[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48102-48105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18898]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 79

[CG Docket No. 11-175; FCC 12-83]


Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

[[Page 48103]]


ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) determines that the four factors contained in section 
713(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act) will 
continue to apply when evaluating individual requests for closed 
captioning exemptions under section 713(d)(3) and our corresponding 
rules, notwithstanding a change in terminology in the statute, enacted 
by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act 
of 2010 (CVAA), which replaced the term ``undue burden'' in that 
section with the term ``economically burdensome.'' The Order further 
amends the Commission's rules to replace all current references to 
``undue burden'' with the term ``economically burdensome.'' These rule 
amendments correspond with the new statutory language in the CVAA 
requiring petitioners seeking individual closed captioning exemptions 
under section 713(d)(3) of the Act to show that providing captions on 
their programming would be economically burdensome.

DATES: Effective September 12, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Peltz Strauss, Deputy Chief, 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau; phone: (202) 418-2388; email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, document FCC 12-83, adopted on July 19, 2012, and released 
on July 20, 2012. The full text of document FCC 12-83 is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. 
(BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554, (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via email at 
[email protected]. The complete text is also available on the 
Commission's Web site at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0720/FCC-12-83A1.doc. To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 12-83 does not contain new or modified information 
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any 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).

Synopsis

    1. In 1996, Congress added section 713 to the Act (47 U.S.C. 613) 
establishing requirements for closed captioning on video programming to 
ensure access by persons with hearing disabilities to television 
programming and directing the Commission to prescribe rules to carry 
out this mandate. The Commission's closed captioning rules currently 
require video programming distributors to caption one-hundred percent 
of all new, non-exempt English and Spanish language programming.
    2. Section 713 of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant 
individual exemptions from the closed captioning requirements. As 
originally enacted, section 713 of the Act authorized the Commission to 
grant individual closed captioning exemptions on a case-by-case basis 
upon a showing that the provision of closed captions would ``result in 
an undue burden.'' 47 U.S.C. 613(d)(3). Section 713(e) of the Act 
defined ``undue burden'' to mean ``significant difficulty or expense,'' 
and directed the Commission to consider four factors in making an undue 
burden determination. Those factors are: (1) The nature and cost of the 
closed captions for the programming; (2) the impact on the operation of 
the provider or program owner; (3) the financial resources of the 
provider or program owner; and (4) the type of operations of the 
provider or program owner.
    3. In October 2010, Congress adopted the CVAA, in which it amended 
section 713(d)(3) of the Act by replacing the ``undue burden'' 
terminology with the term ``economically burdensome.'' Congress did not 
change the definition of ``undue burden'' contained in section 713(e) 
of the Act or the four factors to be considered in evaluating 
individual petitions. As a result, on October 20, 2011, the Commission 
adopted an Order, published at 76 FR 67376, November 1, 2011 and at 76 
FR 67377, November 1, 2011, offering provisional guidance on how it 
would interpret this statutory change and a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (the NPRM), published at 76 FR 67397, November 1, 2011, 
proposing to amend Sec.  79.1 of its rules to replace the term ``undue 
burden'' with the term ``economically burdensome.'' In neither the 
Order nor the NPRM did the Commission make or propose to make any 
substantive change in the standard for evaluating individual exemption 
petitions or the factors it would consider when deciding these 
petitions.
    4. In response to the NPRM, the Commission received a single 
comment filed jointly by Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of 
Hearing, Inc., the National Association of the Deaf, the Deaf and Hard 
of Hearing, the Consumer Advocacy Network, the Association of Late-
Deafened Adults, the Hearing Loss Association of America, and the 
Cerebral Palsy and Deaf Organization (Consumer Groups). Consumer Groups 
agreed with the Commission's proposed interpretation of the 
economically burdensome standard and concluded that it was consistent 
with Congress's expressed and unambiguous intent.
    5. In document FCC 12-83, the Commission concludes that, for 
purposes of evaluating individual exemptions under section 713(d)(3) of 
the Act, Congress intended the term ``economically burdensome'' to be 
synonymous with the term ``undue burden'' as defined by section 713(e) 
of the Act and as interpreted and applied in Commission rules and 
precedent. This conclusion is supported by the CVAA itself, which 
preserves, unchanged, the language in section 713(e) defining an 
``undue burden'' and enumerating the factors to be considered in an 
``undue economic burden'' analysis, and by the CVAA's legislative 
history, which encouraged the Commission in its determination of 
``economically burdensome'' petitions to continue using these factors 
in assessing individual exemption requests.
    6. Accordingly, document FCC 12-83 concludes that in changing the 
terminology from ``undue burden'' to ``economically burdensome'' in 
section 713(d)(3) of the Act, Congress did not intend any substantive 
change to the criteria that the Commission consistently has used for 
individual closed captioning petitions. It notes that this 
interpretation is consistent with the manner in which the Commission 
has interpreted the term ``economically burdensome'' in other recent 
Commission rules adopted pursuant to the CVAA governing the delivery of 
closed captioning on video programming delivered using Internet

[[Page 48104]]

protocol and rules governing video description, and concludes that the 
Commission and CGB under delegated authority, will continue to evaluate 
individual exemption petitions filed under section 713(d)(3) of the Act 
using the four factors set forth in section 713(e) of the Act.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    7. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), (5 
U.S.C. 601-612, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 
(1996)), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared 
for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency 
certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities'' (5 U.S.C. 
605(b)). The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having 
the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction'' (5 U.S.C. 
601(6)). In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning 
as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act (5 
U.S.C. 601(3)). 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) (15 U.S.C. 632).
    8. In document FCC 12-83, the Commission conforms the terminology 
used in Sec.  79.1(f) of the Commission's rules to the requirements of 
section 202 of the CVAA. Under the rule amendments adopted herein, a 
petitioner seeking an exemption from the closed captioning requirements 
will have to demonstrate that compliance with such captioning 
requirements would be ``economically burdensome'' as mandated by the 
CVAA. Prior to this amendment, the Act and our rules required a 
petitioner to show that complying with the captioning requirements 
would constitute an ``undue burden.'' In mandating this change in 
terminology, the Commission concludes that Congress intended no 
substantive change to the factors used to evaluate individual petitions 
for closed captioning exemptions. Because no substantive changes to the 
Commission's rules or procedures were contemplated by the NPRM, the 
Commission concluded in the NPRM that the proposed change in our rules 
to reflect the terminology adopted by Congress in section 202 of the 
CVAA would have no economic impact on small business entities or 
consumers and included in the NPRM an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification.
    9. No comments were received concerning the Certification, and the 
Report and Order finds no reason to change the Commission's conclusions 
as contained in that Certification. Therefore, the Commission certifies 
that the rule amendments adopted in document FCC 12-83 will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The amendments contain no new obligations or prohibitions. Nor do they 
remove any requirements or have substantive implications of any sort. 
They simply change the nomenclature utilized by the Commission's rules 
to describe the showing that must be made by petitioners to warrant 
exemptions from the closed captioning requirements, as mandated by 
Congress in section 202 of the CVAA. In addition, document FCC 12-83, 
including a final certification, will be sent to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the SBA.

Congressional Review Act

    10. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 12-83, 
including a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in 
a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A)).

Ordering Clauses

    11. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r) and 713 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and 613, document FCC 
12-83 is adopted and the Commission's rules are hereby amended.
    12. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 12-83, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    13. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 12-83, 
in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 79

    Cable television, Closed captioning.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 part 79 as follows:

PART 79--CLOSED CAPTIONING 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, 309, 310, 330, 
544a, 613, 617.


0
2. Amend Sec.  79.1 by revising paragraph (d)(2), the heading of 
paragraph (f), and paragraphs (f)(1) through (4), (f)(10), and (f)(11) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  79.1  Closed captioning of video programming.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Video programming or video programming provider for which the 
captioning requirement has been waived. Any video programming or video 
programming provider for which the Commission has determined that a 
requirement for closed captioning is economically burdensome on the 
basis of a petition for exemption filed in accordance with the 
procedures specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) Procedures for exemptions based on economically burdensome 
standard. (1) A video programming provider, video programming producer 
or video programming owner may petition the Commission for a full or 
partial exemption from the closed captioning requirements. Exemptions 
may be granted, in whole or in part, for a channel of video 
programming, a category or type of video programming, an individual 
video service, a specific video program or a video programming provider 
upon a finding that the closed captioning requirements will be 
economically burdensome.
    (2) A petition for an exemption must be supported by sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that compliance with the requirements to closed 
caption video programming would be economically burdensome. The term 
``economically burdensome'' means significant difficulty or expense. 
Factors to be considered when determining whether the requirements for 
closed captioning are economically burdensome include:
    (i) The nature and cost of the closed captions for the programming;
    (ii) The impact on the operation of the provider or program owner;
    (iii) The financial resources of the provider or program owner; and
    (iv) The type of operations of the provider or program owner.
    (3) In addition to these factors, the petition shall describe any 
other factors the petitioner deems relevant to the Commission's final 
determination and any available alternatives that might

[[Page 48105]]

constitute a reasonable substitute for the closed captioning 
requirements including, but not limited to, text or graphic display of 
the content of the audio portion of the programming. The extent to 
which the provision of closed captions is economically burdensome shall 
be evaluated with regard to the individual outlet.
    (4) An original and two (2) copies of a petition requesting an 
exemption based on the economically burdensome standard, and all 
subsequent pleadings, shall be filed in accordance with Sec.  0.401(a) 
of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (10) The Commission may deny or approve, in whole or in part, a 
petition for an economically burdensome exemption from the closed 
captioning requirements.
    (11) During the pendency of an economically burdensome 
determination, the video programming subject to the request for 
exemption shall be considered exempt from the closed captioning 
requirements.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-18898 Filed 8-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P