[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17093-17106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06755]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 79

[CG Docket No. 05-231; FCC 14-12]


Closed Captioning of Video Programming; Telecommunications for 
the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

[[Page 17094]]


ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission issues a Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) seeking comment on options and proposals to 
further enhance accessibility to television programming and to improve 
the Commission's procedural rules regarding closed captioning.

DATES: Comments on the section entitled Responsibilities for Meeting 
the Closed Captioning Requirements (paragraphs 1-8) are due on or 
before April 28, 2014, and reply comments are due on or before May 27, 
2014. Comments on remaining sections are due on or before June 25, 
2014, and reply comments are due on or before July 25, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 05-231, 
by any of the following methods:
    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the 
Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS), through the Commission's Web site http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site 
for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal 
screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service 
mailing address, and CG Docket No. 05-231.
     Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by 
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the 
Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal 
Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand 
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. 
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    [ssquf] In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading 
with the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 
Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via 
email to [email protected].
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418-
2235 or email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Closed 
Captioning of Video Programming; Telecommunications for the Deaf and 
Hard of Hearing, Inc. Petition for Rulemaking, Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), document FCC 14-12, adopted on February 
20, 2014 and released on February 24, 2014, in CG Docket No. 05-231. In 
document FCC 14-12, the Commission adopted an accompanying Report and 
Order (Report and Order), which is summarized in a separate Federal 
Register Publication. The full text of document FCC 14-12 will be 
available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during 
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also 
may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best 
Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (800) 378-3160, fax: (202) 488-5563, 
or Internet: www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 14-12 can also be downloaded 
in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/disability-rights-office-headlines. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/closed-captioning-video-programming-television. To request 
materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, 
large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to 
[email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
    This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentations must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule Sec.  1.1206(b). In proceedings governed 
by rule Sec.  1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the 
Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex 
parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the 
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and 
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 14-12 seeks comment on potential new information 
collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any new information 
collection requirements, the Commission will publish another notice in 
the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the 
requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. 
L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks comment on 
how the Commission might ``further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''

Synopsis

Responsibilities for Meeting the Closed Captioning Obligations

    1. The Commission has previously placed direct responsibility for

[[Page 17095]]

compliance with the closed captioning requirements on VPDs. Closed 
Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Implementation 
of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming 
Accessibility, MM Docket No. 95-176, Report and Order, (1997 Closed 
Captioning Report and Order); published at 62 FR 48487, September 16, 
1997, reconsideration granted in part, MM Docket No. 95-176, Order on 
Reconsideration, (Closed Captioning Reconsideration Order); published 
at 63 FR 55959, October 20, 1998. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether the Commission should extend some of the responsibilities for 
compliance with the Commission's closed captioning quality standards 
for programming shown on television to video programmers, which are a 
subset of video programming providers (VPPs). In the television 
captioning context, VPPs include VPDs as well as video programmers, 
i.e., ``any other entity that provides video programming that is 
intended for distribution to residential households including, but not 
limited to broadcast and non-broadcast television network and the 
owners of such programming.'' See 47 CFR 79.1(a)(3). In the Report and 
Order, the Commission defines a video programmer as ``entities that 
provide video programming that is intended for distribution to 
residential households including, but not limited to, broadcast or non-
broadcast television networks and the owners of such programming.'' The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether this definition is 
sufficiently broad in scope to hold accountable all entities with 
direct control over caption quality or whether the Commission should 
expand the definition to cover other categories of entities and, if so, 
what other entities should be covered. Commenters advocating covering 
other entities should address the Commission's authority to regulate 
those entities.
    2. In addition to VPPs, the definition of video programmers 
includes ``the owners of such programming.'' The Commission has defined 
the term video programming owners (VPOs) for purposes of ensuring 
captions on video programming delivered via Internet protocol, but not 
for purposes of delivering television programs with captions. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should define the 
term VPO for purposes of the television closed captioning rules. The 
Commission seeks comment on an appropriate definition for VPOs in the 
television context with respect to the provision of closed captioning. 
For example, should the Commission include in the definition of VPO a 
person or entity that licenses video programming to a video programming 
distributor or provider that makes the video programming available 
directly to the end user? What other entities should be covered under 
the definition of VPO in this context, and why?
    3. Some interested parties support extension of the responsibility 
for caption quality to other entities in the captioning chain, in 
addition to VPDs, in the television context. For example, Comcast/
NBCUniversal (Comcast) proposes adopting a ``burden-shifting 
enforcement model'' that extends some captioning responsibilities to 
VPOs. It appears that the category of VPOs Comcast proposes to reach 
would be covered under the Commission's definition of ``video 
programmers'' as defined in the accompanying Report and Order, i.e., 
``entities that provide video programming that is intended for 
distribution to residential households including, but not limited to, 
broadcast or non-broadcast television networks, and the owners of such 
programming.'' The Comcast proposal would give a VPD the initial burden 
of addressing and investigating matters brought to its attention 
concerning the closed captioning quality rules adopted in the 
accompanying Report and Order. If the problem at issue relates to the 
pass-through of captions or the VPD's equipment, the VPD would be 
responsible for fixing it and bear any associated liability in an 
enforcement proceeding if one were to be initiated, because these are 
problems within the VPD's direct control. If, however, the VPD learns 
that the problems raised are within the control of the VPO, the 
compliance burden would shift to the VPO, which would be charged with 
fixing the problem and bear any associated liability in an enforcement 
proceeding.
    4. The Commission seeks comment on Comcast's burden-shifting 
proposal and whether it would result in an appropriate allocation of 
responsibilities for addressing failures to meet the Commission's 
captioning quality rules. Is this approach likely to achieve a prompter 
and more effective resolution of captioning quality problems brought to 
the VPD's attention? Will this model provide strong incentives for the 
various parties associated with program production and delivery to work 
cooperatively to improve captioning quality, as suggested by Comcast? 
Finally, the Commission notes that under the Comcast proposal, a VPD 
would be relieved of any liabilities associated with captioning 
problems once it determined that the problems raised are within the 
control of the VPO. The Commission seeks comment on how the Commission 
can be assured that when responsibility for captioning problems are 
shifted to other programming entities, VPDs will have appropriately 
transferred such liability. Should each VPD be obligated to report to 
the Commission when they shift this burden, with information about the 
results of its initial investigation to warrant this shift? Should the 
VPD remain jointly responsible with the programmer after informing the 
programmer about the need for the programmer to address the problem? 
The Commission asks commenters generally to provide input on the 
advantages and disadvantages of adopting Comcast's proposal, including 
its feasibility, as well as the costs and benefits of shifting 
responsibility for direct compliance with the Commission's closed 
captioning requirements to other entities responsible for the 
production and delivery of video programming.
    5. Are there other approaches the Commission should consider using 
to apportion responsibilities for compliance with the television 
caption quality rules among entities involved in the production and 
delivery of video programming? Should any changes to the apportionment 
of these responsibilities apply generally to all captioning 
obligations, or only to the newly adopted captioning quality rules? To 
what extent should responsibilities be joint and several among specific 
entities? For example, is it preferable to place the ultimate 
responsibility for compliance with a single entity or are there 
benefits to imposing joint responsibility on or dividing up 
responsibility among the responsible entities? What effect would the 
sharing of obligations across multiple entities have on consumers and 
industry, and to what extent can any negative effects be mitigated?
    6. The Commission also seeks comment on the effect, if any, that 
extending responsibility for compliance to entities other than VPDs 
would have on the Commission's ability to efficiently monitor and 
enforce the closed captioning television rules. To what extent would 
the Commission's earlier predictions that VPDs would privately 
negotiate with VPOs and other VPPs regarding ``an efficient allocation 
of captioning responsibilities'' and that VPOs and other VPPs would 
``cooperate with distributors to ensure that nonexempt programming is 
closed captioned in accordance with [the

[[Page 17096]]

Commission's] rules'' apply to the caption quality context? In the IP 
captioning context, the Commission determined that although VPDs and 
VPOs may enter into private contracts placing some obligations on VPOs, 
leaving VPOs' responsibilities to be defined entirely by private 
contractual arrangements would be more costly and less efficient than 
appropriately allocating certain responsibilities among both VPOs and 
VPDs by Commission rule. IP Captioning Report and Order Closed 
Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video Programming: 
Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010, MB Docket No. 11-154, Report and Order, (IP 
Captioning Report and Order); published at 77 FR 19480, March 30, 2012. 
Would a division of responsibilities for caption quality in the 
television context reduce or improve the Commission's efficiencies in 
overseeing the captioning rules? Is there a ``liability gap'' left by 
the Commission's decision in the 1997 Closed Captioning Report and 
Order to limit regulatory oversight to VPDs that needs to be addressed 
with respect to the general implementation of the Commission's 
television captioning rules by extending regulatory oversight to VPOs, 
video programmers or other entities? For example, as noted above, Sec.  
79.1(g)(6) of the Commission's rules permits VPDs to rely on 
certifications from programming suppliers to demonstrate compliance 
with the Commission's captioning requirements. 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6). Will 
imposing shared responsibilities on other entities in the programming 
chain help to alleviate concerns that could arise if a VPD relies on 
such certifications without taking any additional steps to ensure that 
the programming at issue has in fact been delivered to the consumers 
with the captions intact and of a quality that now meets the 
Commission's captioning quality standards?
    7. To the extent the Commission decides to impose some obligations 
directly on other programming entities, the Commission also seeks 
comment on whether any other changes to the rules or Best Practices 
adopted in the Report and Order are appropriate. For example, if the 
Commission extends obligations for compliance with the captioning 
quality standards directly to programmers, should the Commission allow 
such programmers to assert a safe harbor, which could then entitle them 
to take corrective actions to demonstrate compliance prior to being 
subject to enforcement action--akin to the compliance ladder adopted 
for stations in compliance with the new enhanced ENT procedures? Should 
the Commission similarly allow VPDs to assert a safe harbor, which 
would also entitle them to take corrective actions to demonstrate 
compliance prior to being subject to enforcement action, in the event 
certain obligations for compliance with the captioning quality 
standards are placed on VPDs? If the Commission were to extend direct 
compliance responsibility with its closed captioning requirements to 
video programmers or other programming entities, would it no longer be 
necessary to include Sec.  79.1(g)(6) in the Commission's rules? In 
addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are 
similarities or differences between the television and the IP closed 
captioning contexts or the Commission's emergency information rule that 
justify similar or different regulatory approaches. The Commission 
seeks comment on any other issues related to extending some or all 
responsibility for compliance with the Commission's closed captioning 
requirements to other programming entities and asks commenters to 
address the costs and benefits of making any such adjustments to the 
Commission's rules.
    8. Finally, the Commission invites parties generally to provide any 
information that they believe will contribute to a better understanding 
about which entities are ultimately better positioned to ensure 
compliance with the Commission's captioning quality standards.

Minimum Captioning Quality Standards

    9. Live Programming. The Commission seeks comment on technical 
solutions for improving the synchronicity between the audio track and 
captions on live programming to facilitate understanding of a program's 
content. For example, would providing the captioner advance delivery of 
the audio by a few seconds help to reduce captioning latency? The 
Commission asks commenters to provide input on this and other 
techniques to achieve greater synchronicity, and to explain how the 
incremental costs and burdens of utilizing any of the techniques they 
propose compare with the benefits of greater accessibility to 
television programming. The Commission asks commenters to indicate 
whether VPDs, programmers or other entities should be responsible for 
implementing such technical solutions.
    10. The Commission also seeks additional information about methods 
to provide captions that capture the entirety of the program's aural 
content, including, for example (1) sending the audio feed to the live 
captioner in a way that alerts the captioner that the program's end is 
imminent, so that the captioner can paraphrase or abbreviate the 
remaining text before the program cuts off; (2) fading out the program 
after its last scene to add a few seconds for the transition to the 
next program or commercial content; (3) providing advance delivery of 
the audio to captioners by a few seconds; and (4) allowing captions 
remaining at the end of a program's audio to be placed in a location on 
the screen during the subsequent advertisement (or program) in a manner 
that does not overlap with the captions on that advertisement or 
program. The Commission seeks comment on the feasibility, costs and 
other concerns associated with requiring the use of one or more of 
these techniques to ensure that captioning of live programming is 
complete. Are there other technologies or techniques in addition to 
these that the Commission should consider requiring for this purpose, 
and if so, what are their costs, benefits and technical feasibility? If 
the Commission adopts more specific latency requirements, should the 
Commission also identify any exceptions for circumstances where it is 
not possible to ensure completeness, and if so, what circumstances 
would those be? If the Commission requires any new methods to ensure 
that captions capture the entirety of the program's aural content, 
should VPDs, programmers or other entities be responsible for 
implementing these methods? Finally, the Commission asks commenters to 
explain how the incremental costs and burdens of utilizing any of the 
techniques they propose compare with the benefits of greater 
accessibility to television programming.
    11. Near-Live Programming. In the Report and Order, the Commission 
identifies measures that are likely to result in an improved quality of 
captions for both near-live programming and rebroadcasts of live 
programming, including programmers providing an advance script, a near-
completed program, or a live feed of the advance taping to a captioning 
agency, which the agency can then use to create a caption file that is 
later combined simultaneously with the program when it is aired. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether there are other measures in 
addition to these that can be used to improve the quality of near-live 
programming, as well as whether the Commission should require any

[[Page 17097]]

such measures. In this regard, the Commission requests input on the 
feasibility, costs and other concerns that would be associated with 
such requirements, and how those compare with the benefits of greater 
accessibility to television programming. The Commission asks commenters 
to indicate how to apportion responsibilities among VPDs, programmers 
or other entities for ensuring compliance with any measures adopted to 
improve the quality of near-live programming.
    12. The Commission also seeks comment on whether its current 
definition of near-live programming is appropriate for purposes of the 
quality standards that the Commission adopted in the Report and Order. 
Commission rules pertaining to the IP captioning requirements currently 
define near-live programming as programming that is performed and 
recorded within 24 hours prior to when it is first aired on television. 
47 CFR 79.4(a)(8). Consumer Groups recommend that the Commission 
``presumptively limit `near-live' programming to programming recorded 
and performed less than double its length prior to air--e.g., two hours 
before the airing of a one-hour program--and deem `pre-recorded' all 
programming recorded and performed more than double its length prior to 
air.'' Consumer Groups also recommend that the Commission require the 
use of offline captioning where doing so is achievable and that ``VPDs 
delivering near-live programming using real-time captions maintain 
records of the reason that offline captioning is not achievable.''
    13. Although consumers recommend that VPDs be required to maintain 
such records, it may be more appropriate for programmers who are 
directly responsible for the delivery of programs with captions to bear 
this obligation. The Commission seeks comment on establishing such a 
requirement, as well as the other proposals made by the Consumer 
Groups. Is the Commission's current definition of near-live programming 
adequate to achieve the goal of promoting caption quality? Is it 
technically and financial feasible to caption programming performed 
less than 24 hours prior to air offline instead of in real-time? Is the 
Consumer Groups' proposal to limit near-live programming to programming 
recorded and performed less than double its length prior to air 
feasible? Does it better promote quality captioning? The Commission 
also seeks specific cost information on the impact of changing the 
definition of near-live programming for purposes of the Commission's 
caption quality rules.
    14. Live and Near-Live Program Re-feeds. For live and near-live 
programs that were originally captioned using real-time captioning 
techniques but that are later re-aired on television after the 
effective date of the caption quality standards, the Commission asks 
whether the Commission should require the use of offline captioning or 
other measures that the Commission encouraged in the Report and Order 
to improve the quality of closed captioning. For example, should the 
Commission adopt a requirement to correct errors inadvertently made and 
timing lags that occurred when the program was first aired with real-
time captions? Are there other measures that can be taken between the 
time of the first and subsequent showings that can help improve the 
caption viewer experience of such programs? If any rules were to be 
adopted requiring correction of captioning errors and timing lags on 
re-feeds of live and near-live programming, should such rules include 
threshold error rates or time lags before correction is required, and 
if so what should those thresholds be? The Commission asks commenters 
to provide feedback on the feasibility, costs and burdens that would be 
associated with such requirements to take certain measures to improve 
captions on re-feeds, and to compare these with the benefits of greater 
accessibility to television programming. The Commission also seeks 
input on the minimum interval needed between the original airing and 
the re-feed that would make such measures feasible. Finally, the 
Commission seeks comment on who should be responsible for implementing 
measures that will improve the accuracy, synchronicity, completeness 
and placement of captions on program re-feeds--VPDs, programmers, or 
other entities.

Use of Electronic Newsroom Technique by Non-Broadcast Channels

    15. The Commission seeks comment on whether to apply the ENT 
requirements adopted for broadcasters in the Report and Order to non-
broadcast networks. What effect, if any, will these proposals have on 
the availability of news and public affairs programming as well as 
other live programming on non-broadcast networks serving less than 50 
percent of all homes subscribing to MVPD services? What are the 
benefits and disadvantages of these proposals for consumers seeking 
full access to news programming? The Commission also seeks other 
information that will help the Commission to assess the costs and 
benefits if it were to apply these proposed obligations on non-
broadcast networks.

Compliance

    16. Technical Equipment Checks. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether to establish specific intervals by which equipment checks 
codified in the Report and Order should take place and, if so, how 
frequently these checks should be performed to ensure that captioning 
is reliably delivered and video programming is fully accessible to 
consumers. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which measures 
other than regular equipment checks, such as automated technologies 
that can be used to ensure that captions are passed through to 
consumers, should be permitted as alternative methodologies for 
monitoring. Commenters are asked to weigh the costs of these proposals 
as well as the costs of particular time intervals against the benefits 
of increasing reliable access to video programming by people who are 
deaf and hard of hearing.
    17. Resolution of Consumer Complaints. The National Cable and 
Telecommunications Association (NCTA) proposes in its Best Practices 
that VPDs take the following actions designed to improve the prompt 
resolution of consumer's captioning concerns.
     Consumer care awareness and training. Maintain consumer 
support and escalation for captioning issues and provide targeted 
information or conduct training for customer care agents or television 
station personnel, as appropriate, to help with and assist in the 
resolution of caption quality and other captioning support issues.
     Identification and remediation of recurring captioning 
issues. Make reasonable efforts to identify consumer complaints 
received about captioning issues and periodically review these 
complaints to identify and resolve recurring captioning problems.

The Commission seeks comment on whether to adopt these practices noted 
above. The Commission asks commenters to address their experiences with 
the resolution of complaints filed directly with VPDs and whether 
adherence to the above practices would affect either positively or 
negatively the resolution of such complaints. The Commission asks 
commenters to also address the costs and benefits of requiring VPDs to 
implement these complaint handling practices.
    18. Consumer Groups recommend that the Commission provide the 
public

[[Page 17098]]

with information about all captioning-related complaints as part of a 
Commission-wide ``dashboard.'' The Commission seeks comment on having 
the Commission make such information available to the public.
    19. Outages. The Commission seeks comment on whether VPDs should be 
required to notify both consumers and the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau (CGB) when captioning outages occur. Such outage 
reporting would only be required where there is an underlying 
obligation to provide captions, not where programming entities are 
exempt or otherwise excused from the captioning obligations. Given that 
some programming is exempt from the Commission's captioning rules, the 
Commission also seeks comment on whether and how consumers should be 
informed when captions are not required on particular programs. The 
Commission also seeks input on the duration and frequency of outages 
that should trigger any notification requirements. The Commission 
requests that parties provide comments on the practical and technical 
feasibility of notifying the public of a captioning outage on VPD Web 
sites and via periodic crawls on affected programs. For example, to 
what extent do the causes of outages impact the ability of the VPD to 
notify customers of the outage? Should VPDs be required to provide 
timely updates of service status that they are working on so that 
consumers are aware while watching the program? In this regard, the 
Commission also seeks comment about the length of time it generally 
takes to repair an outage after it has been discovered. Next, the 
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate passage of time after such 
outage commences before a VPD should be required to notify consumers 
and the Commission that an outage has occurred. VPDs should also 
comment on how they can become aware of captioning outages and how that 
will affect their ability to notify consumers. How do the costs and 
burdens of providing such notifications compare with the benefits of 
greater consumer access to information about captioning outages?
    20. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission 
should require the VPD to submit an outage report to CGB, on the 
contents and timing of such a report, and how the report should be 
filed. What minimum outage time should trigger the filing of a report? 
If outage reports are required, what information should be included in 
the report? For example, should it include a list of the VPD's affected 
programs, the geographic locations affected by the outage, the dates 
and times for the start and end of the outage, and the cause of the 
outage? If the outage lasts for more than one day, should the VPD be 
required to seek out other captioning sources while repairing 
equipment? How soon after the outage starts and ends should the report 
be filed with CGB? As an alternative to submitting outage reports, 
should VPDs be required to maintain records of their outages and for 
what length of time? How do the costs and burdens of filing captioning 
outage reports with CGB or keeping outage records compare with the 
benefits of achieving improved enforcement of the closed captioning 
obligations for consumers? In addition, the Commission notes that the 
obligation under Sec.  79.2 of the Commission's rules to make emergency 
information visually accessible exists even if closed captioning is not 
available, and that the VPD may use scrolls, crawls, or other visual 
alternatives to fulfill that obligation. See 47 CFR 79.2. The 
Commission also notes that it does not intend for the notification and 
reporting requirements proposed herein to relieve VPDs of their 
obligations to prevent foreseeable and avoidable situations created by 
inaction or delay. Finally, the Commission asks interested parties to 
provide comment on how any responsibilities associated with the outage 
reporting obligations should be apportioned among VPDs, programmers, 
program owners, or other entities.
    21. Amending Sec.  79.1(i)(3) of the Commission's Rules to Require 
All Contact Information Be Submitted to the VPD Registry. Over the past 
three years, the Commission has found that the VPD Registry offers the 
most efficient and accurate means of collecting VPD contact information 
for the receipt and handling of immediate captioning concerns raised by 
consumers while they are watching television as well as for closed 
captioning complaints. The Commission proposes to amend its rules to 
require VPD contact information required under Sec.  79.1(i)(1) and (2) 
of the Commission's rules to be submitted to the Commission directly to 
the VPD Registry through the web form method and seeks comment on this 
proposal. How do the costs of transitioning to a mandatory web form 
method of filing compare with the ease and accuracy of filing and 
benefits derived from such mandatory system?
    22. Treatment of Consumer Complaints by a VPD that Is Not the 
Responsible Party. In the 2008 Closed Captioning Decision, the 
Commission adopted Sec.  79.1(g)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
79.1(g)(3), which requires a VPD that receives a closed captioning 
complaint for a program for which it does not have closed captioning 
responsibility, to forward that complaint to the responsible entity 
within seven days of receiving the complaint, and then to notify the 
complainant that the complaint was forwarded. 2008 Closed Captioning 
Decision. On June 10, 2009, Time Warner Cable (Time Warner) filed an ex 
parte letter identifying potential conflicts between the Commission's 
amended Sec.  79.1(g)(3) and the obligations of cable companies to 
protect a subscriber's privacy under section 631(c)(1) of the Act. 47 
U.S.C. 551(c)(1).
    23. On December 11, 2009, the Commission released an Order 
temporarily staying the effective date of the forwarding provision of 
amended Sec.  79.1(g)(3) of the Commission's rules. See Closed 
Captioning of Video Programming, CG Docket No. 05-231, Order Suspending 
Effective Date, (2009 Suspension Order); published at 75 FR 7369, 
February 19, 2010. Noting the potential conflict between amended Sec.  
79.1(g)(3) of the Commission's rules and sections 631(c) and 338(i)(4) 
of the Act (the latter creating the same prohibitions for satellite 
providers), the Commission found good cause to temporarily suspend the 
effective date for Sec.  79.1(g)(3) of the Commission's rules, pending 
the completion of further rulemaking proceedings to determine how 
closed captioning complaints sent to the incorrect entity should be 
handled.
    24. In order for a third party video programming provider to 
respond to a forwarded complaint, that complaint must include the 
complainant's name, address, telephone number and other personally 
identifiable information. Yet, sections 631(c) and 338(i)(4) of the Act 
appear to prohibit the forwarding of such information without the 
complainant's consent.
    25. Accordingly, the Commission proposes amending Sec.  79.1(g)(3) 
of the Commission's rules to require that within seven days after a VPD 
receives a complaint regarding programming of a broadcast television 
licensee or programming over which the VPD does not exercise editorial 
control, it be required to notify the complainant--using the 
complainant's preferred method of communication--of the appropriate 
party to whom the complaint should be sent, and give the complainant 
the option of either (1) asking the VPD to forward the complaint to the 
appropriate party electronically or in writing, or (2) submitting the 
complaint directly to the appropriate party on his or her own. In 
addition, the Commission proposes that

[[Page 17099]]

the VPD, after taking such action, inform the Commission that it has so 
notified the complainant by providing the Commission with copies of all 
written or electronic correspondence or a written description of all 
communications that were not either in electronic or written form. 
Under this proposal, if the VPD is asked by the complainant to forward 
the complaint to the appropriate party, the VPD would be required to do 
so within seven days of receiving such request, and if the VPD is not 
asked to forward the complaint, it would have no further 
responsibility. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals, 
including whether the second prong of the proposed requirement--
requiring the VPD to notify the Commission that it has informed the 
complainant of the available options--would itself be a violation of 
sections 631(c)(1) and 338(i)(4) of the Act in instances where the 
consumer files his or her complaint with the VPD only and does not 
authorize the VPD to provide a copy to the Commission. If the 
Commission decides to require the VPD to notify it, the Commission 
seeks comment on the method a VPD must use to notify the Commission. 
How do the costs of forwarding complaints upon consumer request and 
notifying the Commission of actions taken compare with the benefits of 
providing a consumer-friendly way to get the complaints to the correct 
parties? Finally, the Commission requests commenters to submit any 
alternative proposals for amending Sec.  79.1(g)(3) of the Commission's 
rules to avoid breaching the consumer protections contained in sections 
631(c)(1) and 338(i)(4) of the Act.

Captioning Exemptions

    26. Elimination of the New Network Exemption. The Commission seeks 
comment on the merits of continuing to allow all new networks to 
receive a four year exemption from the closed captioning rules. See 47 
CFR 79.1(d)(9). Should newly launched networks build the costs of 
captioning into their business plans during the planning of their 
networks? If the Commission were to eliminate the new network 
exemption, should the Commission adopt a phase-in period to provide an 
opportunity for networks that are about to commence operations to plan 
for the required captioning? If so, what should this phase-in be? The 
Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of eliminating the 
new network exemption.
    27. As an alternative, the Commission seeks comment on modifying 
the new network exemption. Currently, the exemption is for four years. 
Would a one or two year exemption be more appropriate? The Commission 
seeks comment on these or any other time periods that might be 
appropriate for a revised new network exemption. Even if the Commission 
retains the new network exemption, should the exemption apply only to 
new networks that have certain other indicia of a start-up network, 
e.g., local or regional in nature, accessible by a small number of 
households, and ownership by a small business? If the Commission takes 
this approach, how does it define each of these or other proposed 
criteria for limiting the new network exemption? Alternatively, should 
networks with significant financial backing be deemed ineligible for 
the new network exemption? For example, should the exemption not apply 
to new networks that are owned, in whole or part, by one of the four 
major national broadcast networks or the top ten non-broadcast 
networks? How do the relative costs and burdens of requiring new 
networks to provide captioning under each of these alternatives compare 
with the benefits of greater accessibility to television programming?
    28. If the Commission does retain this exemption, the Commission 
also seeks comment on the definition of ``network'' for purposes of the 
closed captioning rules. The exemption for new networks is based on the 
number of years that a programming network has been in operation rather 
than the number of subscribers. 47 CFR 79.1(d)(9). Further, this 
exemption applies to different types of networks--broadcast, non-
broadcast, national, and regional. 1997 Closed Captioning Report and 
Order; see also Closed Captioning Reconsideration Order. To begin with, 
the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which it should rely on 
other definitions of ``network,'' contained elsewhere in the 
Commission's rules. For example, Sec.  73.3613(a)(1) of the 
Commission's rules defines ``network'' with respect to broadcast 
network affiliation agreements that must be filed with the Commission 
as ``any person, entity, or corporation which offers an interconnected 
program service on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week to at 
least 25 affiliated television licensees in 10 or more states.'' 47 CFR 
73.3613(a)(1); see also 47 CFR 76.55(f) (similar definition for 
purposes of the cable ``must carry'' rules). Alternatively, Sec.  
76.5(m) of the Commission's rules, pertaining to cable operators 
providing network non-duplication protection to television stations, 
defines a ``network program'' as ``. . . any program delivered 
simultaneously to more than one broadcast station regional or national, 
commercial or noncommercial.'' 47 CFR 76.5(m). The Commission seeks 
comment on whether these or a different definition of ``network'' would 
be appropriate for purposes of Sec.  79.1(d)(9) of the Commission's 
rules, and whether to apply the same definition to broadcast and non-
broadcast networks.
    29. Next, the Commission notes that MVPDs serving U.S. subscribers 
increasingly offer video programming networks that were initially 
launched in foreign markets. In the event the Commission retains the 
new network exemption, the Commission seeks comment on whether a 
network that has operated in a foreign market and that moves to 
distribution or ``launches'' in the U.S., should be eligible for a new 
network exemption for a certain period of time after it launches in the 
U.S. and, if so, what the duration of that exemption should be. The 
Commission also seeks feedback on how to calculate the exemption period 
for such a new network, specifically, whether such network should be 
considered new as of the date that it begins distribution in the U.S., 
or whether its launch date should be considered the date that it 
initially began viewing in its originating country. The Commission asks 
commenters that believe the Commission should calculate an exemption 
upon moving the network's programming to the U.S. to explain why this 
exemption is necessary, given that such networks will have been in 
operation (and presumably generating revenues) and will have advance 
notice of U.S. captioning obligations prior to launching in the U.S. 
How do the costs and burdens of providing captioning on networks 
showing programming in the U.S. after first showing programming in 
foreign countries compare with the benefits of greater accessibility to 
television programming?
    30. Last, in the event the Commission retains the new network 
exemption, the Commission seeks comment on the application of the new 
network exemption to networks created as the result of a merger of two 
or more existing networks. The Commission seeks comment on whether the 
original launch dates of networks that merged should be considered the 
applicable date for purposes of determining the exemption period for 
the merged entity. The Commission also seeks comment on which date 
should control in those situations where the merged entities had 
different original launch dates. Should the duration of the exemption 
be calculated based on the individual network that has been in 
existence for

[[Page 17100]]

the longest period of time? Is this approach appropriate because the 
new network exemption applies for a limited number of years--four years 
under the current rules so that no component part of the combined 
network would have the benefit of the exemption for longer than the 
maximum length of time provided by the rule? The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether the new network exemption should apply or be 
extended in the event of a restructuring of a network. Because the 
captioning rules were promulgated sixteen years ago and each network 
will have known about captioning requirements since its inception, has 
the network had sufficient time to integrate closed captioning into its 
production process and costs? The Commission seeks comment on this 
issue including its costs and benefits.
    31. Consumer Groups' 2011 Petition Requesting Elimination of 
Certain Self-Implementing Exemptions from the Captioning Rules. On 
January 27, 2011, the Consumer Groups filed a joint petition for 
rulemaking (2011 Petition) seeking amendment to the Commission's 
captioning rules regarding an exclusion and several categorical self-
implementing exemptions from the obligation to caption television 
programming. The Consumer Groups requested, in light of modern 
technology, the reduced costs of captioning, and other changed 
circumstances, that the Commission eliminate the exclusion for 
advertisements of five minutes duration or less, see 47 CFR 79.1(a)(1), 
and the self-implementing exemptions provided for the following types 
of programming: Late night programming, see 47 CFR 79.1(d)(5), locally 
produced and distributed non-news programming with no repeat value, see 
47 CFR 79.1(d)(8), interstitials, promotional announcements, and public 
service announcements that are 10 minutes or less in duration, see 47 
CFR 79.1(d)(6), and channels producing revenues under $3 million, see 
47 CFR 79.1(d)(12). The Commission seeks comment on the Consumer 
Groups' proposal to eliminate the advertising exclusion and the 
specified self-implementing exemptions from the closed captioning 
rules. The Commission asks commenters to address the merits as well as 
the costs and benefits of each proposal put forth by the Consumer 
Groups.

Technical Standards for the Display of Closed Captions

    32. In the 2000 DTV Closed Captioning Order, the Commission 
adopted, with some modifications, section 9 of CEA-708, to provide 
guidelines for encoder and decoder manufacturers and caption providers 
to implement closed captioning services with digital television 
technology. See Closed Captioning Requirements for Digital Television 
Receivers; Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video 
Programming, Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, ET Docket No. 99-254, MM 
Docket No. 95-176, Report and Order, (2000 DTV Closed Captioning 
Order); published at 65 FR 58467, September 29, 2000; see also 47 CFR 
79.102. The standards require DTV closed caption decoders to support 
certain advanced features, including different caption sizes, fonts, 
character background and foreground colors, and other similar features, 
to allow viewers to customize the display of closed captions on their 
televisions. The Commission now seeks comment on the experiences that 
caption users have had since adoption of these standards, including the 
extent that such consumers have succeeded in using these features to 
improve their television experience.
    33. In addition to allowing users to control the appearance of 
captions, CEA-708 allows programmers more options for the display of 
captions, such as multiple windows, fonts, and styles. The Commission 
seeks information on current practices for such formatting of closed 
captions. To what extent was the Commission correct in its earlier 
expectation that CEA-708 captions would be provided and its prediction 
that ``programmers and caption providers'' would have incentives to 
provide CEA-708 captions? To what extent are VPDs, video programmers, 
captioners, or other entities each involved in the production process 
for formatting closed captions in a manner that provides the advanced 
features adopted by the Commission in the 2000 DTV Closed Captioning 
Order, such as delivering captions in programmer-selected size, font, 
character background colors, and foreground colors of closed captions? 
What other entities are involved in the process, and how so? If VPDs, 
video programmers, captioners, or other entities involved in the 
production process are not formatting closed captions to use CEA-708 
capabilities, why not? What action, if any can the Commission take to 
ensure the effective implementation of the CEA-708 capabilities so that 
television viewers who use captions can take full advantage of the 
capabilities this standard was intended to provide?

Caption Obstructions

    34. Some caption viewers have raised concerns about closed captions 
being partially or completely blocked by other visual information, such 
as graphics, that appear on the screen. The Commission seeks comment on 
the extent to which on-screen visual changes or textual depictions, 
including, but not limited to, split screens, pop-on advertisements and 
promotions, credits, graphic overlays, or contact information, have 
caused a problem for caption viewers. To the extent that these problems 
exist, the Commission asks for comment on their causes and possible 
solutions.

New Technologies

    35. Captioning on 3D Television Programming. To better understand 
current practices and capabilities with regard to closed captioning of 
3D TV programming, the Commission seeks comment on the following:
     How are DTV manufacturers ensuring that captions continue 
to work when 3D TV programming is shown on television sets with 3D 
capability?
     Are there issues regarding the placement of captions in a 
3D picture? What steps must manufacturers take to ensure that 
captioning in 3D TV programming is inserted and placed at an 
appropriate depth of field in the 3D image? Do user-selected changes to 
font size and location of the captions operate differently in a 3D 
image?
     With regard to television sets with 3D capability, will 
captions display properly when the user switches between 2D and 3D 
modes?
     How do the costs and burdens of providing closed 
captioning in 3D TV programming compare with the benefits of greater 
accessibility to television programming?
    The Commission seeks input on any other matters that could affect 
the availability of closed captioning on 3D TV programming.
    36. Captioning on Ultra High Definition Television Programming. To 
better understand current practices and capabilities with regard to 
closed captioning of Ultra HDTV programming, the Commission seeks 
comment on the following:
     How are Ultra HDTV manufacturers ensuring that captions 
continue to appear legibly when programming is shown on Ultra HDTV 
television sets?
     Do the standards for Ultra HDTV programming have the same 
capabilities for the transmission or pass-through of captions as HDTV 
and SDTV programming?
     Does the increased resolution present new challenges 
related to the

[[Page 17101]]

display of captions, particularly with respect to font size of the 
captions? If so, what are these new challenges, and how can they be 
addressed?
     How do the costs and burdens of additional requirements 
concerning closed captioning for Ultra HDTV programming compare with 
the benefits of greater accessibility to television programming?
    The Commission seeks input on any other matters that could affect 
the availability of closed captioning on Ultra HDTV programming.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    37. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by 
the policies and rules proposed in document FCC 14-12 FNPRM. Written 
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified 
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for 
comments in document FCC 14-12. The Commission will send a copy of 
document FCC 14-12, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
    38. In document FCC 14-12, the Commission seeks comment on (1) 
whether the Commission should impose some responsibilities for 
compliance with the Commission's closed captioning quality rules on 
video programmers and other entities; (2) whether the Commission should 
require specific measures to ensure program completeness and 
synchronicity for live and near-live programming and how the Commission 
should define near-live programming; (3) whether the Commission should 
require the use of offline captioning or other measures to achieve 
improved accuracy, synchronicity, placement and program completeness of 
captions prior to the re-airing of live and near-live programming first 
shown after the effective date of any such rule; (4) whether to apply 
the ENT requirements adopted for broadcasters to non-broadcast networks 
that use ENT and serve less than 50 percent of all MVPD homes to 
achieve greater accessibility to news programming; (5) whether to 
establish specific maximum intervals for technical equipment checks or 
to allow alternatives to such technical equipment checks; (6) whether 
to adopt a proposal for improving the prompt resolution of consumers' 
captioning concerns by VPDs, and whether to create a publicly available 
``dashboard'' that would provide information about all captioning-
related complaints; (7) whether to require that captioning outages be 
communicated to viewers in real-time and be reported to the Commission, 
consistent with the reporting requirements for other types of outages; 
(8) whether to require that all contact information already required to 
be submitted by VPDs to the Commission for the VPD registry be 
submitted using the Commission's web form system only; (9) how to amend 
the Commission's rules regarding the forwarding of consumer complaints 
to ensure subscriber privacy when the VPD receiving an informal 
complaint is not the responsible party; (10) whether to eliminate or 
retain the four-year exemption contained in Sec.  79.1(d)(9) of the 
Commission's rules pertaining to new networks, and if retained, whether 
to reduce the term of the exemption or limit its availability based on 
certain criteria indicative of a start-up network, how to define 
network, how to calculate the start date of the network for purposes of 
the exemption, and whether and how the exemption should be applied to 
networks created as the result of a merger of two or more existing 
networks; (11) whether to eliminate or retain the exclusion contained 
in Sec.  79.1(a)(1) of the Commission's rules for advertisements of 
five minutes duration or less and certain self-implementing exemptions 
contained in Sec.  79.1(d) of the Commission's rules, including 
exemptions for late night programming, locally produced and distributed 
non-news programming with no repeat value, interstitials, promotional 
announcements, and public service announcements that are 10 minutes or 
less in duration, and channels producing revenues under $3 million; 
(12) current practices with regard to technical standards for the 
display of closed captioning; (13) the extent to which onscreen visual 
changes or textual depictions have caused a problem for caption 
viewers; and (14) current practices and capabilities with regard to 
closed captioning of 3D TV and ultra HDTV.
    39. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    40. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. As of 2009, small businesses represented 99.9% of the 
27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to the SBA. 
Additionally, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(4). Nationwide, as of 2007, there 
were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term 
``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as 
``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school 
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty 
thousand.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(5). Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that 
there were 89,527 governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The 
Commission estimates that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities 
may qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
    41. Cable Television Distribution Services. These services have 
been included within the broad economic census category of Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for this category, which is all such firms having 1,500 
or fewer employees. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau for 
the year 2007, there were 3,188 Wired Telecommunications Carrier firms 
that operated for the entire year in 2007. Of these, 3,144 operated 
with less than 1,000 employees, and 44 operated with 1,000 or more 
employees.
    42. Cable Companies and Systems. Under the Commission's rules, a 
``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, 
nationwide. 47 CFR 76.901(e). Industry data shows that there are 1,100 
cable companies. Of this total, all but 10 incumbent cable companies 
are small. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a ``small 
system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 47 CFR 
76.901(c). Current Commission records show 4,945 cable systems 
nationwide. Of this total, 4,380 cable systems have less than 20,000 
subscribers, and 565 systems have 20,000 subscribers or more.
    43. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for 
small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator

[[Page 17102]]

that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer 
than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not 
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in 
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see also 47 
CFR 76.901(f) and nn.1-3. Based on available data, all but 10 incumbent 
cable operators are small under this size standard.
    44. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a 
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and 
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna 
at the subscriber's location. Currently, only two entities, DIRECTV and 
DISH Network, provide DBS service, and neither company is a small 
business.
    45. Wireless Cable Systems--Broadband Radio Service and Educational 
Broadband Service. Wireless cable systems use the Broadband Radio 
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) to transmit video 
programming to subscribers. In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, 
the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity 
that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in 
the previous three calendar years. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met 
the definition of a small business, and of these 61 winners, 48 remain 
small business licensees. In addition, there are approximately 392 
incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities. 
Accordingly, there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that 
are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the 
Commission's rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86 for 
the sale of 78 BRS licenses, and established three categories of small 
businesses: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues 
that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding 
three years is a small business; (ii) a bidder with attributed average 
annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 
million for the preceding three years is a very small business; and 
(iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do 
not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years is an entrepreneur. 
Of the 10 winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business 
status won four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business 
status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur 
status won six licenses.
    46. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television 
Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting 
Services. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which is all such businesses having 
1,500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, 
there were 3,188 Wired Telecommunications Carrier firms that operated 
for the entire year in 2007. Of these, 3,144 operated with less than 
1,000 employees, and 44 operated with 1,000 or more employees. In 
addition to Census Bureau data, the Commission's internal records 
indicate that as of September 2012, there are 2,239 active EBS 
licenses. The Commission estimates that of these 2,239 licenses, the 
majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school 
districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.
    47. Open Video Services. Because OVS operators provide subscription 
services, OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard 
covering cable services, which is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, 
which is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. According to 
U.S. Census data for 2007, there were 3,188 firms that in 2007 were 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Of these, 3,144 operated with less 
than 1,000 employees, and 44 operated with 1,000 or more employees. 
However, as to the latter 44 there is no data available that shows how 
many operated with more than 1,500 employees.
    48. Television Broadcasting. The SBA defines a television 
broadcasting station as a small business if such station has no more 
than $35.5 million in annual receipts. The Commission has estimated the 
number of licensed full power commercial television stations to be 
1,388. According to U.S. Census data for 2007, there were 2,076 
television broadcasting establishments in 2007. Of these, 1,515 
establishments had receipts under $10 million, and 561 had receipts of 
$10 million or more. The Commission notes, however, that, in assessing 
whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above 
definition, business control affiliations must be included. Because 
many of these stations may be held by large group owners, and the 
revenue figures on which the Commission's estimate is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from control affiliates, the Commission's 
estimate likely overstates the number of small entities that might be 
affected by the Commission's action.
    49. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed 
noncommercial educational (NCE) full power television stations to be 
396. The Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access 
to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to 
determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities. There 
are also 428 Class A television stations and 1,986 low power television 
stations (LPTV). Given the nature of these services, the Commission 
will presume that all Class A television and LPTV licensees qualify as 
small entities under the SBA definition.
    50. In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business'' 
is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The 
Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria 
that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant 
in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small 
businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television 
station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is 
therefore over-inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional 
element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must 
be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is 
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media 
entities, and the Commission's estimates of small businesses to which 
they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
    51. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for ILECs. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules 
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees 
and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of 
Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small ILECs are not dominant 
in their field of operation because any such dominance is not 
``national'' in scope. The Commission has therefore included small 
ILECs in this RFA analysis, although the Commission emphasizes that 
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations 
in other, non-RFA contexts.
    52. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, that there were 3,188 
firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 3,144 had employment of less than 1000 employees, and 44 firms 
had had employment of 1,000 or more. According to Commission data, 
1,307

[[Page 17103]]

carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of ILEC 
services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees.
    53. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access 
Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local 
Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
small business size standard specifically for these service providers. 
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau 
data for 2007, there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated 
for the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 had employment of less than 
1000 employees, and 44 firms had had employment of 1,000 employees or 
more. According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they 
were engaged in the provision of either CLEC services or CAP services. 
Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and 186 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 17 
carriers have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. Seventy-two 
carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers, and 
of the 72, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 2 have more than 1,500 
employees.
    54. Electric Power Distribution Companies. These entities can 
provide video services over power lines (BPL). The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for this category, which is all such firms 
having 1,000 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 
there were 1,174 firms that operated for the entire year in this 
category. Of these firms, 50 had 1,000 employees or more, and 1,124 had 
fewer than 1,000 employees.
    55. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. These entities may be 
directly or indirectly affected by the Commission's action. The size 
standard established by the SBA for this business category is that 
annual receipts of $35.5 million or less determine that a business is 
small. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, there were 396 firms that 
were engaged in production of Cable and Other Subscription Programming. 
Of these, 349 had annual receipts below $25 million, 12 had annual 
receipts ranging from $25 million to $49,999,999, and 35 had annual 
receipts of $50 million or more.
    56. Motion Picture and Video Production. These entities may be 
directly or indirectly affected by the Commission's action. The size 
standard established by the SBA for this business category is that 
annual receipts of $30 million or less determine that a business is 
small. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, there were 9,095 firms 
that were engaged in Motion Picture and Video Production. Of these, 
8,995 had annual receipts of less than $25 million, 43 had annual 
receipts ranging from $25 million to $49,999,999, and 57 had annual 
receipts of $50 million or more.
    57. Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals. 
These entities may be directly or indirectly affected by the 
Commission's action. The SBA has deemed an Internet publisher or 
Internet broadcaster or the provider of a web search portal on the 
Internet to be small if it has fewer than 500 employees. Census Bureau 
data for 2007 show that there were 2,705 such firms that operated that 
year. Of those 2,705 firms, 2,682 (approximately 99%) had fewer than 
500 employees, and 23 had 500 or more employees.
    58. Closed Captioning Services. These entities may be directly or 
indirectly affected by the Commission's action. The SBA has developed 
two small business size standards that may be used for closed 
captioning services, which track the economic census categories, 
``Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services'' and ``Court 
Reporting and Stenotype Services.''
    59. The relevant size standard for small businesses in 
Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services is annual revenue of 
less than $29.5 million. Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that 
there were 1,605 firms that operated in this category for the entire 
year. Of that number, 1,587 had annual receipts totaling less than $25 
million, 9 had annual receipts ranging from $25 million to $49,999,999, 
and 9 had annual receipts of $50 million or more.
    60. The size standard for small businesses in Court Reporting and 
Stenotype Services is annual revenue of less than $14 million. Census 
Bureau data for 2007 show that there were 2,706 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 2,687 had annual receipts of under $10 
million, 11 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999, 
and 8 had annual receipts of $25 million or more.
    61. If the Commission were to adopt rules extending 
responsibilities for compliance with the Commission's closed captioning 
quality standards and other captioning requirements to video 
programmers or entities other than VPDs, such regulations would impose 
new compliance obligations and may impose additional reporting and 
recordkeeping obligations on video programmers, video programming 
owners, and other entities, including small entities.
    62. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring the use of 
certain measures to ensure program completeness and synchronicity of 
closed captions for live and near-live programming and changing the 
Commission's current definition of near-live programming for purposes 
of the quality standards adopted in the Order, such regulations would 
impose additional compliance obligations on VPDs, including small 
entities.
    63. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring the use of 
offline captioning or other measures to achieve improved accuracy, 
synchronicity, placement and program completeness of the captions prior 
to the re-airing of live and near-live programs, such regulations would 
impose additional compliance obligations on VPDs, including small 
entities.
    64. If the Commission were to apply the ENT requirements adopted in 
the Report and Order for broadcasters to non-broadcast networks that 
use ENT and serve less than 50 percent of all MVPD homes, such 
regulations would impose new compliance obligations that may pose a 
financial burden on some non-broadcast networks, including smaller 
entities.
    65. If the Commission were to establish maximum intervals for 
technical equipment checks, or to allow alternatives to such technical 
equipment checks, such regulations would impose additional compliance 
obligations on VPDs, including small entities.
    66. If the Commission were to adopt the practices proposed by the 
NCTA for improving the prompt resolution of consumers' captioning 
concerns, including requiring VPDs to make reasonable efforts to 
identify consumer complaints received about captioning issues and 
periodically review those complaints to identify and resolve recurring 
captioning problems, VPDs, including small entities, would be subject 
to the recordkeeping requirements associated with the proposal.
    67. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring VPDs 
experiencing a captioning outage to notify consumers of the outage and 
file outage reports with the Commission, VPDs, including small 
entities, would be subject to the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements associated with such outage reports.

[[Page 17104]]

    68. If the Commission were to adopt a rule requiring that all 
contact information already required to be submitted by VPDs to the 
Commission for the VPD registry, see 47 CFR 79.1(i)(3), be submitted 
using the Commission's web form system, VPDs, including small entities, 
would not be subject to additional reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, because they are already required to submit their contact 
information to the Commission. However, VPDs, including small entities, 
may be required to alter their reporting and recordkeeping associated 
with such submissions in order to comply with the rule.
    69. If the Commission were to adopt a rule requiring a VPD, upon 
receipt of a complaint where the VPD is not the responsible party, to 
(1) notify the consumer within seven days; (2) offer the consumer a 
choice of either asking the VPD in writing to forward the complaint to 
the appropriate party or submitting the complaint directly to the 
appropriate party on his or her own; and (3) inform the Commission that 
it has so notified the complainant by providing the Commission with 
copies of all written or electronic correspondence or a written 
description of all communications that were not in electronic or 
written form, VPDs, including small entities, would be subject to the 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with such complaint 
forwarding and notifications.
    70. If the Commission were to eliminate the four-year exemption 
contained in Sec.  79.1(d)(9) of its rules pertaining to new networks, 
47 CFR 79.1(d)(9), or retain but alter the four-year exemption 
pertaining to new networks, it would impose new compliance obligations 
that may pose a financial burden on some smaller entities.
    71. If the Commission were to eliminate the exclusion from the 
definition of video programming for advertisements of five minutes 
duration or less, 47 CFR 79.1(a)(1), and if the Commission were to 
eliminate certain self-executing exemptions contained in Sec.  79.1(d) 
of its rules, including exemptions for late night programming, 47 CFR 
79.1(d)(5), locally produced and distributed non-news programming with 
no repeat value, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(8), interstitials, promotional 
announcements, and public service announcements that are 10 minutes or 
less in duration, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(6), and channels producing revenues 
under $3 million, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(12), it would impose new compliance 
obligations that may pose a financial burden on VPDs, including small 
entities.
    72. If the Commission were to take action to ensure the effective 
implementation of the technical standards for the display of closed 
captioning, it may impose additional compliance obligations on 
television manufacturers and VPDs, including small entities.
    73. If the Commission were to adopt rules governing on-screen 
visual changes or textual depictions that obstruct closed captioning, 
it may impose additional compliance obligations on VPDs and video 
programmers, including small entities.
    74. If the Commission were to adopt additional rules governing 
closed captioning of 3D television and Ultra HDTV, it may impose 
additional compliance obligations on television manufacturers and VPDs, 
including small entities.
    75. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    76. First, the rules already allow small entities to take advantage 
of various possible exemptions: (1) The exemption for annual revenues 
under $3 million, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(12) (However, document FCC 14-12 seeks 
comment on whether to eliminate this exemption), (2) the exemption 
limiting the captioning requirement to 2% of annual gross revenues, 47 
CFR 79.1(d)(11), and (3) the individual exemption process that allows 
the Commission to grant exemptions from the captioning rules when the 
provision of captions would impose an economic burden on a programming 
entity. 47 CFR 79.1(f).
    77. If the Commission were to adopt rules extending 
responsibilities for compliance with the Commission's closed captioning 
requirements (including each of the proposals noted above) to video 
programmers and entities other than VPDs, such regulations would impose 
new compliance obligations and may impose additional reporting and 
recordkeeping obligations on video programmers, video programming 
owners, and other entities, including small entities. However, 
extending responsibilities for compliance with the Commission's closed 
captioning requirements to video programmers and other entities may 
benefit certain small entities through more efficient regulations that 
reach those entities with the greatest control over closed captioning 
quality. In addition, in determining whether to extend responsibility 
for compliance with the Commission's closed captioning requirements to 
video programmers or other entities involved in the production and 
delivery of video programming, the Commission will consider the costs 
of and benefits of such extension of responsibilities.
    78. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring the use of 
certain measures to ensure program completeness and synchronicity of 
closed captions for live and near-live programming and changing the 
Commission's current definition of near-live programming for purposes 
of the quality standards adopted in the Order, such regulations would 
impose additional compliance obligations on VPDs, video programmers, or 
other entities, including small entities. However, such regulations are 
less burdensome than the alternative of regulations imposing specific 
metrics for captioning synchronicity and program completeness. In 
addition, in determining whether to require certain techniques for 
improving the quality of real-time captioning of live programming, the 
Commission will consider the incremental costs and burdens of using any 
of the proposed techniques compared with the benefits of greater 
accessibility to television programming.
    79. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring the use of 
offline captioning or other measures to achieve improved accuracy, 
synchronicity, placement and program completeness of the captions prior 
to the re-airing of live and near-live programming first shown after 
the effective date of any such rule, such regulations would impose 
additional compliance obligations on VPDs, video programmers, or other 
entities including small entities. In determining whether to require 
certain techniques for improving the quality of captioning of live or 
near-live programming that is later re-aired, the Commission will 
consider the costs and burdens of using any of the proposed techniques 
compared with the benefits of greater accessibility to television 
programming.
    80. If the Commission were to apply the ENT requirements adopted in 
the Order to non-broadcast networks that

[[Page 17105]]

use ENT and serve less than 50 percent of all MVPD homes to ensure 
greater accessibility to news programming, such regulations would 
impose new compliance obligations that may pose a financial burden on 
some non-broadcast networks, including small entities. However, the 
Commission's proposal to apply the ENT requirements to non-broadcast 
channels serving less than 50 percent of all MVPD homes provides a less 
burdensome alternative to a phase-out of ENT, which would impose higher 
burdens and costs on small entities under the current rules. In 
addition, networks with small budgets would still be able to take 
advantage of various possible exemptions: (1) The exemption for annual 
revenues under $3 million, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(12) (document FCC 14-12 also 
seeks comment on whether to eliminate the exemption for annual revenues 
under $3 million), (2) the exemption limiting the captioning 
requirement to 2% of annual gross revenues, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(11), and (3) 
the individual exemption process that allows the Commission to grant 
exemptions from the captioning rules when the provision of captions 
would impose an economic burden on a programming entity. 47 CFR 
79.1(f).
    81. If the Commission were establish maximum intervals for 
technical equipment checks, or other measures that can be used to 
ensure that captions are passed on to consumers, such regulations would 
impose additional compliance obligations on VPDs, including small 
entities. In determining whether to require intervals for such checks 
or other measures, the Commission will consider the costs and burdens 
of these requirements compared with the value of this maintenance to 
greater accessibility to television programming.
    82. If the Commission were to adopt the practices proposed by NCTA 
for improving the prompt resolution of consumers' captioning concerns, 
VPDs, including small entities, would be subject to the recordkeeping 
requirements associated with the proposal. However, the proposal would 
impose no reporting requirements and does not require specific measures 
for identifying and reviewing consumer complaints related to closed 
captioning problems. In addition, such a requirement may benefit small 
entities because it may reduce consumer complaints regarding 
captioning, because the VPDs may be addressing problems earlier as a 
result of these procedures.
    83. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring VPDs 
experiencing a captioning outage to notify consumers in real time of 
the outage and file outage reports with the Commission, VPDs, including 
small entities, would be subject to the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements associated with such outage reports. Adopting such a 
requirement would be in the public interest because it would provide 
greater consumer access to information about captioning outages. In 
addition, such a requirement may benefit small entities because it may 
reduce consumer complaints regarding captioning outages, because the 
outage notifications would inform consumers that the VPD is aware of 
and addressing the problem.
    84. If the Commission were to adopt a rule requiring that all 
contact information already required to be submitted by VPDs to the 
Commission for the VPD registry, see 47 CFR 79.1(i)(3), be submitted 
using the Commission's web form system only, VPDs, including small 
entities, would not be subject to additional reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, since they are already required to submit 
their contact information to the Commission. However, VPDs, including 
small entities, may be required to alter their reporting and 
recordkeeping associated with such submissions in order to comply with 
the rule. In determining whether to require VPDs to submit their 
contact information via the web form, the Commission will consider the 
costs of transitioning to a mandatory web form method of filing, 
compared with the ease and accuracy of filing and the benefits derived 
from a mandatory system.
    85. If the Commission were to adopt a rule requiring a VPD, upon 
receipt of a complaint where the VPD is not the responsible party, to 
(1) notify the consumer within seven days; (2) offer the consumer a 
choice of either asking the VPD in writing to forward the complaint to 
the appropriate party or submitting the complaint directly to the 
appropriate party on his or her own; and (3) inform the Commission that 
it has so notified the complainant by providing the Commission with 
copies of all written or electronic correspondence or a written 
description of all communications that were not in electronic or 
written form, VPDs, including small entities, would be subject to the 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with such complaint 
forwarding and notifications. This rule is intended to allow for the 
forwarding of consumer complaints as required by Sec.  79.1(g)(3) of 
the Commission's rules without violating the consumer protections 
contained in sections 631(c)(1) and 338(i)(4) of the Act. Nevertheless, 
in determining whether to adopt this rule, the Commission will consider 
the costs of forwarding complaints upon consumer request and notifying 
the Commission of actions taken compared to the benefits of providing a 
consumer-friendly way to get the complaints to the correct parties.
    86. If the Commission were to eliminate the four-year exemption 
contained in Sec.  79.1(d)(9) of the Commission's rules pertaining to 
new networks, or retain but alter the four-year exemption pertaining to 
new networks, it would impose new compliance obligations that may pose 
a financial burden on some small entities. However, under the current 
rules, networks with small budgets would still be able to take 
advantage of various possible exemptions: (1) The exemption for annual 
revenues under $3 million, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(12) (document FCC 14-12 also 
seeks comment on whether to eliminate the exemption for annual revenues 
under $3 million), (2) the exemption limiting the captioning 
requirement to 2% of annual gross revenues, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(11), and (3) 
the individual exemption process that allows the Commission to grant 
exemptions from the captioning rules when the provision of captions 
would impose an economic burden on a programming entity. 47 CFR 
79.1(f).
    87. If the Commission were to eliminate the exclusion from the 
definition of video programming for advertisements of five minutes 
duration or less, 47 CFR 79.1(a)(1), and if the Commission were to 
eliminate certain self-executing exemptions contained in Sec.  79.1(d) 
of its rules, including exemptions for late night programming, 47 CFR 
79.1(d)(5), locally produced and distributed non-news programming with 
no repeat value, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(8), interstitials, promotional 
announcements, and public service announcements that are 10 minutes or 
less in duration, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(6), and channels producing revenues 
under $3 million, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(12), it would impose new compliance 
obligations that may pose a financial burden on VPDs, including small 
entities. However, under the current rules, entities with small budgets 
would still be able to take advantage of other possible exemptions: (1) 
The exemption limiting the captioning requirement to 2% of annual gross 
revenues, 47 CFR 79.1(d)(11), and (2) the individual exemption process 
that allows the Commission to grant exemptions from the captioning 
rules when the provision of captions would impose an economic burden on 
a programming entity. 47 CFR 79.1(f).

[[Page 17106]]

    88. If the Commission were to take action to ensure the effective 
implementation of the technical standards for the display of closed 
captioning, it may impose additional compliance obligations on 
television manufacturers and VPDs, including small entities. In 
determining whether to require any other practices governing technical 
standards for the display of closed captioning, the Commission will 
consider the costs and burdens of such practices compared with the 
benefits of greater accessibility to television programming.
    89. If the Commission were to adopt rules governing on-screen 
visual changes or textual depictions that obstruct closed captioning, 
it may impose additional compliance obligations on VPDs and video 
programmers, including small entities. In determining whether to 
require any other practices governing on-screen visual changes or 
textual depictions that obstruct closed captioning, the Commission will 
consider the costs and burdens of such practices compared with the 
benefits of greater accessibility to television programming.
    90. If the Commission were to adopt rules governing display of 
closed captioning, closed captioning of 3D television or Ultra HDTV 
programming, it may impose additional compliance obligations on 
television manufacturers and VPDs, including small entities. However, 
VPDs are already subject to rules governing the display of closed 
captioning and are required to reliably encode, transport, and render 
closed captions on 3D and Ultra HDTV video programming in accordance 
with Commission rules. Also, in accordance with the Commission's 
captioning rules, such VPDs and providers must permit the pass through 
or rendering of closed captions in a manner that will allow viewers to 
exercise control over various display features and to activate and 
deactivate captions when video programming is played back on television 
receivers with 3D or Ultra HDTV capability. Finally, interconnection 
mechanisms and standards for 3D and Ultra HDTV video source devices 
must be capable of conveying from the source device to the consumer 
equipment the information necessary to permit or render the display of 
closed captions. In determining whether to require any other practices 
for the display of closed captioning or captioning 3D television or 
Ultra HDTV, the Commission will consider the costs and burdens of such 
practices compared with the benefits of greater accessibility to 
television programming.
    91. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the 
Commission's Proposals. None.

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r) and 713 of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and 613, document FCC 14-
12 is adopted.
    The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 14-12 
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06755 Filed 3-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P