize the VPD to provide a copy to
the Commission. If the Commission
decides to require the VPD to notify it,
the Commission seeks comment on the
method a VPD must use to notify the
Commission. How do the costs of
forwarding complaints upon consumer
request and notifying the Commission of
actions taken compare with the benefits
of providing a consumer-friendly way to
get the complaints to the correct parties?
Finally, the Commission requests
commenters to submit any alternative
proposals for amending § 79.1(g)(3) of
the Commission’s rules to avoid
breaching the consumer protections
contained in sections 631(c)(1) and
338(i)(4) of the Act.
Captioning Exemptions
26. Elimination of the New Network
Exemption. The Commission seeks
comment on the merits of continuing to
allow all new networks to receive a four
year exemption from the closed
captioning rules. See 47 CFR 79.1(d)(9).
Should newly launched networks build
the costs of captioning into their
business plans during the planning of
their networks? If the Commission were
to eliminate the new network
exemption, should the Commission
adopt a phase-in period to provide an
opportunity for networks that are about
to commence operations to plan for the
required captioning? If so, what should
this phase-in be? The Commission seeks
comment on the costs and benefits of
eliminating the new network
exemption.
27. As an alternative, the Commission
seeks comment on modifying the new
network exemption. Currently, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
exemption is for four years. Would a
one or two year exemption be more
appropriate? The Commission seeks
comment on these or any other time
periods that might be appropriate for a
revised new network exemption. Even if
the Commission retains the new
network exemption, should the
exemption apply only to new networks
that have certain other indicia of a startup network, e.g., local or regional in
nature, accessible by a small number of
households, and ownership by a small
business? If the Commission takes this
approach, how does it define each of
these or other proposed criteria for
limiting the new network exemption?
Alternatively, should networks with
significant financial backing be deemed
ineligible for the new network
exemption? For example, should the
exemption not apply to new networks
that are owned, in whole or part, by one
of the four major national broadcast
networks or the top ten non-broadcast
networks? How do the relative costs and
burdens of requiring new networks to
provide captioning under each of these
alternatives compare with the benefits
of greater accessibility to television
programming?
28. If the Commission does retain this
exemption, the Commission also seeks
comment on the definition of ‘‘network’’
for purposes of the closed captioning
rules. The exemption for new networks
is based on the number of years that a
programming network has been in
operation rather than the number of
subscribers. 47 CFR 79.1(d)(9). Further,
this exemption applies to different types
of networks—broadcast, non-broadcast,
national, and regional. 1997 Closed
Captioning Report and Order; see also
Closed Captioning Reconsideration
Order. To begin with, the Commission
seeks comment on the extent to which
it should rely on other definitions of
‘‘network,’’ contained elsewhere in the
Commission’s rules. For example,
§ 73.3613(a)(1) of the Commission’s
rules defines ‘‘network’’ with respect to
broadcast network affiliation agreements
that must be filed with the Commission
as ‘‘any person, entity, or corporation
which offers an interconnected program
service on a regular basis for 15 or more
hours per week to at least 25 affiliated
television licensees in 10 or more
states.’’ 47 CFR 73.3613(a)(1); see also
47 CFR 76.55(f) (similar definition for
purposes of the cable ‘‘must carry’’
rules). Alternatively, § 76.5(m) of the
Commission’s rules, pertaining to cable
operators providing network nonduplication protection to television
stations, defines a ‘‘network program’’
as ‘‘. . . any program delivered
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17099
simultaneously to more than one
broadcast station regional or national,
commercial or noncommercial.’’ 47 CFR
76.5(m). The Commission seeks
comment on whether these or a different
definition of ‘‘network’’ would be
appropriate for purposes of § 79.1(d)(9)
of the Commission’s rules, and whether
to apply the same definition to
broadcast and non-broadcast networks.
29. Next, the Commission notes that
MVPDs serving U.S. subscribers
increasingly offer video programming
networks that were initially launched in
foreign markets. In the event the
Commission retains the new network
exemption, the Commission seeks
comment on whether a network that has
operated in a foreign market and that
moves to distribution or ‘‘launches’’ in
the U.S., should be eligible for a new
network exemption for a certain period
of time after it launches in the U.S. and,
if so, what the duration of that
exemption should be. The Commission
also seeks feedback on how to calculate
the exemption period for such a new
network, specifically, whether such
network should be considered new as of
the date that it begins distribution in the
U.S., or whether its launch date should
be considered the date that it initially
began viewing in its originating country.
The Commission asks commenters that
believe the Commission should
calculate an exemption upon moving
the network’s programming to the U.S.
to explain why this exemption is
necessary, given that such networks will
have been in operation (and presumably
generating revenues) and will have
advance notice of U.S. captioning
obligations prior to launching in the
U.S. How do the costs and burdens of
providing captioning on networks
showing programming in the U.S. after
first showing programming in foreign
countries compare with the benefits of
greater accessibility to television
programming?
30. Last, in the event the Commission
retains the new network exemption, the
Commission seeks comment on the
application of the new network
exemption to networks created as the
result of a merger of two or more
existing networks. The Commission
seeks comment on whether the original
launch dates of networks that merged
should be considered the applicable
date for purposes of determining the
exemption period for the merged entity.
The Commission also seeks comment on
which date should control in those
situations where the merged entities had
different original launch dates. Should
the duration of the exemption be
calculated based on the individual
network that has been in existence for
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17100
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
the longest period of time? Is this
approach appropriate because the new
network exemption applies for a limited
number of years—four years under the
current rules so that no component part
of the combined network would have
the benefit of the exemption for longer
than the maximum length of time
provided by the rule? The Commission
also seeks comment on whether the new
network exemption should apply or be
extended in the event of a restructuring
of a network. Because the captioning
rules were promulgated sixteen years
ago and each network will have known
about captioning requirements since its
inception, has the network had
sufficient time to integrate closed
captioning into its production process
and costs? The Commission seeks
comment on this issue including its
costs and benefits.
31. Consumer Groups’ 2011 Petition
Requesting Elimination of Certain SelfImplementing Exemptions from the
Captioning Rules. On January 27, 2011,
the Consumer Groups filed a joint
petition for rulemaking (2011 Petition)
seeking amendment to the
Commission’s captioning rules
regarding an exclusion and several
categorical self-implementing
exemptions from the obligation to
caption television programming. The
Consumer Groups requested, in light of
modern technology, the reduced costs of
captioning, and other changed
circumstances, that the Commission
eliminate the exclusion for
advertisements of five minutes duration
or less, see 47 CFR 79.1(a)(1), and the
self-implementing exemptions provided
for the following types of programming:
Late night programming, see 47 CFR
79.1(d)(5), locally produced and
distributed non-news programming with
no repeat value, see 47 CFR 79.1(d)(8),
interstitials, promotional
announcements, and public service
announcements that are 10 minutes or
less in duration, see 47 CFR 79.1(d)(6),
and channels producing revenues under
$3 million, see 47 CFR 79.1(d)(12). The
Commission seeks comment on the
Consumer Groups’ proposal to eliminate
the advertising exclusion and the
specified self-implementing exemptions
from the closed captioning rules. The
Commission asks commenters to
address the merits as well as the costs
and benefits of each proposal put forth
by the Consumer Groups.
Technical Standards for the Display of
Closed Captions
32. In the 2000 DTV Closed
Captioning Order, the Commission
adopted, with some modifications,
section 9 of CEA–708, to provide
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
guidelines for encoder and decoder
manufacturers and caption providers to
implement closed captioning services
with digital television technology. See
Closed Captioning Requirements for
Digital Television Receivers; Closed
Captioning and Video Description of
Video Programming, Implementation of
Section 305 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, Video Programming
Accessibility, ET Docket No. 99–254,
MM Docket No. 95–176, Report and
Order, (2000 DTV Closed Captioning
Order); published at 65 FR 58467,
September 29, 2000; see also 47 CFR
79.102. The standards require DTV
closed caption decoders to support
certain advanced features, including
different caption sizes, fonts, character
background and foreground colors, and
other similar features, to allow viewers
to customize the display of closed
captions on their televisions. The
Commission now seeks comment on the
experiences that caption users have had
since adoption of these standards,
including the extent that such
consumers have succeeded in using
these features to improve their
television experience.
33. In addition to allowing users to
control the appearance of captions,
CEA–708 allows programmers more
options for the display of captions, such
as multiple windows, fonts, and styles.
The Commission seeks information on
current practices for such formatting of
closed captions. To what extent was the
Commission correct in its earlier
expectation that CEA–708 captions
would be provided and its prediction
that ‘‘programmers and caption
providers’’ would have incentives to
provide CEA–708 captions? To what
extent are VPDs, video programmers,
captioners, or other entities each
involved in the production process for
formatting closed captions in a manner
that provides the advanced features
adopted by the Commission in the 2000
DTV Closed Captioning Order, such as
delivering captions in programmerselected size, font, character background
colors, and foreground colors of closed
captions? What other entities are
involved in the process, and how so? If
VPDs, video programmers, captioners,
or other entities involved in the
production process are not formatting
closed captions to use CEA–708
capabilities, why not? What action, if
any can the Commission take to ensure
the effective implementation of the
CEA–708 capabilities so that television
viewers who use captions can take full
advantage of the capabilities this
standard was intended to provide?
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Caption Obstructions
34. Some caption viewers have raised
concerns about closed captions being
partially or completely blocked by other
visual information, such as graphics,
that appear on the screen. The
Commission seeks comment on the
extent to which on-screen visual
changes or textual depictions,
including, but not limited to, split
screens, pop-on advertisements and
promotions, credits, graphic overlays, or
contact information, have caused a
problem for caption viewers. To the
extent that these problems exist, the
Commission asks for comment on their
causes and possible solutions.
New Technologies
35. Captioning on 3D Television
Programming. To better understand
current practices and capabilities with
regard to closed captioning of 3D TV
programming, the Commission seeks
comment on the following:
• How are DTV manufacturers
ensuring that captions continue to work
when 3D TV programming is shown on
television sets with 3D capability?
• Are there issues regarding the
placement of captions in a 3D picture?
What steps must manufacturers take to
ensure that captioning in 3D TV
programming is inserted and placed at
an appropriate depth of field in the 3D
image? Do user-selected changes to font
size and location of the captions operate
differently in a 3D image?
• With regard to television sets with
3D capability, will captions display
properly when the user switches
between 2D and 3D modes?
• How do the costs and burdens of
providing closed captioning in 3D TV
programming compare with the benefits
of greater accessibility to television
programming?
The Commission seeks input on any
other matters that could affect the
availability of closed captioning on 3D
TV programming.
36. Captioning on Ultra High
Definition Television Programming. To
better understand current practices and
capabilities with regard to closed
captioning of Ultra HDTV programming,
the Commission seeks comment on the
following:
• How are Ultra HDTV manufacturers
ensuring that captions continue to
appear legibly when programming is
shown on Ultra HDTV television sets?
• Do the standards for Ultra HDTV
programming have the same capabilities
for the transmission or pass-through of
captions as HDTV and SDTV
programming?
• Does the increased resolution
present new challenges related to the
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
display of captions, particularly with
respect to font size of the captions? If so,
what are these new challenges, and how
can they be addressed?
• How do the costs and burdens of
additional requirements concerning
closed captioning for Ultra HDTV
programming compare with the benefits
of greater accessibility to television
programming?
The Commission seeks input on any
other matters that could affect the
availability of closed captioning on
Ultra HDTV programming.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Certification
37. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission
has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in document FCC 14–12
FNPRM. Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA
and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments in document FCC 14–12. The
Commission will send a copy of
document FCC 14–12, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).
38. In document FCC 14–12, the
Commission seeks comment on (1)
whether the Commission should impose
some responsibilities for compliance
with the Commission’s closed
captioning quality rules on video
programmers and other entities; (2)
whether the Commission should require
specific measures to ensure program
completeness and synchronicity for live
and near-live programming and how the
Commission should define near-live
programming; (3) whether the
Commission should require the use of
offline captioning or other measures to
achieve improved accuracy,
synchronicity, placement and program
completeness of captions prior to the reairing of live and near-live programming
first shown after the effective date of
any such rule; (4) whether to apply the
ENT requirements adopted for
broadcasters to non-broadcast networks
that use ENT and serve less than 50
percent of all MVPD homes to achieve
greater accessibility to news
programming; (5) whether to establish
specific maximum intervals for
technical equipment checks or to allow
alternatives to such technical equipment
checks; (6) whether to adopt a proposal
for improving the prompt resolution of
consumers’ captioning concerns by
VPDs, and whether to create a publicly
available ‘‘dashboard’’ that would
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
provide information about all
captioning-related complaints; (7)
whether to require that captioning
outages be communicated to viewers in
real-time and be reported to the
Commission, consistent with the
reporting requirements for other types of
outages; (8) whether to require that all
contact information already required to
be submitted by VPDs to the
Commission for the VPD registry be
submitted using the Commission’s web
form system only; (9) how to amend the
Commission’s rules regarding the
forwarding of consumer complaints to
ensure subscriber privacy when the VPD
receiving an informal complaint is not
the responsible party; (10) whether to
eliminate or retain the four-year
exemption contained in § 79.1(d)(9) of
the Commission’s rules pertaining to
new networks, and if retained, whether
to reduce the term of the exemption or
limit its availability based on certain
criteria indicative of a start-up network,
how to define network, how to calculate
the start date of the network for
purposes of the exemption, and whether
and how the exemption should be
applied to networks created as the result
of a merger of two or more existing
networks; (11) whether to eliminate or
retain the exclusion contained in
§ 79.1(a)(1) of the Commission’s rules
for advertisements of five minutes
duration or less and certain selfimplementing exemptions contained in
§ 79.1(d) of the Commission’s rules,
including exemptions for late night
programming, locally produced and
distributed non-news programming with
no repeat value, interstitials,
promotional announcements, and
public service announcements that are
10 minutes or less in duration, and
channels producing revenues under $3
million; (12) current practices with
regard to technical standards for the
display of closed captioning; (13) the
extent to which onscreen visual changes
or textual depictions have caused a
problem for caption viewers; and (14)
current practices and capabilities with
regard to closed captioning of 3D TV
and ultra HDTV.
39. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules and policies, if
adopted. The RFA generally defines the
term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same
meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’
‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition,
the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same
meaning as the term ‘‘small business
concern’’ under the Small Business Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17101
A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one
which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
SBA.
40. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. As of 2009, small
businesses represented 99.9% of the
27.5 million businesses in the United
States, according to the SBA.
Additionally, a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(4). Nationwide, as
of 2007, there were approximately
1,621,315 small organizations. Finally,
the term ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as
‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand.’’ 5 U.S.C.
601(5). Census Bureau data for 2007
indicate that there were 89,527
governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. The Commission
estimates that, of this total, as many as
88,761 entities may qualify as ‘‘small
governmental jurisdictions.’’
41. Cable Television Distribution
Services. These services have been
included within the broad economic
census category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA
has developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is all
such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to data from the
U.S. Census Bureau for the year 2007,
there were 3,188 Wired
Telecommunications Carrier firms that
operated for the entire year in 2007. Of
these, 3,144 operated with less than
1,000 employees, and 44 operated with
1,000 or more employees.
42. Cable Companies and Systems.
Under the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small
cable company’’ is one serving 400,000
or fewer subscribers, nationwide. 47
CFR 76.901(e). Industry data shows that
there are 1,100 cable companies. Of this
total, all but 10 incumbent cable
companies are small. In addition, under
the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small
system’’ is a cable system serving 15,000
or fewer subscribers. 47 CFR 76.901(c).
Current Commission records show 4,945
cable systems nationwide. Of this total,
4,380 cable systems have less than
20,000 subscribers, and 565 systems
have 20,000 subscribers or more.
43. Cable System Operators (Telecom
Act Standard). The Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size
standard for small cable system
operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17102
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
that, directly or through an affiliate,
serves in the aggregate fewer than 1
percent of all subscribers in the United
States and is not affiliated with any
entity or entities whose gross annual
revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.’’ 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see
also 47 CFR 76.901(f) and nn.1–3. Based
on available data, all but 10 incumbent
cable operators are small under this size
standard.
44. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)
Service. DBS service is a nationally
distributed subscription service that
delivers video and audio programming
via satellite to a small parabolic ‘‘dish’’
antenna at the subscriber’s location.
Currently, only two entities, DIRECTV
and DISH Network, provide DBS
service, and neither company is a small
business.
45. Wireless Cable Systems—
Broadband Radio Service and
Educational Broadband Service.
Wireless cable systems use the
Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and
Educational Broadband Service (EBS) to
transmit video programming to
subscribers. In connection with the 1996
BRS auction, the Commission
established a small business size
standard as an entity that had annual
average gross revenues of no more than
$40 million in the previous three
calendar years. Of the 67 auction
winners, 61 met the definition of a small
business, and of these 61 winners, 48
remain small business licensees. In
addition, there are approximately 392
incumbent BRS licensees that are
considered small entities. Accordingly,
there are currently approximately 440
BRS licensees that are defined as small
businesses under either the SBA or the
Commission’s rules. In 2009, the
Commission conducted Auction 86 for
the sale of 78 BRS licenses, and
established three categories of small
businesses: (i) A bidder with attributed
average annual gross revenues that
exceed $15 million and do not exceed
$40 million for the preceding three
years is a small business; (ii) a bidder
with attributed average annual gross
revenues that exceed $3 million and do
not exceed $15 million for the preceding
three years is a very small business; and
(iii) a bidder with attributed average
annual gross revenues that do not
exceed $3 million for the preceding
three years is an entrepreneur. Of the 10
winning bidders, two bidders that
claimed small business status won four
licenses; one bidder that claimed very
small business status won three
licenses; and two bidders that claimed
entrepreneur status won six licenses.
46. In addition, the SBA’s placement
of Cable Television Distribution
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
Services in the category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is
applicable to cable-based Educational
Broadcasting Services. The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which is all such businesses
having 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for
2007, there were 3,188 Wired
Telecommunications Carrier firms that
operated for the entire year in 2007. Of
these, 3,144 operated with less than
1,000 employees, and 44 operated with
1,000 or more employees. In addition to
Census Bureau data, the Commission’s
internal records indicate that as of
September 2012, there are 2,239 active
EBS licenses. The Commission
estimates that of these 2,239 licenses,
the majority are held by non-profit
educational institutions and school
districts, which are by statute defined as
small businesses.
47. Open Video Services. Because
OVS operators provide subscription
services, OVS falls within the SBA
small business size standard covering
cable services, which is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA
has developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is all
such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to U.S. Census
data for 2007, there were 3,188 firms
that in 2007 were Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Of these,
3,144 operated with less than 1,000
employees, and 44 operated with 1,000
or more employees. However, as to the
latter 44 there is no data available that
shows how many operated with more
than 1,500 employees.
48. Television Broadcasting. The SBA
defines a television broadcasting station
as a small business if such station has
no more than $35.5 million in annual
receipts. The Commission has estimated
the number of licensed full power
commercial television stations to be
1,388. According to U.S. Census data for
2007, there were 2,076 television
broadcasting establishments in 2007. Of
these, 1,515 establishments had receipts
under $10 million, and 561 had receipts
of $10 million or more. The Commission
notes, however, that, in assessing
whether a business concern qualifies as
small under the above definition,
business control affiliations must be
included. Because many of these
stations may be held by large group
owners, and the revenue figures on
which the Commission’s estimate is
based does not include or aggregate
revenues from control affiliates, the
Commission’s estimate likely overstates
the number of small entities that might
be affected by the Commission’s action.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49. The Commission has estimated
the number of licensed noncommercial
educational (NCE) full power television
stations to be 396. The Commission
does not compile and otherwise does
not have access to information on the
revenue of NCE stations that would
permit it to determine how many such
stations would qualify as small entities.
There are also 428 Class A television
stations and 1,986 low power television
stations (LPTV). Given the nature of
these services, the Commission will
presume that all Class A television and
LPTV licensees qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition.
50. In addition, an element of the
definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the
entity not be dominant in its field of
operation. The Commission is unable at
this time to define or quantify the
criteria that would establish whether a
specific television station is dominant
in its field of operation. Accordingly,
the estimate of small businesses to
which rules may apply do not exclude
any television station from the
definition of a small business on this
basis and is therefore over-inclusive to
that extent. Also as noted, an additional
element of the definition of ‘‘small
business’’ is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated.
The Commission notes that it is difficult
at times to assess these criteria in the
context of media entities, and the
Commission’s estimates of small
businesses to which they apply may be
over-inclusive to this extent.
51. Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (ILECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for ILECs. The appropriate
size standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees and ‘‘is not dominant
in its field of operation.’’ The SBA’s
Office of Advocacy contends that, for
RFA purposes, small ILECs are not
dominant in their field of operation
because any such dominance is not
‘‘national’’ in scope. The Commission
has therefore included small ILECs in
this RFA analysis, although the
Commission emphasizes that this RFA
action has no effect on Commission
analyses and determinations in other,
non-RFA contexts.
52. According to Census Bureau data
for 2007, that there were 3,188 firms in
this category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 3,144 had
employment of less than 1000
employees, and 44 firms had had
employment of 1,000 or more.
According to Commission data, 1,307
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of ILEC
services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an
estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 301 have more than
1,500 employees.
53. Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access
Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant
Service Providers, and Other Local
Service Providers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for these service providers.
The appropriate size standard under
SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under
that size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for
2007, there were 3,188 firms in this
category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 3,144 had
employment of less than 1000
employees, and 44 firms had had
employment of 1,000 employees or
more. According to Commission data,
1,442 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either CLEC
services or CAP services. Of these 1,442
carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500
or fewer employees and 186 have more
than 1,500 employees. In addition, 17
carriers have reported that they are
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Seventy-two carriers
have reported that they are Other Local
Service Providers, and of the 72, 70
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 2
have more than 1,500 employees.
54. Electric Power Distribution
Companies. These entities can provide
video services over power lines (BPL).
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for this category,
which is all such firms having 1,000 or
fewer employees. Census Bureau data
for 2007 show that there were 1,174
firms that operated for the entire year in
this category. Of these firms, 50 had
1,000 employees or more, and 1,124 had
fewer than 1,000 employees.
55. Cable and Other Subscription
Programming. These entities may be
directly or indirectly affected by the
Commission’s action. The size standard
established by the SBA for this business
category is that annual receipts of $35.5
million or less determine that a business
is small. According to 2007 Census
Bureau data, there were 396 firms that
were engaged in production of Cable
and Other Subscription Programming.
Of these, 349 had annual receipts below
$25 million, 12 had annual receipts
ranging from $25 million to
$49,999,999, and 35 had annual receipts
of $50 million or more.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
56. Motion Picture and Video
Production. These entities may be
directly or indirectly affected by the
Commission’s action. The size standard
established by the SBA for this business
category is that annual receipts of $30
million or less determine that a business
is small. According to 2007 Census
Bureau data, there were 9,095 firms that
were engaged in Motion Picture and
Video Production. Of these, 8,995 had
annual receipts of less than $25 million,
43 had annual receipts ranging from $25
million to $49,999,999, and 57 had
annual receipts of $50 million or more.
57. Internet Publishing and
Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.
These entities may be directly or
indirectly affected by the Commission’s
action. The SBA has deemed an Internet
publisher or Internet broadcaster or the
provider of a web search portal on the
Internet to be small if it has fewer than
500 employees. Census Bureau data for
2007 show that there were 2,705 such
firms that operated that year. Of those
2,705 firms, 2,682 (approximately 99%)
had fewer than 500 employees, and 23
had 500 or more employees.
58. Closed Captioning Services. These
entities may be directly or indirectly
affected by the Commission’s action.
The SBA has developed two small
business size standards that may be
used for closed captioning services,
which track the economic census
categories, ‘‘Teleproduction and Other
Postproduction Services’’ and ‘‘Court
Reporting and Stenotype Services.’’
59. The relevant size standard for
small businesses in Teleproduction and
Other Postproduction Services is annual
revenue of less than $29.5 million.
Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate
that there were 1,605 firms that operated
in this category for the entire year. Of
that number, 1,587 had annual receipts
totaling less than $25 million, 9 had
annual receipts ranging from $25
million to $49,999,999, and 9 had
annual receipts of $50 million or more.
60. The size standard for small
businesses in Court Reporting and
Stenotype Services is annual revenue of
less than $14 million. Census Bureau
data for 2007 show that there were 2,706
firms that operated for the entire year.
Of this total, 2,687 had annual receipts
of under $10 million, 11 firms had
annual receipts of $10 million to
$24,999,999, and 8 had annual receipts
of $25 million or more.
61. If the Commission were to adopt
rules extending responsibilities for
compliance with the Commission’s
closed captioning quality standards and
other captioning requirements to video
programmers or entities other than
VPDs, such regulations would impose
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17103
new compliance obligations and may
impose additional reporting and
recordkeeping obligations on video
programmers, video programming
owners, and other entities, including
small entities.
62. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring the use of certain
measures to ensure program
completeness and synchronicity of
closed captions for live and near-live
programming and changing the
Commission’s current definition of nearlive programming for purposes of the
quality standards adopted in the Order,
such regulations would impose
additional compliance obligations on
VPDs, including small entities.
63. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring the use of offline
captioning or other measures to achieve
improved accuracy, synchronicity,
placement and program completeness of
the captions prior to the re-airing of live
and near-live programs, such
regulations would impose additional
compliance obligations on VPDs,
including small entities.
64. If the Commission were to apply
the ENT requirements adopted in the
Report and Order for broadcasters to
non-broadcast networks that use ENT
and serve less than 50 percent of all
MVPD homes, such regulations would
impose new compliance obligations that
may pose a financial burden on some
non-broadcast networks, including
smaller entities.
65. If the Commission were to
establish maximum intervals for
technical equipment checks, or to allow
alternatives to such technical equipment
checks, such regulations would impose
additional compliance obligations on
VPDs, including small entities.
66. If the Commission were to adopt
the practices proposed by the NCTA for
improving the prompt resolution of
consumers’ captioning concerns,
including requiring VPDs to make
reasonable efforts to identify consumer
complaints received about captioning
issues and periodically review those
complaints to identify and resolve
recurring captioning problems, VPDs,
including small entities, would be
subject to the recordkeeping
requirements associated with the
proposal.
67. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring VPDs experiencing a
captioning outage to notify consumers
of the outage and file outage reports
with the Commission, VPDs, including
small entities, would be subject to the
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements associated with such
outage reports.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17104
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
68. If the Commission were to adopt
a rule requiring that all contact
information already required to be
submitted by VPDs to the Commission
for the VPD registry, see 47 CFR
79.1(i)(3), be submitted using the
Commission’s web form system, VPDs,
including small entities, would not be
subject to additional reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, because
they are already required to submit their
contact information to the Commission.
However, VPDs, including small
entities, may be required to alter their
reporting and recordkeeping associated
with such submissions in order to
comply with the rule.
69. If the Commission were to adopt
a rule requiring a VPD, upon receipt of
a complaint where the VPD is not the
responsible party, to (1) notify the
consumer within seven days; (2) offer
the consumer a choice of either asking
the VPD in writing to forward the
complaint to the appropriate party or
submitting the complaint directly to the
appropriate party on his or her own; and
(3) inform the Commission that it has so
notified the complainant by providing
the Commission with copies of all
written or electronic correspondence or
a written description of all
communications that were not in
electronic or written form, VPDs,
including small entities, would be
subject to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements associated
with such complaint forwarding and
notifications.
70. If the Commission were to
eliminate the four-year exemption
contained in § 79.1(d)(9) of its rules
pertaining to new networks, 47 CFR
79.1(d)(9), or retain but alter the fouryear exemption pertaining to new
networks, it would impose new
compliance obligations that may pose a
financial burden on some smaller
entities.
71. If the Commission were to
eliminate the exclusion from the
definition of video programming for
advertisements of five minutes duration
or less, 47 CFR 79.1(a)(1), and if the
Commission were to eliminate certain
self-executing exemptions contained in
§ 79.1(d) of its rules, including
exemptions for late night programming,
47 CFR 79.1(d)(5), locally produced and
distributed non-news programming with
no repeat value, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(8),
interstitials, promotional
announcements, and public service
announcements that are 10 minutes or
less in duration, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(6), and
channels producing revenues under $3
million, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(12), it would
impose new compliance obligations that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
may pose a financial burden on VPDs,
including small entities.
72. If the Commission were to take
action to ensure the effective
implementation of the technical
standards for the display of closed
captioning, it may impose additional
compliance obligations on television
manufacturers and VPDs, including
small entities.
73. If the Commission were to adopt
rules governing on-screen visual
changes or textual depictions that
obstruct closed captioning, it may
impose additional compliance
obligations on VPDs and video
programmers, including small entities.
74. If the Commission were to adopt
additional rules governing closed
captioning of 3D television and Ultra
HDTV, it may impose additional
compliance obligations on television
manufacturers and VPDs, including
small entities.
75. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
76. First, the rules already allow small
entities to take advantage of various
possible exemptions: (1) The exemption
for annual revenues under $3 million,
47 CFR 79.1(d)(12) (However, document
FCC 14–12 seeks comment on whether
to eliminate this exemption), (2) the
exemption limiting the captioning
requirement to 2% of annual gross
revenues, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(11), and (3)
the individual exemption process that
allows the Commission to grant
exemptions from the captioning rules
when the provision of captions would
impose an economic burden on a
programming entity. 47 CFR 79.1(f).
77. If the Commission were to adopt
rules extending responsibilities for
compliance with the Commission’s
closed captioning requirements
(including each of the proposals noted
above) to video programmers and
entities other than VPDs, such
regulations would impose new
compliance obligations and may impose
additional reporting and recordkeeping
obligations on video programmers,
video programming owners, and other
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
entities, including small entities.
However, extending responsibilities for
compliance with the Commission’s
closed captioning requirements to video
programmers and other entities may
benefit certain small entities through
more efficient regulations that reach
those entities with the greatest control
over closed captioning quality. In
addition, in determining whether to
extend responsibility for compliance
with the Commission’s closed
captioning requirements to video
programmers or other entities involved
in the production and delivery of video
programming, the Commission will
consider the costs of and benefits of
such extension of responsibilities.
78. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring the use of certain
measures to ensure program
completeness and synchronicity of
closed captions for live and near-live
programming and changing the
Commission’s current definition of nearlive programming for purposes of the
quality standards adopted in the Order,
such regulations would impose
additional compliance obligations on
VPDs, video programmers, or other
entities, including small entities.
However, such regulations are less
burdensome than the alternative of
regulations imposing specific metrics
for captioning synchronicity and
program completeness. In addition, in
determining whether to require certain
techniques for improving the quality of
real-time captioning of live
programming, the Commission will
consider the incremental costs and
burdens of using any of the proposed
techniques compared with the benefits
of greater accessibility to television
programming.
79. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring the use of offline
captioning or other measures to achieve
improved accuracy, synchronicity,
placement and program completeness of
the captions prior to the re-airing of live
and near-live programming first shown
after the effective date of any such rule,
such regulations would impose
additional compliance obligations on
VPDs, video programmers, or other
entities including small entities. In
determining whether to require certain
techniques for improving the quality of
captioning of live or near-live
programming that is later re-aired, the
Commission will consider the costs and
burdens of using any of the proposed
techniques compared with the benefits
of greater accessibility to television
programming.
80. If the Commission were to apply
the ENT requirements adopted in the
Order to non-broadcast networks that
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
use ENT and serve less than 50 percent
of all MVPD homes to ensure greater
accessibility to news programming, such
regulations would impose new
compliance obligations that may pose a
financial burden on some non-broadcast
networks, including small entities.
However, the Commission’s proposal to
apply the ENT requirements to nonbroadcast channels serving less than 50
percent of all MVPD homes provides a
less burdensome alternative to a phaseout of ENT, which would impose higher
burdens and costs on small entities
under the current rules. In addition,
networks with small budgets would still
be able to take advantage of various
possible exemptions: (1) The exemption
for annual revenues under $3 million,
47 CFR 79.1(d)(12) (document FCC 14–
12 also seeks comment on whether to
eliminate the exemption for annual
revenues under $3 million), (2) the
exemption limiting the captioning
requirement to 2% of annual gross
revenues, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(11), and (3)
the individual exemption process that
allows the Commission to grant
exemptions from the captioning rules
when the provision of captions would
impose an economic burden on a
programming entity. 47 CFR 79.1(f).
81. If the Commission were establish
maximum intervals for technical
equipment checks, or other measures
that can be used to ensure that captions
are passed on to consumers, such
regulations would impose additional
compliance obligations on VPDs,
including small entities. In determining
whether to require intervals for such
checks or other measures, the
Commission will consider the costs and
burdens of these requirements
compared with the value of this
maintenance to greater accessibility to
television programming.
82. If the Commission were to adopt
the practices proposed by NCTA for
improving the prompt resolution of
consumers’ captioning concerns, VPDs,
including small entities, would be
subject to the recordkeeping
requirements associated with the
proposal. However, the proposal would
impose no reporting requirements and
does not require specific measures for
identifying and reviewing consumer
complaints related to closed captioning
problems. In addition, such a
requirement may benefit small entities
because it may reduce consumer
complaints regarding captioning,
because the VPDs may be addressing
problems earlier as a result of these
procedures.
83. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring VPDs experiencing a
captioning outage to notify consumers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
in real time of the outage and file outage
reports with the Commission, VPDs,
including small entities, would be
subject to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements associated
with such outage reports. Adopting such
a requirement would be in the public
interest because it would provide
greater consumer access to information
about captioning outages. In addition,
such a requirement may benefit small
entities because it may reduce consumer
complaints regarding captioning
outages, because the outage notifications
would inform consumers that the VPD
is aware of and addressing the problem.
84. If the Commission were to adopt
a rule requiring that all contact
information already required to be
submitted by VPDs to the Commission
for the VPD registry, see 47 CFR
79.1(i)(3), be submitted using the
Commission’s web form system only,
VPDs, including small entities, would
not be subject to additional reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, since
they are already required to submit their
contact information to the Commission.
However, VPDs, including small
entities, may be required to alter their
reporting and recordkeeping associated
with such submissions in order to
comply with the rule. In determining
whether to require VPDs to submit their
contact information via the web form,
the Commission will consider the costs
of transitioning to a mandatory web
form method of filing, compared with
the ease and accuracy of filing and the
benefits derived from a mandatory
system.
85. If the Commission were to adopt
a rule requiring a VPD, upon receipt of
a complaint where the VPD is not the
responsible party, to (1) notify the
consumer within seven days; (2) offer
the consumer a choice of either asking
the VPD in writing to forward the
complaint to the appropriate party or
submitting the complaint directly to the
appropriate party on his or her own; and
(3) inform the Commission that it has so
notified the complainant by providing
the Commission with copies of all
written or electronic correspondence or
a written description of all
communications that were not in
electronic or written form, VPDs,
including small entities, would be
subject to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements associated
with such complaint forwarding and
notifications. This rule is intended to
allow for the forwarding of consumer
complaints as required by § 79.1(g)(3) of
the Commission’s rules without
violating the consumer protections
contained in sections 631(c)(1) and
338(i)(4) of the Act. Nevertheless, in
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17105
determining whether to adopt this rule,
the Commission will consider the costs
of forwarding complaints upon
consumer request and notifying the
Commission of actions taken compared
to the benefits of providing a consumerfriendly way to get the complaints to the
correct parties.
86. If the Commission were to
eliminate the four-year exemption
contained in § 79.1(d)(9) of the
Commission’s rules pertaining to new
networks, or retain but alter the fouryear exemption pertaining to new
networks, it would impose new
compliance obligations that may pose a
financial burden on some small entities.
However, under the current rules,
networks with small budgets would still
be able to take advantage of various
possible exemptions: (1) The exemption
for annual revenues under $3 million,
47 CFR 79.1(d)(12) (document FCC 14–
12 also seeks comment on whether to
eliminate the exemption for annual
revenues under $3 million), (2) the
exemption limiting the captioning
requirement to 2% of annual gross
revenues, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(11), and (3)
the individual exemption process that
allows the Commission to grant
exemptions from the captioning rules
when the provision of captions would
impose an economic burden on a
programming entity. 47 CFR 79.1(f).
87. If the Commission were to
eliminate the exclusion from the
definition of video programming for
advertisements of five minutes duration
or less, 47 CFR 79.1(a)(1), and if the
Commission were to eliminate certain
self-executing exemptions contained in
§ 79.1(d) of its rules, including
exemptions for late night programming,
47 CFR 79.1(d)(5), locally produced and
distributed non-news programming with
no repeat value, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(8),
interstitials, promotional
announcements, and public service
announcements that are 10 minutes or
less in duration, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(6), and
channels producing revenues under $3
million, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(12), it would
impose new compliance obligations that
may pose a financial burden on VPDs,
including small entities. However,
under the current rules, entities with
small budgets would still be able to take
advantage of other possible exemptions:
(1) The exemption limiting the
captioning requirement to 2% of annual
gross revenues, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(11), and
(2) the individual exemption process
that allows the Commission to grant
exemptions from the captioning rules
when the provision of captions would
impose an economic burden on a
programming entity. 47 CFR 79.1(f).
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17106
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
88. If the Commission were to take
action to ensure the effective
implementation of the technical
standards for the display of closed
captioning, it may impose additional
compliance obligations on television
manufacturers and VPDs, including
small entities. In determining whether
to require any other practices governing
technical standards for the display of
closed captioning, the Commission will
consider the costs and burdens of such
practices compared with the benefits of
greater accessibility to television
programming.
89. If the Commission were to adopt
rules governing on-screen visual
changes or textual depictions that
obstruct closed captioning, it may
impose additional compliance
obligations on VPDs and video
programmers, including small entities.
In determining whether to require any
other practices governing on-screen
visual changes or textual depictions that
obstruct closed captioning, the
Commission will consider the costs and
burdens of such practices compared
with the benefits of greater accessibility
to television programming.
90. If the Commission were to adopt
rules governing display of closed
captioning, closed captioning of 3D
television or Ultra HDTV programming,
it may impose additional compliance
obligations on television manufacturers
and VPDs, including small entities.
However, VPDs are already subject to
rules governing the display of closed
captioning and are required to reliably
encode, transport, and render closed
captions on 3D and Ultra HDTV video
programming in accordance with
Commission rules. Also, in accordance
with the Commission’s captioning rules,
such VPDs and providers must permit
the pass through or rendering of closed
captions in a manner that will allow
viewers to exercise control over various
display features and to activate and
deactivate captions when video
programming is played back on
television receivers with 3D or Ultra
HDTV capability. Finally,
interconnection mechanisms and
standards for 3D and Ultra HDTV video
source devices must be capable of
conveying from the source device to the
consumer equipment the information
necessary to permit or render the
display of closed captions. In
determining whether to require any
other practices for the display of closed
captioning or captioning 3D television
or Ultra HDTV, the Commission will
consider the costs and burdens of such
practices compared with the benefits of
greater accessibility to television
programming.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
91. Federal Rules Which Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission’s Proposals. None.
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r) and
713 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and
613, document FCC 14–12 is adopted.
The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
document FCC 14–12 including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–06755 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2014–0007;
FXES11130900000–145–FF09E42000]
RIN 1018–AY82
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To Downlist the Arroyo Toad
(Anaxyrus californicus), and a
Proposed Rule To Reclassify the
Arroyo Toad as Threatened
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month
petition finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month
finding on a petition to reclassify the
arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus) as
threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
After review of all available scientific
and commercial information, we find
that reclassifying the arroyo toad as
threatened is warranted, and, therefore,
we propose to reclassify the arroyo toad
as threatened under the Act. We are
seeking information and comments from
the public regarding this proposed rule.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
May 27, 2014. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the
address shown in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by May
12, 2014.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comment submission: You
may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R8–ES–2014–0007, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document
Type heading, click on the Proposed
Rules link to locate this document. You
may submit a comment by clicking on
‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2014–
0007; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Information Requested section below for
more information).
Document availability: A copy of the
Species Report referenced throughout
this document can be viewed at https://
ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/
speciesProfile.action?spcode=D020, at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2014–0007, or
at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office’s
Web site at https://www.fws.gov/
ventura/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen P. Henry, Deputy Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B,
Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 805–644–
1766; facsimile 805–644–3958. If you
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Executive Summary
Purpose of Regulatory Action. In
December 2011, we received a petition
to reclassify the arroyo toad from
endangered to threatened, based on
analysis and recommendations
contained in our August 2009 5-year
status review of the species. On June 4,
2012, we published a 90-day finding
that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that reclassifying
the arroyo toad may be warranted (77
FR 32922) and initiated a status review.
After review of all available scientific
and commercial information, we find
that the petitioned action is warranted
and propose to reclassify the arroyo toad
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17093-17106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06755]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 79
[CG Docket No. 05-231; FCC 14-12]
Closed Captioning of Video Programming; Telecommunications for
the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
[[Page 17094]]
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission issues a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) seeking comment on options and proposals to
further enhance accessibility to television programming and to improve
the Commission's procedural rules regarding closed captioning.
DATES: Comments on the section entitled Responsibilities for Meeting
the Closed Captioning Requirements (paragraphs 1-8) are due on or
before April 28, 2014, and reply comments are due on or before May 27,
2014. Comments on remaining sections are due on or before June 25,
2014, and reply comments are due on or before July 25, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 05-231,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the
Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS), through the Commission's Web site https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site
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 No. 05-231.
Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies 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 (although the
Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal
Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S.
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
[ssquf] In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading
with the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing,
Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via
email to fcc@bcpiweb.com.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418-
2235 or email Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Closed
Captioning of Video Programming; Telecommunications for the Deaf and
Hard of Hearing, Inc. Petition for Rulemaking, Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), document FCC 14-12, adopted on February
20, 2014 and released on February 24, 2014, in CG Docket No. 05-231. In
document FCC 14-12, the Commission adopted an accompanying Report and
Order (Report and Order), which is summarized in a separate Federal
Register Publication. The full text of document FCC 14-12 will be
available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals
II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also
may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (800) 378-3160, fax: (202) 488-5563,
or Internet: www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 14-12 can also be downloaded
in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/disability-rights-office-headlines. https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/closed-captioning-video-programming-television. 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 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
This proceeding shall be treated as 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). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentations 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). 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 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
Document FCC 14-12 seeks comment on potential new information
collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any new information
collection requirements, the Commission will publish another notice in
the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the
requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.
L. 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 the Commission might ``further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
Synopsis
Responsibilities for Meeting the Closed Captioning Obligations
1. The Commission has previously placed direct responsibility for
[[Page 17095]]
compliance with the closed captioning requirements on VPDs. Closed
Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Implementation
of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming
Accessibility, MM Docket No. 95-176, Report and Order, (1997 Closed
Captioning Report and Order); published at 62 FR 48487, September 16,
1997, reconsideration granted in part, MM Docket No. 95-176, Order on
Reconsideration, (Closed Captioning Reconsideration Order); published
at 63 FR 55959, October 20, 1998. The Commission seeks comment on
whether the Commission should extend some of the responsibilities for
compliance with the Commission's closed captioning quality standards
for programming shown on television to video programmers, which are a
subset of video programming providers (VPPs). In the television
captioning context, VPPs include VPDs as well as video programmers,
i.e., ``any other entity that provides video programming that is
intended for distribution to residential households including, but not
limited to broadcast and non-broadcast television network and the
owners of such programming.'' See 47 CFR 79.1(a)(3). In the Report and
Order, the Commission defines a video programmer as ``entities that
provide video programming that is intended for distribution to
residential households including, but not limited to, broadcast or non-
broadcast television networks and the owners of such programming.'' The
Commission also seeks comment on whether this definition is
sufficiently broad in scope to hold accountable all entities with
direct control over caption quality or whether the Commission should
expand the definition to cover other categories of entities and, if so,
what other entities should be covered. Commenters advocating covering
other entities should address the Commission's authority to regulate
those entities.
2. In addition to VPPs, the definition of video programmers
includes ``the owners of such programming.'' The Commission has defined
the term video programming owners (VPOs) for purposes of ensuring
captions on video programming delivered via Internet protocol, but not
for purposes of delivering television programs with captions. The
Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should define the
term VPO for purposes of the television closed captioning rules. The
Commission seeks comment on an appropriate definition for VPOs in the
television context with respect to the provision of closed captioning.
For example, should the Commission include in the definition of VPO a
person or entity that licenses video programming to a video programming
distributor or provider that makes the video programming available
directly to the end user? What other entities should be covered under
the definition of VPO in this context, and why?
3. Some interested parties support extension of the responsibility
for caption quality to other entities in the captioning chain, in
addition to VPDs, in the television context. For example, Comcast/
NBCUniversal (Comcast) proposes adopting a ``burden-shifting
enforcement model'' that extends some captioning responsibilities to
VPOs. It appears that the category of VPOs Comcast proposes to reach
would be covered under the Commission's definition of ``video
programmers'' as defined in the accompanying Report and Order, i.e.,
``entities that provide video programming that is intended for
distribution to residential households including, but not limited to,
broadcast or non-broadcast television networks, and the owners of such
programming.'' The Comcast proposal would give a VPD the initial burden
of addressing and investigating matters brought to its attention
concerning the closed captioning quality rules adopted in the
accompanying Report and Order. If the problem at issue relates to the
pass-through of captions or the VPD's equipment, the VPD would be
responsible for fixing it and bear any associated liability in an
enforcement proceeding if one were to be initiated, because these are
problems within the VPD's direct control. If, however, the VPD learns
that the problems raised are within the control of the VPO, the
compliance burden would shift to the VPO, which would be charged with
fixing the problem and bear any associated liability in an enforcement
proceeding.
4. The Commission seeks comment on Comcast's burden-shifting
proposal and whether it would result in an appropriate allocation of
responsibilities for addressing failures to meet the Commission's
captioning quality rules. Is this approach likely to achieve a prompter
and more effective resolution of captioning quality problems brought to
the VPD's attention? Will this model provide strong incentives for the
various parties associated with program production and delivery to work
cooperatively to improve captioning quality, as suggested by Comcast?
Finally, the Commission notes that under the Comcast proposal, a VPD
would be relieved of any liabilities associated with captioning
problems once it determined that the problems raised are within the
control of the VPO. The Commission seeks comment on how the Commission
can be assured that when responsibility for captioning problems are
shifted to other programming entities, VPDs will have appropriately
transferred such liability. Should each VPD be obligated to report to
the Commission when they shift this burden, with information about the
results of its initial investigation to warrant this shift? Should the
VPD remain jointly responsible with the programmer after informing the
programmer about the need for the programmer to address the problem?
The Commission asks commenters generally to provide input on the
advantages and disadvantages of adopting Comcast's proposal, including
its feasibility, as well as the costs and benefits of shifting
responsibility for direct compliance with the Commission's closed
captioning requirements to other entities responsible for the
production and delivery of video programming.
5. Are there other approaches the Commission should consider using
to apportion responsibilities for compliance with the television
caption quality rules among entities involved in the production and
delivery of video programming? Should any changes to the apportionment
of these responsibilities apply generally to all captioning
obligations, or only to the newly adopted captioning quality rules? To
what extent should responsibilities be joint and several among specific
entities? For example, is it preferable to place the ultimate
responsibility for compliance with a single entity or are there
benefits to imposing joint responsibility on or dividing up
responsibility among the responsible entities? What effect would the
sharing of obligations across multiple entities have on consumers and
industry, and to what extent can any negative effects be mitigated?
6. The Commission also seeks comment on the effect, if any, that
extending responsibility for compliance to entities other than VPDs
would have on the Commission's ability to efficiently monitor and
enforce the closed captioning television rules. To what extent would
the Commission's earlier predictions that VPDs would privately
negotiate with VPOs and other VPPs regarding ``an efficient allocation
of captioning responsibilities'' and that VPOs and other VPPs would
``cooperate with distributors to ensure that nonexempt programming is
closed captioned in accordance with [the
[[Page 17096]]
Commission's] rules'' apply to the caption quality context? In the IP
captioning context, the Commission determined that although VPDs and
VPOs may enter into private contracts placing some obligations on VPOs,
leaving VPOs' responsibilities to be defined entirely by private
contractual arrangements would be more costly and less efficient than
appropriately allocating certain responsibilities among both VPOs and
VPDs by Commission rule. IP Captioning Report and Order Closed
Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video Programming:
Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010, MB Docket No. 11-154, Report and Order, (IP
Captioning Report and Order); published at 77 FR 19480, March 30, 2012.
Would a division of responsibilities for caption quality in the
television context reduce or improve the Commission's efficiencies in
overseeing the captioning rules? Is there a ``liability gap'' left by
the Commission's decision in the 1997 Closed Captioning Report and
Order to limit regulatory oversight to VPDs that needs to be addressed
with respect to the general implementation of the Commission's
television captioning rules by extending regulatory oversight to VPOs,
video programmers or other entities? For example, as noted above, Sec.
79.1(g)(6) of the Commission's rules permits VPDs to rely on
certifications from programming suppliers to demonstrate compliance
with the Commission's captioning requirements. 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6). Will
imposing shared responsibilities on other entities in the programming
chain help to alleviate concerns that could arise if a VPD relies on
such certifications without taking any additional steps to ensure that
the programming at issue has in fact been delivered to the consumers
with the captions intact and of a quality that now meets the
Commission's captioning quality standards?
7. To the extent the Commission decides to impose some obligations
directly on other programming entities, the Commission also seeks
comment on whether any other changes to the rules or Best Practices
adopted in the Report and Order are appropriate. For example, if the
Commission extends obligations for compliance with the captioning
quality standards directly to programmers, should the Commission allow
such programmers to assert a safe harbor, which could then entitle them
to take corrective actions to demonstrate compliance prior to being
subject to enforcement action--akin to the compliance ladder adopted
for stations in compliance with the new enhanced ENT procedures? Should
the Commission similarly allow VPDs to assert a safe harbor, which
would also entitle them to take corrective actions to demonstrate
compliance prior to being subject to enforcement action, in the event
certain obligations for compliance with the captioning quality
standards are placed on VPDs? If the Commission were to extend direct
compliance responsibility with its closed captioning requirements to
video programmers or other programming entities, would it no longer be
necessary to include Sec. 79.1(g)(6) in the Commission's rules? In
addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are
similarities or differences between the television and the IP closed
captioning contexts or the Commission's emergency information rule that
justify similar or different regulatory approaches. The Commission
seeks comment on any other issues related to extending some or all
responsibility for compliance with the Commission's closed captioning
requirements to other programming entities and asks commenters to
address the costs and benefits of making any such adjustments to the
Commission's rules.
8. Finally, the Commission invites parties generally to provide any
information that they believe will contribute to a better understanding
about which entities are ultimately better positioned to ensure
compliance with the Commission's captioning quality standards.
Minimum Captioning Quality Standards
9. Live Programming. The Commission seeks comment on technical
solutions for improving the synchronicity between the audio track and
captions on live programming to facilitate understanding of a program's
content. For example, would providing the captioner advance delivery of
the audio by a few seconds help to reduce captioning latency? The
Commission asks commenters to provide input on this and other
techniques to achieve greater synchronicity, and to explain how the
incremental costs and burdens of utilizing any of the techniques they
propose compare with the benefits of greater accessibility to
television programming. The Commission asks commenters to indicate
whether VPDs, programmers or other entities should be responsible for
implementing such technical solutions.
10. The Commission also seeks additional information about methods
to provide captions that capture the entirety of the program's aural
content, including, for example (1) sending the audio feed to the live
captioner in a way that alerts the captioner that the program's end is
imminent, so that the captioner can paraphrase or abbreviate the
remaining text before the program cuts off; (2) fading out the program
after its last scene to add a few seconds for the transition to the
next program or commercial content; (3) providing advance delivery of
the audio to captioners by a few seconds; and (4) allowing captions
remaining at the end of a program's audio to be placed in a location on
the screen during the subsequent advertisement (or program) in a manner
that does not overlap with the captions on that advertisement or
program. The Commission seeks comment on the feasibility, costs and
other concerns associated with requiring the use of one or more of
these techniques to ensure that captioning of live programming is
complete. Are there other technologies or techniques in addition to
these that the Commission should consider requiring for this purpose,
and if so, what are their costs, benefits and technical feasibility? If
the Commission adopts more specific latency requirements, should the
Commission also identify any exceptions for circumstances where it is
not possible to ensure completeness, and if so, what circumstances
would those be? If the Commission requires any new methods to ensure
that captions capture the entirety of the program's aural content,
should VPDs, programmers or other entities be responsible for
implementing these methods? Finally, the Commission asks commenters to
explain how the incremental costs and burdens of utilizing any of the
techniques they propose compare with the benefits of greater
accessibility to television programming.
11. Near-Live Programming. In the Report and Order, the Commission
identifies measures that are likely to result in an improved quality of
captions for both near-live programming and rebroadcasts of live
programming, including programmers providing an advance script, a near-
completed program, or a live feed of the advance taping to a captioning
agency, which the agency can then use to create a caption file that is
later combined simultaneously with the program when it is aired. The
Commission seeks comment on whether there are other measures in
addition to these that can be used to improve the quality of near-live
programming, as well as whether the Commission should require any
[[Page 17097]]
such measures. In this regard, the Commission requests input on the
feasibility, costs and other concerns that would be associated with
such requirements, and how those compare with the benefits of greater
accessibility to television programming. The Commission asks commenters
to indicate how to apportion responsibilities among VPDs, programmers
or other entities for ensuring compliance with any measures adopted to
improve the quality of near-live programming.
12. The Commission also seeks comment on whether its current
definition of near-live programming is appropriate for purposes of the
quality standards that the Commission adopted in the Report and Order.
Commission rules pertaining to the IP captioning requirements currently
define near-live programming as programming that is performed and
recorded within 24 hours prior to when it is first aired on television.
47 CFR 79.4(a)(8). Consumer Groups recommend that the Commission
``presumptively limit `near-live' programming to programming recorded
and performed less than double its length prior to air--e.g., two hours
before the airing of a one-hour program--and deem `pre-recorded' all
programming recorded and performed more than double its length prior to
air.'' Consumer Groups also recommend that the Commission require the
use of offline captioning where doing so is achievable and that ``VPDs
delivering near-live programming using real-time captions maintain
records of the reason that offline captioning is not achievable.''
13. Although consumers recommend that VPDs be required to maintain
such records, it may be more appropriate for programmers who are
directly responsible for the delivery of programs with captions to bear
this obligation. The Commission seeks comment on establishing such a
requirement, as well as the other proposals made by the Consumer
Groups. Is the Commission's current definition of near-live programming
adequate to achieve the goal of promoting caption quality? Is it
technically and financial feasible to caption programming performed
less than 24 hours prior to air offline instead of in real-time? Is the
Consumer Groups' proposal to limit near-live programming to programming
recorded and performed less than double its length prior to air
feasible? Does it better promote quality captioning? The Commission
also seeks specific cost information on the impact of changing the
definition of near-live programming for purposes of the Commission's
caption quality rules.
14. Live and Near-Live Program Re-feeds. For live and near-live
programs that were originally captioned using real-time captioning
techniques but that are later re-aired on television after the
effective date of the caption quality standards, the Commission asks
whether the Commission should require the use of offline captioning or
other measures that the Commission encouraged in the Report and Order
to improve the quality of closed captioning. For example, should the
Commission adopt a requirement to correct errors inadvertently made and
timing lags that occurred when the program was first aired with real-
time captions? Are there other measures that can be taken between the
time of the first and subsequent showings that can help improve the
caption viewer experience of such programs? If any rules were to be
adopted requiring correction of captioning errors and timing lags on
re-feeds of live and near-live programming, should such rules include
threshold error rates or time lags before correction is required, and
if so what should those thresholds be? The Commission asks commenters
to provide feedback on the feasibility, costs and burdens that would be
associated with such requirements to take certain measures to improve
captions on re-feeds, and to compare these with the benefits of greater
accessibility to television programming. The Commission also seeks
input on the minimum interval needed between the original airing and
the re-feed that would make such measures feasible. Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on who should be responsible for implementing
measures that will improve the accuracy, synchronicity, completeness
and placement of captions on program re-feeds--VPDs, programmers, or
other entities.
Use of Electronic Newsroom Technique by Non-Broadcast Channels
15. The Commission seeks comment on whether to apply the ENT
requirements adopted for broadcasters in the Report and Order to non-
broadcast networks. What effect, if any, will these proposals have on
the availability of news and public affairs programming as well as
other live programming on non-broadcast networks serving less than 50
percent of all homes subscribing to MVPD services? What are the
benefits and disadvantages of these proposals for consumers seeking
full access to news programming? The Commission also seeks other
information that will help the Commission to assess the costs and
benefits if it were to apply these proposed obligations on non-
broadcast networks.
Compliance
16. Technical Equipment Checks. The Commission seeks comment on
whether to establish specific intervals by which equipment checks
codified in the Report and Order should take place and, if so, how
frequently these checks should be performed to ensure that captioning
is reliably delivered and video programming is fully accessible to
consumers. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which measures
other than regular equipment checks, such as automated technologies
that can be used to ensure that captions are passed through to
consumers, should be permitted as alternative methodologies for
monitoring. Commenters are asked to weigh the costs of these proposals
as well as the costs of particular time intervals against the benefits
of increasing reliable access to video programming by people who are
deaf and hard of hearing.
17. Resolution of Consumer Complaints. The National Cable and
Telecommunications Association (NCTA) proposes in its Best Practices
that VPDs take the following actions designed to improve the prompt
resolution of consumer's captioning concerns.
Consumer care awareness and training. Maintain consumer
support and escalation for captioning issues and provide targeted
information or conduct training for customer care agents or television
station personnel, as appropriate, to help with and assist in the
resolution of caption quality and other captioning support issues.
Identification and remediation of recurring captioning
issues. Make reasonable efforts to identify consumer complaints
received about captioning issues and periodically review these
complaints to identify and resolve recurring captioning problems.
The Commission seeks comment on whether to adopt these practices noted
above. The Commission asks commenters to address their experiences with
the resolution of complaints filed directly with VPDs and whether
adherence to the above practices would affect either positively or
negatively the resolution of such complaints. The Commission asks
commenters to also address the costs and benefits of requiring VPDs to
implement these complaint handling practices.
18. Consumer Groups recommend that the Commission provide the
public
[[Page 17098]]
with information about all captioning-related complaints as part of a
Commission-wide ``dashboard.'' The Commission seeks comment on having
the Commission make such information available to the public.
19. Outages. The Commission seeks comment on whether VPDs should be
required to notify both consumers and the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau (CGB) when captioning outages occur. Such outage
reporting would only be required where there is an underlying
obligation to provide captions, not where programming entities are
exempt or otherwise excused from the captioning obligations. Given that
some programming is exempt from the Commission's captioning rules, the
Commission also seeks comment on whether and how consumers should be
informed when captions are not required on particular programs. The
Commission also seeks input on the duration and frequency of outages
that should trigger any notification requirements. The Commission
requests that parties provide comments on the practical and technical
feasibility of notifying the public of a captioning outage on VPD Web
sites and via periodic crawls on affected programs. For example, to
what extent do the causes of outages impact the ability of the VPD to
notify customers of the outage? Should VPDs be required to provide
timely updates of service status that they are working on so that
consumers are aware while watching the program? In this regard, the
Commission also seeks comment about the length of time it generally
takes to repair an outage after it has been discovered. Next, the
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate passage of time after such
outage commences before a VPD should be required to notify consumers
and the Commission that an outage has occurred. VPDs should also
comment on how they can become aware of captioning outages and how that
will affect their ability to notify consumers. How do the costs and
burdens of providing such notifications compare with the benefits of
greater consumer access to information about captioning outages?
20. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission
should require the VPD to submit an outage report to CGB, on the
contents and timing of such a report, and how the report should be
filed. What minimum outage time should trigger the filing of a report?
If outage reports are required, what information should be included in
the report? For example, should it include a list of the VPD's affected
programs, the geographic locations affected by the outage, the dates
and times for the start and end of the outage, and the cause of the
outage? If the outage lasts for more than one day, should the VPD be
required to seek out other captioning sources while repairing
equipment? How soon after the outage starts and ends should the report
be filed with CGB? As an alternative to submitting outage reports,
should VPDs be required to maintain records of their outages and for
what length of time? How do the costs and burdens of filing captioning
outage reports with CGB or keeping outage records compare with the
benefits of achieving improved enforcement of the closed captioning
obligations for consumers? In addition, the Commission notes that the
obligation under Sec. 79.2 of the Commission's rules to make emergency
information visually accessible exists even if closed captioning is not
available, and that the VPD may use scrolls, crawls, or other visual
alternatives to fulfill that obligation. See 47 CFR 79.2. The
Commission also notes that it does not intend for the notification and
reporting requirements proposed herein to relieve VPDs of their
obligations to prevent foreseeable and avoidable situations created by
inaction or delay. Finally, the Commission asks interested parties to
provide comment on how any responsibilities associated with the outage
reporting obligations should be apportioned among VPDs, programmers,
program owners, or other entities.
21. Amending Sec. 79.1(i)(3) of the Commission's Rules to Require
All Contact Information Be Submitted to the VPD Registry. Over the past
three years, the Commission has found that the VPD Registry offers the
most efficient and accurate means of collecting VPD contact information
for the receipt and handling of immediate captioning concerns raised by
consumers while they are watching television as well as for closed
captioning complaints. The Commission proposes to amend its rules to
require VPD contact information required under Sec. 79.1(i)(1) and (2)
of the Commission's rules to be submitted to the Commission directly to
the VPD Registry through the web form method and seeks comment on this
proposal. How do the costs of transitioning to a mandatory web form
method of filing compare with the ease and accuracy of filing and
benefits derived from such mandatory system?
22. Treatment of Consumer Complaints by a VPD that Is Not the
Responsible Party. In the 2008 Closed Captioning Decision, the
Commission adopted Sec. 79.1(g)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
79.1(g)(3), which requires a VPD that receives a closed captioning
complaint for a program for which it does not have closed captioning
responsibility, to forward that complaint to the responsible entity
within seven days of receiving the complaint, and then to notify the
complainant that the complaint was forwarded. 2008 Closed Captioning
Decision. On June 10, 2009, Time Warner Cable (Time Warner) filed an ex
parte letter identifying potential conflicts between the Commission's
amended Sec. 79.1(g)(3) and the obligations of cable companies to
protect a subscriber's privacy under section 631(c)(1) of the Act. 47
U.S.C. 551(c)(1).
23. On December 11, 2009, the Commission released an Order
temporarily staying the effective date of the forwarding provision of
amended Sec. 79.1(g)(3) of the Commission's rules. See Closed
Captioning of Video Programming, CG Docket No. 05-231, Order Suspending
Effective Date, (2009 Suspension Order); published at 75 FR 7369,
February 19, 2010. Noting the potential conflict between amended Sec.
79.1(g)(3) of the Commission's rules and sections 631(c) and 338(i)(4)
of the Act (the latter creating the same prohibitions for satellite
providers), the Commission found good cause to temporarily suspend the
effective date for Sec. 79.1(g)(3) of the Commission's rules, pending
the completion of further rulemaking proceedings to determine how
closed captioning complaints sent to the incorrect entity should be
handled.
24. In order for a third party video programming provider to
respond to a forwarded complaint, that complaint must include the
complainant's name, address, telephone number and other personally
identifiable information. Yet, sections 631(c) and 338(i)(4) of the Act
appear to prohibit the forwarding of such information without the
complainant's consent.
25. Accordingly, the Commission proposes amending Sec. 79.1(g)(3)
of the Commission's rules to require that within seven days after a VPD
receives a complaint regarding programming of a broadcast television
licensee or programming over which the VPD does not exercise editorial
control, it be required to notify the complainant--using the
complainant's preferred method of communication--of the appropriate
party to whom the complaint should be sent, and give the complainant
the option of either (1) asking the VPD to forward the complaint to the
appropriate party electronically or in writing, or (2) submitting the
complaint directly to the appropriate party on his or her own. In
addition, the Commission proposes that
[[Page 17099]]
the VPD, after taking such action, inform the Commission that it has so
notified the complainant by providing the Commission with copies of all
written or electronic correspondence or a written description of all
communications that were not either in electronic or written form.
Under this proposal, if the VPD is asked by the complainant to forward
the complaint to the appropriate party, the VPD would be required to do
so within seven days of receiving such request, and if the VPD is not
asked to forward the complaint, it would have no further
responsibility. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals,
including whether the second prong of the proposed requirement--
requiring the VPD to notify the Commission that it has informed the
complainant of the available options--would itself be a violation of
sections 631(c)(1) and 338(i)(4) of the Act in instances where the
consumer files his or her complaint with the VPD only and does not
authorize the VPD to provide a copy to the Commission. If the
Commission decides to require the VPD to notify it, the Commission
seeks comment on the method a VPD must use to notify the Commission.
How do the costs of forwarding complaints upon consumer request and
notifying the Commission of actions taken compare with the benefits of
providing a consumer-friendly way to get the complaints to the correct
parties? Finally, the Commission requests commenters to submit any
alternative proposals for amending Sec. 79.1(g)(3) of the Commission's
rules to avoid breaching the consumer protections contained in sections
631(c)(1) and 338(i)(4) of the Act.
Captioning Exemptions
26. Elimination of the New Network Exemption. The Commission seeks
comment on the merits of continuing to allow all new networks to
receive a four year exemption from the closed captioning rules. See 47
CFR 79.1(d)(9). Should newly launched networks build the costs of
captioning into their business plans during the planning of their
networks? If the Commission were to eliminate the new network
exemption, should the Commission adopt a phase-in period to provide an
opportunity for networks that are about to commence operations to plan
for the required captioning? If so, what should this phase-in be? The
Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of eliminating the
new network exemption.
27. As an alternative, the Commission seeks comment on modifying
the new network exemption. Currently, the exemption is for four years.
Would a one or two year exemption be more appropriate? The Commission
seeks comment on these or any other time periods that might be
appropriate for a revised new network exemption. Even if the Commission
retains the new network exemption, should the exemption apply only to
new networks that have certain other indicia of a start-up network,
e.g., local or regional in nature, accessible by a small number of
households, and ownership by a small business? If the Commission takes
this approach, how does it define each of these or other proposed
criteria for limiting the new network exemption? Alternatively, should
networks with significant financial backing be deemed ineligible for
the new network exemption? For example, should the exemption not apply
to new networks that are owned, in whole or part, by one of the four
major national broadcast networks or the top ten non-broadcast
networks? How do the relative costs and burdens of requiring new
networks to provide captioning under each of these alternatives compare
with the benefits of greater accessibility to television programming?
28. If the Commission does retain this exemption, the Commission
also seeks comment on the definition of ``network'' for purposes of the
closed captioning rules. The exemption for new networks is based on the
number of years that a programming network has been in operation rather
than the number of subscribers. 47 CFR 79.1(d)(9). Further, this
exemption applies to different types of networks--broadcast, non-
broadcast, national, and regional. 1997 Closed Captioning Report and
Order; see also Closed Captioning Reconsideration Order. To begin with,
the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which it should rely on
other definitions of ``network,'' contained elsewhere in the
Commission's rules. For example, Sec. 73.3613(a)(1) of the
Commission's rules defines ``network'' with respect to broadcast
network affiliation agreements that must be filed with the Commission
as ``any person, entity, or corporation which offers an interconnected
program service on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week to at
least 25 affiliated television licensees in 10 or more states.'' 47 CFR
73.3613(a)(1); see also 47 CFR 76.55(f) (similar definition for
purposes of the cable ``must carry'' rules). Alternatively, Sec.
76.5(m) of the Commission's rules, pertaining to cable operators
providing network non-duplication protection to television stations,
defines a ``network program'' as ``. . . any program delivered
simultaneously to more than one broadcast station regional or national,
commercial or noncommercial.'' 47 CFR 76.5(m). The Commission seeks
comment on whether these or a different definition of ``network'' would
be appropriate for purposes of Sec. 79.1(d)(9) of the Commission's
rules, and whether to apply the same definition to broadcast and non-
broadcast networks.
29. Next, the Commission notes that MVPDs serving U.S. subscribers
increasingly offer video programming networks that were initially
launched in foreign markets. In the event the Commission retains the
new network exemption, the Commission seeks comment on whether a
network that has operated in a foreign market and that moves to
distribution or ``launches'' in the U.S., should be eligible for a new
network exemption for a certain period of time after it launches in the
U.S. and, if so, what the duration of that exemption should be. The
Commission also seeks feedback on how to calculate the exemption period
for such a new network, specifically, whether such network should be
considered new as of the date that it begins distribution in the U.S.,
or whether its launch date should be considered the date that it
initially began viewing in its originating country. The Commission asks
commenters that believe the Commission should calculate an exemption
upon moving the network's programming to the U.S. to explain why this
exemption is necessary, given that such networks will have been in
operation (and presumably generating revenues) and will have advance
notice of U.S. captioning obligations prior to launching in the U.S.
How do the costs and burdens of providing captioning on networks
showing programming in the U.S. after first showing programming in
foreign countries compare with the benefits of greater accessibility to
television programming?
30. Last, in the event the Commission retains the new network
exemption, the Commission seeks comment on the application of the new
network exemption to networks created as the result of a merger of two
or more existing networks. The Commission seeks comment on whether the
original launch dates of networks that merged should be considered the
applicable date for purposes of determining the exemption period for
the merged entity. The Commission also seeks comment on which date
should control in those situations where the merged entities had
different original launch dates. Should the duration of the exemption
be calculated based on the individual network that has been in
existence for
[[Page 17100]]
the longest period of time? Is this approach appropriate because the
new network exemption applies for a limited number of years--four years
under the current rules so that no component part of the combined
network would have the benefit of the exemption for longer than the
maximum length of time provided by the rule? The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the new network exemption should apply or be
extended in the event of a restructuring of a network. Because the
captioning rules were promulgated sixteen years ago and each network
will have known about captioning requirements since its inception, has
the network had sufficient time to integrate closed captioning into its
production process and costs? The Commission seeks comment on this
issue including its costs and benefits.
31. Consumer Groups' 2011 Petition Requesting Elimination of
Certain Self-Implementing Exemptions from the Captioning Rules. On
January 27, 2011, the Consumer Groups filed a joint petition for
rulemaking (2011 Petition) seeking amendment to the Commission's
captioning rules regarding an exclusion and several categorical self-
implementing exemptions from the obligation to caption television
programming. The Consumer Groups requested, in light of modern
technology, the reduced costs of captioning, and other changed
circumstances, that the Commission eliminate the exclusion for
advertisements of five minutes duration or less, see 47 CFR 79.1(a)(1),
and the self-implementing exemptions provided for the following types
of programming: Late night programming, see 47 CFR 79.1(d)(5), locally
produced and distributed non-news programming with no repeat value, see
47 CFR 79.1(d)(8), interstitials, promotional announcements, and public
service announcements that are 10 minutes or less in duration, see 47
CFR 79.1(d)(6), and channels producing revenues under $3 million, see
47 CFR 79.1(d)(12). The Commission seeks comment on the Consumer
Groups' proposal to eliminate the advertising exclusion and the
specified self-implementing exemptions from the closed captioning
rules. The Commission asks commenters to address the merits as well as
the costs and benefits of each proposal put forth by the Consumer
Groups.
Technical Standards for the Display of Closed Captions
32. In the 2000 DTV Closed Captioning Order, the Commission
adopted, with some modifications, section 9 of CEA-708, to provide
guidelines for encoder and decoder manufacturers and caption providers
to implement closed captioning services with digital television
technology. See Closed Captioning Requirements for Digital Television
Receivers; Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video
Programming, Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, ET Docket No. 99-254, MM
Docket No. 95-176, Report and Order, (2000 DTV Closed Captioning
Order); published at 65 FR 58467, September 29, 2000; see also 47 CFR
79.102. The standards require DTV closed caption decoders to support
certain advanced features, including different caption sizes, fonts,
character background and foreground colors, and other similar features,
to allow viewers to customize the display of closed captions on their
televisions. The Commission now seeks comment on the experiences that
caption users have had since adoption of these standards, including the
extent that such consumers have succeeded in using these features to
improve their television experience.
33. In addition to allowing users to control the appearance of
captions, CEA-708 allows programmers more options for the display of
captions, such as multiple windows, fonts, and styles. The Commission
seeks information on current practices for such formatting of closed
captions. To what extent was the Commission correct in its earlier
expectation that CEA-708 captions would be provided and its prediction
that ``programmers and caption providers'' would have incentives to
provide CEA-708 captions? To what extent are VPDs, video programmers,
captioners, or other entities each involved in the production process
for formatting closed captions in a manner that provides the advanced
features adopted by the Commission in the 2000 DTV Closed Captioning
Order, such as delivering captions in programmer-selected size, font,
character background colors, and foreground colors of closed captions?
What other entities are involved in the process, and how so? If VPDs,
video programmers, captioners, or other entities involved in the
production process are not formatting closed captions to use CEA-708
capabilities, why not? What action, if any can the Commission take to
ensure the effective implementation of the CEA-708 capabilities so that
television viewers who use captions can take full advantage of the
capabilities this standard was intended to provide?
Caption Obstructions
34. Some caption viewers have raised concerns about closed captions
being partially or completely blocked by other visual information, such
as graphics, that appear on the screen. The Commission seeks comment on
the extent to which on-screen visual changes or textual depictions,
including, but not limited to, split screens, pop-on advertisements and
promotions, credits, graphic overlays, or contact information, have
caused a problem for caption viewers. To the extent that these problems
exist, the Commission asks for comment on their causes and possible
solutions.
New Technologies
35. Captioning on 3D Television Programming. To better understand
current practices and capabilities with regard to closed captioning of
3D TV programming, the Commission seeks comment on the following:
How are DTV manufacturers ensuring that captions continue
to work when 3D TV programming is shown on television sets with 3D
capability?
Are there issues regarding the placement of captions in a
3D picture? What steps must manufacturers take to ensure that
captioning in 3D TV programming is inserted and placed at an
appropriate depth of field in the 3D image? Do user-selected changes to
font size and location of the captions operate differently in a 3D
image?
With regard to television sets with 3D capability, will
captions display properly when the user switches between 2D and 3D
modes?
How do the costs and burdens of providing closed
captioning in 3D TV programming compare with the benefits of greater
accessibility to television programming?
The Commission seeks input on any other matters that could affect
the availability of closed captioning on 3D TV programming.
36. Captioning on Ultra High Definition Television Programming. To
better understand current practices and capabilities with regard to
closed captioning of Ultra HDTV programming, the Commission seeks
comment on the following:
How are Ultra HDTV manufacturers ensuring that captions
continue to appear legibly when programming is shown on Ultra HDTV
television sets?
Do the standards for Ultra HDTV programming have the same
capabilities for the transmission or pass-through of captions as HDTV
and SDTV programming?
Does the increased resolution present new challenges
related to the
[[Page 17101]]
display of captions, particularly with respect to font size of the
captions? If so, what are these new challenges, and how can they be
addressed?
How do the costs and burdens of additional requirements
concerning closed captioning for Ultra HDTV programming compare with
the benefits of greater accessibility to television programming?
The Commission seeks input on any other matters that could affect
the availability of closed captioning on Ultra HDTV programming.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification
37. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in document FCC 14-12 FNPRM. Written
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments in document FCC 14-12. The Commission will send a copy of
document FCC 14-12, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
38. In document FCC 14-12, the Commission seeks comment on (1)
whether the Commission should impose some responsibilities for
compliance with the Commission's closed captioning quality rules on
video programmers and other entities; (2) whether the Commission should
require specific measures to ensure program completeness and
synchronicity for live and near-live programming and how the Commission
should define near-live programming; (3) whether the Commission should
require the use of offline captioning or other measures to achieve
improved accuracy, synchronicity, placement and program completeness of
captions prior to the re-airing of live and near-live programming first
shown after the effective date of any such rule; (4) whether to apply
the ENT requirements adopted for broadcasters to non-broadcast networks
that use ENT and serve less than 50 percent of all MVPD homes to
achieve greater accessibility to news programming; (5) whether to
establish specific maximum intervals for technical equipment checks or
to allow alternatives to such technical equipment checks; (6) whether
to adopt a proposal for improving the prompt resolution of consumers'
captioning concerns by VPDs, and whether to create a publicly available
``dashboard'' that would provide information about all captioning-
related complaints; (7) whether to require that captioning outages be
communicated to viewers in real-time and be reported to the Commission,
consistent with the reporting requirements for other types of outages;
(8) whether to require that all contact information already required to
be submitted by VPDs to the Commission for the VPD registry be
submitted using the Commission's web form system only; (9) how to amend
the Commission's rules regarding the forwarding of consumer complaints
to ensure subscriber privacy when the VPD receiving an informal
complaint is not the responsible party; (10) whether to eliminate or
retain the four-year exemption contained in Sec. 79.1(d)(9) of the
Commission's rules pertaining to new networks, and if retained, whether
to reduce the term of the exemption or limit its availability based on
certain criteria indicative of a start-up network, how to define
network, how to calculate the start date of the network for purposes of
the exemption, and whether and how the exemption should be applied to
networks created as the result of a merger of two or more existing
networks; (11) whether to eliminate or retain the exclusion contained
in Sec. 79.1(a)(1) of the Commission's rules for advertisements of
five minutes duration or less and certain self-implementing exemptions
contained in Sec. 79.1(d) of the Commission's rules, including
exemptions for late night programming, locally produced and distributed
non-news programming with no repeat value, interstitials, promotional
announcements, and public service announcements that are 10 minutes or
less in duration, and channels producing revenues under $3 million;
(12) current practices with regard to technical standards for the
display of closed captioning; (13) the extent to which onscreen visual
changes or textual depictions have caused a problem for caption
viewers; and (14) current practices and capabilities with regard to
closed captioning of 3D TV and ultra HDTV.
39. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
40. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. As of 2009, small businesses represented 99.9% of the
27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to the SBA.
Additionally, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(4). Nationwide, as of 2007, there
were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term
``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as
``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty
thousand.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(5). Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that
there were 89,527 governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The
Commission estimates that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities
may qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
41. Cable Television Distribution Services. These services have
been included within the broad economic census category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category, which is all such firms having 1,500
or fewer employees. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau for
the year 2007, there were 3,188 Wired Telecommunications Carrier firms
that operated for the entire year in 2007. Of these, 3,144 operated
with less than 1,000 employees, and 44 operated with 1,000 or more
employees.
42. Cable Companies and Systems. Under the Commission's rules, a
``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers,
nationwide. 47 CFR 76.901(e). Industry data shows that there are 1,100
cable companies. Of this total, all but 10 incumbent cable companies
are small. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a ``small
system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 47 CFR
76.901(c). Current Commission records show 4,945 cable systems
nationwide. Of this total, 4,380 cable systems have less than 20,000
subscribers, and 565 systems have 20,000 subscribers or more.
43. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for
small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator
[[Page 17102]]
that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer
than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see also 47
CFR 76.901(f) and nn.1-3. Based on available data, all but 10 incumbent
cable operators are small under this size standard.
44. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna
at the subscriber's location. Currently, only two entities, DIRECTV and
DISH Network, provide DBS service, and neither company is a small
business.
45. Wireless Cable Systems--Broadband Radio Service and Educational
Broadband Service. Wireless cable systems use the Broadband Radio
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) to transmit video
programming to subscribers. In connection with the 1996 BRS auction,
the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity
that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in
the previous three calendar years. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met
the definition of a small business, and of these 61 winners, 48 remain
small business licensees. In addition, there are approximately 392
incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities.
Accordingly, there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that
are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the
Commission's rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86 for
the sale of 78 BRS licenses, and established three categories of small
businesses: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues
that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding
three years is a small business; (ii) a bidder with attributed average
annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15
million for the preceding three years is a very small business; and
(iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do
not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years is an entrepreneur.
Of the 10 winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business
status won four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business
status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur
status won six licenses.
46. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television
Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting
Services. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which is all such businesses having
1,500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007,
there were 3,188 Wired Telecommunications Carrier firms that operated
for the entire year in 2007. Of these, 3,144 operated with less than
1,000 employees, and 44 operated with 1,000 or more employees. In
addition to Census Bureau data, the Commission's internal records
indicate that as of September 2012, there are 2,239 active EBS
licenses. The Commission estimates that of these 2,239 licenses, the
majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school
districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.
47. Open Video Services. Because OVS operators provide subscription
services, OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard
covering cable services, which is Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category,
which is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. According to
U.S. Census data for 2007, there were 3,188 firms that in 2007 were
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Of these, 3,144 operated with less
than 1,000 employees, and 44 operated with 1,000 or more employees.
However, as to the latter 44 there is no data available that shows how
many operated with more than 1,500 employees.
48. Television Broadcasting. The SBA defines a television
broadcasting station as a small business if such station has no more
than $35.5 million in annual receipts. The Commission has estimated the
number of licensed full power commercial television stations to be
1,388. According to U.S. Census data for 2007, there were 2,076
television broadcasting establishments in 2007. Of these, 1,515
establishments had receipts under $10 million, and 561 had receipts of
$10 million or more. The Commission notes, however, that, in assessing
whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above
definition, business control affiliations must be included. Because
many of these stations may be held by large group owners, and the
revenue figures on which the Commission's estimate is based does not
include or aggregate revenues from control affiliates, the Commission's
estimate likely overstates the number of small entities that might be
affected by the Commission's action.
49. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed
noncommercial educational (NCE) full power television stations to be
396. The Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access
to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to
determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities. There
are also 428 Class A television stations and 1,986 low power television
stations (LPTV). Given the nature of these services, the Commission
will presume that all Class A television and LPTV licensees qualify as
small entities under the SBA definition.
50. In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business''
is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The
Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria
that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant
in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small
businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television
station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is
therefore over-inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional
element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must
be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media
entities, and the Commission's estimates of small businesses to which
they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
51. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for ILECs. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees
and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of
Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small ILECs are not dominant
in their field of operation because any such dominance is not
``national'' in scope. The Commission has therefore included small
ILECs in this RFA analysis, although the Commission emphasizes that
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations
in other, non-RFA contexts.
52. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, that there were 3,188
firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 3,144 had employment of less than 1000 employees, and 44 firms
had had employment of 1,000 or more. According to Commission data,
1,307
[[Page 17103]]
carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of ILEC
services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees.
53. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access
Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local
Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
small business size standard specifically for these service providers.
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau
data for 2007, there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 had employment of less than
1000 employees, and 44 firms had had employment of 1,000 employees or
more. According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they
were engaged in the provision of either CLEC services or CAP services.
Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 186 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 17
carriers have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. Seventy-two
carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers, and
of the 72, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 2 have more than 1,500
employees.
54. Electric Power Distribution Companies. These entities can
provide video services over power lines (BPL). The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for this category, which is all such firms
having 1,000 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2007 show that
there were 1,174 firms that operated for the entire year in this
category. Of these firms, 50 had 1,000 employees or more, and 1,124 had
fewer than 1,000 employees.
55. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. These entities may be
directly or indirectly affected by the Commission's action. The size
standard established by the SBA for this business category is that
annual receipts of $35.5 million or less determine that a business is
small. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, there were 396 firms that
were engaged in production of Cable and Other Subscription Programming.
Of these, 349 had annual receipts below $25 million, 12 had annual
receipts ranging from $25 million to $49,999,999, and 35 had annual
receipts of $50 million or more.
56. Motion Picture and Video Production. These entities may be
directly or indirectly affected by the Commission's action. The size
standard established by the SBA for this business category is that
annual receipts of $30 million or less determine that a business is
small. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, there were 9,095 firms
that were engaged in Motion Picture and Video Production. Of these,
8,995 had annual receipts of less than $25 million, 43 had annual
receipts ranging from $25 million to $49,999,999, and 57 had annual
receipts of $50 million or more.
57. Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.
These entities may be directly or indirectly affected by the
Commission's action. The SBA has deemed an Internet publisher or
Internet broadcaster or the provider of a web search portal on the
Internet to be small if it has fewer than 500 employees. Census Bureau
data for 2007 show that there were 2,705 such firms that operated that
year. Of those 2,705 firms, 2,682 (approximately 99%) had fewer than
500 employees, and 23 had 500 or more employees.
58. Closed Captioning Services. These entities may be directly or
indirectly affected by the Commission's action. The SBA has developed
two small business size standards that may be used for closed
captioning services, which track the economic census categories,
``Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services'' and ``Court
Reporting and Stenotype Services.''
59. The relevant size standard for small businesses in
Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services is annual revenue of
less than $29.5 million. Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that
there were 1,605 firms that operated in this category for the entire
year. Of that number, 1,587 had annual receipts totaling less than $25
million, 9 had annual receipts ranging from $25 million to $49,999,999,
and 9 had annual receipts of $50 million or more.
60. The size standard for small businesses in Court Reporting and
Stenotype Services is annual revenue of less than $14 million. Census
Bureau data for 2007 show that there were 2,706 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 2,687 had annual receipts of under $10
million, 11 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999,
and 8 had annual receipts of $25 million or more.
61. If the Commission were to adopt rules extending
responsibilities for compliance with the Commission's closed captioning
quality standards and other captioning requirements to video
programmers or entities other than VPDs, such regulations would impose
new compliance obligations and may impose additional reporting and
recordkeeping obligations on video programmers, video programming
owners, and other entities, including small entities.
62. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring the use of
certain measures to ensure program completeness and synchronicity of
closed captions for live and near-live programming and changing the
Commission's current definition of near-live programming for purposes
of the quality standards adopted in the Order, such regulations would
impose additional compliance obligations on VPDs, including small
entities.
63. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring the use of
offline captioning or other measures to achieve improved accuracy,
synchronicity, placement and program completeness of the captions prior
to the re-airing of live and near-live programs, such regulations would
impose additional compliance obligations on VPDs, including small
entities.
64. If the Commission were to apply the ENT requirements adopted in
the Report and Order for broadcasters to non-broadcast networks that
use ENT and serve less than 50 percent of all MVPD homes, such
regulations would impose new compliance obligations that may pose a
financial burden on some non-broadcast networks, including smaller
entities.
65. If the Commission were to establish maximum intervals for
technical equipment checks, or to allow alternatives to such technical
equipment checks, such regulations would impose additional compliance
obligations on VPDs, including small entities.
66. If the Commission were to adopt the practices proposed by the
NCTA for improving the prompt resolution of consumers' captioning
concerns, including requiring VPDs to make reasonable efforts to
identify consumer complaints received about captioning issues and
periodically review those complaints to identify and resolve recurring
captioning problems, VPDs, including small entities, would be subject
to the recordkeeping requirements associated with the proposal.
67. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring VPDs
experiencing a captioning outage to notify consumers of the outage and
file outage reports with the Commission, VPDs, including small
entities, would be subject to the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements associated with such outage reports.
[[Page 17104]]
68. If the Commission were to adopt a rule requiring that all
contact information already required to be submitted by VPDs to the
Commission for the VPD registry, see 47 CFR 79.1(i)(3), be submitted
using the Commission's web form system, VPDs, including small entities,
would not be subject to additional reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, because they are already required to submit their contact
information to the Commission. However, VPDs, including small entities,
may be required to alter their reporting and recordkeeping associated
with such submissions in order to comply with the rule.
69. If the Commission were to adopt a rule requiring a VPD, upon
receipt of a complaint where the VPD is not the responsible party, to
(1) notify the consumer within seven days; (2) offer the consumer a
choice of either asking the VPD in writing to forward the complaint to
the appropriate party or submitting the complaint directly to the
appropriate party on his or her own; and (3) inform the Commission that
it has so notified the complainant by providing the Commission with
copies of all written or electronic correspondence or a written
description of all communications that were not in electronic or
written form, VPDs, including small entities, would be subject to the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with such complaint
forwarding and notifications.
70. If the Commission were to eliminate the four-year exemption
contained in Sec. 79.1(d)(9) of its rules pertaining to new networks,
47 CFR 79.1(d)(9), or retain but alter the four-year exemption
pertaining to new networks, it would impose new compliance obligations
that may pose a financial burden on some smaller entities.
71. If the Commission were to eliminate the exclusion from the
definition of video programming for advertisements of five minutes
duration or less, 47 CFR 79.1(a)(1), and if the Commission were to
eliminate certain self-executing exemptions contained in Sec. 79.1(d)
of its rules, including exemptions for late night programming, 47 CFR
79.1(d)(5), locally produced and distributed non-news programming with
no repeat value, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(8), interstitials, promotional
announcements, and public service announcements that are 10 minutes or
less in duration, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(6), and channels producing revenues
under $3 million, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(12), it would impose new compliance
obligations that may pose a financial burden on VPDs, including small
entities.
72. If the Commission were to take action to ensure the effective
implementation of the technical standards for the display of closed
captioning, it may impose additional compliance obligations on
television manufacturers and VPDs, including small entities.
73. If the Commission were to adopt rules governing on-screen
visual changes or textual depictions that obstruct closed captioning,
it may impose additional compliance obligations on VPDs and video
programmers, including small entities.
74. If the Commission were to adopt additional rules governing
closed captioning of 3D television and Ultra HDTV, it may impose
additional compliance obligations on television manufacturers and VPDs,
including small entities.
75. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
76. First, the rules already allow small entities to take advantage
of various possible exemptions: (1) The exemption for annual revenues
under $3 million, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(12) (However, document FCC 14-12 seeks
comment on whether to eliminate this exemption), (2) the exemption
limiting the captioning requirement to 2% of annual gross revenues, 47
CFR 79.1(d)(11), and (3) the individual exemption process that allows
the Commission to grant exemptions from the captioning rules when the
provision of captions would impose an economic burden on a programming
entity. 47 CFR 79.1(f).
77. If the Commission were to adopt rules extending
responsibilities for compliance with the Commission's closed captioning
requirements (including each of the proposals noted above) to video
programmers and entities other than VPDs, such regulations would impose
new compliance obligations and may impose additional reporting and
recordkeeping obligations on video programmers, video programming
owners, and other entities, including small entities. However,
extending responsibilities for compliance with the Commission's closed
captioning requirements to video programmers and other entities may
benefit certain small entities through more efficient regulations that
reach those entities with the greatest control over closed captioning
quality. In addition, in determining whether to extend responsibility
for compliance with the Commission's closed captioning requirements to
video programmers or other entities involved in the production and
delivery of video programming, the Commission will consider the costs
of and benefits of such extension of responsibilities.
78. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring the use of
certain measures to ensure program completeness and synchronicity of
closed captions for live and near-live programming and changing the
Commission's current definition of near-live programming for purposes
of the quality standards adopted in the Order, such regulations would
impose additional compliance obligations on VPDs, video programmers, or
other entities, including small entities. However, such regulations are
less burdensome than the alternative of regulations imposing specific
metrics for captioning synchronicity and program completeness. In
addition, in determining whether to require certain techniques for
improving the quality of real-time captioning of live programming, the
Commission will consider the incremental costs and burdens of using any
of the proposed techniques compared with the benefits of greater
accessibility to television programming.
79. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring the use of
offline captioning or other measures to achieve improved accuracy,
synchronicity, placement and program completeness of the captions prior
to the re-airing of live and near-live programming first shown after
the effective date of any such rule, such regulations would impose
additional compliance obligations on VPDs, video programmers, or other
entities including small entities. In determining whether to require
certain techniques for improving the quality of captioning of live or
near-live programming that is later re-aired, the Commission will
consider the costs and burdens of using any of the proposed techniques
compared with the benefits of greater accessibility to television
programming.
80. If the Commission were to apply the ENT requirements adopted in
the Order to non-broadcast networks that
[[Page 17105]]
use ENT and serve less than 50 percent of all MVPD homes to ensure
greater accessibility to news programming, such regulations would
impose new compliance obligations that may pose a financial burden on
some non-broadcast networks, including small entities. However, the
Commission's proposal to apply the ENT requirements to non-broadcast
channels serving less than 50 percent of all MVPD homes provides a less
burdensome alternative to a phase-out of ENT, which would impose higher
burdens and costs on small entities under the current rules. In
addition, networks with small budgets would still be able to take
advantage of various possible exemptions: (1) The exemption for annual
revenues under $3 million, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(12) (document FCC 14-12 also
seeks comment on whether to eliminate the exemption for annual revenues
under $3 million), (2) the exemption limiting the captioning
requirement to 2% of annual gross revenues, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(11), and (3)
the individual exemption process that allows the Commission to grant
exemptions from the captioning rules when the provision of captions
would impose an economic burden on a programming entity. 47 CFR
79.1(f).
81. If the Commission were establish maximum intervals for
technical equipment checks, or other measures that can be used to
ensure that captions are passed on to consumers, such regulations would
impose additional compliance obligations on VPDs, including small
entities. In determining whether to require intervals for such checks
or other measures, the Commission will consider the costs and burdens
of these requirements compared with the value of this maintenance to
greater accessibility to television programming.
82. If the Commission were to adopt the practices proposed by NCTA
for improving the prompt resolution of consumers' captioning concerns,
VPDs, including small entities, would be subject to the recordkeeping
requirements associated with the proposal. However, the proposal would
impose no reporting requirements and does not require specific measures
for identifying and reviewing consumer complaints related to closed
captioning problems. In addition, such a requirement may benefit small
entities because it may reduce consumer complaints regarding
captioning, because the VPDs may be addressing problems earlier as a
result of these procedures.
83. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring VPDs
experiencing a captioning outage to notify consumers in real time of
the outage and file outage reports with the Commission, VPDs, including
small entities, would be subject to the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements associated with such outage reports. Adopting such a
requirement would be in the public interest because it would provide
greater consumer access to information about captioning outages. In
addition, such a requirement may benefit small entities because it may
reduce consumer complaints regarding captioning outages, because the
outage notifications would inform consumers that the VPD is aware of
and addressing the problem.
84. If the Commission were to adopt a rule requiring that all
contact information already required to be submitted by VPDs to the
Commission for the VPD registry, see 47 CFR 79.1(i)(3), be submitted
using the Commission's web form system only, VPDs, including small
entities, would not be subject to additional reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, since they are already required to submit
their contact information to the Commission. However, VPDs, including
small entities, may be required to alter their reporting and
recordkeeping associated with such submissions in order to comply with
the rule. In determining whether to require VPDs to submit their
contact information via the web form, the Commission will consider the
costs of transitioning to a mandatory web form method of filing,
compared with the ease and accuracy of filing and the benefits derived
from a mandatory system.
85. If the Commission were to adopt a rule requiring a VPD, upon
receipt of a complaint where the VPD is not the responsible party, to
(1) notify the consumer within seven days; (2) offer the consumer a
choice of either asking the VPD in writing to forward the complaint to
the appropriate party or submitting the complaint directly to the
appropriate party on his or her own; and (3) inform the Commission that
it has so notified the complainant by providing the Commission with
copies of all written or electronic correspondence or a written
description of all communications that were not in electronic or
written form, VPDs, including small entities, would be subject to the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with such complaint
forwarding and notifications. This rule is intended to allow for the
forwarding of consumer complaints as required by Sec. 79.1(g)(3) of
the Commission's rules without violating the consumer protections
contained in sections 631(c)(1) and 338(i)(4) of the Act. Nevertheless,
in determining whether to adopt this rule, the Commission will consider
the costs of forwarding complaints upon consumer request and notifying
the Commission of actions taken compared to the benefits of providing a
consumer-friendly way to get the complaints to the correct parties.
86. If the Commission were to eliminate the four-year exemption
contained in Sec. 79.1(d)(9) of the Commission's rules pertaining to
new networks, or retain but alter the four-year exemption pertaining to
new networks, it would impose new compliance obligations that may pose
a financial burden on some small entities. However, under the current
rules, networks with small budgets would still be able to take
advantage of various possible exemptions: (1) The exemption for annual
revenues under $3 million, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(12) (document FCC 14-12 also
seeks comment on whether to eliminate the exemption for annual revenues
under $3 million), (2) the exemption limiting the captioning
requirement to 2% of annual gross revenues, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(11), and (3)
the individual exemption process that allows the Commission to grant
exemptions from the captioning rules when the provision of captions
would impose an economic burden on a programming entity. 47 CFR
79.1(f).
87. If the Commission were to eliminate the exclusion from the
definition of video programming for advertisements of five minutes
duration or less, 47 CFR 79.1(a)(1), and if the Commission were to
eliminate certain self-executing exemptions contained in Sec. 79.1(d)
of its rules, including exemptions for late night programming, 47 CFR
79.1(d)(5), locally produced and distributed non-news programming with
no repeat value, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(8), interstitials, promotional
announcements, and public service announcements that are 10 minutes or
less in duration, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(6), and channels producing revenues
under $3 million, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(12), it would impose new compliance
obligations that may pose a financial burden on VPDs, including small
entities. However, under the current rules, entities with small budgets
would still be able to take advantage of other possible exemptions: (1)
The exemption limiting the captioning requirement to 2% of annual gross
revenues, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(11), and (2) the individual exemption process
that allows the Commission to grant exemptions from the captioning
rules when the provision of captions would impose an economic burden on
a programming entity. 47 CFR 79.1(f).
[[Page 17106]]
88. If the Commission were to take action to ensure the effective
implementation of the technical standards for the display of closed
captioning, it may impose additional compliance obligations on
television manufacturers and VPDs, including small entities. In
determining whether to require any other practices governing technical
standards for the display of closed captioning, the Commission will
consider the costs and burdens of such practices compared with the
benefits of greater accessibility to television programming.
89. If the Commission were to adopt rules governing on-screen
visual changes or textual depictions that obstruct closed captioning,
it may impose additional compliance obligations on VPDs and video
programmers, including small entities. In determining whether to
require any other practices governing on-screen visual changes or
textual depictions that obstruct closed captioning, the Commission will
consider the costs and burdens of such practices compared with the
benefits of greater accessibility to television programming.
90. If the Commission were to adopt rules governing display of
closed captioning, closed captioning of 3D television or Ultra HDTV
programming, it may impose additional compliance obligations on
television manufacturers and VPDs, including small entities. However,
VPDs are already subject to rules governing the display of closed
captioning and are required to reliably encode, transport, and render
closed captions on 3D and Ultra HDTV video programming in accordance
with Commission rules. Also, in accordance with the Commission's
captioning rules, such VPDs and providers must permit the pass through
or rendering of closed captions in a manner that will allow viewers to
exercise control over various display features and to activate and
deactivate captions when video programming is played back on television
receivers with 3D or Ultra HDTV capability. Finally, interconnection
mechanisms and standards for 3D and Ultra HDTV video source devices
must be capable of conveying from the source device to the consumer
equipment the information necessary to permit or render the display of
closed captions. In determining whether to require any other practices
for the display of closed captioning or captioning 3D television or
Ultra HDTV, the Commission will consider the costs and burdens of such
practices compared with the benefits of greater accessibility to
television programming.
91. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission's Proposals. None.
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r) and 713 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and 613, document FCC 14-
12 is adopted.
The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 14-12
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06755 Filed 3-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P