Proposed Rule2026-09819
Accessible Emergency Information, and Apparatus Requirements for Emergency Information and Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010
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
May 15, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Commission proposes to revise the Audible Crawl Rule, which requires video programming providers and distributors to make non-textual visual emergency information provided during non-newscast programming accessible via a secondary audio stream. The revised rule would provide that the accessibility requirement is met if a textual crawl provides emergency information duplicative of or equivalent to non-textual visual emergency information, so long as the textual crawl is also conveyed aurally.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 94 (Friday, May 15, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 94 (Friday, May 15, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27895-27901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09819]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 79
[MB Docket No. 12-107; FCC 26-31; FR ID 345581]
Accessible Emergency Information, and Apparatus Requirements for
Emergency Information and Video Description: Implementation of the
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes to revise the
Audible Crawl Rule, which requires video programming providers and
distributors to make non-textual visual emergency information provided
during non-newscast programming accessible via a secondary audio
stream. The revised rule would provide that the accessibility
requirement is met if a textual crawl provides emergency information
duplicative of or equivalent to non-textual visual emergency
information, so long as the textual crawl is also conveyed aurally.
DATES: Comments are due on or before June 15, 2026; reply comments are
due on or before June 29, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 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 27896]]
page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No. 12-107, by any of the following methods:
<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.
<bullet> People With Disabilities: 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#7a1c19194f4a4e3a1c1919541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c1a7a2a2f4f1f581a7a2a2efa6aeb7">[email protected]</span></a> or
call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Diana Sokolow, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#64200d050a054a370b0f0b080b13240207074a030b12"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="25614c444b440b764a4e4a494a52654346460b424a53">[email protected]</span></a>, of the Policy
Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), in MB Docket No. 12-107,
FCC 26-31, adopted on April 30, 2026 and released on May 1, 2026. The
full text of this document is available electronically in ASCII,
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat via ECFS and at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-31A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-31A1.pdf</a>.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain proposed
information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not
contain any proposed new or modified information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-
9, a summary of this document will be available on <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules.\1\ 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 rule 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by rule 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Synopsis
The FCC seeks to take a commonsense approach to regulations that do
not work as enacted. One such rule has been waived in part for the
entirety of the more than ten years since its enactment. The Audible
Crawl Rule requires video programming distributors and providers to
provide an aural representation of visual, non-textual emergency
information shown during non-newscast video programming, such as radar
maps or other graphics, on a secondary audio stream. While recognizing
the need to revise the rule, we continue to appreciate the Commission's
statutory obligations to guard accessibility and consumer interests.
Our actions here satisfy both requirements. The revised rule would
provide that the accessibility requirement is met if a video
programming distributor or provider provides textual crawls that convey
emergency information duplicative of or equivalent to the visual, non-
textual information, and if those textual crawls are conveyed
aurally.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This FNPRM is consistent with the requests contained in a
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) petition filed on
November 15, 2024. The current waiver of the Audible Crawl Rule
expires on November 29, 2027 or the date on which there is a ruling
on the Petition, whichever is sooner. We clarify that this FNPRM is
not a ``ruling'' on the pending NAB petition for rulemaking and
waiver extension as that phrase is used in the 2026 Waiver Order.
Rather, such a ``ruling'' will occur once the Commission issues a
final rulemaking order regarding the Audible Crawl Rule in this
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 9, 2013, pursuant to the Twenty-First Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), the
Commission released the Emergency Information Order, which adopted
rules requiring that emergency information provided in video
programming be made accessible to individuals who are blind or visually
impaired. Section 202 of the CVAA directed the Commission to promulgate
rules requiring video programming providers, video programming
distributors, and program owners to convey emergency information in a
manner accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.
The Emergency Information Order implemented this mandate by requiring
the use of a secondary audio stream to convey televised emergency
information aurally, when such information is conveyed visually during
programming other than newscasts,\3\ for example, in
[[Page 27897]]
an on-screen crawl. Among the rules adopted in the Emergency
Information Order was Sec. 79.2(b)(2)(ii), which applies to video
programming providers and distributors \4\ and requires that emergency
information provided visually during non-newscast video programming
must be made audibly accessible to individuals who are blind or
visually impaired through the use of a secondary audio stream. Stations
may provide visual emergency information via a text crawl, but they
also may ``choose to display a small image like a weather radar map in
a corner of the screen as a less obtrusive signal about an imminent or
current situation.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Commission's emergency information rule contains
separate provisions regarding emergency information that is provided
visually during a regularly scheduled newscast, or a newscast that
interrupts regular programming, as compared to emergency information
that is provided visually during programming that does not fit into
either of those categories, which is the subject of this FNPRM. The
rule provides that ``[e]mergency information that is provided
visually during a regularly scheduled newscast, or newscast that
interrupts regular programming, must be made accessible to
individuals who are blind or visually impaired.'' This requires the
aural presentation of emergency information that is being provided
to viewers visually to be included as part of the primary program
audio stream. In contrast, the rule provides that emergency
information that is provided visually during programming that is not
a regularly scheduled newscast, or a newscast that interrupts
regular programming, must be conveyed aurally via the secondary
audio stream. The record does not contain any evidence of compliance
difficulties for emergency information that is provided visually
during a regularly scheduled newscast, or newscast that interrupts
regular programming, perhaps because such programming typically
involves a live person discussing in detail any visual emergency
information. Accordingly, the focus of this FNPRM is solely on non-
newscast video programming.
\4\ A ``video programming distributor'' is defined as ``[a]ny
television broadcast station licensed by the Commission and any
multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD), and any other
distributor of video programming for residential reception that
delivers such programming directly to the home and is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Commission.'' A ``video programming provider''
is ``[a]ny video programming distributor and any other entity that
provides video programming that is intended for distribution to
residential households including, but not limited to, broadcast or
nonbroadcast television networks and the owners of such
programming.'' While the Audible Crawl Rule applies to ``video
programming distributors and video programming providers,'' we
recognize that emergency information that is shown during non-
newscast programming is generally provided by television broadcast
stations, which are, by definition, more narrowly geographically
targeted than national networks. Additionally, as the Commission has
previously stated, ``[a]lthough [s]ection 613(g)(2) also refers to
`program owners,' a term that is not defined separately in [s]ection
79.1 of the Commission's rules, we note that the definition of
`video programming provider' in [s]ection 79.1(a)(3) includes `but
[is] not limited to broadcast or nonbroadcast television network and
the owners of such programming.'''
\5\ Petition at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the compliance deadline for the Audible Crawl Rule was May
26, 2015, the Media Bureau has granted seven successive waiver requests
pertaining to the requirement that visual but non-textual emergency
information displayed during non-newscast programming be conveyed
aurally.\6\ First, on May 26, 2015, the Bureau granted NAB's waiver
request for a period of 18 months. NAB requested the waiver ``until
technological solutions are available,'' explaining that it was
``currently infeasible to comply with this requirement with respect to
radar maps and similar moving graphics because they do not contain text
files that can be converted to speech.'' The American Council of the
Blind (ACB) and the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) did not
object to the waiver, but they asked the Commission to clarify that
emergency information cannot be delivered exclusively via graphics. In
granting the 18-month waiver, the Bureau addressed this request for
clarification when it indicated that the waiver would ``not unduly
disrupt the availability of emergency information while the industry
develops a technical solution,'' because ``the record indicates that
visual but non-textual emergency information is generally duplicative
of emergency information contained in an accompanying on-screen crawl,
which would be aurally transcribed on the secondary audio stream.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Each of the seven waivers applied specifically to
broadcasters, and not more broadly to the video programming
distributors and providers to which the rule applies. This may be
due to the fact that, as stated above, the emergency information
that is shown during non-newscast programming is generally provided
by television broadcast stations, and as a result no MVPD has sought
a waiver of the Audible Crawl Rule. However, given that the Audible
Crawl Rule imposes a burden on video programming distributors and
providers, we tentatively believe that modification of the rule as
set forth herein should apply to all entities subject to the rule,
in case entities that may not currently provide televised emergency
information begin to do so in the future. We invite comment on this
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, on November 16, 2016, the Bureau granted an 18-month waiver
extension requested jointly by NAB, ACB, and AFB. The petitioners
explained that ``the additional time will allow broadcasters and
accessibility advocates to continue coordinating with vendors on a
technical solution as well as to explore other potential sources for a
solution, and will give the Commission's Disability Advisory Committee
(DAC) time to consider the issue.'' The Bureau found that a waiver was
justified to allow time for the creation of ``a long-term, automated
solution,'' which would be ``preferable to a short-term, manual
solution that requires station personnel to describe every graphic,
particularly given that such an approach may be burdensome to
broadcasters and may raise its own technical complexities.'' In
addition, the Bureau required the petitioners to submit a status report
on November 22, 2017, detailing ``the extent to which images are
conveyed with a corresponding on-screen crawl that includes the
critical details conveyed by that image regarding the emergency and how
to respond to the emergency,'' as well as ``information about the
development of automated description solutions.'' NAB, ACB, and AFB
jointly submitted the status report in which they stated, ``It is
exceedingly rare for a television station to broadcast an image that
conveys information not already captured in an accompanying text
crawl.'' They also explained that, despite efforts on this issue, there
still was not any viable technical compliance solution available.
Third, on May 25, 2018, the Bureau granted a five-year waiver
extension requested jointly by NAB, ACB, and AFB. The petitioners
explained that their efforts to develop an automated approach to
aurally describing visual, non-textual emergency information had not
yet yielded any solution, and that enforcing the requirement would lead
to the removal of graphic emergency information to avoid the risk of
Commission enforcement actions. The Bureau found good cause to grant
the waiver, and it required NAB to submit a status report by November
25, 2020, detailing progress achieved to that point. NAB submitted the
status report, which explained that there still was not any viable
technical compliance solution available despite industry efforts. The
report also discussed NAB's continued engagement with the disability
community and with educating broadcasters on best practices, and it
explained that the Audible Crawl Rule's application to visual non-
textual graphic images shown during non-news programming is a small
portion of televised emergency information.
Fourth, on May 26, 2023, the Bureau granted NAB's waiver request
for a period of 18 months. ACB and AFB filed joint comments indicating
that although they supported NAB's prior waiver requests, they did not
support further extension of the waiver due to concerns about a lack of
effort to develop a technical solution. ACB and AFB also requested
that, if the Commission were to extend the waiver, it should require
broadcasters to use an interim manual solution to convey visual
emergency information aurally. The Bureau detailed the good faith
efforts NAB indicated it had made to develop a solution, even though
those efforts were unsuccessful. The Bureau declined to require
broadcasters to implement an interim manual solution, citing NAB's
[[Page 27898]]
explanation ``that in most instances emergency content provided in
graphic displays is duplicative of emergency information provided in
textual crawls and transmitted aurally on a secondary audio programming
stream,'' and expressing concern ``that mandating a manual solution
could lead some broadcasters . . . to forego the use of non-textual
graphic displays altogether rather than risk a possible FCC penalty.''
The Bureau found good cause to grant the waiver to November 26, 2024,
and it required NAB to submit quarterly status reports. None of the six
quarterly status reports identified even a single instance in which the
waiver was relied on, such that there would have been a violation of
the Audible Crawl Rule absent the waiver; rather, the reports discussed
NAB's coordination with industry and disability groups to develop a
technical compliance solution and best practices, and the fact that
best practices would obviate the need for a technical solution, which
remained unavailable.
Fifth, NAB filed the Petition on November 15, 2024, requesting
modification of the Audible Crawl Rule and a waiver of the rule for 18
months (until May 2026), subject to the Commission's discretion to
terminate the waiver earlier depending on the outcome of NAB's request.
On November 25, 2024, the Bureau sought comment on the Petition; three
comments were filed on December 26, 2024, and one reply comment was
filed on January 9, 2025, all of which support the Petition, so long as
any revised rule ensures that people who are blind or visually impaired
have access to the same critical details of an emergency as sighted
viewers. No party objected to NAB's waiver request. Because the waiver
expired during the comment period on the Petition, NAB filed a request
for an expedited retroactive extension of the waiver on November 27,
2024, explaining that ``numerous large television station groups have
ceased the display of such weather radar maps and similar visual
images,'' which ``will harm the public.'' \7\ The Bureau extended the
waiver for six months, ``based on the record in this proceeding, [and]
in light of the pendency of the Petition, the fact that a temporary
retroactive waiver would maintain the status quo, and the fact that no
commenter opposed the Request.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ According to NAB, the waiver request had the ``support[ ]''
of the American Council of the Blind (ACB). The NAB Petition did not
explain why broadcasters amended their practices upon the expiration
of the waiver even though the NAB status reports did not identify
any instance where a broadcaster needed to invoke the waiver.
\8\ That waiver extension would have expired on the sooner of
May 27, 2025 or the date on which there was a ruling on the
Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sixth, the Bureau on its own motion extended the waiver of the
Audible Crawl Rule for one year (through May 27, 2026) or until there
was a ruling in effect on the underlying Petition, whichever occurred
sooner. On January 10, 2025, in its reply comments, NAB renewed its
original request for an 18-month extension of the current waiver if the
Commission did not resolve its Petition before the waiver's expiration.
No party objected to NAB's renewed waiver request, and the Bureau's
waiver order reiterated the reasoning found in the prior waiver orders.
Most recently, on April 8, 2026, the Bureau on its own motion
extended the waiver of the Audible Crawl Rule for 18 months (through
November 29, 2027) or until there is a ruling in effect on the
underlying Petition, whichever is sooner. The Bureau explained that it
is not aware of any change in circumstances relevant to this matter
since it released the 2025 Waiver Order. The Bureau referenced the lack
of ``progress in developing a workable technical compliance solution,''
and explained that the waiver would ``allow the Commission to consider
the pending Petition.''
In this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we
consider the Petition and the record developed thereto. As discussed in
section III below, we grant NAB's Petition for Rulemaking and propose
to implement the rule change requested in the Petition, namely, that we
specify that with regard to visual but non-textual emergency
information, compliance with the Audible Crawl Rule is fulfilled if a
textual crawl provides emergency information duplicative of or
equivalent to the visual but non-textual emergency information, so long
as the textual crawl is also conveyed aurally.
After review of the NAB Petition, and the comments filed in
response, we conclude that the record supports initiation of a
rulemaking proceeding to seek further comment on the proposals in the
Petition. We propose to revise the Audible Crawl Rule to specify that
the requirement that video programming providers and distributors make
visual emergency information provided during non-newscast programming
accessible via a secondary audio stream is met if a textual crawl
provides emergency information duplicative of or equivalent to non-
textual visual emergency information, so long as the textual crawl is
also conveyed aurally. In so doing, we explicitly and unequivocally
recognize ``that people who are blind or have low vision must have
equal access to emergency information, just as sighted people do.'' \9\
We invite comment on the proposal. Should the proposed rule change
apply to all entities covered by the applicable rule--that is, to video
programming distributors and video programming providers, which would
include both broadcasters and MVPDs, to the extent such entities
provide visual but non-textual emergency information? We recognize that
all seven waivers of the Audible Crawl Rule, and the associated
reporting requirements, apply to ``broadcasters,'' and not more broadly
to the video programming distributors and providers to which the rule
applies, which would include both broadcasters and MVPDs. Although
video programming distributors and providers that are not broadcasters
have not sought a waiver of the rule, does it nonetheless make sense
for the rule change adopted herein to apply to all entities subject to
the regulation, in other words, to all video programming distributors
and providers, considering that such entities may provide televised
emergency information in the future and an automated solution has not
been identified to date?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ AFB/ACB Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We tentatively conclude that a technical solution to comply with
the current rule is not currently possible with regard to visual but
non-textual emergency information, making compliance with the rule
infeasible absent our proposed revision to the Audible Crawl Rule, and
it is uncertain whether or when such a solution may be available. The
Petition and the responsive comments indicate that at this time, there
is no technical means of complying with the Audible Crawl Rule for
visual but non-textual emergency information.\10\ Based on the existing
record, despite discussions involving broadcasters, entities that
provide weather information to television stations, Ai-Media,\11\ and
other product vendors, no entity has yet identified an
[[Page 27899]]
automated solution in the more than 13 years since the rule was
adopted. For textual emergency information, in contrast, text-to-speech
(TTS) technology can be utilized to automate translation of the text
into an audio format. NAB contends ``that a viable solution'' for
visual, non-textual emergency information ``may not exist for quite
some time.'' We seek comment on our tentative conclusion that a
technical solution for compliance with the Audible Crawl Rule is not
currently available and that it is uncertain whether or when such a
solution will be possible. Additionally, while AFB and ACB acknowledge
that there is not currently a fully automated means of compliance, they
``continue to urge NAB to work with the appropriate vendors to
investigate solutions that may be achievable with future advances in
artificial intelligence capabilities for live audio description of
images and videos.'' We seek comment on whether the Commission should
encourage or require such continued investigations into potential
technical solutions in our rules and if so how such elements should be
structured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ We recognize that in an ex parte filing, Bridge Multimedia
indicates that its Weather Brain technology ``can translate maps,
graphics, and other non-textual visual information into audio using
AI with human review.'' We invite comment on whether this or other
technologies currently would be able to serve as a technical
solution to the problem described herein, or whether the
necessitated ``human review'' or other factors counter against such
a finding.
\11\ NAB describes Ai-Media as ``a global leader in the
development of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered captioning and
translation solutions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFB and ACB ``note that the rule does not specifically require
automation.'' The Bureau has recognized however ``that mandating a
manual solution could lead some broadcasters . . . to forego the use of
non-textual graphic displays altogether . . . .'' And the Bureau has
concluded in the context of granting rule waivers that ``a short-term,
manual solution that requires station personnel to describe every
graphic . . . may be burdensome to broadcasters and may raise its own
technical complexities.'' Therefore, we tentatively conclude that
although the existing rule potentially could be satisfied by means of a
manual solution, we should provide the rule amendment NAB requests
because interpreting the rule to require a manual solution in every
instance could be burdensome, result in additional complexities, and
lead some video programming distributors and video programming
providers to forego the use of non-textual graphic displays altogether,
depriving some viewers of an opportunity to receive such information
visually. We seek comment on these matters.
We propose to add the following language after the existing first
sentence of Sec. 79.2(b)(2)(ii) of the Commission's rules: ``With
regard to visual but non-textual emergency information, this
requirement is met if a textual crawl provides emergency information
duplicative of or equivalent to the visual but non-textual emergency
information, so long as the textual crawl is also conveyed aurally.''
We invite comment on this proposal, which is consistent with the
Petition and the existing record. We invite comment on what it means
for emergency information to be ``duplicative of or equivalent to'' the
visual but non-textual emergency information. For example, must the
same critical details regarding the emergency and how to respond to the
emergency be conveyed via either means? AFB and ACB state that, if the
emergency information in the textual crawl is not duplicative of that
shown in a non-textual visual, ``then blind viewers expect to receive
the same emergency information as sighted viewers aurally either
through the use of the primary audio stream or a secondary audio
stream.'' Is the requirement that a textual crawl contain information
``duplicative of or equivalent to'' that contained in the visual image
specific enough to instruct stations as to what the rule requires? \12\
Are there additional details the Commission should provide in the rule?
Should the rule specify both ``duplicative of'' or ``equivalent to,''
as NAB proposes? Is there a difference between the phrases
``duplicative of'' and ``equivalent to'' that suggests specifying both
phrases in the rule?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ We note that the aural version of a textual crawl
containing emergency information must be available via the secondary
audio stream.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We invite comment on whether the Commission also should codify
certain ``best practices'' set forth by NAB.\13\ In discussing best
practices, NAB states, ``stations that choose to display a non-textual
graphic about an emergency during regular programming should run text
crawls that `accurately and effectively convey the critical details
regarding the emergency and how to respond to the emergency.' '' \14\
Should the Commission require the text crawl to accurately and
effectively convey the emergency information that was provided
visually, or is that qualifier unnecessary if we adopt the proposed
language, specifying that the text crawl must provide emergency
information duplicative of or equivalent to that provided via visual
but non-textual means? NAB's best practices also state that ``a station
should run such text crawls frequently enough to facilitate access to
the emergency information in the crawls for individuals who are blind
or low vision.'' Should the Commission adopt this practice as a
requirement to run text crawls ``frequently enough to facilitate
access'' and, if so, what does it mean for a crawl to run ``frequently
enough to facilitate access''? In the alternative should the Commission
adopt a specific threshold for the frequency with which text crawls
that are duplicative of visual but non-textual emergency information
must air, and if so, what threshold is appropriate? Are there any steps
that the Commission should take to ensure that individuals who are
blind or visually impaired are consulted in determining best practices,
regardless of whether those best practices are codified?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ We believe the most administratively efficient approach in
this proceeding is to maintain a narrow focus of the issues subject
to consideration. Accordingly, commenters discussing best practices
should narrowly focus on issues pertaining to the use of textual
crawls that provide emergency information duplicative of or
equivalent to non-textual visual emergency information. We do not
plan to consider broader issues, for example, the appropriate color
contrast for visual emergency information. While we commend NAB's
statement that broadcasters are ``encouraged to make sure there is
sufficient color contrast in any visual images they choose to
display to help individuals who have some measure of sight and may
not need an aural representation of the image [to] clearly see what
information is being conveyed by the image,'' we consider this issue
to be outside the scope of the current FNPRM.
\14\ The text crawls would be converted to speech.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We tentatively conclude that the proposed modification to the
Audible Crawl Rule is likely to have multiple benefits. First, we
tentatively conclude that codifying this rule change would ensure that
video programming distributors and video programming providers continue
to provide visual but non-textual emergency information during non-
newscast programming. If the existing waiver were to expire and the
rule were not modified, video programming distributors and video
programming providers might stop providing this emergency information
to both individuals who are blind or visually impaired and the public
at large. Second, we tentatively conclude that our proposed action
would enhance government efficiency and regulatory certainty by
modifying an unworkable part of a rule and eliminating the need for
multiple successive waivers, and consecutive waiver proceedings,
spanning over a decade. In addition to these benefits, we tentatively
conclude that the existing record indicates that the proposed
modification to the Audible Crawl Rule would have limited, if any,
negative impacts. Importantly, we expect the accessibility of emergency
information for people who are blind or visually impaired to either
improve or remain constant. In addition, we do not expect costs for
video programming distributors and video programming providers to
increase significantly because the record indicates that stations
generally provide text crawls conveyed aurally that would satisfy the
proposed rule. We seek comment on this analysis.
[[Page 27900]]
We tentatively conclude that the proposed modification to the
Audible Crawl Rule will best effectuate the CVAA's statutory directive
to promulgate regulations that require covered entities ``to convey
such emergency information in a manner accessible to individuals who
are blind or visually impaired.'' We tentatively find that the proposed
rule change is authorized under the CVAA, which neither requires nor
suggests a verbatim aural translation of visual but non-textual
emergency information. As one commenter, Gray, points out, ``[w]hile
the CVAA requires emergency information to be disseminated
accessibly,'' there is nothing in the CVAA's statutory language that
requires exact parity between the information provided in graphics on
screen and that provided over an audio channel. We tentatively find
that our modified rule will fulfill the statutory directive by ensuring
that individuals who are blind or visually impaired are provided
emergency information that is duplicative of or equivalent to visual
non-textual emergency information, such as radar maps and other
graphics. At the same time, we propose a commonsense approach to our
regulation, recognizing that there is not a viable technical compliance
solution available at this time. We seek comment on this analysis.
Finally, we seek comment on a non-substantive proposal to eliminate
the phrase ``beginning May 26, 2015'' from the text of the Audible
Crawl Rule. That date was more than a decade ago, and we expect that
its inclusion in the rule may no longer serve any purpose.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission
has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
policies and rules proposed in the Third Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FNPRM) assessing the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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 the FNPRM. The Commission will send a
copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the
Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy. In summary, the
FNPRM proposes to revise the Audible Crawl Rule, which requires video
programming providers and distributors to make non-textual visual
emergency information provided during non-newscast programming
accessible via a secondary audio stream. The revised rule would provide
that the accessibility requirement is met if a textual crawl provides
emergency information duplicative of or equivalent to non-textual
visual emergency information, so long as the textual crawl is also
conveyed aurally. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to the
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of
2010, Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, and sections 4(i), 4(j), and
713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
154(j), and 613. The types of small entities that may be affected by
the proposals contained in the FNPRM fall within the following
categories: Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing; Audio and Video Equipment
Manufacturing; Motion Picture and Video Production; Motion Picture and
Video Distribution; Television Broadcasting Stations; Media Streaming
Distribution Services, Social Networks, and Other Media Networks and
Content Providers; Wired Telecommunications Carriers; Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite); Satellite
Telecommunications; Cable/Coax CLEC; CAP/CLEC; Competitive Local
Exchange Carriers (CLECs); Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent
LECs); Local Exchange Carriers (LECs); Wired Telecommunications
Carriers; Radio Stations (AM & FM) Groups; Cable System Operators
(Telecom Act Standard) Small Cable Operator; Cable Companies and
Systems (Rate Regulation) Small Cable Company; and Cable Companies and
Systems (Rate Regulation) Small Cable System (headends).
The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements are as follows. The FNPRM proposes to revise the Audible
Crawl Rule to specify that the requirement that video programming
providers and distributors make visual emergency information provided
during non-newscast programming accessible via a secondary audio stream
is met if a textual crawl provides emergency information duplicative
of, or equivalent to, nontextual visual emergency information, so long
as the textual crawl is also conveyed aurally. The revised Audible
Crawl Rule thus would ease compliance burdens for small and other
entities because it would not impose the compliance requirements that
currently are not technically feasible with regard to non-textual
visual emergency information.
In the alternative to the proposed rule changes contained in the
FNRPM, there are other approaches to ensure that video programming
distributors and video programming providers provide an aural
representation of visual, non-textual emergency information shown
during non-newscast video programming. The first alternative approach
would be to allow the Audible Crawl Rule, as it is already codified, to
go into effect without any waiver. This occurred while the Petition was
pending, and it resulted in broadcasters ceasing the provision of non-
textual visual emergency information, until the Media Bureau granted a
retroactive waiver extension. Relatedly, the FNPRM considers utilizing
a manual solution, and it tentatively concludes that the rule amendment
is preferable because requiring a manual solution in every instance may
not be possible, could be burdensome to implement, and could lead video
programming distributors and video programming providers to forego the
use of non-textual graphic displays altogether, depriving some viewers
of an opportunity to receive such information visually. The second
alternative approach would be to continue the current approach of
granting successive waiver requests. Such an approach would
unnecessarily burden the petitioners, has the potential to create
regulatory uncertainty, and is unjustified given that it does not
appear that an automated solution to the issue will be available in the
near future. The FNPRM also considers whether the Commission should
encourage or require continued investigations into potential technical
solutions, and if so how such elements should be structured.
Additionally, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether it should codify
certain ``best practices'' set forth by NAB in its Petition.
The proposed action is authorized pursuant to the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law
111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, and the authority contained in sections 4(i),
4(j), and 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
154(i), 154(j), and 613.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 79
Cable television operators, Communications equipment, Multichannel
video programming distributors (MVPDs), Satellite television service
providers, Television broadcasters.
[[Page 27901]]
Federal Communications Commission.
Aleta Bowers,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 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. 79.2 by revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 79.2 Accessibility of programming providing emergency
information.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Emergency information that is provided visually during
programming that is neither a regularly scheduled newscast, nor a
newscast that interrupts regular programming, must be accompanied with
an aural tone, and except as provided in paragraph (b)(6) of this
section, must be made accessible to individuals who are blind or
visually impaired through the use of a secondary audio stream to
provide the emergency information aurally. With regard to visual but
non-textual emergency information, this requirement is met if a textual
crawl provides emergency information duplicative of or equivalent to
the visual but non-textual emergency information, so long as the
textual crawl is also conveyed aurally. Emergency information provided
aurally on the secondary audio stream must be preceded by an aural tone
and must be conveyed in full at least twice. Emergency information
provided through use of text-to-speech (``TTS'') technologies must be
intelligible and must use the correct pronunciation of relevant
information to allow consumers to learn about and respond to the
emergency, including, but not limited to, the names of shelters, school
districts, streets, districts, and proper names noted in the visual
information. The video programming distributor or video programming
provider that creates the visual emergency information content and adds
it to the programming stream is responsible for providing an aural
representation of the information on a secondary audio stream,
accompanied by an aural tone. Video programming distributors are
responsible for ensuring that the aural representation of the emergency
information (including the accompanying aural tone) gets passed through
to consumers.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-09819 Filed 5-14-26; 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 May 15, 2026.
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.