Proposed Rule2024-17071
Closed Captioning of Video Programming
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 2, 2024
Effective
September 3, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to amend its closed captioning rules to relieve video programmers that provide programming exclusively to Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) channels that are exempt from the closed captioning requirements from the obligation to register with the Commission and certify captioning compliance. In addition, for programming carried on nonbroadcast networks for distribution by a cable operator or other multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD), the Commission proposes that captioning registration and certification requirements shall not apply to the providers of such programming if the network itself certifies that it is exempt or that all programming comprising the network's linear line-up is either exempt from or compliant with the closed captioning rules. This action is intended to simplify compliance procedures and reduce administrative costs for video programmers, without compromising the quality and availability of closed captioning.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 149 (Friday, August 2, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63135-63139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-17071]
[[Page 63135]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 79
[CG Docket No. 05-231; FCC 24-80, FR ID 235802]
Closed Captioning of Video Programming
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to
amend its closed captioning rules to relieve video programmers that
provide programming exclusively to Public, Educational, and
Governmental (PEG) channels that are exempt from the closed captioning
requirements from the obligation to register with the Commission and
certify captioning compliance. In addition, for programming carried on
nonbroadcast networks for distribution by a cable operator or other
multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD), the Commission
proposes that captioning registration and certification requirements
shall not apply to the providers of such programming if the network
itself certifies that it is exempt or that all programming comprising
the network's linear line-up is either exempt from or compliant with
the closed captioning rules. This action is intended to simplify
compliance procedures and reduce administrative costs for video
programmers, without compromising the quality and availability of
closed captioning.
DATES: Comments are due September 3, 2024. Reply comments are due
September 16, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 05-231,
via the Federal Communications Commission's website: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
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: Joshua Mendelsohn, Disability Rights
Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at 202-559-7304, or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f35100c170a1e51321a111b1a130c1017113f191c1c51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a002539223f2b64072f242e2f26392522240a2c2929642d253c">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 24-80, adopted on
July 16, 2024, released on July 18, 2024, in CG Docket No. 05-231. The
full text of document FCC 24-80 is available for public inspection and
copying via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d8bebbbbede8ec98bebbbbf6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4a2a7a7f1f4f084a2a7a7eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
at (202) 418-0530.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
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).
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
<bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a
brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary
of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for
which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable
.pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves
with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Document FCC 24-80 may result in a new or revised information
collection requirement. 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. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
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
Background
Section 713 of the Communications Act (the Act) directs the
Commission to
[[Page 63136]]
ensure that video programming is fully accessible through the provision
of closed captioning. 47 U.S.C. 613(b). At present, all new English and
Spanish language video programming, both analog and digital, and 75
percent of pre-rule video programming that is not exempt from the
Commission's rules must be captioned. 47 CFR 79.1(b). Programming is
exempt from the Commission's captioning rules if it (1) falls into one
of 13 self-implementing, categorical exemptions, 47 CFR 79.1(d), or (2)
has been granted an individual exemption from the closed captioning
obligations after making a showing that providing captions would be
economically burdensome. 47 U.S.C. 613(d)(3); 47 CFR 79.1(f).
Categorical or individual captioning exemptions may apply on a channel-
wide or program-by-program basis.
Since the inception of the Commission's closed captioning rules,
the Commission has assigned primary responsibility for the provision of
closed captioning on television programming to video programming
distributors (VPDs). In 2014, the Commission added quality requirements
for captions. In 2016, the Commission also placed captioning
obligations on video programmers, as well as VPDs, and adopted
requirements for each video programmer to register with the Commission
and certify compliance with the captioning rules. Video programmers are
required to register and submit certifications of compliance to the
Commission once the Commission's website is ready to receive such
certifications and a compliance date is published in the Federal
Register.
Section 611 of the Act allows cable franchising authorities to
establish requirements in a franchise with respect to designation or
use of channel capacity for PEG use. Public access channels are
available for the general public's use and typically are administered
either by a cable operator or by a third party designated by the
franchising authority. Programming time on educational access channels
is typically allocated among local schools, colleges and universities
by the franchising authority or the cable operator. Governmental access
channels generally are controlled by local governments, which use these
channels for governmental programming in their jurisdictions.
In a petition filed in August 2016, the Alliance for Community
Media (ACM) requests that the closed captioning registration and
certification requirements be waived for program producers that provide
programs exclusively over PEG channels. ACM states that the vast
majority of PEG channels fall within one or more of the Commission's
closed captioning exemption categories, e.g., because the channel
produces annual revenue less than $3,000,000. Requiring each PEG
program producer to register and certify compliance for its video
programming on channels that are themselves exempt, ACM argues, would
impose a significant and unnecessary burden on such programmers and
needlessly clutter the Commission's registration system. The Commission
sought and received comments on this petition.
In its comments, NCTA requests a clarification that video program
owners (VPOs) of individual programs included in linear program
networks distributed by MVPDs need not register or certify compliance
with the captioning rules--or alternatively, that such obligations are
waived if the network itself certifies compliance. NCTA suggests that a
program-by-program certification or registration for each program
licensed to a network for distribution by an MVPD is unnecessary.
The Commission proposes to amend its rules to provide that the
closed-caption registration and certification requirements do not apply
to any video programmer that provides video programming exclusively to
PEG channels that are exempt on a channel-wide basis (under either a
self-implementing exemption or the economic-burden exemption) and for
which exemption certifications have been filed by the channel
administrator. The Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which
cable operators or other PEG channel administrators would be able, if
they chose, to file accurate certifications of captioning compliance or
exemption for the programming carried on non-exempt PEG channels, i.e.,
those PEG channels that do not qualify for a channel-wide exemption.
Finally, the Commission proposes to amend the captioning rules to
provide that the registration and certification requirements do not
apply to any video programmer that only licenses video programming to a
nonbroadcast network for distribution by a cable operator or other
MVPD, if such network has registered and certified to the Commission
that the network itself is exempt or that all the programming
comprising its linear line-up is either compliant with captioning
obligations or exempt.
Exempt PEG Channels. The Commission tentatively concludes that the
purpose of its captioning rules--to ensure the accessibility of all
video programming for which an exemption from captioning is not
warranted--is not served by requiring video programmers to file
registrations and certifications if their programs are distributed
exclusively on exempt PEG channels for which an exemption certification
has been filed. The record indicates that most PEG programs are
exhibited on PEG channels that are themselves exempt from the
Commission's captioning rules, and for which an exemption certification
could be filed by the channel administrator. Requiring that PEG
programmers also certify to the same exemptions, ACM and others
contend, would result in the filing of redundant exemption
certifications by thousands of PEG programmers. A number of commenters
point out that this would be burdensome and would serve no useful
purpose. So long as the PEG channel administrator files the required
contact information and a certification attesting to the channel's
exemption from the captioning rules, the record to date suggests that
consumers will have access to the information intended by the
certification requirement, and that the Commission will have sufficient
documentation to ensure accountability for compliance with its rules.
Under the Commission's proposal, the PEG channel administrator would be
responsible for the truthfulness of its certification. The Commission
seeks comment on its tentative conclusion and its underlying rationale.
If the rules are amended as the Commission proposes, the Commission
anticipates that most administrators of exempt PEG channels will
certify as to the channel's exempt status. The Commission seeks comment
on this expectation. In instances where a channel administrator does
not register and certify, the Commission does not propose to relieve
individual video programmers of their obligations to comply with the
registration and certification requirements.
Non-Exempt PEG Channels. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether there are circumstances in which video programmers whose
programs are carried on non-exempt PEG channels should be relieved from
registration and certification obligations. A non-exempt PEG channel is
a PEG channel that does not qualify on a channel-wide basis for a
categorical or individual exemption based on its revenues or the type
of programming it carries. Specifically, are there instances in which
the administrator of a non-exempt PEG channel would have the ability to
certify that all the programming carried on the channel is either
compliant with or exempt from
[[Page 63137]]
captioning obligations, thereby making it unnecessary for the
individual programmers to provide certifications? The Commission notes
that, because section 611(e) of the Act bars a cable operator from
exercising editorial control over PEG channels, 47 U.S.C. 531(e),
Commission rules do not require cable operators to provide closed
captioning for PEG channel programming. 47 CFR 79.1. Where a PEG
channel is administered by a cable operator, the Commission seeks
comment on the extent to which, consistent with section 611(e) of the
Act and Commission rules, a cable operator would be able to make
accurate certifications of captioning compliance for video programming
distributed on non-exempt PEG channels. Are other PEG channel
administrators--such as government agencies, educational institutions,
and designees of franchising authorities--able, as a factual matter, to
make accurate certifications as to the exemption or captioning
compliance of programming carried on non-exempt PEG channels? Do public
interest considerations weigh in favor of or against the Commission
relying on such certifications by cable operators or other
administrators of non-exempt PEG channels? To the extent that the
administrators of non-exempt PEG channels are able and willing to make
such certifications, should the Commission amend its rules to relieve
video programmers from filing duplicative certifications (as well as
registration information) in such cases?
To be clear, the Commission is not proposing to require that cable
operators or other PEG channel administrators submit certifications
regarding any PEG channels or PEG channel programming; rather, the
Commission seeks comment on the extent to which such certifications are
feasible--i.e., whether they could be accurately made, on a voluntary
basis, to ease a regulatory burden that, under the current rules, would
fall on producers of video programming carried on non-exempt PEG
channels--and on whether to modify the Commission's rules to permit
this.
Effect on Caption Quality. The Commission seeks comment on whether,
and if so how, its proposed rule amendments would affect the quality of
closed captioning on exempt and non-exempt PEG channels. The Commission
further requests that all commenters identify costs and benefits to
support their positions. The Commission notes that it does not propose
any change in any video programmer's substantive captioning obligations
for non-exempt programming. Accordingly, each such video programmer
must either qualify individually for an exemption or provide closed
captions. 47 CFR 79.1(b). The Commission also notes that even if a PEG
channel is exempt under the Commission's rules, PEG channel
administrators and the associated video programmers may still have
obligations under other federal laws, such as the Americans with
Disabilities Act, to make their video programming accessible to
individuals with disabilities. Further, if the administrator of a PEG
channel does not certify to the compliance or exemption of all
programming on the channel, the providers of such programming would
remain subject to the registration and certification requirements.
Nonbroadcast Network Programming. The Commission tentatively
concludes that closed captioning registration and certification
requirements should not apply to video programmers that provide or
license video programming exclusively to a nonbroadcast network for
distribution by a cable operator or other MVPD if such network has
filed registration information and a certification with the Commission
indicating that (1) the network itself is exempt or (2) all programming
comprising its linear line-up is compliant with or exempt from
captioning obligations. Conversely, if a nonbroadcast network does not
certify that it is itself fully exempt, or that each of the programs
comprising its channel line-up is in compliance with, or exempt from,
the closed captioning obligations, each video programmer that provides
programming on such network will remain subject to the registration and
certification requirements. As an example, if the proposed rules are
adopted, a food or sports network would continue to have an obligation
to register with the Commission and certify the overall compliance of
their programming with the captioning rules--or with applicable
exemptions therefrom. However, the individual programmers that provide
programs shown on these networks--such as baking shows and cooking
contests in the case of a food network, and football and baseball games
in the case of a sports network--would not be obligated to make these
filings so long as their networks meet their own filing requirements.
Nonbroadcast networks are those networks whose programming is
delivered via MVPDs, such as cable systems or satellite services. The
Commission includes local and regional cable channels, such as local
and regional cable news and sports channels, within the meaning of the
term nonbroadcast networks. The Commission does not include PEG
channels within the meaning of the term nonbroadcast networks.
Nonbroadcast networks are themselves ``video programmers'' under the
Commission's captioning rules. See 47 CFR 79.1(a)(9). Therefore, after
the compliance date for registration and certification by video
programmers, each nonbroadcast network must register with the
Commission and annually certify either that the network itself is
exempt or that each of the programs comprising its channel line-up is
compliant with (or exempt from) the captioning rules. 47 CFR
79.1(i)(3), (m). These nonbroadcast networks must identify the
categories of exemptions that are claimed, although they need not
provide specific details, such as the names and timeslots for each such
program.
In light of these existing registration and certification
requirements for nonbroadcast networks, the Commission tentatively
concludes that it would be unnecessarily duplicative for potentially
thousands of program owners that supply programming exclusively to
nonbroadcast networks to also register and file annual certifications
with the Commission for the same programming addressed in the networks'
filings. It appears that such redundant certifications would impose
significant and unnecessary regulatory burdens. The Commission seeks
comment on its tentative conclusion and its underlying rationale. Will
the registration and certifications made by nonbroadcast networks
provide the necessary information for consumers and the Commission to
ensure accountability with and enforcement of Commission rules?
Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of any advocated
approach.
Digital Equity and Inclusion. The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people
of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or
Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved,
marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty or
inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the issues discussed
herein. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how any
Commission actions taken to address barriers to the distribution of
independent and diverse programming may promote or inhibit advances in
diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
[[Page 63138]]
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities of the policies and rules proposed in this document. The
Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments specified on the first page of this document.
Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules
The Commission proposes to modify the video programmer registration
and certification requirements by not applying those requirements to
video programmers that either: provide video programming exclusively to
public, educational, and governmental access channels (PEG channels)
that are exempt from the provision of closed captioning pursuant to
Sec. 79.1(d) or (f) of the Commission's rules, or that certify
compliance with or exemption from the closed captioning obligations for
all programming shown over the PEG channel itself; or provide or
license video programming to nonbroadcast networks for distribution by
a cable operator or other MVPD, to the extent that such networks
certify that the network itself is exempt, or certify compliance with
or exemption from the closed captioning obligations for all programming
comprising the network's linear line-up. The purpose of this proposed
rule change is to relieve providers of video programming to cable or
other multichannel systems from the obligation to register with the
Commission and to certify captioning compliance if the relevant
certification has been filed by another competent entity.
Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized under sections 151,
154(i), 154(j), 303(r) and 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 613.
Small Entities Impacted. The proposals will affect obligations of
small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions; establishments primarily engaged in operating studios
and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or
fee basis; establishments primarily engaged in producing, or producing
and distributing motion pictures, videos, television programs, or
television commercials; closed captioning services--teleproduction and
other postproduction services; and court reporting and stenotype
services.
Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
The Commission proposes to amend the rules to not apply
registration and certification requirements to those video programmers
that either provide video programming exclusively to PEG access
channels that are exempt from the provision of closed captioning or
that certify compliance with or exemption from the closed captioning
obligations for all programming shown over the PEG channel itself; or
provide or license video programming to nonbroadcast networks, to the
extent that such networks certify that the network itself is exempt, or
certify compliance with or exemption from the closed captioning
obligations for all programming comprising the network's linear line-
up.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
In proposing to amend the Commission's closed captioning rules, the
Commission believes that it will minimize the effect on small entities
while continuing to make television programming accessible to persons
who are deaf and hard of hearing. The Commission's proposed amendments
would relieve many entities, including small entities, from reporting
requirements. Thus, the Commission proposes an amendment to the rules
that would exclude coverage of the rule for many entities, including
small entities, under certain circumstances.
Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission's Proposals
None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 79
Cable television, Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 part 79 as follows:
PART 79--ACCESSIBILITY OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING
0
1. The authority citation for part 79 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, 310,
330, 544a, 613, 617.
0
2. Amend Sec. 79.1 by redesignating paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(13)
as paragraphs (a)(7) through (a)(14) and adding paragraphs (a)(6),
(i)(3)(iii), and (m)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 79.1 Closed captioning of televised video programming.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(6) Nonbroadcast Network. Networks whose programming is delivered
via multichannel video programming distributors. Local and regional
cable channels are included within the meaning of the term nonbroadcast
networks.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Video programmers shall not be required to file contact
information with the Commission pursuant to paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of
this section if they provide video programming exclusively to a public,
educational, or governmental (PEG) access channel, as described in
section 531 of title 47 of the United States Code, or a nonbroadcast
network, for which the administrator of the PEG access channel or
nonbroadcast network has on file with the Commission:
(A) the contact information required by paragraph (i)(3)(ii); and
(B) a certification pursuant to paragraph (m) of this section
attesting to:
(1) an exemption from the captioning rules for the nonbroadcast
network or PEG channel itself; or
(2) compliance with, or exemption from, the captioning rules for
the entire programming line-up of the nonbroadcast network or PEG
channel itself.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(6) Video programmers shall not be required to submit
certifications to the Commission pursuant to this paragraph (m) if they
provide video programming exclusively on a public, educational, or
governmental (PEG) access channel, as described in section 531 of title
47 of the United States Code, or a nonbroadcast network, for which the
administrator of the PEG access channel or nonbroadcast network has on
file with the Commission:
(i) the contact information required by paragraph (i)(3)(ii); and
(ii) a certification pursuant to this paragraph (m) attesting to:
(A) an exemption from the captioning rules for the nonbroadcast
network or PEG channel itself; or
(B) compliance with, or exemption from, the captioning rules for
the entire programming line-up of the
[[Page 63139]]
nonbroadcast network or PEG channel itself.
[FR Doc. 2024-17071 Filed 8-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 2, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.