Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010; Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video Clips, 45397-45407 [2014-18201]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule
pertaining to the ACHD’s control of PM
emissions from OWBs, does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 16, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014–18493 Filed 8–4–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 79
[MB Docket No. 11–154; FCC 14–97]
Closed Captioning of Internet ProtocolDelivered Video Programming:
Implementation of the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010; Closed
Captioning of Internet ProtocolDelivered Video Clips
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission seeks comment on issues
related to closed captioning of video
clips delivered using Internet protocol
(‘‘IP’’). The Commission explores
application of the IP closed captioning
rules for video clips to third party
distributors not currently subject to the
new video clips requirements. The
Commission also asks whether it should
decrease or eliminate the grace periods
within which IP-delivered video clips of
video programming previously shown
live or near-live on television must be
captioned. Further, the Commission
invites comment on application of the
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Aug 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
IP closed captioning requirements to
two additional categories of video clips,
which are called ‘‘mash-ups’’ and
‘‘advance’’ video clips.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
October 6, 2014; reply comments are
due on or before November 3, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No. 11–154, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: fjallfoss.fcc.gov/
ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments.
• Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• People with Disabilities: Contact
the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
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:
Diana Sokolow, Diana.Sokolow@fcc.gov,
of the Policy Division, Media Bureau,
(202) 418–2120.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(2nd FNPRM), FCC 14–97, adopted on
July 11, 2014 and released on July 14,
2014. The full text of this document is
available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours
in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. This document
will also be available via ECFS at
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents
will be available electronically in ASCII,
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
The complete text may be purchased
from the Commission’s copy contractor,
445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554. Alternative
formats are available for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), by
sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
calling the Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45397
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
This 2nd FNPRM seeks comment on
a potential new or revised information
collection requirement. If the
Commission adopts a new or revised
information collection requirement, the
Commission will publish a separate
notice in the Federal Register inviting
the public to comment on the
requirement, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might
‘‘further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. In the Second Order on
Reconsideration (‘‘Video Clips Order’’),
the Commission concludes that clips of
video programming covered by the
Twenty-First Century Communications
and Video Accessibility Act of 2010
(‘‘CVAA’’) must be captioned when
delivered using Internet protocol (‘‘IP’’)
and adopts rules in that regard. The
attached 2nd FNPRM explores the
following four issues related to closed
captioning of IP-delivered video clips:
• Application of the IP closed
captioning rules to the provision of
video clips by third party video
programming providers and
distributors;
• Whether in the future we should
decrease or eliminate the 12-hour
timeframe within which IP-delivered
video clips of video programming
previously shown live on television
must be captioned and the eight-hour
timeframe within which IP-delivered
video clips of video programming
previously shown near-live on
television must be captioned;
• Application of the IP closed
captioning requirements to files that
contain a combination of one or more
video clips that have been shown on
television with captions and online-only
content that has not (‘‘mash-ups’’); and
• Application of the IP closed
captioning rules to video clips that are
added to the video programming
distributor’s or provider’s library on or
after January 1, 2016 for straight lift
clips and January 1, 2017 for montages,
but before the associated video
programming is shown on television
with captions (‘‘advance’’ video clips).
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
45398
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
II. Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
2. In the following 2nd FNPRM we
explore four issues related to closed
captioning of IP-delivered video clips:
(1) Application of the IP closed
captioning rules to the provision of
video clips by third party video
programming providers and
distributors, when the associated video
programming has been shown on
television with captions; (2) whether in
the future we should decrease or
eliminate the 12-hour timeframe within
which captions may be added to IPdelivered video clips of live
programming and the eight-hour
timeframe within which captions may
be added to IP-delivered video clips of
near-live programming; (3) application
of the IP closed captioning requirements
to files that contain a combination of
video clips that have been shown on
television with captions and online-only
content (‘‘mash-ups’’); and (4)
application of the IP closed captioning
rules to video clips that are first added
to the video programming distributor’s
or provider’s library on or after January
1, 2016 for straight lift clips or January
1, 2017 for montages, but before the
associated video programming is shown
on television with captions, and which
then remain online in the distributor’s
or provider’s library after being shown
on television.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Third Party Video Programming
Providers and Distributors
3. Entities such as news Web sites that
do not distribute full-length video
programming may sometimes make
video clips available on their Web sites.
In addition, some entities, such as Hulu,
may distribute full-length video
programming online but do not also
distribute such programming on
television. We do not have an adequate
record for purposes of applying the IP
closed captioning rules to the provision
of video clips by these and similar
entities, which we refer to as ‘‘third
party’’ distributors.1 Accordingly, we
seek comment on the scope of third
party IP distribution of video clips that
were taken from video programming
shown on television with captions, the
1 The Video Clips Order imposes closed
captioning requirements for IP-delivered video
clips, at the present time, to instances in which the
video programming provider or distributor (as those
terms are defined in the IP closed captioning rules)
posts on its Web site or app a video clip of video
programming that it published or exhibited on
television in the United States with captions on or
after the applicable compliance deadline.
References herein to ‘‘third party’’ distributors
should be read to include all video programming
providers and distributors not subject to the Video
Clips Order as a result of this limitation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Aug 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
relationship between such third parties
and the video programming owner, and
the costs and benefits of imposing the
obligation to caption video clips on
such entities, including small entities.
4. We seek comment on the third
parties that distribute video clips of
video programming shown on television
with captions. What types of entities are
included in this category, and how
many such entities exist? We request
information on the relationship between
these third parties and video
programming owners. Do the third
parties receive video clips directly from
the video programming owner, or do
they receive video clips for IP
distribution in a different manner? What
licensing or other agreements exist
between video programming owners
and these third party video
programming providers and distributors
with regard to IP-delivered video clips?
Do video programming owners
sometimes lack knowledge that third
parties are distributing their video clips
via IP, and in what circumstances might
that occur? Should any rules covering
third party distributors be limited to
those distributors that have a licensing
or other formal agreement with the
video programming owner?
5. How should we ensure that video
clips taken from programming shown on
television are successfully captioned by
third party distributors on a timely
basis? For example, the general IP
closed captioning rules that apply to
full-length programming require video
programming owners to send program
files to video programming distributors
and providers with required captions,
and they require video programming
providers and distributors to enable the
rendering or pass through of all required
captions to the end user. Should we
impose this allocation of responsibility
for IP-delivered video clips when the
video programming provider or
distributor did not also publish or
exhibit the associated video
programming on television? Should we
impose the general IP closed captioning
rules in this context, or should we
impose any differing obligations? For
example, the IP closed captioning rules
require each video programming owner
to agree ‘‘[w]ith each video
programming distributor and provider
that such owner licenses to distribute
video programming directly to the end
user through a distribution method that
uses Internet protocol . . . upon a
mechanism to inform such distributors
and providers on an ongoing basis
whether video programming is subject
to the requirements of this section.’’ 2
2 47
PO 00000
CFR 79.4(c)(1)(ii).
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
How would this ‘‘mechanism’’ operate
in the context of video clips covered by
these rules when they are provided to
third party IP distributors? How will
third party video programming
providers and distributors be informed
that a video clip already in their library
has been shown on television with
captions? Will the video programming
owner always know that a video clip
previously shown as part of television
programming has been posted online
and by whom? How should this impact
enforcement, if at all?
6. If video clips are initially posted
online by a third party distributor
without captions and later amended to
include captions, will links to the
original posting of the video clip still
work? What other technical, legal or
other issues should we be aware of that
may impact the ability of third party
video programming distributors to
comply with our IP closed captioning
requirements, and how quickly can they
be addressed? We seek comment on
what would be an appropriate
compliance period. We also seek
comment on what obligations, if any,
should be different when a third party
distributor embeds instead of hosts the
content on its Web site.3
7. We seek comment on our statutory
authority over video clips provided by
third party distributors. As explained in
the Video Clips Order (published
concurrently with this 2nd FNPRM in
the Federal Register), the CVAA
requires that any IP-delivered video
programming that was shown on
television with captions, whether fulllength or an excerpt, must also be
captioned when delivered using IP.
What requirements do we need to
impose in the context of third party
distributors to ensure that we are
fulfilling the requirements and goals of
the CVAA, which directs the
Commission to require ‘‘the provision of
closed captioning on video
programming delivered using Internet
protocol that was published or exhibited
on television with captions after the
effective date of such regulations’’? 4 Do
any statutory exemptions apply in this
context? For example, should the
Commission exempt any third party
video programming distributors or
categories of distributors from its video
3 When a third party video programming
distributor ‘‘embeds’’ a video clip, it is directing the
consumer’s browser or video player to display a
video that is currently hosted on another video
programming distributor’s platform. When a third
party video programming distributor ‘‘hosts’’ a
video clip, it is both directing the consumer’s
browser or video player to display the video and
providing the video file itself.
4 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(A).
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
clips captioning obligations on the basis
that it would be ‘‘economically
burdensome’’ for these distributors to
comply? 5 If so, parties should provide
specific reasons for why the economic
burden exemption should apply.6 If
adopted, should such categorical
exemption expire after a set period of
time, subject to renewal if warranted?
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Grace Period for Live and Near-Live
Video Clips
8. As explained in the Video Clips
Order, beginning July 1, 2017 we require
the provision of closed captions on IPdelivered video clips of video
programming previously shown live or
near-live on television with captions
within 12 hours and eight hours,
respectively, after the associated video
programming is published or exhibited
on television in the United States with
captions. Herein we seek comment on
whether in the future we should
decrease or eliminate this grace period
for providing captions. We seek
comment on the costs of imposing a
shorter grace period on covered entities,
including small entities, in comparison
to the benefits to consumers of a
reduced grace period.
9. We remain concerned about the
impact that delayed access to IPdelivered video clips of live and nearlive programming will have on people
who are deaf and hard of hearing. For
example, breaking news aired live on
television and initially posted online
without closed captions effectively
excludes these individuals from having
timely access to this information. We
seek comment on the impact that these
delays will have on people who are deaf
and hard of hearing and whether
continuing to allow these delays is
consistent with Congress’s intent, as
expressed in the CVAA, to improve
5 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(D)(ii) (the regulations ‘‘may
exempt any service, class of service, program, class
of program, equipment, or class of equipment for
which the Commission has determined that the
application of such regulations would be
economically burdensome for the provider of such
service, program, or equipment’’).
6 Closed Captioning and Video Description of
Video Programming, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd
3272, 3342, paras. 143–145 (1997) (setting forth the
Commission’s treatment of class exemptions); See
Anglers for Christ Ministries, Inc., Memorandum
Opinion and Order, Order, and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14941, 14958–60, paras.
33–36 (2011) (explaining the different application
of the term ‘‘economically burdensome’’ to case-bycase exemptions than to rulemaking decisions to
exempt certain categories of programming’’); Closed
Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video
Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video Accessibility
Act of 2010, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 787,
828, para. 67 (2012) (‘‘IP Closed Captioning Order’’)
(also noting the distinction between the
Commission’s treatment of these two types of
captioning exemptions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Aug 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
access to video programming delivered
via the Internet. We also expect that, at
some time in the future, it will be
appropriate to decrease or eliminate this
grace period because we expect that
technology will automate the process
such that a grace period is no longer
needed. We invite comment on the
timeframe within which we should
decrease or eliminate the grace period
applicable to video clips of live and
near-live programming. For example, for
video clips of live programming, should
we provide a grace period of six hours
beginning July 1, 2018, and three hours
beginning July 1, 2019? What
adjustments should we make to the
grace period for video clips of near-live
programming? We ask commenters to
justify any differing treatment of video
clips of live programming and video
clips of near-live programming. We also
ask industry to submit specific comment
on the status of technological
developments in this regard. What steps
must industry currently take to prepare
captioned video clips of live and nearlive programming, and how and when
might those steps be streamlined in the
future? To the extent that these delays
can be reduced, would it be appropriate
to adopt a schedule of deadlines
phasing in shorter grace periods, and if
so, what should these deadlines be?
Would a schedule phasing out these
grace periods encourage greater
technical innovation to automate these
captioning processes, as well as provide
the necessary time to achieve
compliance?
C. Combinations of Video Clips and
Content Not Televised With Captions
(‘‘Mash-Ups’’)
10. We seek comment on the
application of the IP closed captioning
requirements to files that contain a
combination of one or more video clips
that have been shown on television with
captions, and other content (such as
online-only content) that has not been
shown on television with captions. The
industry refers to these files as ‘‘mashups.’’ We seek comment on the costs to
covered entities, including small
entities, and the benefits of applying the
IP closed captioning requirements to
mash-ups. We seek additional
information on issues associated with
the captioning of the portion of the clip
that was shown on television with
captions. We recognize that any part of
the video clip that was not shown on
television with captions, such as onlineonly content, would not be subject to
the IP closed captioning requirements.
11. As explained in the Video Clips
Order, the CVAA requires that any IPdelivered video programming that was
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45399
shown on television with captions,
whether full-length or an excerpt, must
also be captioned when delivered using
IP. Is there any statutory basis on which
we could exclude from the IP closed
captioning requirements video clips
embedded in mash-ups if the embedded
clips were shown on television with
captions? We seek comment on whether
this type of clip is subject to any of the
exemptions set forth in section 202 of
the CVAA. For example, if the clips that
were shown on television with captions
were very short or insignificant in
comparison to the rest of the mash-up
that contains online-only content,
would the lack of captions be
considered a ‘‘de minimis’’ failure to
comply under section 202? If so, how
would the Commission be able to
determine what is a ‘‘de minimis’’
situation versus one where lack of
captions is considered a violation of our
regulations? That is, what would
constitute an insignificant or short
enough clip sufficient to invoke the ‘‘de
minimis’’ exemption? Alternatively,
should the Commission exempt the
class of ‘‘mash-ups’’ from its IP closed
captioning rules on the basis that it
would be ‘‘economically burdensome’’
for the provider of such clip to comply
with our rules? 7 If adopted, should such
categorical exemption expire after a set
period of time, subject to renewal if
warranted? Parties should provide
specific comment on why the
Commission’s economic burden test
would apply in this situation and how
the Commission should apply this test
to this class exemption, if adopted. Is
there any other basis on which the
Commission can exclude an otherwise
covered video clip from the IP closed
captioning rules, consistent with the
CVAA’s direction that the Commission
‘‘require the provision of closed
captioning on video programming
delivered using Internet protocol that
was published or exhibited on
television with captions after the
effective date’’? 8 For example, if an
online program itself was not shown on
television with captions, but rather only
isolated clips embedded in the program
were, does that render the program in its
entirety (including integrated clips of
televised captioned programming)
outside the scope of the CVAA on the
theory that the whole program is a new
work that does not constitute ‘‘video
7 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(D)(ii) (the regulations ‘‘may
exempt any service, class of service, program, class
of program, equipment, or class of equipment for
which the Commission has determined that the
application of such regulations would be
economically burdensome for the provider of such
service, program, or equipment’’).
8 See 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(A).
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
45400
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
programming . . . that was published or
exhibited on television with captions’’?
12. We seek comment on the nature
of these types of integrated clips.
Industry should give us specific
examples of such clips and describe
how prevalent they are. If the
Commission applies the IP closed
captioning requirements to one or more
video clips that have been shown on
television with captions, regardless of
whether these clips are integrated with
other content (such as online-only
content) that has not been shown on
television with captions, how will
industry comply with such a
requirement? That is, we seek comment
on the technical challenges associated
with captioning such clips. Will
industry need to caption the covered
material anew, or will it be able to
repurpose televised captions? What
would be an appropriate compliance
deadline for captioning of covered clips
included in mash-ups? Would video
programming providers and distributors
need a grace period for captioning the
covered clips in mash-ups following the
airing of the associated video
programming on television with
captions and, if so, what grace period
would be appropriate?
D. Advance Video Clips
13. As stated in the Video Clips Order,
we find that further information on the
technological challenges of captioning
advance video clips would be useful
before we proceed with requiring closed
captioning for such clips. Accordingly,
we invite comment on application of the
IP closed captioning rules to advance
video clips. ‘‘Advance’’ video clips are
video clips that are added to the video
programming distributor’s or provider’s
library on or after January 1, 2016 for
straight lift clips and January 1, 2017 for
montages, when the associated video
programming (including the advance
video clips) is later shown on television
with captions on or after the compliance
deadline and the advance video clips
remain online.9 We defer application of
the IP closed captioning requirements to
advance video clips pending resolution
of this issue. We seek comment on the
costs to covered entities, including
small entities, and the benefits of
captioning advance video clips.
14. We understand that video
programming distributors and providers
9 We clarify that, if a video programming
distributor or provider posts an advance video clip
online, and then re-posts that video clip online after
the programming is shown on television with
captions on or after the compliance deadline, the
reposted version of the clip would not be
considered an advance clip since it was not posted
before the programming was shown on television
with captions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Aug 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
sometimes add video clips to their
libraries shortly before the associated
video programming is shown on
television with captions, and we think
it is important that IP-delivered advance
video clips be made accessible to
consumers who are deaf or hard of
hearing once the programming
associated with such clips has been
shown on television with captions. For
example, if a broadcast television
station places a clip filmed on location
earlier in the day on its Web site shortly
before the station’s nightly news
program, and then the clip is shown on
television with captions as part of the
program, we are concerned that
consumers who are deaf or hard of
hearing would not have access to the
content of the clip if it remains
uncaptioned online.10 Accordingly, we
ask whether we should provide a
timeframe within which closed captions
may be added to IP-delivered advance
video clips, once the associated video
programming is shown on television
with captions. For example, would 24
hours be an appropriate timeframe for
the grace period? If not, what timeframe
would balance consumers’ desire for
prompt access to IP-delivered advance
video clips and industry’s need for time
to identify and provide captions on IPdelivered advance video clips? Should
we adopt an initial timeframe for the
grace period, and then decrease or
eliminate it over time, in recognition of
the expectation that technology will
automate the process such that a grace
period will no longer be needed? What
compliance deadline should we impose
for advance clips? We note that in the
IP Closed Captioning Order (77 FR
19480, Mar. 30, 2012), the Commission
gave entities a phased-in timeframe for
compliance with respect to the
captioning of full-length programming
that is in the video programming
provider or distributor’s online library
before it is shown on television with
captions. Should a similar approach be
adopted here? What is the scope of the
advance clips under consideration? For
example, should the scope include all
advance clips, or should it be limited to
clips posted online within a certain
timeframe, such as seven days, before
the associated video programming is
shown on television? How would any
such limitation be consistent with the
CVAA? For what time period should
video programming owners, providers,
10 Accordingly, we disagree with NCTA that
‘‘[a]ny rule must exclude these ‘advance’ clips from
a captioning obligation, and should leave to the
reasonable judgment of the programmers whether
the ‘advance clip’ retains value such that replacing
it with a captioned version makes sense after the
program airs on television with captions.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and distributors be required to monitor
the posting of the advance clip online
and the associated video programming
on television? If a commenter proposes
a period of time, we seek additional
comment on the justification for such
proposal, including the costs to industry
and the benefits to consumers,
including consumers who are deaf or
hard of hearing.
15. What is the nature and extent of
the difficulties associated with
captioning advance clips after their
associated video programming has been
shown on television with captions? To
what extent and for how long does the
industry expect that these technological
challenges will continue to hinder
captioning this category of IP-delivered
video clips? In the IP Closed Captioning
Order, the Commission required closed
captioning of full-length video
programming that is in the provider’s or
distributor’s library before it is shown
on television with captions, but it
extended the deadlines applicable to
such programming in recognition of the
need to develop processes for finding
and adding captions to this category of
programming.11 How should the
Commission justify any differing
treatment of advance IP-delivered video
clips? Are any differences in treatment
justified by Hulu’s assertion that ‘‘clips
have a shorter shelf life for viewership
than long-form content,’’ or are
Consumer Groups correct that many
video clips ‘‘are likely to live on the
Internet indefinitely’’? For purposes of
quantifying the burden and difficulty in
captioning such clips after they appear
on television with captions after the
applicable deadline, we seek comment
on the likely volume of advance video
clips in providers’ online libraries. How
would the ‘‘mechanism’’ referenced
above apply in the context of such video
clips, and how would third party video
programming distributors and providers
comply with a requirement to caption
them? What is the likelihood that a
requirement to caption advance video
clips will result in the removal of these
clips and should that factor into our
analysis?
16. Even if advance clips are not
excerpts of programs shown on
television with captions at the time they
are initially posted online, we invite
comment on whether their status
changes once the associated video
programming is shown on television
with captions thus triggering the
captioning requirement. Are there any
11 Additionally, instead of requiring captions
immediately as is otherwise the case, the
Commission adopted permissible timeframes
between the posting of the program file and
updating it to include closed captions.
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
statutory exemptions that would apply
to these clips or to a subset of these
clips? 12 How would the costs of
compliance with such a captioning
requirement for advance clips compare
to the benefits to consumers? We ask
video programming providers and
distributors to provide information on
their standard practices for removing
video clips previously posted online. Do
video clips tend to remain online
indefinitely, and if so, why? What
aspects of the practices now used to
post and maintain clips online would
need to be changed to comply with the
imposition of closed captioning
requirements for advance video clips?
III. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
17. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(‘‘RFA’’), the Commission has prepared
this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’)
concerning the possible significant
economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in the
2nd 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 provided on the first page
of the item. The Commission will send
a copy of the 2nd FNPRM, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (‘‘SBA’’). In addition,
the 2nd FNPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18. In the Second Order on
Reconsideration attached to the 2nd
FNPRM, as part of the Commission’s
continued implementation of the
Twenty-First Century Communications
and Video Accessibility Act of 2010
(‘‘CVAA’’), the Commission imposes
closed captioning requirements on
excerpts of video programming,
specifically online video clips. In the
2nd FNPRM attached to that order, the
Commission explores the following four
issues related to closed captioning of
12 For example, we note that the statute permits
exemptions due to economic burden. See 47 U.S.C.
613(c)(2)(D)(ii) (permitting the Commission’s
implementing regulations to ‘‘exempt any service,
class of service, program, class of program,
equipment, or class of equipment for which the
Commission has determined that the application of
such regulations would be economically
burdensome for the provider of such service,
program, or equipment’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Aug 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
video clips delivered via Internet
protocol (‘‘IP’’):
• Application of the IP closed
captioning rules to the provision of
video clips by third party video
programming providers and
distributors;
• Whether in the future we should
decrease or eliminate the 12-hour
timeframe within which IP-delivered
video clips of video programming
previously shown live on television
must be captioned and the eight-hour
timeframe within which IP-delivered
video clips of video programming
previously shown near-live on
television must be captioned;
• Application of the IP closed
captioning requirements to files that
contain a combination of one or more
video clips that have been shown on
television with captions and online-only
content that has not (‘‘mash-ups’’); and
• Application of the IP closed
captioning rules to video clips that are
added to the video programming
distributor’s or provider’s library on or
after January 1, 2016 for straight lift
clips 13 and January 1, 2017 for
montages,14 but before the associated
video programming is shown on
television with captions (‘‘advance’’
video clips).
2. Legal Basis
19. The proposed action is authorized
pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, and
713 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j),
303, and 613.
3. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposals Will Apply
20. The RFA directs the Commission
to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that will be affected by the
rules proposed in the Second Order on
Reconsideration. 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 Small Business
Administration (‘‘SBA’’). Small entities
13 ‘‘Straight lift’’ clips are those that contain a
single excerpt of a captioned television program
with the same video and audio that was presented
on television.
14 ‘‘Montages’’ contain multiple straight lift clips.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45401
that may be directly affected by the
proposals in the 2nd FNPRM are those
entities that distribute IP-delivered clips
of video programming and the owners of
such programming. Such small entities
may include television broadcasters,
multichannel video programming
distributors (MVPDs), programmers, and
other entities that own or distribute
video programming. Below are
descriptions of the small entities that
may be affected by the rules proposed
in the 2nd FNPRM, including, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
such small entities. In addition, because
the 2nd FNPRM considers application of
the IP closed captioning rules to the
provision of video clips by third party
video programming providers and
distributors, and because of the
difficulty of identifying all such third
party video programming providers and
distributors, we seek specific comment
on whether such small entities are
covered by the categories listed below
and, if not, on how to identify and
estimate such small entities.
21. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time,
affect small entities that are not easily
categorized at present. We therefore
describe here, at the outset, three
comprehensive, statutory small entity
size standards. First, according to the
SBA Office of Advocacy, in 2010, there
were 27.9 million small businesses in
the United States. In addition, a ‘‘small
organization’’ is generally ‘‘any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.’’ 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, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand.’’ Census
Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there
were 89,476 local governmental
jurisdictions in the United States. We
estimate that, of this total, a substantial
majority may qualify as ‘‘small
governmental jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we
estimate that most governmental
jurisdictions are small.
22. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The North American Industry
Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’) defines
‘‘Wired Telecommunications Carriers’’
as follows: ‘‘This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to
transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45402
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services; wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution; and wired broadband
Internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.’’
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for wireline firms
for the broad economic census category
of ‘‘Wired Telecommunications
Carriers.’’ Under this category, a
wireline business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. Census data for
2007 shows that there were 31,996
establishments that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 30,178
establishments had fewer than 100
employees, and 1,818 establishments
had 100 or more employees. Therefore,
under this size standard, we estimate
that the majority of businesses can be
considered small entities.
23. Cable Television Distribution
Services. Since 2007, these services
have been defined within the broad
economic census category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
category is defined above. The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is: All
such businesses having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2007 shows
that there were 31,996 establishments
that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 30,178 establishments had fewer
than 100 employees, and 1,818
establishments had 100 or more
employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, we estimate that the majority
of businesses can be considered small
entities.
24. Cable Companies and Systems.
The Commission has also developed its
own small business size standards, for
the purpose of cable rate regulation.
Under the Commission’s rate regulation
rules, a ‘‘small cable company’’ is one
serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers,
nationwide. According to SNL Kagan,
there are 1,258 cable operators. Of this
total, all but 10 incumbent cable
companies are small under this size
standard. In addition, under the
Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is
a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer
subscribers. Current Commission
records show 4,584 cable systems
nationwide. Of this total, 4,012 cable
systems have fewer than 20,000
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Aug 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
subscribers, and 572 systems have
20,000 subscribers or more, based on the
same records. Thus, under this
standard, we estimate that most cable
systems are small.
25. Cable System Operators (Telecom
Act Standard). The Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, also contains
a size standard for small cable system
operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator
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.’’ The Commission has
determined that an operator serving
fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be
deemed a small operator, if its annual
revenues, when combined with the total
annual revenues of all its affiliates, do
not exceed $250 million in the
aggregate. Based on available data, we
find that all but 10 incumbent cable
operators are small under this size
standard. We note that the Commission
neither requests nor collects information
on whether cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million.
Although it seems certain that some of
these cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250,000,000,
we are unable to estimate with greater
precision the number of cable system
operators that would qualify as small
cable operators under this definition.
26. 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.
DBS, by exception, is now included in
the SBA’s broad economic census
category, Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which was developed for small
wireline businesses. Under this
category, the SBA deems a wireline
business to be small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. Census data for 2007
shows that there were 31,996
establishments that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 30,178
establishments had fewer than 100
employees, and 1,818 establishments
had 100 or more employees. Therefore,
under this size standard, the majority of
such businesses can be considered
small. However, the data we have
available as a basis for estimating the
number of such small entities were
gathered under a superseded SBA small
business size standard formerly titled
‘‘Cable and Other Program
Distribution.’’ The definition of Cable
and Other Program Distribution
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
provided that a small entity is one with
$12.5 million or less in annual receipts.
Currently, only two entities provide
DBS service, which requires a great
investment of capital for operation:
DIRECTV and DISH Network. Each
currently offers subscription services.
DIRECTV and DISH Network each
reports annual revenues that are in
excess of the threshold for a small
business. Because DBS service requires
significant capital, we believe it is
unlikely that a small entity as defined
by the SBA would have the financial
wherewithal to become a DBS service
provider.
27. Satellite Master Antenna
Television (SMATV) Systems, also
known as Private Cable Operators
(PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are
video distribution facilities that use
closed transmission paths without using
any public right-of-way. They acquire
video programming and distribute it via
terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban
multiple dwelling units such as
apartments and condominiums, and
commercial multiple tenant units such
as hotels and office buildings. SMATV
systems or PCOs are now included in
the SBA’s broad economic census
category, Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which was developed for small
wireline businesses. Under this
category, the SBA deems a wireline
business to be small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. Census data for 2007
shows that there were 31,996
establishments that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 30,178
establishments had fewer than 100
employees, and 1,818 establishments
had 100 or more employees. Therefore,
under this size standard, the majority of
such businesses can be considered
small.
28. Home Satellite Dish (HSD)
Service. HSD or the large dish segment
of the satellite industry is the original
satellite-to-home service offered to
consumers, and involves the home
reception of signals transmitted by
satellites operating generally in the Cband frequency. Unlike DBS, which
uses small dishes, HSD antennas are
between four and eight feet in diameter
and can receive a wide range of
unscrambled (free) programming and
scrambled programming purchased from
program packagers that are licensed to
facilitate subscribers’ receipt of video
programming. Because HSD provides
subscription services, HSD falls within
the SBA-recognized definition of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA
has developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is: All
such businesses having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2007 shows
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
that there were 31,996 establishments
that operated that year. Of this total,
30,178 establishments had fewer than
100 employees, and 1,818
establishments had 100 or more
employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, we estimate that the majority
of businesses can be considered small
entities.
29. Open Video Services. The open
video system (OVS) framework was
established in 1996, and is one of four
statutorily recognized options for the
provision of video programming
services by local exchange carriers. The
OVS framework provides opportunities
for the distribution of video
programming other than through cable
systems. 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 businesses having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2007 shows
that there were 31,996 establishments
that operated that year. Of this total,
30,178 establishments had fewer than
100 employees, and 1,818
establishments had 100 or more
employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, we estimate that the majority
of businesses can be considered small
entities. In addition, we note that the
Commission has certified some OVS
operators, with some now providing
service. Broadband service providers
(‘‘BSPs’’) are currently the only
significant holders of OVS certifications
or local OVS franchises. The
Commission does not have financial or
employment information regarding the
entities authorized to provide OVS,
some of which may not yet be
operational. Thus, again, at least some
of the OVS operators may qualify as
small entities.
30. 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. The BRS auctions
resulted in 67 successful bidders
obtaining licensing opportunities for
493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the
67 auction winners, 61 met the
definition of a small business. BRS also
includes licensees of stations authorized
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Aug 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
prior to the auction. At this time, we
estimate that of the 61 small business
BRS auction winners, 48 remain small
business licensees. In addition to the 48
small businesses that hold BTA
authorizations, there are approximately
392 incumbent BRS licensees that are
considered small entities. After adding
the number of small business auction
licensees to the number of incumbent
licensees not already counted, we find
that 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, the
sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The
Commission offered three levels of
bidding credits: (i) A bidder with
attributed average annual gross revenues
that exceed $15 million and do not
exceed $40 million for the preceding
three years (small business) received a
15 percent discount on its winning bid;
(ii) a bidder with attributed average
annual gross revenues that exceed $3
million and do not exceed $15 million
for the preceding three years (very small
business) received a 25 percent discount
on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder
with attributed average annual gross
revenues that do not exceed $3 million
for the preceding three years
(entrepreneur) received a 35 percent
discount on its winning bid. Auction 86
concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61
licenses. 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.
31. 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. Since 2007, these
services have been defined within the
broad economic census category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers,
which was developed for small wireline
businesses. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for this
category, which is: All such businesses
having 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2007 shows that there
were 31,996 establishments that
operated that year. Of this total, 30,178
establishments had fewer than 100
employees, and 1,818 establishments
had 100 or more employees. Therefore,
under this size standard, we estimate
that the majority of businesses can be
considered small entities. In addition to
Census data, the Commission’s internal
records indicate that as of September
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45403
2012, there are 2,241 active EBS
licenses. The Commission estimates that
of these 2,241 licenses, the majority are
held by non-profit educational
institutions and school districts, which
are by statute defined as small
businesses.
32. Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (ILECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local
exchange services. ILECs are included
in the SBA’s economic census category,
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under this category, the SBA deems a
wireline business to be small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. Census data
for 2007 shows that there were 31,996
establishments that operated that year.
Of this total, 30,178 establishments had
fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818
establishments had 100 or more
employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, the majority of such
businesses can be considered small.
33. Small Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers. We have included small
incumbent local exchange carriers in
this present RFA analysis. A ‘‘small
business’’ under the RFA is one that,
inter alia, meets the pertinent small
business size standard (e.g., a telephone
communications business having 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 incumbent
local exchange carriers are not dominant
in their field of operation because any
such dominance is not ‘‘national’’ in
scope. We have therefore included small
incumbent local exchange carriers in
this RFA analysis, although we
emphasize that this RFA action has no
effect on Commission analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
34. 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.
These entities are included in the SBA’s
economic census category, Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under
this category, the SBA deems a wireline
business to be small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. Census data for 2007
shows that there were 31,996
establishments that operated that year.
Of this total, 30,178 establishments had
fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818
establishments had 100 or more
employees. Therefore, under this size
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45404
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
standard, the majority of such
businesses can be considered small.
35. Television Broadcasting. This
economic census category ‘‘comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
broadcasting images together with
sound.’’ The SBA has created the
following small business size standard
for Television Broadcasting businesses:
Those having $35.5 million or less in
annual receipts. Census data for 2007
shows that 2,076 establishments in this
category operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 1,515 establishments had
annual receipts of $10,000,000 or less,
and 561 establishments had annual
receipts of more than $10,000,000.
Because the Census has no additional
classifications on the basis of which to
identify the number of stations whose
receipts exceeded $35.5 million in that
year, the majority of such
establishments can be considered small
under this size standard.
36. Apart from the U.S. Census, the
Commission has estimated the number
of licensed commercial television
stations to be 1,388 stations. Of this
total, 1,221 stations (or about 88
percent) had revenues of $35.5 million
or less, according to Commission staff
review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media
Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on
July 2, 2014. In addition, the
Commission has estimated the number
of licensed noncommercial educational
(NCE) television stations to be 395. NCE
stations are non-profit, and therefore
considered to be small entities.
Therefore, we estimate that the majority
of television broadcast stations are small
entities.
37. We note, however, that in
assessing whether a business concern
qualifies as small under the above
definition, business (control) affiliations
must be included. Our estimate,
therefore, likely overstates the number
of small entities that might be affected
by our action because the revenue figure
on which it is based does not include or
aggregate revenues from affiliated
companies. In addition, an element of
the definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that
the entity not be dominant in its field
of operation. We are 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 does not exclude any television
station from the definition of a small
business on this basis and is therefore
possibly over-inclusive to that extent.
38. Cable and Other Subscription
Programming. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ‘‘This
industry comprises establishments
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Aug 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
primarily engaged in operating studios
and facilities for the broadcasting of
programs on a subscription or fee
basis. . . . These establishments
produce programming in their own
facilities or acquire programming from
external sources. The programming
material is usually delivered to a third
party, such as cable systems or directto-home satellite systems, for
transmission to viewers.’’ The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is: All
such businesses having $35.5 million or
less in annual revenues. Census data for
2007 shows that there were 659
establishments that operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 462
operated with annual revenues of fewer
than $10 million, and 197 operated with
annual revenues of $10 million or more.
Therefore, under this size standard, the
majority of such businesses can be
considered small.
39. Motion Picture and Video
Production. The Census Bureau defines
this category as follows: ‘‘This industry
comprises establishments primarily
engaged in producing, or producing and
distributing motion pictures, videos,
television programs, or television
commercials.’’ We note that firms in this
category may be engaged in various
industries, including cable
programming. Specific figures are not
available regarding how many of these
firms produce programming for cable
television. To gauge small business
prevalence in the Motion Picture and
Video Production industries, the
Commission relies on data currently
available from the U.S. Census for the
year 2007. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for this
category, which is: Those having $30
million or less in annual receipts.
Census data for 2007 shows that there
were 9,095 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 8,995 firms had annual receipts of
fewer than $25 million, and 43 firms
had receipts of $25 million to
$49,999,999. Therefore, under this size
standard, the majority of such
businesses can be considered small.
40. Motion Picture and Video
Distribution. The Census Bureau defines
this category as follows: ‘‘This industry
comprises establishments primarily
engaged in acquiring distribution rights
and distributing film and video
productions to motion picture theaters,
television networks and stations, and
exhibitors.’’ We note that firms in this
category may be engaged in various
industries, including cable
programming. Specific figures are not
available regarding how many of these
firms distribute programming for cable
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
television. To gauge small business
prevalence in the Motion Picture and
Video Distribution industries, the
Commission relies on data currently
available from the U.S. Census for the
year 2007. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for this
category, which is: Those having $29.5
million or less in annual receipts.
Census data for 2007 shows that there
were 450 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 434 firms had annual receipts of
fewer than $25 million, and 7 firms had
receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999.
Therefore, under this size standard, the
majority of such businesses can be
considered small.
41. Internet Publishing and
Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.
The Census Bureau defines this category
as follows: ‘‘This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in (1)
publishing and/or broadcasting content
on the Internet exclusively or (2)
operating Web sites that use a search
engine to generate and maintain
extensive databases of Internet
addresses and content in an easily
searchable format (and known as Web
search portals). The publishing and
broadcasting establishments in this
industry do not provide traditional
(non-Internet) versions of the content
that they publish or broadcast. They
provide textual, audio, and/or video
content of general or specific interest on
the Internet exclusively. Establishments
known as Web search portals often
provide additional Internet services,
such as email, connections to other Web
sites, auctions, news, and other limited
content, and serve as a home base for
Internet users.’’ The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for this
category, which is: All such businesses
having 500 or fewer employees. Census
data for 2007 shows that there were
2,705 firms that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 2,682 firms had fewer
than 500 employees, and 13 firms had
between 500 and 999 employees.
Therefore, under this size standard, the
majority of such businesses can be
considered small.
42. Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ‘‘This
industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing
radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment.
Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and
receiving antennas, cable television
equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
cellular phones, mobile
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
communications equipment, and radio
and television studio and broadcasting
equipment.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for this
category, which is: All such businesses
having 750 or fewer employees. Census
data for 2007 shows that there were 939
establishments that operated for part or
all of the entire year. Of this total, 912
establishments had fewer than 500
employees, and 10 establishments had
between 500 and 999 employees.
Therefore, under this size standard, the
majority of such establishments can be
considered small.
43. Audio and Video Equipment
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ‘‘This
industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing
electronic audio and video equipment
for home entertainment, motor vehicles,
and public address and musical
instrument amplification. Examples of
products made by these establishments
are video cassette recorders, televisions,
stereo equipment, speaker systems,
household-type video cameras,
jukeboxes, and amplifiers for musical
instruments and public address
systems.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for this
category, which is: All such businesses
having 750 or fewer employees. Census
data for 2007 shows that 492
establishments in this category operated
for part or all of the entire year. Of this
total, 488 establishments had fewer than
500 employees, and three had between
500 and 999 employees. Therefore,
under this size standard, the majority of
such establishments can be considered
small.
44. Closed Captioning Services. These
entities may be indirectly affected by
our proposed actions. The SBA has
developed two small business size
standards that may be used for closed
captioning services. The two size
standards track the economic census
categories, ‘‘Teleproduction and Other
Postproduction Services’’ and ‘‘Court
Reporting and Stenotype Services.’’
45. The first category of
Teleproduction and Other
Postproduction Services ‘‘comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
providing specialized motion picture or
video postproduction services, such as
editing, film/tape transfers, subtitling,
credits, closed captioning, and
animation and special effects.’’ The SBA
has developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is:
Those having $29.5 million or less in
annual receipts. Census data for 2007
indicates that there were 1,605 firms
that operated in this category for the
entire year. Of this total, 1,587 firms had
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Aug 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
annual receipts of fewer than $25
million, and 9 firms had receipts of $25
million to $49,999,999. Therefore, we
estimate that the majority of firms in
this category are small entities.
46. The second category of Court
Reporting and Stenotype Services
‘‘comprises establishments primarily
engaged in providing verbatim reporting
and stenotype recording of live legal
proceedings and transcribing
subsequent recorded materials.’’ The
SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category, which is:
Those having $14 million or less in
annual receipts. Census data for 2007
indicates that there were 2,706 firms
that operated in this category for the
entire year. Of this total, 2,687 had
annual receipts of fewer than $10
million, and 11 firms had receipts of
$10 million to $24,999,999. Therefore,
we estimate that the majority of firms in
this category are small entities.
47. Newspaper Publishers. The
Census Bureau defines this category as
follows: ‘‘This industry comprises
establishments known as newspaper
publishers. Establishments in this
industry carry out operations necessary
for producing and distributing
newspapers, including gathering news;
writing news columns, feature stories,
and editorials; and selling and preparing
advertisements.’’ The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is:
Those having 500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2007 shows that there
were 4,852 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 4,771 firms had fewer than 500
employees, and an additional 33 firms
had between 500 and 999 employees.
Therefore, we estimate that the majority
of firms in this category are small
entities.
48. Periodical Publishers. The Census
Bureau defines this category as follows:
‘‘This industry comprises
establishments known either as
magazine publishers or periodical
publishers. These establishments carry
out the operations necessary for
producing and distributing magazines
and other periodicals, such as gathering,
writing, and editing articles, and selling
and preparing advertisements.’’ The
SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category, which is:
Those having 500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2007 shows that there
were 5,479 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 5,434 firms had fewer than 500
employees, and an additional 25 firms
had between 500 and 999 employees.
Therefore, we estimate that the majority
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45405
of firms in this category are small
entities.
4. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
49. Certain proposals discussed in the
2nd FNPRM would affect reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements.
50. The 2nd FNPRM considers four
issues related to the extension of the IP
closed captioning requirements to video
clips as discussed in the Video Clips
Order. First, the 2nd FNPRM seeks
comment on application of the IP closed
captioning requirements to ‘‘third
party’’ video programming providers
and distributors, which are those not
subject to the Video Clips Order.15 Third
party distributors include entities, such
as news Web sites, that do not distribute
full-length video programming but may
sometimes make video clips available
on their Web sites. Third party
distributors also include entities, such
as Hulu, that distribute full-length video
programming online but do not also
distribute such programming on
television. The 2nd FNPRM asks
whether the Commission should impose
the general IP closed captioning rules to
such third parties, or whether any
differing obligations should apply. For
example, the IP closed captioning rules
require each video programming owner,
‘‘[w]ith each video programming
distributor and provider that such
owner licenses to distribute video
programming directly to the end user
through a distribution method that uses
Internet protocol, [to] agree upon a
mechanism to inform such distributors
and providers on an ongoing basis
whether video programming is subject
to the requirements of this section.’’ 16
The 2nd FNPRM asks how this
‘‘mechanism’’ would operate in the
context of video clips covered by these
rules when they are provided to third
party IP distributors. Extension of the IP
closed captioning requirements for
video clips to third party distributors
that are small entities will subject these
entities to the video clips requirements.
Second, the Commission seeks comment
on decreasing or eliminating the grace
period adopted in the Video Clips Order
for providing closed captions on IPdelivered video clips of video
15 The Video Clips Order imposes closed
captioning requirements for IP-delivered video
clips, at the present time, to instances in which the
video programming provider or distributor (as those
terms are defined in the IP closed captioning rules)
posts on its Web site or application a video clip of
video programming that it published or exhibited
on television in the United States with captions on
or after the applicable compliance deadline.
16 47 CFR 79.4(c)(1)(ii).
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
45406
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
programming previously shown live or
near-live on television with captions.
Decreasing or eliminating this grace
period would require all entities,
including smaller entities, to make
captions available more quickly for
video clips of live and near-live
programming. Third, the 2nd FNPRM
asks about application of the
Commission’s IP closed captioning
requirements to files that contain a
combination of one or more video clips
that have been shown on television with
captions and other content (such as
online-only content) that has not been
shown on television with captions
(‘‘mash-ups’’). Extension of the IP closed
captioning requirements to mash-ups
will require all entities, including small
entities, to comply with the
requirements for an additional type of
video clip. Fourth, the Commission
seeks comment on application of the IP
closed captioning rules to ‘‘advance’’
video clips, which are those that are
added to the video programming
distributor’s or provider’s library on or
after January 1, 2016 for straight lift
clips and January 1, 2017 for montages,
but before the associated video
programming is shown on television
with captions on or after the compliance
deadline. Extension of the IP closed
captioning requirements to advance
video clips also will require all entities,
including small entities, to comply with
the requirements for an additional type
of video clip.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered
51. 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.
52. Similar to the rules promulgated
in the accompanying Second Order on
Reconsideration (‘‘Video Clips Order’’),
the proposals contained in the 2nd
FNPRM, if adopted, could have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Although the Commission has
considered (and will continue to
consider) alternatives, where possible,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Aug 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
to minimize economic impact on small
entities, we note that our proposals in
the 2nd FNPRM are governed by the
congressional mandate contained in the
CVAA. We note that in the 2nd FNPRM,
the Commission seeks comment on the
costs and benefits of the proposals on
affected entities, including small
entities.
53. As explained in the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
for the accompanying Video Clips
Order, as well as the FRFA for the IP
Closed Captioning Order, we note that
the same aspects of the IP closed
captioning rules applicable to fulllength programming that ease
compliance burdens on small entities
also apply to small entities in the
context of video clips. Specifically, in
the IP Closed Captioning Order, the
Commission adopted procedures
enabling it to grant exemptions to the
rules governing closed captioning of IPdelivered video programming pursuant
to section 202 of the CVAA, where a
petitioner has shown that compliance
would present an economic burden (i.e.,
a significant difficulty or expense), and
pursuant to section 203 of the CVAA,
where a petitioner has shown that
compliance is not achievable (i.e.,
cannot be accomplished with reasonable
effort or expense) or not technically
feasible. As was the case with regard to
full-length programming, this
exemption process will allow the
Commission to address the impact of
any rule revisions resulting from the
2nd FNPRM on individual entities,
including smaller entities, and to
modify the application of the rules to
accommodate individual circumstances.
Further, as with full-length IP-delivered
video programming, a de minimis
failure to comply with the requirements
adopted pursuant to section 202 of the
CVAA with regard to IP-delivered video
clips will not be treated as a violation,
and parties may continue to use
alternate means of compliance to the
rules adopted pursuant to either section
202 or section 203 of the CVAA.
Individual entities, including smaller
entities, may benefit from these
provisions.
54. The 2nd FNPRM itself also reflects
our consideration of small entities and
significant alternatives. First, the 2nd
FNPRM seeks comment on what types
of entities are included in the category
of third parties that distribute video
clips of programming shown on
television with captions. The
Commission also asks if it should
impose general IP closed captioning
rules in the context of such third
parties, or if it should impose different
obligations. These concerns will allow
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Commission to look into the impact
of the requirements on smaller entities
and to explore alternatives. For
example, the Commission will consider
whether the closed captioning
requirements for video clips should
apply to all third party distributors, or
whether comments demonstrate that the
application to certain small third party
distributors would be economically
burdensome.
55. Second, the 2nd FNPRM seeks
comment on decreasing or eliminating
the grace period applicable to captions
of IP-delivered video clips of live and
near-live programming. Specifically,
beginning July 1, 2017, the Commission
requires the provision of closed captions
on IP-delivered video clips of video
programming previously shown live or
near-live on television with captions
within 12 hours (for live) or eight hours
(for near-live) after the associated video
programming is published or exhibited
on television in the United States with
captions. The Commission expects that
at some time in the future, technology
will automate the process such that the
grace period for captioning is no longer
needed. The Commission seeks
comment on the status of technological
developments in this regard and the
current process through which entities
prepare video clips of live and near-live
programming. This information will
allow the Commission to consider the
impact of decreasing or eliminating the
grace period on all covered entities,
including small entities. The
Commission thus will determine
whether it should decrease or eliminate
the grace period, and it will consider
comments submitted about the impact
of doing so on small entities.
56. Third, the 2nd FNPRM seeks
comment on applying the IP closed
captioning requirements to files that
contain a combination of one or more
video clips that have been televised
with captions and other content (such as
online-only content) that has not been
shown on television with captions
(‘‘mash-ups’’). The Commission asks
how the industry would comply with
such a requirement and whether it will
need to caption the covered material
anew or simply repurpose televised
captions. Thus, the Commission will
continue to consider the impact of its
rules on covered entities, including
small entities, in adopting any rule
revisions. A captioning requirement for
mash-ups will require all entities,
including smaller entities, to caption an
additional category of video clips.
57. Fourth, the 2nd FNPRM seeks
comment on applying the IP closed
captioning rules to ‘‘advance’’ video
clips, which are those that are added to
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
the video programming distributor’s or
provider’s library on or after January 1,
2016 for straight lift clips and January
1, 2017 for montages, but before the
associated video programming is shown
on television with captions on or after
the compliance deadline. The
Commission seeks comment on the
difficulties associated with a captioning
requirement for this category of video
clips, including whether any statutory
exemptions might apply to these clips
or to a subset of these clips. The
information provided in response will
facilitate the Commission’s
consideration of the impact of
application of the IP closed captioning
rules to this category of video clips on
covered entities, including small
entities.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
58. None.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
59. The 2nd FNPRM may result in
new or revised information collection
requirements. If the Commission adopts
any new or revised information
collection requirement, the Commission
will publish a notice in the Federal
Register inviting the public to comment
on the requirement, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might
‘‘further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’
C. Ex Parte Rules
60. Permit-But-Disclose. This
proceeding shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-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
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Aug 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with
§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
§ e 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
D. Filing Requirements
61. Comments and Replies. Pursuant
to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
45407
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
• Commercial 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 must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
62. Availability of Documents.
Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be available for
public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY–
A257, Washington, DC, 20554. These
documents will also be available via
ECFS. Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat.
63. People with Disabilities. 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 FCC’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
E. Additional Information
64. For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Diana Sokolow,
Diana.Sokolow@fcc.gov, of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–
2120.
IV. Ordering Clauses
65. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to the authority found in
sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, and 713 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303,
and 613, this Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
66. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 11–154,
including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–18201 Filed 8–4–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45397-45407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18201]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 79
[MB Docket No. 11-154; FCC 14-97]
Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video
Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications
and Video Accessibility Act of 2010; Closed Captioning of Internet
Protocol-Delivered Video Clips
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on issues
related to closed captioning of video clips delivered using Internet
protocol (``IP''). The Commission explores application of the IP closed
captioning rules for video clips to third party distributors not
currently subject to the new video clips requirements. The Commission
also asks whether it should decrease or eliminate the grace periods
within which IP-delivered video clips of video programming previously
shown live or near-live on television must be captioned. Further, the
Commission invites comment on application of the IP closed captioning
requirements to two additional categories of video clips, which are
called ``mash-ups'' and ``advance'' video clips.
DATES: Comments are due on or before October 6, 2014; reply comments
are due on or before November 3, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 11-154,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site:
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/">fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
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: Diana Sokolow, Diana.Sokolow@fcc.gov,
of the Policy Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2nd FNPRM), FCC 14-97, adopted
on July 11, 2014 and released on July 14, 2014. The full text of this
document is available for public inspection and copying during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554.
This document will also be available via ECFS at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available electronically in
ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete text may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
This 2nd FNPRM seeks comment on a potential new or revised
information collection requirement. If the Commission adopts a new or
revised information collection requirement, the Commission will publish
a separate notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to
comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how
it might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. In the Second Order on Reconsideration (``Video Clips Order''),
the Commission concludes that clips of video programming covered by the
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010
(``CVAA'') must be captioned when delivered using Internet protocol
(``IP'') and adopts rules in that regard. The attached 2nd FNPRM
explores the following four issues related to closed captioning of IP-
delivered video clips:
Application of the IP closed captioning rules to the
provision of video clips by third party video programming providers and
distributors;
Whether in the future we should decrease or eliminate the
12-hour timeframe within which IP-delivered video clips of video
programming previously shown live on television must be captioned and
the eight-hour timeframe within which IP-delivered video clips of video
programming previously shown near-live on television must be captioned;
Application of the IP closed captioning requirements to
files that contain a combination of one or more video clips that have
been shown on television with captions and online-only content that has
not (``mash-ups''); and
Application of the IP closed captioning rules to video
clips that are added to the video programming distributor's or
provider's library on or after January 1, 2016 for straight lift clips
and January 1, 2017 for montages, but before the associated video
programming is shown on television with captions (``advance'' video
clips).
[[Page 45398]]
II. Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
2. In the following 2nd FNPRM we explore four issues related to
closed captioning of IP-delivered video clips: (1) Application of the
IP closed captioning rules to the provision of video clips by third
party video programming providers and distributors, when the associated
video programming has been shown on television with captions; (2)
whether in the future we should decrease or eliminate the 12-hour
timeframe within which captions may be added to IP-delivered video
clips of live programming and the eight-hour timeframe within which
captions may be added to IP-delivered video clips of near-live
programming; (3) application of the IP closed captioning requirements
to files that contain a combination of video clips that have been shown
on television with captions and online-only content (``mash-ups''); and
(4) application of the IP closed captioning rules to video clips that
are first added to the video programming distributor's or provider's
library on or after January 1, 2016 for straight lift clips or January
1, 2017 for montages, but before the associated video programming is
shown on television with captions, and which then remain online in the
distributor's or provider's library after being shown on television.
A. Third Party Video Programming Providers and Distributors
3. Entities such as news Web sites that do not distribute full-
length video programming may sometimes make video clips available on
their Web sites. In addition, some entities, such as Hulu, may
distribute full-length video programming online but do not also
distribute such programming on television. We do not have an adequate
record for purposes of applying the IP closed captioning rules to the
provision of video clips by these and similar entities, which we refer
to as ``third party'' distributors.\1\ Accordingly, we seek comment on
the scope of third party IP distribution of video clips that were taken
from video programming shown on television with captions, the
relationship between such third parties and the video programming
owner, and the costs and benefits of imposing the obligation to caption
video clips on such entities, including small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Video Clips Order imposes closed captioning requirements
for IP-delivered video clips, at the present time, to instances in
which the video programming provider or distributor (as those terms
are defined in the IP closed captioning rules) posts on its Web site
or app a video clip of video programming that it published or
exhibited on television in the United States with captions on or
after the applicable compliance deadline. References herein to
``third party'' distributors should be read to include all video
programming providers and distributors not subject to the Video
Clips Order as a result of this limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. We seek comment on the third parties that distribute video clips
of video programming shown on television with captions. What types of
entities are included in this category, and how many such entities
exist? We request information on the relationship between these third
parties and video programming owners. Do the third parties receive
video clips directly from the video programming owner, or do they
receive video clips for IP distribution in a different manner? What
licensing or other agreements exist between video programming owners
and these third party video programming providers and distributors with
regard to IP-delivered video clips? Do video programming owners
sometimes lack knowledge that third parties are distributing their
video clips via IP, and in what circumstances might that occur? Should
any rules covering third party distributors be limited to those
distributors that have a licensing or other formal agreement with the
video programming owner?
5. How should we ensure that video clips taken from programming
shown on television are successfully captioned by third party
distributors on a timely basis? For example, the general IP closed
captioning rules that apply to full-length programming require video
programming owners to send program files to video programming
distributors and providers with required captions, and they require
video programming providers and distributors to enable the rendering or
pass through of all required captions to the end user. Should we impose
this allocation of responsibility for IP-delivered video clips when the
video programming provider or distributor did not also publish or
exhibit the associated video programming on television? Should we
impose the general IP closed captioning rules in this context, or
should we impose any differing obligations? For example, the IP closed
captioning rules require each video programming owner to agree ``[w]ith
each video programming distributor and provider that such owner
licenses to distribute video programming directly to the end user
through a distribution method that uses Internet protocol . . . upon a
mechanism to inform such distributors and providers on an ongoing basis
whether video programming is subject to the requirements of this
section.'' \2\ How would this ``mechanism'' operate in the context of
video clips covered by these rules when they are provided to third
party IP distributors? How will third party video programming providers
and distributors be informed that a video clip already in their library
has been shown on television with captions? Will the video programming
owner always know that a video clip previously shown as part of
television programming has been posted online and by whom? How should
this impact enforcement, if at all?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 47 CFR 79.4(c)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. If video clips are initially posted online by a third party
distributor without captions and later amended to include captions,
will links to the original posting of the video clip still work? What
other technical, legal or other issues should we be aware of that may
impact the ability of third party video programming distributors to
comply with our IP closed captioning requirements, and how quickly can
they be addressed? We seek comment on what would be an appropriate
compliance period. We also seek comment on what obligations, if any,
should be different when a third party distributor embeds instead of
hosts the content on its Web site.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ When a third party video programming distributor ``embeds''
a video clip, it is directing the consumer's browser or video player
to display a video that is currently hosted on another video
programming distributor's platform. When a third party video
programming distributor ``hosts'' a video clip, it is both directing
the consumer's browser or video player to display the video and
providing the video file itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. We seek comment on our statutory authority over video clips
provided by third party distributors. As explained in the Video Clips
Order (published concurrently with this 2nd FNPRM in the Federal
Register), the CVAA requires that any IP-delivered video programming
that was shown on television with captions, whether full-length or an
excerpt, must also be captioned when delivered using IP. What
requirements do we need to impose in the context of third party
distributors to ensure that we are fulfilling the requirements and
goals of the CVAA, which directs the Commission to require ``the
provision of closed captioning on video programming delivered using
Internet protocol that was published or exhibited on television with
captions after the effective date of such regulations''? \4\ Do any
statutory exemptions apply in this context? For example, should the
Commission exempt any third party video programming distributors or
categories of distributors from its video
[[Page 45399]]
clips captioning obligations on the basis that it would be
``economically burdensome'' for these distributors to comply? \5\ If
so, parties should provide specific reasons for why the economic burden
exemption should apply.\6\ If adopted, should such categorical
exemption expire after a set period of time, subject to renewal if
warranted?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(A).
\5\ 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(D)(ii) (the regulations ``may exempt any
service, class of service, program, class of program, equipment, or
class of equipment for which the Commission has determined that the
application of such regulations would be economically burdensome for
the provider of such service, program, or equipment'').
\6\ Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video
Programming, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 3272, 3342, paras. 143-145
(1997) (setting forth the Commission's treatment of class
exemptions); See Anglers for Christ Ministries, Inc., Memorandum
Opinion and Order, Order, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC
Rcd 14941, 14958-60, paras. 33-36 (2011) (explaining the different
application of the term ``economically burdensome'' to case-by-case
exemptions than to rulemaking decisions to exempt certain categories
of programming''); Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered
Video Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Report and
Order, 27 FCC Rcd 787, 828, para. 67 (2012) (``IP Closed Captioning
Order'') (also noting the distinction between the Commission's
treatment of these two types of captioning exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Grace Period for Live and Near-Live Video Clips
8. As explained in the Video Clips Order, beginning July 1, 2017 we
require the provision of closed captions on IP-delivered video clips of
video programming previously shown live or near-live on television with
captions within 12 hours and eight hours, respectively, after the
associated video programming is published or exhibited on television in
the United States with captions. Herein we seek comment on whether in
the future we should decrease or eliminate this grace period for
providing captions. We seek comment on the costs of imposing a shorter
grace period on covered entities, including small entities, in
comparison to the benefits to consumers of a reduced grace period.
9. We remain concerned about the impact that delayed access to IP-
delivered video clips of live and near-live programming will have on
people who are deaf and hard of hearing. For example, breaking news
aired live on television and initially posted online without closed
captions effectively excludes these individuals from having timely
access to this information. We seek comment on the impact that these
delays will have on people who are deaf and hard of hearing and whether
continuing to allow these delays is consistent with Congress's intent,
as expressed in the CVAA, to improve access to video programming
delivered via the Internet. We also expect that, at some time in the
future, it will be appropriate to decrease or eliminate this grace
period because we expect that technology will automate the process such
that a grace period is no longer needed. We invite comment on the
timeframe within which we should decrease or eliminate the grace period
applicable to video clips of live and near-live programming. For
example, for video clips of live programming, should we provide a grace
period of six hours beginning July 1, 2018, and three hours beginning
July 1, 2019? What adjustments should we make to the grace period for
video clips of near-live programming? We ask commenters to justify any
differing treatment of video clips of live programming and video clips
of near-live programming. We also ask industry to submit specific
comment on the status of technological developments in this regard.
What steps must industry currently take to prepare captioned video
clips of live and near-live programming, and how and when might those
steps be streamlined in the future? To the extent that these delays can
be reduced, would it be appropriate to adopt a schedule of deadlines
phasing in shorter grace periods, and if so, what should these
deadlines be? Would a schedule phasing out these grace periods
encourage greater technical innovation to automate these captioning
processes, as well as provide the necessary time to achieve compliance?
C. Combinations of Video Clips and Content Not Televised With Captions
(``Mash-Ups'')
10. We seek comment on the application of the IP closed captioning
requirements to files that contain a combination of one or more video
clips that have been shown on television with captions, and other
content (such as online-only content) that has not been shown on
television with captions. The industry refers to these files as ``mash-
ups.'' We seek comment on the costs to covered entities, including
small entities, and the benefits of applying the IP closed captioning
requirements to mash-ups. We seek additional information on issues
associated with the captioning of the portion of the clip that was
shown on television with captions. We recognize that any part of the
video clip that was not shown on television with captions, such as
online-only content, would not be subject to the IP closed captioning
requirements.
11. As explained in the Video Clips Order, the CVAA requires that
any IP-delivered video programming that was shown on television with
captions, whether full-length or an excerpt, must also be captioned
when delivered using IP. Is there any statutory basis on which we could
exclude from the IP closed captioning requirements video clips embedded
in mash-ups if the embedded clips were shown on television with
captions? We seek comment on whether this type of clip is subject to
any of the exemptions set forth in section 202 of the CVAA. For
example, if the clips that were shown on television with captions were
very short or insignificant in comparison to the rest of the mash-up
that contains online-only content, would the lack of captions be
considered a ``de minimis'' failure to comply under section 202? If so,
how would the Commission be able to determine what is a ``de minimis''
situation versus one where lack of captions is considered a violation
of our regulations? That is, what would constitute an insignificant or
short enough clip sufficient to invoke the ``de minimis'' exemption?
Alternatively, should the Commission exempt the class of ``mash-ups''
from its IP closed captioning rules on the basis that it would be
``economically burdensome'' for the provider of such clip to comply
with our rules? \7\ If adopted, should such categorical exemption
expire after a set period of time, subject to renewal if warranted?
Parties should provide specific comment on why the Commission's
economic burden test would apply in this situation and how the
Commission should apply this test to this class exemption, if adopted.
Is there any other basis on which the Commission can exclude an
otherwise covered video clip from the IP closed captioning rules,
consistent with the CVAA's direction that the Commission ``require the
provision of closed captioning on video programming delivered using
Internet protocol that was published or exhibited on television with
captions after the effective date''? \8\ For example, if an online
program itself was not shown on television with captions, but rather
only isolated clips embedded in the program were, does that render the
program in its entirety (including integrated clips of televised
captioned programming) outside the scope of the CVAA on the theory that
the whole program is a new work that does not constitute ``video
[[Page 45400]]
programming . . . that was published or exhibited on television with
captions''?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(D)(ii) (the regulations ``may exempt any
service, class of service, program, class of program, equipment, or
class of equipment for which the Commission has determined that the
application of such regulations would be economically burdensome for
the provider of such service, program, or equipment'').
\8\ See 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. We seek comment on the nature of these types of integrated
clips. Industry should give us specific examples of such clips and
describe how prevalent they are. If the Commission applies the IP
closed captioning requirements to one or more video clips that have
been shown on television with captions, regardless of whether these
clips are integrated with other content (such as online-only content)
that has not been shown on television with captions, how will industry
comply with such a requirement? That is, we seek comment on the
technical challenges associated with captioning such clips. Will
industry need to caption the covered material anew, or will it be able
to repurpose televised captions? What would be an appropriate
compliance deadline for captioning of covered clips included in mash-
ups? Would video programming providers and distributors need a grace
period for captioning the covered clips in mash-ups following the
airing of the associated video programming on television with captions
and, if so, what grace period would be appropriate?
D. Advance Video Clips
13. As stated in the Video Clips Order, we find that further
information on the technological challenges of captioning advance video
clips would be useful before we proceed with requiring closed
captioning for such clips. Accordingly, we invite comment on
application of the IP closed captioning rules to advance video clips.
``Advance'' video clips are video clips that are added to the video
programming distributor's or provider's library on or after January 1,
2016 for straight lift clips and January 1, 2017 for montages, when the
associated video programming (including the advance video clips) is
later shown on television with captions on or after the compliance
deadline and the advance video clips remain online.\9\ We defer
application of the IP closed captioning requirements to advance video
clips pending resolution of this issue. We seek comment on the costs to
covered entities, including small entities, and the benefits of
captioning advance video clips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ We clarify that, if a video programming distributor or
provider posts an advance video clip online, and then re-posts that
video clip online after the programming is shown on television with
captions on or after the compliance deadline, the reposted version
of the clip would not be considered an advance clip since it was not
posted before the programming was shown on television with captions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. We understand that video programming distributors and providers
sometimes add video clips to their libraries shortly before the
associated video programming is shown on television with captions, and
we think it is important that IP-delivered advance video clips be made
accessible to consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing once the
programming associated with such clips has been shown on television
with captions. For example, if a broadcast television station places a
clip filmed on location earlier in the day on its Web site shortly
before the station's nightly news program, and then the clip is shown
on television with captions as part of the program, we are concerned
that consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing would not have access to
the content of the clip if it remains uncaptioned online.\10\
Accordingly, we ask whether we should provide a timeframe within which
closed captions may be added to IP-delivered advance video clips, once
the associated video programming is shown on television with captions.
For example, would 24 hours be an appropriate timeframe for the grace
period? If not, what timeframe would balance consumers' desire for
prompt access to IP-delivered advance video clips and industry's need
for time to identify and provide captions on IP-delivered advance video
clips? Should we adopt an initial timeframe for the grace period, and
then decrease or eliminate it over time, in recognition of the
expectation that technology will automate the process such that a grace
period will no longer be needed? What compliance deadline should we
impose for advance clips? We note that in the IP Closed Captioning
Order (77 FR 19480, Mar. 30, 2012), the Commission gave entities a
phased-in timeframe for compliance with respect to the captioning of
full-length programming that is in the video programming provider or
distributor's online library before it is shown on television with
captions. Should a similar approach be adopted here? What is the scope
of the advance clips under consideration? For example, should the scope
include all advance clips, or should it be limited to clips posted
online within a certain timeframe, such as seven days, before the
associated video programming is shown on television? How would any such
limitation be consistent with the CVAA? For what time period should
video programming owners, providers, and distributors be required to
monitor the posting of the advance clip online and the associated video
programming on television? If a commenter proposes a period of time, we
seek additional comment on the justification for such proposal,
including the costs to industry and the benefits to consumers,
including consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Accordingly, we disagree with NCTA that ``[a]ny rule must
exclude these `advance' clips from a captioning obligation, and
should leave to the reasonable judgment of the programmers whether
the `advance clip' retains value such that replacing it with a
captioned version makes sense after the program airs on television
with captions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. What is the nature and extent of the difficulties associated
with captioning advance clips after their associated video programming
has been shown on television with captions? To what extent and for how
long does the industry expect that these technological challenges will
continue to hinder captioning this category of IP-delivered video
clips? In the IP Closed Captioning Order, the Commission required
closed captioning of full-length video programming that is in the
provider's or distributor's library before it is shown on television
with captions, but it extended the deadlines applicable to such
programming in recognition of the need to develop processes for finding
and adding captions to this category of programming.\11\ How should the
Commission justify any differing treatment of advance IP-delivered
video clips? Are any differences in treatment justified by Hulu's
assertion that ``clips have a shorter shelf life for viewership than
long-form content,'' or are Consumer Groups correct that many video
clips ``are likely to live on the Internet indefinitely''? For purposes
of quantifying the burden and difficulty in captioning such clips after
they appear on television with captions after the applicable deadline,
we seek comment on the likely volume of advance video clips in
providers' online libraries. How would the ``mechanism'' referenced
above apply in the context of such video clips, and how would third
party video programming distributors and providers comply with a
requirement to caption them? What is the likelihood that a requirement
to caption advance video clips will result in the removal of these
clips and should that factor into our analysis?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Additionally, instead of requiring captions immediately as
is otherwise the case, the Commission adopted permissible timeframes
between the posting of the program file and updating it to include
closed captions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Even if advance clips are not excerpts of programs shown on
television with captions at the time they are initially posted online,
we invite comment on whether their status changes once the associated
video programming is shown on television with captions thus triggering
the captioning requirement. Are there any
[[Page 45401]]
statutory exemptions that would apply to these clips or to a subset of
these clips? \12\ How would the costs of compliance with such a
captioning requirement for advance clips compare to the benefits to
consumers? We ask video programming providers and distributors to
provide information on their standard practices for removing video
clips previously posted online. Do video clips tend to remain online
indefinitely, and if so, why? What aspects of the practices now used to
post and maintain clips online would need to be changed to comply with
the imposition of closed captioning requirements for advance video
clips?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For example, we note that the statute permits exemptions
due to economic burden. See 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(D)(ii) (permitting
the Commission's implementing regulations to ``exempt any service,
class of service, program, class of program, equipment, or class of
equipment for which the Commission has determined that the
application of such regulations would be economically burdensome for
the provider of such service, program, or equipment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
17. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (``RFA''), the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') concerning the possible
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in the 2nd 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 provided on the first page
of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the 2nd FNPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (``SBA''). In addition, the 2nd FNPRM and IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
18. In the Second Order on Reconsideration attached to the 2nd
FNPRM, as part of the Commission's continued implementation of the
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010
(``CVAA''), the Commission imposes closed captioning requirements on
excerpts of video programming, specifically online video clips. In the
2nd FNPRM attached to that order, the Commission explores the following
four issues related to closed captioning of video clips delivered via
Internet protocol (``IP''):
Application of the IP closed captioning rules to the
provision of video clips by third party video programming providers and
distributors;
Whether in the future we should decrease or eliminate the
12-hour timeframe within which IP-delivered video clips of video
programming previously shown live on television must be captioned and
the eight-hour timeframe within which IP-delivered video clips of video
programming previously shown near-live on television must be captioned;
Application of the IP closed captioning requirements to
files that contain a combination of one or more video clips that have
been shown on television with captions and online-only content that has
not (``mash-ups''); and
Application of the IP closed captioning rules to video
clips that are added to the video programming distributor's or
provider's library on or after January 1, 2016 for straight lift clips
\13\ and January 1, 2017 for montages,\14\ but before the associated
video programming is shown on television with captions (``advance''
video clips).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ``Straight lift'' clips are those that contain a single
excerpt of a captioned television program with the same video and
audio that was presented on television.
\14\ ``Montages'' contain multiple straight lift clips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Legal Basis
19. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i),
4(j), 303, and 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, and 613.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposals Will Apply
20. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will
be affected by the rules proposed in the Second Order on
Reconsideration. 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 Small Business Administration
(``SBA''). Small entities that may be directly affected by the
proposals in the 2nd FNPRM are those entities that distribute IP-
delivered clips of video programming and the owners of such
programming. Such small entities may include television broadcasters,
multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), programmers, and
other entities that own or distribute video programming. Below are
descriptions of the small entities that may be affected by the rules
proposed in the 2nd FNPRM, including, where feasible, an estimate of
the number of such small entities. In addition, because the 2nd FNPRM
considers application of the IP closed captioning rules to the
provision of video clips by third party video programming providers and
distributors, and because of the difficulty of identifying all such
third party video programming providers and distributors, we seek
specific comment on whether such small entities are covered by the
categories listed below and, if not, on how to identify and estimate
such small entities.
21. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards.
First, according to the SBA Office of Advocacy, in 2010, there were
27.9 million small businesses in the United States. In addition, a
``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.'' 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, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census Bureau data for 2011
indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. We estimate that, of this total, a substantial majority
may qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate
that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
22. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS'') defines ``Wired Telecommunications
Carriers'' as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired
[[Page 45402]]
telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a
single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in
this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that
they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video
programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. By
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are
included in this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for wireline firms for the broad economic census category
of ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' Under this category, a
wireline business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census
data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer
than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees.
Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of
businesses can be considered small entities.
23. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these
services have been defined within the broad economic census category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which category is defined above. The
SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category,
which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census
data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer
than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees.
Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of
businesses can be considered small entities.
24. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed
its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate
regulation. Under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a ``small
cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers,
nationwide. According to SNL Kagan, there are 1,258 cable operators. Of
this total, all but 10 incumbent cable companies are small under this
size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a ``small
system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Current
Commission records show 4,584 cable systems nationwide. Of this total,
4,012 cable systems have fewer than 20,000 subscribers, and 572 systems
have 20,000 subscribers or more, based on the same records. Thus, under
this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small.
25. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator 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.'' The Commission has determined that an
operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small
operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual
revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the
aggregate. Based on available data, we find that all but 10 incumbent
cable operators are small under this size standard. We note that the
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual
revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of
these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable to estimate with
greater precision the number of cable system operators that would
qualify as small cable operators under this definition.
26. 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. DBS, by exception, is now included in the
SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this
category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996
establishments that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 30,178
establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments
had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the
majority of such businesses can be considered small. However, the data
we have available as a basis for estimating the number of such small
entities were gathered under a superseded SBA small business size
standard formerly titled ``Cable and Other Program Distribution.'' The
definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution provided that a
small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts.
Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a
great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network.
Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV and DISH Network
each reports annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a
small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, we
believe it is unlikely that a small entity as defined by the SBA would
have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS service provider.
27. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known
as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video
distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without
using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and
distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple
dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial
multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV
systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census
category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for
small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a
wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had
fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more
employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such
businesses can be considered small.
28. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish
segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home
service offered to consumers, and involves the home reception of
signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band
frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are
between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of
unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from
program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt
of video programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD
falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this
category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2007 shows
[[Page 45403]]
that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this
total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818
establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered
small entities.
29. Open Video Services. The open video system (OVS) framework was
established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options
for the provision of video programming services by local exchange
carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution
of video programming other than through cable systems. 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 businesses having
1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were
31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178
establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments
had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we
estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small
entities. In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some
OVS operators, with some now providing service. Broadband service
providers (``BSPs'') are currently the only significant holders of OVS
certifications or local OVS franchises. The Commission does not have
financial or employment information regarding the entities authorized
to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. Thus, again,
at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.
30. 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. The BRS auctions resulted in 67
successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic
Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition
of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized
prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small
business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In
addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there
are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small
entities. After adding the number of small business auction licensees
to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we find that
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, the sale of 78 licenses in
the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits:
(i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed
$15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years
(small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid;
(ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed
$3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years
(very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning
bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues
that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years
(entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid.
Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. 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.
31. 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. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad
economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which
was developed for small wireline businesses. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for this category, which is: All such
businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows
that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this
total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818
establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered
small entities. In addition to Census data, the Commission's internal
records indicate that as of September 2012, there are 2,241 active EBS
licenses. The Commission estimates that of these 2,241 licenses, the
majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school
districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.
32. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. ILECs are included
in the SBA's economic census category, Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows
that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this
total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818
establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.
33. Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. We have included small
incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. A
``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the
pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone
communications business having 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 incumbent local exchange
carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such
dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included
small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although
we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses
and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
34. 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.
These entities are included in the SBA's economic census category,
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under this category, the SBA deems a
wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that
operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than
100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees.
Therefore, under this size
[[Page 45404]]
standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.
35. Television Broadcasting. This economic census category
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images
together with sound.'' The SBA has created the following small business
size standard for Television Broadcasting businesses: Those having
$35.5 million or less in annual receipts. Census data for 2007 shows
that 2,076 establishments in this category operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 1,515 establishments had annual receipts of
$10,000,000 or less, and 561 establishments had annual receipts of more
than $10,000,000. Because the Census has no additional classifications
on the basis of which to identify the number of stations whose receipts
exceeded $35.5 million in that year, the majority of such
establishments can be considered small under this size standard.
36. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the
number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,388 stations.
Of this total, 1,221 stations (or about 88 percent) had revenues of
$35.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA
Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on July 2, 2014.
In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed
noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 395. NCE
stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.
Therefore, we estimate that the majority of television broadcast
stations are small entities.
37. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern
qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control)
affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our
action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include
or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an
element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity not
be dominant in its field of operation. We are 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 does not
exclude any television station from the definition of a small business
on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.
38. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities
for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis. . . .
These establishments produce programming in their own facilities or
acquire programming from external sources. The programming material is
usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-
home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers.'' The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is:
All such businesses having $35.5 million or less in annual revenues.
Census data for 2007 shows that there were 659 establishments that
operated for the entire year. Of that number, 462 operated with annual
revenues of fewer than $10 million, and 197 operated with annual
revenues of $10 million or more. Therefore, under this size standard,
the majority of such businesses can be considered small.
39. Motion Picture and Video Production. The Census Bureau defines
this category as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in producing, or producing and distributing motion
pictures, videos, television programs, or television commercials.'' We
note that firms in this category may be engaged in various industries,
including cable programming. Specific figures are not available
regarding how many of these firms produce programming for cable
television. To gauge small business prevalence in the Motion Picture
and Video Production industries, the Commission relies on data
currently available from the U.S. Census for the year 2007. The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is:
Those having $30 million or less in annual receipts. Census data for
2007 shows that there were 9,095 firms in this category that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 8,995 firms had annual receipts of
fewer than $25 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $25 million to
$49,999,999. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such
businesses can be considered small.
40. Motion Picture and Video Distribution. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in acquiring distribution rights and
distributing film and video productions to motion picture theaters,
television networks and stations, and exhibitors.'' We note that firms
in this category may be engaged in various industries, including cable
programming. Specific figures are not available regarding how many of
these firms distribute programming for cable television. To gauge small
business prevalence in the Motion Picture and Video Distribution
industries, the Commission relies on data currently available from the
U.S. Census for the year 2007. The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category, which is: Those having $29.5 million
or less in annual receipts. Census data for 2007 shows that there were
450 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 434 firms had annual receipts of fewer than $25 million, and 7
firms had receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. Therefore, under this
size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.
41. Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.
The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: ``This industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in (1) publishing and/or
broadcasting content on the Internet exclusively or (2) operating Web
sites that use a search engine to generate and maintain extensive
databases of Internet addresses and content in an easily searchable
format (and known as Web search portals). The publishing and
broadcasting establishments in this industry do not provide traditional
(non-Internet) versions of the content that they publish or broadcast.
They provide textual, audio, and/or video content of general or
specific interest on the Internet exclusively. Establishments known as
Web search portals often provide additional Internet services, such as
email, connections to other Web sites, auctions, news, and other
limited content, and serve as a home base for Internet users.'' The SBA
has developed a small business size standard for this category, which
is: All such businesses having 500 or fewer employees. Census data for
2007 shows that there were 2,705 firms that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 2,682 firms had fewer than 500 employees, and 13
firms had between 500 and 999 employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.
42. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
[[Page 45405]]
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 750 or
fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 939
establishments that operated for part or all of the entire year. Of
this total, 912 establishments had fewer than 500 employees, and 10
establishments had between 500 and 999 employees. Therefore, under this
size standard, the majority of such establishments can be considered
small.
43. Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing electronic audio and
video equipment for home entertainment, motor vehicles, and public
address and musical instrument amplification. Examples of products made
by these establishments are video cassette recorders, televisions,
stereo equipment, speaker systems, household-type video cameras,
jukeboxes, and amplifiers for musical instruments and public address
systems.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
this category, which is: All such businesses having 750 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2007 shows that 492 establishments in this
category operated for part or all of the entire year. Of this total,
488 establishments had fewer than 500 employees, and three had between
500 and 999 employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the
majority of such establishments can be considered small.
44. Closed Captioning Services. These entities may be indirectly
affected by our proposed actions. The SBA has developed two small
business size standards that may be used for closed captioning
services. The two size standards track the economic census categories,
``Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services'' and ``Court
Reporting and Stenotype Services.''
45. The first category of Teleproduction and Other Postproduction
Services ``comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing
specialized motion picture or video postproduction services, such as
editing, film/tape transfers, subtitling, credits, closed captioning,
and animation and special effects.'' The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for this category, which is: Those having $29.5
million or less in annual receipts. Census data for 2007 indicates that
there were 1,605 firms that operated in this category for the entire
year. Of this total, 1,587 firms had annual receipts of fewer than $25
million, and 9 firms had receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999.
Therefore, we estimate that the majority of firms in this category are
small entities.
46. The second category of Court Reporting and Stenotype Services
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing verbatim
reporting and stenotype recording of live legal proceedings and
transcribing subsequent recorded materials.'' The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for this category, which is: Those having
$14 million or less in annual receipts. Census data for 2007 indicates
that there were 2,706 firms that operated in this category for the
entire year. Of this total, 2,687 had annual receipts of fewer than $10
million, and 11 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.
Therefore, we estimate that the majority of firms in this category are
small entities.
47. Newspaper Publishers. The Census Bureau defines this category
as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments known as newspaper
publishers. Establishments in this industry carry out operations
necessary for producing and distributing newspapers, including
gathering news; writing news columns, feature stories, and editorials;
and selling and preparing advertisements.'' The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for this category, which is: Those having
500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were
4,852 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 4,771 firms had fewer than 500 employees, and an additional 33
firms had between 500 and 999 employees. Therefore, we estimate that
the majority of firms in this category are small entities.
48. Periodical Publishers. The Census Bureau defines this category
as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments known either as
magazine publishers or periodical publishers. These establishments
carry out the operations necessary for producing and distributing
magazines and other periodicals, such as gathering, writing, and
editing articles, and selling and preparing advertisements.'' The SBA
has developed a small business size standard for this category, which
is: Those having 500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows
that there were 5,479 firms in this category that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 5,434 firms had fewer than 500 employees,
and an additional 25 firms had between 500 and 999 employees.
Therefore, we estimate that the majority of firms in this category are
small entities.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
49. Certain proposals discussed in the 2nd FNPRM would affect
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
50. The 2nd FNPRM considers four issues related to the extension of
the IP closed captioning requirements to video clips as discussed in
the Video Clips Order. First, the 2nd FNPRM seeks comment on
application of the IP closed captioning requirements to ``third party''
video programming providers and distributors, which are those not
subject to the Video Clips Order.\15\ Third party distributors include
entities, such as news Web sites, that do not distribute full-length
video programming but may sometimes make video clips available on their
Web sites. Third party distributors also include entities, such as
Hulu, that distribute full-length video programming online but do not
also distribute such programming on television. The 2nd FNPRM asks
whether the Commission should impose the general IP closed captioning
rules to such third parties, or whether any differing obligations
should apply. For example, the IP closed captioning rules require each
video programming owner, ``[w]ith each video programming distributor
and provider that such owner licenses to distribute video programming
directly to the end user through a distribution method that uses
Internet protocol, [to] agree upon a mechanism to inform such
distributors and providers on an ongoing basis whether video
programming is subject to the requirements of this section.'' \16\ The
2nd FNPRM asks how this ``mechanism'' would operate in the context of
video clips covered by these rules when they are provided to third
party IP distributors. Extension of the IP closed captioning
requirements for video clips to third party distributors that are small
entities will subject these entities to the video clips requirements.
Second, the Commission seeks comment on decreasing or eliminating the
grace period adopted in the Video Clips Order for providing closed
captions on IP-delivered video clips of video
[[Page 45406]]
programming previously shown live or near-live on television with
captions. Decreasing or eliminating this grace period would require all
entities, including smaller entities, to make captions available more
quickly for video clips of live and near-live programming. Third, the
2nd FNPRM asks about application of the Commission's IP closed
captioning requirements to files that contain a combination of one or
more video clips that have been shown on television with captions and
other content (such as online-only content) that has not been shown on
television with captions (``mash-ups''). Extension of the IP closed
captioning requirements to mash-ups will require all entities,
including small entities, to comply with the requirements for an
additional type of video clip. Fourth, the Commission seeks comment on
application of the IP closed captioning rules to ``advance'' video
clips, which are those that are added to the video programming
distributor's or provider's library on or after January 1, 2016 for
straight lift clips and January 1, 2017 for montages, but before the
associated video programming is shown on television with captions on or
after the compliance deadline. Extension of the IP closed captioning
requirements to advance video clips also will require all entities,
including small entities, to comply with the requirements for an
additional type of video clip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The Video Clips Order imposes closed captioning
requirements for IP-delivered video clips, at the present time, to
instances in which the video programming provider or distributor (as
those terms are defined in the IP closed captioning rules) posts on
its Web site or application a video clip of video programming that
it published or exhibited on television in the United States with
captions on or after the applicable compliance deadline.
\16\ 47 CFR 79.4(c)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
51. 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.
52. Similar to the rules promulgated in the accompanying Second
Order on Reconsideration (``Video Clips Order''), the proposals
contained in the 2nd FNPRM, if adopted, could have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although the
Commission has considered (and will continue to consider) alternatives,
where possible, to minimize economic impact on small entities, we note
that our proposals in the 2nd FNPRM are governed by the congressional
mandate contained in the CVAA. We note that in the 2nd FNPRM, the
Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of the proposals on
affected entities, including small entities.
53. As explained in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) for the accompanying Video Clips Order, as well as the FRFA for
the IP Closed Captioning Order, we note that the same aspects of the IP
closed captioning rules applicable to full-length programming that ease
compliance burdens on small entities also apply to small entities in
the context of video clips. Specifically, in the IP Closed Captioning
Order, the Commission adopted procedures enabling it to grant
exemptions to the rules governing closed captioning of IP-delivered
video programming pursuant to section 202 of the CVAA, where a
petitioner has shown that compliance would present an economic burden
(i.e., a significant difficulty or expense), and pursuant to section
203 of the CVAA, where a petitioner has shown that compliance is not
achievable (i.e., cannot be accomplished with reasonable effort or
expense) or not technically feasible. As was the case with regard to
full-length programming, this exemption process will allow the
Commission to address the impact of any rule revisions resulting from
the 2nd FNPRM on individual entities, including smaller entities, and
to modify the application of the rules to accommodate individual
circumstances. Further, as with full-length IP-delivered video
programming, a de minimis failure to comply with the requirements
adopted pursuant to section 202 of the CVAA with regard to IP-delivered
video clips will not be treated as a violation, and parties may
continue to use alternate means of compliance to the rules adopted
pursuant to either section 202 or section 203 of the CVAA. Individual
entities, including smaller entities, may benefit from these
provisions.
54. The 2nd FNPRM itself also reflects our consideration of small
entities and significant alternatives. First, the 2nd FNPRM seeks
comment on what types of entities are included in the category of third
parties that distribute video clips of programming shown on television
with captions. The Commission also asks if it should impose general IP
closed captioning rules in the context of such third parties, or if it
should impose different obligations. These concerns will allow the
Commission to look into the impact of the requirements on smaller
entities and to explore alternatives. For example, the Commission will
consider whether the closed captioning requirements for video clips
should apply to all third party distributors, or whether comments
demonstrate that the application to certain small third party
distributors would be economically burdensome.
55. Second, the 2nd FNPRM seeks comment on decreasing or
eliminating the grace period applicable to captions of IP-delivered
video clips of live and near-live programming. Specifically, beginning
July 1, 2017, the Commission requires the provision of closed captions
on IP-delivered video clips of video programming previously shown live
or near-live on television with captions within 12 hours (for live) or
eight hours (for near-live) after the associated video programming is
published or exhibited on television in the United States with
captions. The Commission expects that at some time in the future,
technology will automate the process such that the grace period for
captioning is no longer needed. The Commission seeks comment on the
status of technological developments in this regard and the current
process through which entities prepare video clips of live and near-
live programming. This information will allow the Commission to
consider the impact of decreasing or eliminating the grace period on
all covered entities, including small entities. The Commission thus
will determine whether it should decrease or eliminate the grace
period, and it will consider comments submitted about the impact of
doing so on small entities.
56. Third, the 2nd FNPRM seeks comment on applying the IP closed
captioning requirements to files that contain a combination of one or
more video clips that have been televised with captions and other
content (such as online-only content) that has not been shown on
television with captions (``mash-ups''). The Commission asks how the
industry would comply with such a requirement and whether it will need
to caption the covered material anew or simply repurpose televised
captions. Thus, the Commission will continue to consider the impact of
its rules on covered entities, including small entities, in adopting
any rule revisions. A captioning requirement for mash-ups will require
all entities, including smaller entities, to caption an additional
category of video clips.
57. Fourth, the 2nd FNPRM seeks comment on applying the IP closed
captioning rules to ``advance'' video clips, which are those that are
added to
[[Page 45407]]
the video programming distributor's or provider's library on or after
January 1, 2016 for straight lift clips and January 1, 2017 for
montages, but before the associated video programming is shown on
television with captions on or after the compliance deadline. The
Commission seeks comment on the difficulties associated with a
captioning requirement for this category of video clips, including
whether any statutory exemptions might apply to these clips or to a
subset of these clips. The information provided in response will
facilitate the Commission's consideration of the impact of application
of the IP closed captioning rules to this category of video clips on
covered entities, including small entities.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
58. None.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
59. The 2nd FNPRM may result in new or revised information
collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any new or revised
information collection requirement, the Commission will publish a
notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the
requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
C. Ex Parte Rules
60. Permit-But-Disclose. 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 presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Sec. e 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
D. Filing Requirements
61. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
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. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial 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 must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
62. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington,
DC, 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents
will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe
Acrobat.
63. People with Disabilities. 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 FCC's
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice),
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).
E. Additional Information
64. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Diana
Sokolow, Diana.Sokolow@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy Division,
(202) 418-2120.
IV. Ordering Clauses
65. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
found in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, and 713 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, and 613, this Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
66. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket
No. 11-154, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18201 Filed 8-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
