[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45354-45371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18203]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 79

[MB Docket No. 11-154; FCC 14-97]


Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video 
Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications 
and Video Accessibility Act of 2010; Closed Captioning of Internet 
Protocol-Delivered Video Clips

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, as part of the Commission's continued 
implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010 (``CVAA''), it concludes that clips of video 
programming covered by the statute must be captioned when delivered 
using Internet protocol (``IP''). The Commission adopts rules governing 
such captioning and sets out a schedule of deadlines. These 
requirements will apply where a video programming distributor or 
provider posts on its Web

[[Page 45355]]

site or application a video clip of video programming that it published 
or exhibited on television with captions on or after the applicable 
compliance deadline.

DATES: Effective September 4, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Diana Sokolow, [email protected], of the Policy 
Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Video 
Clips Order, FCC 14-97, adopted on July 11, 2014 and released on July 
14, 2014. The full text of this document is available for public 
inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street 
SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be 
available via ECFS at http:fjallfoss,fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be 
available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe 
Acrobat. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. 
Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities 
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an 
email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 
(TTY).

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In 
addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act 
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. One of the Commission's priorities is to ensure that all 
individuals, especially individuals with disabilities, are able to 
enjoy the full benefits of broadband technology, including the services 
that broadband enables such as online video programming. Online viewing 
of video programming is becoming increasingly significant, and one 
aspect of this development is that more and more consumers are 
receiving news, sports, and entertainment programming in the form of 
online video clips. In this Second Order on Reconsideration (``Video 
Clips Order''), as part of our continued implementation of the Twenty-
First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 
(``CVAA''), we conclude that clips of video programming covered by the 
statute must be captioned when delivered using Internet protocol 
(``IP'') and set out a schedule of deadlines.
    2. When the Commission initially adopted IP closed captioning 
requirements pursuant to its responsibilities under the CVAA it applied 
the requirements to full-length video programming and not to video 
clips.\1\ The Commission said that it might in the future extend the IP 
closed captioning requirements to video clips if it found that 
consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing are denied access to critical 
areas of programming, such as news, because the programming is posted 
online as video clips. In response to a petition for reconsideration 
filed by consumer groups, and at the Commission's direction, the Media 
Bureau issued a public notice seeking updated information on the closed 
captioning of IP-delivered video clips, including the extent to which 
the industry has voluntarily captioned these clips.\2\ After reviewing 
the record compiled in this proceeding, we find that a significant 
percentage of video clips continue to remain inaccessible to consumers 
who are deaf or hard of hearing. In addition, we have reconsidered the 
Commission's earlier interpretation of the statute and conclude that 
Congress intended the IP closed captioning requirements to extend to 
all covered video programming including clips, but left to our 
discretion the timeline for compliance with this requirement. 
Accordingly, to implement the statute fully, and in furtherance of 
Congress's intent to ensure that individuals who are deaf or hard of 
hearing have better access to online video programming, we reconsider 
the Commission's earlier decision and revise our regulations to require 
the provision of closed captioning on video clips delivered using IP 
when the programming was published or exhibited on television with 
captions. As discussed in section III below, this Video Clips Order 
imposes closed captioning requirements on IP-delivered video clips by 
adopting rules that will:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video 
Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Report and 
Order, 27 FCC Rcd 787, 816-18, para 44-48 (2012) (``IP Closed 
Captioning Order'').
    \2\ Media Bureau Seeks Comment on Application of the IP Closed 
Captioning Rules to Video Clips, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 16699 
(MB, 2013) (``Video Clips PN'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Extend the IP closed captioning requirements to IP-
delivered video clips if the video programming distributor or provider 
\3\ posts on its Web site or application (``app'') a video clip of 
video programming that it published or exhibited on television in the 
United States with captions, regardless of the content or length of the 
video clip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ When we use the term ``video programming distributor or 
provider'' herein, we invoke the definition of that term in the 
Commission's IP closed captioning rules, which is ``[a]ny person or 
entity that makes available directly to the end user video 
programming through a distribution method that uses Internet 
protocol.'' 47 CFR 79.4(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Pursuant to our authority to establish an appropriate 
schedule of deadlines for purposes of the IP closed captioning 
requirements,\4\ adopt a compliance deadline of January 1, 2016 for 
``straight lift'' clips, which contain a single excerpt of a captioned 
television program with the same video and audio that was presented on 
television, and January 1, 2017 for ``montages,'' which contain 
multiple straight lift clips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     After the applicable deadlines, require IP-delivered video 
clips to be provided with closed captions at the time the clips are 
posted online, except as otherwise provided.
     For clips of video programming previously shown live or 
near-live on television with captions,\5\ require captions beginning 
July 1, 2017 and for the present time allow a grace period of 12 hours 
after the live programming is shown on television and eight hours after 
the near-live programming is shown on television before the clip must 
be captioned online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Industry refers to these video clips as ``time-sensitive''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Find that compliance with the new requirements would be 
economically burdensome for video clips that are in the video 
programming distributor's or provider's online library before January 
1, 2016 for straight lift clips, and January 1, 2017 for montages, and 
thus exempt this class of video clips from coverage; and
     Generally apply the IP closed captioning requirements to 
video clips in the same manner that they apply to full-length video 
programming, which among other things means that the quality 
requirements applicable to full-length IP-delivered video programming 
will apply to video clips.

[[Page 45356]]

II. Background

    3. In the IP Closed Captioning Order, the Commission implemented 
section 202 of the CVAA by imposing closed captioning requirements on 
the owners, providers, and distributors of IP-delivered video 
programming with respect to full-length video programming.\6\ The 
Commission defined ``full-length video programming'' covered by the 
rules as video programming that appears on television and is 
distributed to end users, substantially in its entirety, via IP. By 
``substantially in its entirety,'' the Commission ``mean[t] to 
reference video programming that is distributed via IP as a complete 
video programming presentation, such as an episode of a television show 
or movie.'' \7\ Accordingly, ``full-length video programming'' 
includes, for example, a full-length half-hour program that is missing 
a few minutes when it is distributed via IP, as well as a full-length 
program that is posted online in its entirety in multiple segments for 
easy viewing. The definition of ``full-length video programming'' 
excludes ``video clips,'' which the Commission defined as excerpts of 
full-length video programming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ When we use the term ``video programming owner'' herein, we 
invoke the definition of that term in the Commission's IP closed 
captioning rules, which is the person or entity that either (i) 
licenses the video programming to a video programming distributor or 
provider that makes the video programming available directly to the 
end user through a distribution method that uses Internet protocol; 
or (ii) acts as the video programming distributor or provider, and 
also possesses the right to license the video programming to a video 
programming distributor or provider that makes the video programming 
available directly to the end user through a distribution method 
that uses Internet protocol. 47 CFR 79.4(a)(4).
    \7\ IP Closed Captioning Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 816, para. 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Although the Commission excluded video clips in the IP Closed 
Captioning Order, it interpreted the legislative history of the CVAA as 
signaling Congress's intent to leave open the extent to which the IP 
closed captioning rules should cover video clips at some point in the 
future. Hence, the Commission indicated that it might in the future 
determine that the IP closed captioning requirements should apply to 
video clips if necessary to provide access to this programming. 
Specifically, the Commission stated, ``If we find that consumers who 
are deaf or hard of hearing are not getting access to critical areas of 
programming, such as news, because of the way the programming is posted 
(e.g., through selected segments rather than full-length programs), we 
may reconsider this issue to ensure that our rules meet Congress's 
intent to bring captioning access to individuals viewing IP-delivered 
video programming.''
    5. In addition, although the Commission did not require closed 
captioning of IP-delivered video clips, it encouraged video programming 
owners, providers, and distributors to provide closed captions on such 
content where they are able to do so. In particular, the Commission 
``encourage[d] the industry to make captions available on all TV news 
programming that is made available online, even if it is made available 
through the use of video clips.'' \8\ The Commission also said that it 
might find a violation of the IP closed captioning rules if an entity 
exhibited a pattern of using video clips as a means of avoiding its 
closed captioning obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 818, para. 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. A coalition of consumer groups filed a Petition for 
Reconsideration of the IP Closed Captioning Order, arguing, among other 
things, that the Commission should require captioning of IP-delivered 
video clips.\9\ In an order responding to the Consumer Groups Petition, 
the Commission noted that consumers were particularly concerned about 
the availability of captioned news clips, which tend to be live or 
near-live.\10\ Nevertheless, because full-length live and near-live 
programming became subject to the IP closed captioning requirements 
only about a month before Consumer Groups filed their petition, the 
Commission expressed its expectation that entities subject to the IP 
closed captioning rules would caption an increasing volume of video 
clips, particularly news clips, given that they would be developing 
more efficient processes for the captioning of live and near-live 
programming. The Commission further indicated that it would monitor 
industry actions on the captioning of IP-delivered video clips, and it 
directed the Media Bureau to issue a public notice to seek updated 
information on the topic within six months. If the record developed 
from the public notice ``demonstrates that consumers are denied access 
to critical areas of video programming due to lack of captioning of IP-
delivered video clips,'' the Commission indicated that it might 
reconsider its decision not to subject video clips to the IP closed 
captioning rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Consumer Groups, Petition for Reconsideration of the 
Commission's Report and Order, at iii, 1-17 (filed Apr. 27, 2012) 
(``Consumer Groups Petition''). We use the term ``Consumer Groups'' 
to reference the signatories of the Consumer Groups Petition or a 
subset thereof: Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, 
Inc.; National Association of the Deaf; Deaf and Hard of Hearing 
Consumer Advocacy Network; Association of Late-Deafened Adults; 
Hearing Loss Association of America; Cerebral Palsy and Deaf 
Organization; and Technology Access Program at Gallaudet University. 
The Consumer Groups' petition for reconsideration was published in 
the Proposed Rules section of the Federal Register. See Petitions 
for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, MB Docket 
No. 11-154; Rpt No. 2951, 77 FR 30,485, May 23, 2012.
    \10\ Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video 
Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Order on 
Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC 
Rcd 8785, 8804, para. 30 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. At the Commission's direction, the Media Bureau issued a public 
notice seeking updated information on the closed captioning of IP-
delivered video clips, including the extent to which industry has 
voluntarily captioned these clips. In the public notice, the Media 
Bureau asked whether the Commission should require captioning of IP-
delivered video clips, and it invited comment on any issues relevant to 
this determination. Commenters representing both the industry and 
consumer groups submitted detailed filings on these issues. The record 
demonstrates the large volume of IP-delivered video clips currently 
available to consumers, culled from a multitude of full-length video 
programs.

III. Discussion

    8. As discussed fully below, we hereby reconsider our prior 
decision and conclude that the CVAA covers video clips as well as full-
length video programming shown online. Accordingly, at this time we 
apply the IP closed captioning requirements to video clips if the video 
programming distributor or provider posts on its Web site or app a 
video clip of video programming that it published or exhibited on 
television in the United States with captions. Specifically, for 
``straight-lift'' clips, which contain a single excerpt of a captioned 
television program with the same video and audio that was presented on 
television, the IP closed captioning requirements will apply beginning 
January 1, 2016. For ``montage'' clips, a single file containing 
multiple straight lift clips, we adopt an extended compliance deadline 
of January 1, 2017.\11\ We find that it would

[[Page 45357]]

be economically burdensome to apply the new requirements to video clips 
that are in the video programming distributor's or provider's library 
before the relevant compliance deadline, and accordingly we exempt such 
video clips from coverage.\12\ Further, we will require captioning for 
video clips of live and near-live programming beginning July 1, 2017, 
and we will permit such clips to be posted online initially without 
captions, but require that captions be added to clips of live 
programming within 12 hours and to clips of near-live programming 
within eight hours after the conclusion of the television display of 
the associated video programming \13\ that contained the clip.\14\ 
Finally, we generally apply the Commission's IP closed captioning rules 
for full-length programming, including the quality requirements, to 
video clips.\15\ Below, before addressing the substance of our video 
clips requirements, we first discuss threshold issues regarding legal 
authority and procedure, as well as the benefits of requiring closed 
captioning for IP-delivered video clips. As discussed fully below, we 
hereby reconsider our prior decision and conclude that the CVAA covers 
video clips as well as full-length video programming shown online. 
Accordingly, at this time we apply the IP closed captioning 
requirements to video clips if the video programming distributor or 
provider posts on its Web site or app a video clip of video programming 
that it published or exhibited on television in the United States with 
captions. Specifically, for ``straight-lift'' clips, which contain a 
single excerpt of a captioned television program with the same video 
and audio that was presented on television, the IP closed captioning 
requirements will apply beginning January 1, 2016. For ``montage'' 
clips, a single file containing multiple straight lift clips, we adopt 
an extended compliance deadline of January 1, 2017.\16\ We find that it 
would be economically burdensome to apply the new requirements to video 
clips that are in the video programming distributor's or provider's 
library before the relevant compliance deadline, and accordingly we 
exempt such video clips from coverage.\17\ Further, we will require 
captioning for video clips of live and near-live programming beginning 
July 1, 2017, and we will permit such clips to be posted online 
initially without captions, but require that captions be added to clips 
of live programming within 12 hours and to clips of near-live 
programming within eight hours after the conclusion of the television 
display of the associated video programming \18\ that contained the 
clip.\19\ Finally, we generally apply the Commission's IP closed 
captioning rules for full-length programming, including the quality 
requirements, to video clips.\20\ Below, before addressing the 
substance of our video clips requirements, we first discuss threshold 
issues regarding legal authority and procedure, as well as the benefits 
of requiring closed captioning for IP-delivered video clips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We distinguish here between a single file containing 
multiple straight lift clips and situations where one or more single 
files are played sequentially, such as through a playlist. For 
example, a video programming distributor might automatically begin 
playing a related video file immediately after the initial video 
retrieved by the consumer concludes, such as another news clip about 
the same topic or another highlight from the same sporting event. 
That would not be an example of a montage, but rather, would be 
straight lift clips that are played in sequence.
    \12\ As in the IP Closed Captioning Order, herein we use the 
term ``library'' to describe the collection of content a video 
programming provider or distributor makes available to consumers 
online. In the Further Notice, we seek comment on application of the 
IP closed captioning requirements to video clips that are added to 
the video programming distributor's or provider's library after the 
relevant compliance deadline but before the programming is shown on 
television with captions (``advance'' video clips).
    \13\ When we use the term ``associated video programming'' or 
``associated video program,'' we mean the televised programming from 
which the video clip was excerpted.
    \14\ Throughout this item, when we discuss grace periods of a 
certain number of hours after the programming is shown on television 
with captions within which video clips must be captioned online, we 
will consider the grace period to begin upon the conclusion of the 
television display of the associated video program. Given the 
current state of captioning technology, waiting until the conclusion 
of the program is the most reasonable approach at this juncture 
since, at that time, the caption file is complete.
    \15\ We also adopt a Further Notice considering four specific 
issues. Among the issues considered in the Further Notice is 
application of the IP closed captioning requirements to ``mash-
ups,'' which occur when a single file contains a compilation of one 
or more video clips that have been shown on television with captions 
along with additional content that has not been shown on television 
with captions. We thus defer, at this time, application of our rules 
with respect to mash-ups.
    \16\ We distinguish here between a single file containing 
multiple straight lift clips and situations where one or more single 
files are played sequentially, such as through a playlist. For 
example, a video programming distributor might automatically begin 
playing a related video file immediately after the initial video 
retrieved by the consumer concludes, such as another news clip about 
the same topic or another highlight from the same sporting event. 
That would not be an example of a montage, but rather, would be 
straight lift clips that are played in sequence.
    \17\ As in the IP Closed Captioning Order, herein we use the 
term ``library'' to describe the collection of content a video 
programming provider or distributor makes available to consumers 
online. In the Further Notice below, we seek comment on application 
of the IP closed captioning requirements to video clips that are 
added to the video programming distributor's or provider's library 
after the relevant compliance deadline but before the programming is 
shown on television with captions (``advance'' video clips).
    \18\ When we use the term ``associated video programming'' or 
``associated video program,'' we mean the televised programming from 
which the video clip was excerpted.
    \19\ Throughout this item, when we discuss grace periods of a 
certain number of hours after the programming is shown on television 
with captions within which video clips must be captioned online, we 
will consider the grace period to begin upon the conclusion of the 
television display of the associated video program. Given the 
current state of captioning technology, waiting until the conclusion 
of the program is the most reasonable approach at this juncture 
since, at that time, the caption file is complete.
    \20\ We also adopt a Further Notice considering the four 
specific issues listed above. Among the issues considered in the 
Further Notice is application of the IP closed captioning 
requirements to ``mash-ups,'' which occur when a single file 
contains a compilation of one or more video clips that have been 
shown on television with captions along with additional content that 
has not been shown on television with captions. We thus defer, at 
this time, application of our rules with respect to mash-ups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Threshold Issues Regarding Legal Authority and Procedure

    9. We find that the CVAA mandates that all ``video programming 
delivered using Internet protocol that was published or exhibited on 
television with captions after the effective date of such 
regulations,'' including clips of that programming, be provided with 
closed captioning.\21\ The statutory text, quoted above, does not 
distinguish between full-length video programming and video clips; 
therefore, as explained below, we believe the statute is most 
reasonably interpreted as covering excerpts of full-length programming 
as well as complete and substantially complete programs. To the extent 
the IP Closed Captioning Order stated that the CVAA's captioning 
provisions did not cover clips of video programming or did not cover 
them until some future date, we reconsider and reject that statutory 
interpretation. Rather, we find that video clips are included within 
the definition of video programming, and thus the statute mandates that 
clips of video programming covered by the statutory definition be 
captioned when delivered by IP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Clips of programming shown on television meet the statute's 
definition of ``video programming,'' which is ``programming by, or 
generally considered comparable to programming provided by a television 
broadcast station, but not including consumer-generated media (as 
defined in section 153 of this title).'' \22\ As we stated in the IP 
Closed Captioning Order, ``programming `that was published or exhibited 
on television' by definition constitutes `video programming,' since 
anything that was published or exhibited on television must be provided 
by, or be comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast 
station.'' There is nothing in the definition of ``video programming'' 
that expressly excludes video clips or

[[Page 45358]]

excerpts of programming. Indeed, only one category of programming is 
expressly excluded from the definition and that is ``consumer-generated 
media,'' a category not relevant for purposes here. The CVAA does not 
further explain what is meant by programming that is ``generally 
considered comparable to programming provided by a television broadcast 
station.'' However, nothing in the statutory text suggests an excerpt 
of programming may not be considered ``comparable'' to broadcast 
programming under section 202.\23\ To the contrary, section 202 
instructs us to take into account, in establishing compliance 
deadlines, whether the programming is ``edited for Internet 
distribution,'' indicating that Congress contemplated that the version 
of a television program provided online may differ, and in fact, be 
provided in truncated form, from the original airing shown on 
television. We therefore reject the argument that the term ``video 
programming'' does not encompass video clips on the theory that 
``television broadcasters and multi-channel video programming 
distributors do not transmit free-standing clips.'' \24\ For the 
reasons stated herein, we believe the better reading of the statute is 
that clips of video programming are covered by section 202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. 613(h)(2).
    \23\ A similar definition of ``video programming'' appears in 
other provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the 
``Act''). See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 522(20) (`` `video programming' means 
programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to 
programming provided by, a television broadcast station''). We note 
the Commission has not construed that term in other contexts to 
exclude excerpts or clips from the definition. See, e.g., Closed 
Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Report and 
Order, 13 FCC Rcd 3272 (1997) (``1997 Closed Captioning Order'') 
(implementing the requirement of Section 713 of the Act that video 
programming be closed captioned on television); Closed Captioning of 
Video Programming, Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 2221 (2014) (adopting 
captioning quality standards and technical compliance rules for 
video programming).
    \24\ See DiMA Comments at 3; see also NCTA Reply at 3. DiMA 
asserts that ``a 2-minute clip from `The Late Show with David 
Letterman' is not `comparable to' a full-length television show any 
more than 2-pages from a compilation of the Communications Act is 
`comparable to' the full text of the statute.'' DiMA Mar. 20 Ex 
Parte Letter at 1. We disagree, and conclude instead that a portion 
of a program that was shown on television with captions is no less 
``comparable to programming provided by a television broadcast 
station'' than the complete program itself. Contrary to DiMA's 
interpretation, the CVAA is not limited to programming comparable to 
full-length programming provided by a television broadcast station. 
See also Reply Comments of the Association of Public Television 
Stations and the Public Broadcasting Service at 3 (``PTV Reply'') 
(arguing that the dictionary meaning of ``programming'' and 
``program'' implies that ``programs'' subject to the CVAA's IP 
closed captioning requirements are full-length shows and not video 
clips). We disagree with PTV's approach because, as explained above, 
we find it consistent with the statutory text to conclude that 
``video programming'' encompasses video clips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. We also reject the contention that the legislative history of 
the CVAA compels us to interpret section 202 to exclude video clips 
from the IP closed captioning requirements. The Senate and House 
Committee Reports state that Congress ``intends, at this time, for the 
regulations to apply to full-length programming and not to video clips 
or outtakes.'' On reconsideration, we reject the Commission's 
statements in the IP Closed Captioning Order suggesting that this 
legislative history indicated Congress's intent to authorize the 
Commission to adopt rules requiring closed captioning of IP-delivered 
video clips at some future time.\25\ After examining this issue in more 
detail, we believe the better reading of this language is that Congress 
intended that the statutory captioning requirements cover video clips, 
but gave the Commission discretion to defer the compliance deadline for 
video clips when the Commission set the schedule of compliance 
deadlines under section 202. This interpretation is consistent with the 
statute, which gives the Commission considerable discretion in 
establishing ``an appropriate schedule of deadlines for the provision 
of closed captioning'' and directs the Commission to consider factors 
that may affect compliance.\26\ If Congress had intended to exclude 
excerpts from the scope of section 202, we would expect it to have 
expressly done so in the statute, as it did with respect to ``consumer-
generated media.'' \27\ Similarly, if Congress had intended to delay to 
some future date Commission authority to adopt rules for video clips, 
we would expect it to have included such a limitation in the statute. 
For these reasons, we believe our reading of the legislative history on 
reconsideration is most consistent with the statutory language. As 
discussed below, we now set phased-in compliance deadlines for 
captioning of IP-delivered video clips that fall within the definition 
of video programming (``programming by, or generally considered 
comparable to programming provided by a television broadcast station, 
but not including consumer-generated media (as defined in section 153 
of this title)'').\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ We are unpersuaded by Consumer Groups' argument that the 
legislative history's reference to ``video clips'' meant to refer to 
material that is exempt from the television closed captioning rules. 
Consumer Groups Mar. 28 Ex Parte Letter at 2. The television closed 
captioning rules exempt ``[i]nterstitial material, promotional 
announcements, and public service announcements that are 10 minutes 
or less in duration.'' 47 CFR 79.1(d)(6). Had Congress merely meant 
to carry over this exemption to IP-delivered programming, it would 
have cited that rule or used similar language. This exemption does 
not use the term ``video clips.''
    \26\ 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(B).
    \27\ See id. 613(h)(2).
    \28\ Id. 613(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Commenters who argue that Congress did not intend the 
Commission to apply the IP closed captioning regulations to video clips 
ignore the statutory language. For example, the Digital Media 
Association (``DiMA'') disagrees with the Commission's interpretation 
of ``at this time'' in the legislative history, and asserts instead 
that the phrase actually means that video clips are not covered ``under 
this statute.'' \29\ To the contrary, had Congress intended to carve 
out video clips from coverage of video programming, it could have said 
so clearly, rather than using the phrase ``at this time,'' which 
suggests merely a temporal meaning. If the reports had said that 
Congress ``intends for the regulations to apply to full-length 
programming and not to video clips,'' that would suggest that Congress 
understood video clips not to be covered by the statutory language. But 
the use of the phrase ``at this time'' suggests that the Commission's 
regulations could require captioning in the future. That could only 
happen if video clips fall within the ambit of ``video programming.'' 
Further, applying the IP closed captioning requirements to video clips 
is consistent with both the text and stated purpose of the CVAA, which 
was ``to help ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to 
fully utilize communications services and better access video 
programming.'' \30\ Requiring closed captioning of IP-delivered video 
clips will help ensure that individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing 
will have access to all covered video programming. And, as discussed 
above, the temporal reference in the legislative

[[Page 45359]]

history is consistent with the text of the statute, which gives the 
Commission discretion to adopt an appropriate schedule of compliance 
deadlines taking into consideration factors that may warrant a longer 
compliance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ According to DiMA, the reference to outtakes in the 
legislative history supports its interpretation because it argues 
outtakes are never shown on television, and thus it cannot be that 
Congress intended the Commission to reconsider covering outtakes at 
some point in the future. Neither the statute nor the legislative 
history indicates what the Congressional reports mean by use of the 
term ``outtakes.'' For purposes of the IP captioning rules the 
Commission defined ``outtakes'' not covered by the rules as 
``[c]ontent that is not used in an edited version of video 
programming shown on television.'' 47 CFR 79.4(a)(2), (13). Thus, 
outtakes that have never been shown on television need not be 
captioned when provided online. To the extent content that could be 
described in common parlance as ``outtakes'' does appear on 
television with captions, however, it must be captioned when 
provided online.
    \30\ Senate Committee Report at 1; House Committee Report at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Further, we conclude that it is procedurally appropriate for us 
to act on this issue now. We disagree with those commenters who suggest 
that the Consumer Groups Petition was procedurally defective under 
section 1.429(b) of the Commission's rules. Consumer Groups argued 
earlier in the proceeding that video clips (as the Commission has 
defined the term) \31\ should be subject to the IP closed captioning 
rules, and Consumer Groups requested reconsideration, arguing that the 
Commission wrongly decided the issue. We find that the Consumer Groups 
Petition does not rely entirely on arguments that the Commission 
already considered and rejected because it explicitly describes how the 
video clips exemption is denying consumers who are deaf or hard of 
hearing access to critical areas of programming, and it presents more 
up-to-date information than that available at the time the Commission 
released the IP Closed Captioning Order. In any event, even if the 
petition does rely on facts or arguments not previously presented to 
the Commission, grant of the petition still would be proper under our 
rules because of the clear public interest benefits of requiring closed 
captioning of IP-delivered video clips, as discussed below. The 
Commission's rules provide that grant of a petition for reconsideration 
that ``relies on facts or arguments which have not previously been 
presented to the Commission'' is permissible if ``[t]he Commission 
determines that consideration of the facts or arguments relied on is 
required in the public interest.'' \32\ For these reasons, it is 
procedurally appropriate to consider the Consumer Groups Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Consumer Groups did, however, previously support a narrow 
exclusion for video clips under 30 seconds in length that contain 
only promotional materials or advertising for full-length 
programming. See Comments of the Consumer Groups on the NPRM at 18-
20.
    \32\ See 47 CFR 1.429(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. We do not believe that seeking further comment is necessary or 
appropriate before we can impose any closed captioning requirements on 
IP-delivered video clips. DiMA claims that the Commission should issue 
a notice of proposed rulemaking before imposing any closed captioning 
requirement on IP-delivered video clips, to provide interested parties 
with an opportunity to comment and to obtain feedback on specific 
proposed rules. We find that a further notice of proposed rulemaking is 
neither procedurally necessary nor useful prior to imposing the 
requirements we adopt in this Video Clips Order. This proceeding has 
included a petition for reconsideration filed by Consumer Groups urging 
the Commission to require IP-delivered video clips to be captioned.\33\ 
Following the filing of that petition, the Commission released an order 
on reconsideration deferring a final ruling on the video clips issue 
raised in the Consumer Groups Petition and directing the Media Bureau 
to seek updated information on this issue. A public notice was 
published in the Federal Register seeking comment to further inform the 
Commission's consideration of the video clips issue and asking 
``whether, as a legal and/or policy matter, the Commission should 
require captioning of IP-delivered video clips.'' \34\ Thus, adequate 
notice of the proposed rules has been provided and issuing a further 
notice of proposed rulemaking before imposing the closed captioning 
requirements for IP-delivered video clips adopted herein would be 
redundant. Instead, we proceed to this Video Clips Order based on the 
ample record already compiled, including the additional comments filed 
recently in response to the public notice. In contrast, for those 
issues on which we do not have an adequate record for a decision, we 
seek further comment in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking 
Proceeding, MB Docket No. 11-154; Rpt No. 2951, 77 FR 30,485, May 
23, 2012.
    \34\ Video Clips PN, 28 FCC Rcd 16699. The Video Clips PN was 
published in the proposed rules section of the Federal Register. In 
seeking comment on the video clips proposal, the Video Clips PN also 
referenced the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis included in 
the NPRM in this proceeding, which identified small entities that 
might be affected. See Media Bureau Seeks Comment on Application of 
the IP Closed Captioning Rules to Video Clips, MB Docket No. 11-154; 
78 FR 78,319, December 26, 2013. We received comments from both the 
industry and consumer groups in response to the Video Clips PN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Impact of Requiring Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered 
Video Clips

    15. While we commend the industry for its voluntary efforts to 
caption IP-delivered video clips, we also recognize that many such 
video clips remain uncaptioned. The record demonstrates that over the 
past few years, industry has been exhibiting an increasing volume of 
online video programming in the form of video clips, and these clips 
are increasingly captioned. Specifically, while Consumer Groups found 
in May 2013 that 23 percent of news clips and 10 percent of non-news 
clips were captioned, the more recent data that Consumer Groups 
submitted in February 2014 indicates that 57 percent of news clips and 
18 percent of non-news clips are captioned.\35\ Nonetheless, despite 
this increase in captioning of IP-delivered video clips, many consumers 
are denied access to the large volume of clips that remain uncaptioned. 
A Commission requirement for captioning IP-delivered video clips will 
ensure that the content, including critical news programming, will be 
accessible to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, thus 
significantly benefiting consumers and serving the stated public 
interest goal of the CVAA. Such a requirement is particularly important 
because, as stated above, more and more consumers are receiving news, 
sports, and entertainment programming in the form of online video 
clips. Consumer Groups explain that a Commission requirement is 
necessary because, although some video programming providers and 
distributors ``have greatly increased their use of captions for video 
clips, many others captioned few or none of their clips.'' \36\ The 
record demonstrates that because of the large volume of IP-delivered 
video programming that is posted online as video clips, much of which 
is not captioned, consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing are being 
denied access to critical areas of programming, such as news, contrary 
to the intent of the CVAA.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ We acknowledge that some errors in the Consumer Groups 
study detract from Consumer Groups' claims, such as the study's 
inclusion of some clips of programming that were not shown on 
television in this country with captions, its failure to consider 
that some closed captioning problems experienced may have resulted 
from the use of apparatus that were not yet required to comply with 
the Commission's rules governing the accessibility of video 
apparatus (see 47 CFR 79.103), and its failure to properly 
categorize certain material as ``clips'' that were not required to 
be captioned as opposed to ``segments'' for which captioning was 
required. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the remaining data 
provided by the Consumer Groups confirms that a significant number 
of IP-delivered video clips today are not captioned.
    \36\ Consumer Groups Comments at 17.
    \37\ An additional benefit of requiring closed captioning of IP-
delivered video clips relates to the Commission's current 
distinction between video clips and segments. Specifically, while 
the IP Closed Captioning Order exempted video clips from the IP 
closed captioning requirements, it required that IP-delivered video 
programming be captioned when the full-length video program is 
posted online in multiple segments. Today's decision to require 
closed captioning of IP-delivered video clips and not just segments 
will eliminate confusion for consumers looking for captioning and 
for industry seeking to comply with our requirements, since there 
will be no need to determine whether a particular piece of short-
form content is a video clip or a segment.

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

[[Page 45360]]

    16. Contrary to the suggestions of some commenters, accessing 
captioned full-length programming online or reading an article about 
the topic covered in an uncaptioned video clip is not a full substitute 
for viewing a captioned video clip. If such suggestions were true, the 
Internet would not contain the large volume of video clips that it does 
because access to such alternatives would adequately serve viewers who 
are not deaf or hard of hearing. Public Citizen states that the lack of 
closed captioning on IP-delivered video clips ``disadvantages and 
marginalizes deaf and hard of hearing people.'' We agree that the very 
fact that programmers make video clips available when the full-length 
program is also available online demonstrates the intrinsic value of 
these clips. For these reasons, we believe that interpreting section 
202 to cover video clips is necessary to fully effectuate the statutory 
purpose and that it is appropriate to require compliance with the 
statute under the schedule we adopt in this order.
    17. As explained above, we interpret the statute as requiring 
closed captioning of IP-delivered video clips and we find that there 
are obvious public interest benefits of imposing such a requirement. 
Industry commenters assert, however, that they will face some financial 
and technical challenges in complying with such a requirement. One of 
the biggest challenges, they claim, is ensuring that the captions are 
properly synchronized. Synchronization is of particular concern because 
if captions lag behind the audio, which often occurs during live 
programming, part of the applicable captions may be missing when a clip 
is excerpted from the programming. As a result, some industry 
commenters indicate that they must re-author the caption file for video 
clips. Some industry commenters assert that captioning online clips is 
time-consuming, labor-intensive, and costly, particularly given the 
enormous volume of IP-delivered video clips. While future technological 
developments will likely automate the process, they report that the 
development of this technology remains ongoing. Industry commenters 
also caution that a requirement to caption video clips might cause some 
entities to cease posting video clips online. Contrary to the 
industry's claims about the time-consuming nature of captioning video 
clips, however, one captioning company, VITAC, indicates that it 
captions over 50 short-form videos (30-60 seconds each) per day for one 
client, and that captioners create the captions for each of these 
videos within 15-20 minutes of receiving them.
    18. Based on the record before us, we find that compliance with a 
captioning requirement for IP-delivered video clips will not be overly 
burdensome. This is particularly true given the reasonable timeframes 
we are providing for entities to come into compliance, as well as the 
grace period within which captions may be added to video clips of live 
and near-live programming. Further, consistent with the text of the 
CVAA, the scope of the IP closed captioning requirements is limited to 
video programming ``that was published or exhibited on television with 
captions,'' \38\ such that online captions only will be required for 
content that already has been televised with captions. The fact that 
some video programming distributors already caption a portion of their 
video clips demonstrates that the necessary technology exists and that 
captioning video clips is economically feasible. We expect that the 
lengthy compliance deadlines of January 1, 2016 for straight lift clips 
and January 1, 2017 for montages will alleviate the asserted 
difficulties with captioning IP-delivered video clips, particularly 
given information provided on the record by captioners and others 
indicating that solutions already exist to facilitate captioning of IP-
delivered video clips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Closed Captioning Requirements for Internet Protocol-Delivered Video 
Clips

1. Covered Video Clips
    19. The CVAA directs the Commission to require closed captioning of 
IP-delivered video programming when the programming ``was published or 
exhibited on television with captions after the effective date of [the] 
regulations.'' \39\ Accordingly, while the closed captioning 
requirements for IP-delivered video clips will apply to clips of video 
programming that was shown on television with captions, they will not 
apply to clips of video programming that was not shown on television 
with captions.\40\ To the extent that a video clip posted online 
contains an audio track that is substantially different from that aired 
on television, we will not consider the video clip to have been shown 
on television with captions and thus captions will not be required 
online. For example, we understand that sometimes a video clip from a 
sporting event is later posted online with different audio than the 
audio that accompanied the same video on television. The online version 
of the video clip with different audio would not be covered by the CVAA 
because the video programming at issue was not shown on television with 
captions; rather, where the audio is substantially different, the 
televised captions would not correspond to the audio that accompanies 
the online clip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(A).
    \40\ We clarify, however, that the addition of a brief 
introduction or advertisement to an otherwise covered video clip 
will not exempt the clip from the IP closed captioning rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. We interpret the CVAA to require closed captioning of IP-
delivered video clips regardless of the content or length of the 
clip.\41\ Some commenters have argued that we should apply the closed 
captioning requirements only to clips with certain content or only to 
clips above a certain length. We disagree. Rather, we find that it was 
Congress's intent in enacting the CVAA to ensure that consumers who are 
deaf or hard of hearing have access to video programming that is shown 
on television with captions, including video programming posted online 
as video clips, regardless of whether the video clips contain news, 
sports, entertainment, or any other type of content. A finding to the 
contrary is not supported by the CVAA's overarching goal to provide 
full programming access to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. 
Similarly, we do not limit the applicability of the closed captioning 
requirements only to clips of a certain length. We find no basis on 
which to distinguish between clips that last 10 seconds and those that 
last 10 minutes. By deciding to make a clip available via the Internet, 
a video programming distributor or provider has made a decision that it 
has value for the general public, and the CVAA requires that when the 
same programming was shown on television with captions, the clip must 
also be made accessible online to consumers who are deaf or hard of 
hearing. This comprehensive approach will be more administratively 
efficient for industry because companies will not need to determine 
whether clips contain certain content or are of a certain minimum 
length.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Except as otherwise provided herein, as with IP closed 
captioning of full-length video programming, once the captioning 
requirement is triggered we will expect captions to be available 
immediately for IP-delivered video clips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. At the present time, the closed captioning requirements for IP-
delivered video clips will apply if the video programming provider or 
distributor (as those terms are defined in the IP closed captioning 
rules) posts on its Web site or app a video clip of video programming 
that it published or exhibited on television in the United

[[Page 45361]]

States with captions on or after the applicable compliance deadline. 
NAB and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association 
(``NCTA'') propose that the requirements for closed captioning IP-
delivered video clips only apply to a person or entity that (a) 
exhibits the television program with captions on its linear channel or 
network; (b) has the rights to exhibit a clip of that program with 
captions via IP; and (c) makes the clip available via a Web site or app 
operated solely by the person or entity.\42\ NAB and NCTA are concerned 
that a broader application of the IP closed captioning rules to video 
clips may hold entities responsible for issues that they do not 
control. In recognition of these concerns, we will limit the current 
application of the rules as described above. For example, if XYZ 
Network posts a video clip on a Web site or app that it operates, and 
the video clip is from programming that appeared on XYZ Network with 
captions after the compliance date, then the IP closed captioning 
requirements would apply. If, however, XYZ Network posts the video clip 
on a third party Web site, then the IP closed captioning requirements 
would not apply. We defer application of the IP closed captioning rules 
with respect to the provision of video clips by third party video 
programming providers and distributors, such as Hulu, or other services 
that may embed or host video programming, such as news Web sites, 
pending action on the Further Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ NAB and NCTA have not explained the meaning or relevance of 
some terms in their proposal. Specifically, we are unclear what they 
mean by ``linear'' channel or network and by ``rights to exhibit.'' 
Accordingly, we believe our formulation stated above better captures 
the universe of covered entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Compliance Deadline
    22. At the outset, we clarify that there are several types of video 
clips at issue. First, the industry uses the term ``straight lift'' 
clips to reference a single excerpt of a captioned television program 
with the same video and audio that was presented on television. Such 
video clips will be subject to the January 1, 2016 deadline discussed 
below. Second, the industry uses the term ``montage'' to reference a 
single file that contains multiple straight lift clips, and as 
explained below, the industry has persuasively argued that compliance 
may be more difficult with regard to such clips. Accordingly, montages 
will be subject to an extended deadline of January 1, 2017. Third, the 
industry uses the term ``mash-up'' to reference a single file that 
contains a compilation of one or more video clips that have been shown 
on television with captions and additional content that has not been 
shown on television with captions. For the reasons discussed in the 
Further Notice, we seek further comment on the proper treatment of this 
category of video clips in the Further Notice. With respect to closed 
captioning of IP-delivered video clips of video programming shown live 
or near-live on television, we require captions beginning July 1, 2017. 
At the same time, due to the time-sensitive nature of the posting of a 
live or near-live video clip we grant a grace period that requires that 
captions be added to clips of live programming within 12 hours and to 
clips of near-live programming within eight hours after the associated 
video programming is published or exhibited on television in the United 
States with captions. As discussed below, the later deadlines for 
montages and video clips taken from associated live and near-live 
television programming provide additional time because of the 
challenges associated with captioning these types of clips, and to 
allow for the development of technological advances that will 
facilitate a streamlined process for posting these clips with captions 
online. If we receive a petition seeking to extend these deadlines and 
find that technology has not progressed as expected with respect to 
posting these clips online, we will act promptly on the petition and 
extend the compliance deadlines if the petition demonstrates that 
technology is not available to achieve compliance.
    23. As stated above, we will require compliance with the new 
requirements for closed captioning of IP-delivered video clips by 
January 1, 2016 for ``straight lift'' video clips. We define ``straight 
lift'' video clips as those that contain a single excerpt of a 
captioned television program with the same video and audio that was 
presented on television. As of that date, IP-delivered video clips must 
be provided with closed captions if the associated video programming is 
published or exhibited on television in the United States with captions 
on or after January 1, 2016. Consumer Groups and captioning companies 
support a one-year deadline. In contrast, some members of the industry 
have requested a two-year phase-in because of the volume of video clips 
and the difficulty in captioning them,\43\ while others have supported 
a deadline of 18 months after adoption of the rules. Members of the 
industry have cautioned that they may have compliance difficulties if 
faced with a requirement for captioning IP-delivered video clips at 
this juncture, when they are still working to implement the IP closed 
captioning requirements for full-length video programming. Balancing 
consumers' desire for prompt access to this content and the industry's 
claims about the difficulty with compliance, we adopt a deadline of 
January 1, 2016 for closed captioning of IP-delivered ``straight lift'' 
video clips. The first compliance deadline for closed captioning of 
full-length IP-delivered video programming was six months after the 
date the IP Closed Captioning Order was published in the Federal 
Register, as supported by the Video Programming Accessibility Advisory 
Committee (``VPAAC''), which consisted of representatives from both the 
industry and from consumer groups. Given that in general the same 
requirements that apply to captioning a full-length IP-delivered video 
program will apply to captioning an IP-delivered video clip, and that 
the industry has now had nearly two years of experience with captioning 
programming online, we find that the January 1, 2016 deadline will be 
sufficient for the industry to achieve compliance. During this time, we 
encourage the industry to work toward automating closed captioning of 
IP-delivered video clips and to eliminate problems associated with 
distorting closed caption files that may occur when video clips are 
created, thus reducing the labor and costs involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ In the absence of record information on the NCTA proposal, 
including for example the volume of clips that do not include time-
coded captions (that is, captions which directly reference the 
pieces of video they describe), the difficulties with captioning 
clips that do not include time-coded captions, and why solutions to 
such difficulties cannot be implemented prior to the compliance 
deadline, we decline to adopt a distinction between video clips that 
include embedded or time-coded captions and those that do not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. We find that an extended compliance deadline of January 1, 2017 
is justified for ``montages.'' We define a montage as programming 
contained in a single file that includes multiple straight lift 
clips.\44\ That is, a montage is a single online file containing 
multiple video clips ``taken from different parts of a captioned full-
length TV program or from different captioned TV programs.'' \45\ The 
record demonstrates that an extended compliance deadline is needed for 
such programming because industry is concerned that technology

[[Page 45362]]

does not currently exist to use the same caption files that were used 
on television. The record supports our expectation that by January 1, 
2017, technology will be better able to automate this process, enabling 
the industry to modify the televised captions associated with each 
video clip, rather than re-authoring captions where a single file 
contains multiple straight lift clips.\46\ Accordingly, closed captions 
will be required where a single IP-delivered file contains multiple 
straight lift clips beginning January 1, 2017, if the associated video 
programming is published or exhibited on television in the United 
States with captions on or after January 1, 2017. We expect that the 
industry will not use this extended compliance deadline to delay 
compliance with the closed captioning requirements, for example, by 
creating a single file that contains two video clips that otherwise 
would have been posted separately with captions and then claiming that 
it is subject to the later January 1, 2017 compliance deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ These multiple straight lift clips may be sequential (i.e., 
in the same order in which they appeared on television) or non-
sequential (i.e., in a different order than the order in which they 
appeared on television).
    \45\ NCTA Apr. 25 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
    \46\ If industry finds that sufficient automation does not exist 
by the deadline, it may file a request to extend the deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. We find the addition of a brief introduction or advertisement 
to an otherwise covered video clip will not exempt the clip from the IP 
closed captioning rules, regardless of whether the video clip is a 
straight clip or a montage.\47\ At the same time, we understand that 
often, a single file may contain a compilation of one or more video 
clips that have been shown on television with captions, interspersed 
with additional content that has not been shown on television with 
captions. The industry refers to such program files as ``mash-ups.'' We 
seek comment on the application of the CVAA to mash-ups in the Further 
Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Of course, a brief introduction that was not captioned on 
television would not be required to be captioned when accompanying 
an IP-delivered video clip. Only the portion of the video clip that 
was televised with captions would need to be captioned online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Commenters have expressed concerns about captioning IP-
delivered video clips that serve a promotional purpose, but these 
concerns are largely focused on promotional clips that are posted 
online before the programming is shown on television, an issue that 
will be explored in the Further Notice.\48\ A non-advance promotional 
video clip may be a single ``straight-lift'' excerpt of captioned 
televised content, in which case we see no reason that the January 1, 
2016 deadline discussed above should not apply. Once the IP closed 
captioning requirements are triggered by the content being shown on 
television with captions, the CVAA does not differentiate between clips 
of promotional material and other types of clips, but rather, broadly 
requires video programming that has been shown on television with 
captions to be made accessible to those consumers who are deaf or hard 
of hearing. We see nothing in the CVAA or its legislative history that 
suggests Congress intended to exclude from coverage video clips that 
are promotional in nature. For the same reasons, a non-advance 
promotional video clip that contains multiple straight lift clips of 
video programming that has been shown on television with captions, and 
thus is a montage, will be subject to the January 1, 2017 deadline 
discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ We note that at this time, any difficulty with tracking 
down video clips will be minimized by the fact that application of 
the requirement to caption advance clips is under consideration in 
the Further Notice, and because the requirement currently only 
applies where the video programming provider or distributor posts on 
its Web site or app a video clip of video programming that it 
published or exhibited on television.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Video Clips of Live and Near-Live Programming
    27. In general, as with IP closed captioning of full-length video 
programming, once the captioning requirement is triggered we will 
expect captions to be available immediately for IP-delivered video 
clips. In other words, at the time of being posted online, covered 
video clips must be closed captioned. While Hulu has indicated that a 
``grace period'' may be necessary in some instances if technical, 
editorial, or administrative issues arise, we expect industry to work 
prior to the compliance deadline to develop processes that will enable 
them to make captions available for IP-delivered video clips without 
any delay once the video programming has been shown on television with 
captions. The record does not support a contrary approach, with an 
exception for video clips of live or near-live programming.
    28. We find that there are unique concerns with IP-delivered video 
clips of live and near-live programming given its time sensitivity. If 
distributors were prohibited from posting video clips of live and near-
live programming \49\ online until captions are available, then all 
consumers would be denied access to potentially time-sensitive 
information during that time. A grace period would provide distributors 
with flexibility to post time-sensitive clips online without delay. CBS 
requests a ``grace period of several hours'' before we require video 
clips of live or near-live programming to be captioned online, 
explaining that otherwise entities other than the authorized video 
programming providers and distributors may be the first to distribute 
the content online. CBS explains that ``[t]his is not important simply 
to help build a programmer's solid `first-to-the-news' reputation, but 
it is also important from an accessibility perspective. If a clip goes 
viral and generates a large number of views over time, it is important 
that it be a version controlled by the station, which can augment the 
clip with online captions once they are generated.'' In contrast, NAB 
and NCTA acknowledge the feasibility of a 12-hour grace period, while 
DIRECTV requests a 24-hour grace period. Further, DiMA indicates that 
it is more difficult to caption video clips of live programming than to 
caption video clips of prerecorded programming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ ``Live programming'' is ``[v]ideo programming that is shown 
on television substantially simultaneously with its performance.'' 
47 CFR 79.4(a)(7). ``Near-live programming'' is ``[v]ideo 
programming that is performed and recorded less than 24 hours prior 
to the time it was first aired on television.'' 47 CFR 79.4(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. Given the above difficulties associated with captioning video 
clips of live and near-live programming, we will not require compliance 
for this category of video clips until July 1, 2017.\50\ Additionally, 
for the present time, we will permit closed captions to be provided on 
IP-delivered video clips of live programming up to 12 hours after the 
associated video programming is published or exhibited on television in 
the United States with captions, and we will permit closed captions to 
be provided on IP-delivered video clips of near-live programming up to 
eight hours after the associated video programming is published or 
exhibited on television in the United States with captions.\51\

[[Page 45363]]

This means that unlike other IP-delivered video clips, video clips of 
live and near-live programming may be posted online without captions 
initially, with captions added within 12 hours (for live) or eight 
hours (for near-live) of the video programming being shown on 
television.\52\ We find that the 12- and eight-hour grace periods 
appropriately balance industry's concern with captioning time-sensitive 
IP-delivered video clips, with the fact that it is just as important 
for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to have access to these 
clips as it is for other members of the general public. One company has 
indicated that a grace period of ``several hours'' is workable. We find 
that 12 and eight hours are reasonable timeframes for all companies 
subject to the requirement to follow beginning July 1, 2017. To the 
extent that a video programming provider or distributor is unable to 
post video clips of live programming within these grace periods by July 
1, 2017 because, for example, it lacks the resources to do so, it may 
petition for an exemption of this requirement.\53\ We find that a 
shorter grace period is appropriate for video clips of near-live 
programming than for video clips of live programming, because we find 
that there is more time to add captions to an IP-delivered video clip 
of programming that is produced and recorded even a short time before 
it is shown on television with captions. In addition, we encourage the 
industry to make video clips of live and near-live programming 
available with captions at the time the clips are posted online, or as 
soon as possible thereafter, whenever possible, especially if such 
captioning already is being done. In the future, we intend to decrease 
or eliminate this grace period for video clips of live and near-live 
programming, because we expect that technology will automate the 
process such that a grace period for captioning is no longer needed. 
Accordingly, in the Further Notice we seek comment on the timeframe 
within which we should decrease or eliminate the grace period 
applicable to video clips of live and near-live programming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Consumer Groups argue that we should consider a more 
limited category of video clips than clips of live and ``near live'' 
programming, and ``that the industry should bear the onus of 
articulating a workable definition that encompasses only truly time-
sensitive' clips. . . .'' We disagree, and find instead that 
industry's concerns about captioning this category of video clips 
apply broadly to video clips of live and near-live programming. 
Additionally, attempting to define this category based on video 
clips with content that has the potential to ``go viral,'' as 
Consumer Groups suggest, would be inherently subjective and 
inevitably reflect the perspective and values of the person 
evaluating the content.
    \51\ We reiterate that we will consider the grace period to 
begin upon the conclusion of the television display of the 
associated video program. In addition, while NAB and NCTA have 
requested that we limit the 12-hour grace period to business hours, 
we decline to do so because many programs are captioned around the 
clock, and a 12-hour grace period will allow daytime staff to assist 
with captioning of video clips posted online overnight. The 12-hour 
grace period for video clips of live programming will address 
DIRECTV's concerns with what we refer to as ``NFL Highlight Clips'' 
and ``Short Cuts.'' When a viewer is watching one National Football 
League (``NFL'') game on a mobile device, he or she may opt to view 
NFL Highlight Clips from another game. Short Cuts are commercial-
free replay compilations of highlights from every NFL regular season 
game, allowing subscribers to view a game in 30 minutes or less by 
removing all broadcast ``down time,'' such as huddles, time-outs, 
and instant replay review. DIRECTV expresses concerns about 
captioning IP-delivered NFL Highlight Clips and Short Cuts. 
Specifically, DIRECTV explains that the volume of NFL Highlight 
Clips and the speed at which they are created and distributed makes 
DIRECTV unable to provide them with ``intelligible captioning.'' For 
both Short Cuts and NFL Highlight Clips, DIRECTV states that ``[t]he 
process of breaking the game feed into such video clip highlights 
can cause the captioning to become garbled and unrecognizable'' and 
that the process of recreating or restoring the captions ``would 
introduce delays that would substantially undermine the business 
rationale for these time-sensitive products.'' The rules for video 
clips of live programming will apply to NFL Highlight Clips and thus 
will address DIRECTV's concerns. The rules for video clips of live 
programming also will apply to Short Cuts to the extent Short Cuts 
are not televised with captions. We understand that a version of 
Short Cuts is made available on television without captions, and 
DIRECTV states that ``[t]he television version of Short Cuts is 
exempt from the captioning requirement due to the very limited gross 
revenues associated with this service.'' We take no position in this 
Video Clips Order as to whether a television closed captioning 
exemption in fact applies to Short Cuts. We clarify, however, that 
if the televised version of Short Cuts is captioned when shown on 
television in the future, then the online version will be subject to 
the IP closed captioning rules already applicable to full-length 
programming to the extent that they are in essence the same program. 
See 47 CFR 79.4(b). In other words, once Short Cuts become subject 
to the IP closed captioning requirements for full-length programming 
(i.e., they are televised with captions), the extended compliance 
deadline and grace period applicable to video clips of live 
programming will no longer apply.
    \52\ To the extent that a straight lift clip contains video 
clips of live or near-live programming, it will be subject to the 
later July 1, 2017 compliance deadline and may utilize the 12-hour 
or eight-hour grace period. To the extent that a montage contains 
video clips of live or near-live programming, the portions of the 
montage that contain such programming will be subject to the later 
July 1, 2017 compliance deadline, and those portions may utilize the 
applicable grace period.
    \53\ See 47 CFR 79.4(d) (setting forth procedures for individual 
exemptions based on economic burden).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Video Clips in the Online Library Before the Compliance Deadline
    30. We recognize that some video programming providers and 
distributors will have a large number of video clips in their online 
library \54\ before the compliance deadline of January 1, 2016 for 
straight lift clips and January 1, 2017 for montages. As explained 
fully below, we find that compliance with the closed captioning 
requirements for IP-delivered video clips would be economically 
burdensome for this class of video clips, and accordingly we exempt 
this class from coverage of our rules.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ As in the IP Closed Captioning Order, herein we use the 
term ``library'' to describe the collection of content a video 
programming provider or distributor makes available to consumers 
online.
    \55\ Separately, in the Further Notice below, we seek comment on 
application of the IP closed captioning rules to video clips that 
are added to the video programming distributor's or provider's 
library on or after January 1, 2016 for straight lift clips and 
January 1, 2017 for montages, but before the associated video 
programming is shown on television with captions. We refer to such 
video clips as ``advance'' video clips, and we find that further 
information on the technological challenges of captioning advance 
video clips would be useful before we resolve this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. The CVAA permits the Commission to exempt from coverage of its 
IP closed captioning rules ``any service, class of service, program, 
class of program, equipment, or class of equipment for which the 
Commission has determined that the application of such regulations 
would be economically burdensome for the provider of such service, 
program, or equipment.'' \56\ The Commission has interpreted the 
comparable statutory provision applicable to television closed 
captioning.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(D)(ii).
    \57\ 1997 Closed Captioning Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3342, 
paras.143-145. The Commission assesses economic burden more broadly 
in the context of an entire class than it does in the context of an 
individual exemption petition. See Anglers for Christ Ministries, 
Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, Order, and Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14941, 14958-60, paras. 33-36 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. On balance, we find that the costs of captioning video clips 
that are in the video programming distributor's or provider's online 
library before the compliance deadline (January 1, 2016 for straight 
lift clips and January 1, 2017 for montages) outweigh the benefits to 
be derived from captioning such programming at this time. Some video 
programming distributors may have hundreds of thousands or even 
millions of video clips currently in the libraries on their Web sites 
or apps. Some commenters have suggested that the industry would face 
significant difficulty complying with closed captioning requirements 
for this category of IP-delivered video clips. Stated challenges with 
captioning this category of IP-delivered video clips include the 
enormous volume of existing video clips in some video programming 
provider and distributor's online libraries, which have been posted 
over a period of years, and difficulty determining potentially years 
after the clips were first posted online whether such clips originated 
as part of a program that later appeared on television with captions 
after the effective date of the video clip captioning rules. We are 
concerned about the impact that requiring closed captioning for this 
class of video clips may have on entities subject to the rules, 
including smaller entities that may lack the financial resources to 
comply. In contrast, we find that the benefits of requiring captioning 
of these clips may be minimal since video clips may ``have a shorter 
shelf life for viewership than long-form content.'' \58\

[[Page 45364]]

We believe that the resources of the entities subject to the rules thus 
would be better spent captioning clips added to their libraries on a 
prospective basis. Accordingly, we find that it would be an economic 
burden to require closed captioning of video clips that are in the 
video programming distributor's or provider's online library before the 
compliance deadline with minimal benefits, and we thus exempt this 
class from coverage of our IP closed captioning rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Hulu Apr. 1 Ex Parte Letter at 3; NAB June 9 Ex Parte 
Letter at 2. We recognize Consumer Groups' argument that many video 
clips ``are likely to live on the Internet indefinitely,'' and while 
that may be true for some video clips, we expect that many of the 
video clips that will be online prior to the compliance deadlines 
will be of lesser interest to consumers than more recent clips that 
are posted online after the applicable compliance deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Application of General IP Closed Captioning Rules to Video Clips
    33. Except as otherwise discussed above, the IP closed captioning 
requirements will apply to video clips in the same manner that they 
apply to full-length video programming shown online. For example, 
entities may file a petition for exemption from the IP closed 
captioning rules based on economic burden.\59\ Additionally, this means 
that video programming owners must provide captions of at least the 
same quality as the televised captions for the same programming, and 
video programming distributors and providers must maintain the quality 
of the captions provided by the video programming owner. Consumer 
Groups support the application of existing quality requirements for 
full-length IP-delivered video programming to IP-delivered video clips. 
The Commission previously stated that an evaluation of whether IP-
delivered captions are of at least the same quality as the televised 
captions may involve the consideration of ``such factors as 
completeness, placement, accuracy, and timing.'' \60\ Along these 
lines, the Commission recently adopted new requirements governing the 
quality of television closed captioning that incorporate these factors. 
Thus, while some commenters have asserted that there are problems with 
the quality of the captioning of IP-delivered video clips, it is likely 
that the Commission's new rules governing captioning quality on 
television will improve the quality of closed captioning on programming 
delivered via IP as well. For example, when a televised program is in 
compliance with the new requirement that captions be accurate and 
complete, then all of the audio accompanying a particular clip of the 
television program also must be captioned. In recognition of the fact 
that video clips may in some instances have to be recaptioned, however, 
we will permit de minimis differences between the closed captions 
accompanying an IP-delivered video clip and the closed captions that 
appeared on television.\61\ We recognize that providing captions for 
video clips may present technical challenges beyond those associated 
with captioning full-length programs. We will take this difficulty into 
account in the event of complaints.\62\ It is our hope, however, that 
advancements in technology by the time the compliance deadlines arrive 
may substantially ameliorate these challenges. The Commission, through 
its Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, will work to resolve any 
informal complaints of noncompliance with the new requirements to 
caption video clips, but would typically consider enforcement action by 
its Enforcement Bureau when there is a pattern or trend of possible 
noncompliance by a covered entity. Importantly, we note that the IP 
Closed Captioning Order makes clear that entities are not responsible 
for quality issues outside of their control. Thus, it is not necessary 
for us to adopt specific rules to address NAB's concern that problems 
with captions of IP-delivered video clips may result from technical 
problems beyond a station's control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See 47 CFR 79.4(d) (setting forth the procedures for 
exemptions based on economic burden, and stating that the Commission 
will consider the following factors: ``(i) The nature and cost of 
the closed captions for the programming; (ii) The impact on the 
operation of the video programming provider or owner; (iii) The 
financial resources of the video programming provider or owner; and 
(iv) The type of operations of the video programming provider or 
owner.''). Entities also may avail themselves of the statutory 
requirement that a de minimis failure to comply with the IP closed 
captioning regulations will not be treated as a violation. See 47 
U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(D)(vii).
    \60\ See IP Closed Captioning Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 812, para. 
37.
    \61\ See 47 U.S.C. 613(c)(2)(D)(vii) (a de minimis failure to 
comply with the IP closed captioning regulations will not be treated 
as a violation). Accordingly, voice recognition technology can be 
used to recaption video clips, but only to the extent that the 
quality requirements are met, with permissible de minimis 
differences between the closed captions accompanying an IP-delivered 
video clip and the closed captions that appeared on television. We 
thus decline Disney's request that we permit entities to use ``the 
best available voice recognition technology,'' because the record 
contains no evidence to suggest that ``the best available voice 
recognition technology'' today would produce captions that meet the 
captioning quality requirements.
    \62\ We understand that the captions for live programming may 
appear on-screen with a delay. In such instances, to ensure that the 
captions available with an IP-delivered video clip are complete, the 
caption file may be synchronized to the clip's audio, or the 
captions may continue on-screen after the clip has concluded until 
all of the associated captions have appeared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. When a video programming provider or distributor provides 
applications or plug-ins for viewing video programming, it must comply 
with Section 79.103(c) of our rules, which requires the inclusion of 
certain consumer tools such as the ability to change caption font, 
size, and color. The Commission's rules refer to these consumer tools 
as ``technical capabilities.'' We understand that some applications 
include video players that display only video clips, and these players 
were not designed with closed captioning capability. DiMA has explained 
that extension of the IP closed captioning rules to video clips will 
require upgrades to these video players, and in some instances a single 
video programming distributor may need to upgrade multiple video 
players. DiMA asserts that it would be difficult for video programming 
provider- or distributor-provided applications or plug-ins that play 
video clips but not full-length programming to comply with Section 
79.103(c) of our rules and that, in any event, the technical 
capabilities set forth in our rules are less useful when consumers view 
video clips as opposed to full-length programming. We are not persuaded 
by these assertions. Rather, we expect that video programming providers 
and distributors will be able to comply with the requirements for their 
applications and plug-ins that play video clips, and we agree with 
Consumer Groups that the Commission should not enshrine in our rules an 
exception based on a video programming provider or distributor's 
decision not to include closed captioning capability in the earlier 
versions of its video players. To the extent that a video programming 
provider or distributor determines that compliance with the IP closed 
captioning requirements for its application or plug-in that only plays 
video clips would be economically burdensome, it may file an exemption 
request.\63\ The CVAA provides that during the pendency of a petition 
for exemption from the IP closed captioning rules due to economic 
burden, the ``provider or owner shall be exempt from the requirements. 
. . . The Commission shall act to grant or deny any such petition, in 
whole or in part, within 6 months after the Commission receives such 
petition, unless the Commission finds that an extension of the 6-month 
period is necessary to determine whether such requirements are 
economically burdensome.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 47 U.S.C. 613(d)(3); 47 CFR 79.4(d).
    \64\ 47 U.S.C. 613(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    35. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended

[[Page 45365]]

(``RFA''), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') was 
incorporated into the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding. 
The Federal Communications Commission (``Commission'') sought written 
public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the 
IRFA. The Media Bureau issued a public notice seeking comment on the 
closed captioning of Internet protocol-delivered video clips, and that 
public notice also referenced the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis included in the NPRM in this proceeding, which identified 
small entities that might be affected. The Commission received no 
comments on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (``FRFA'') conforms to the RFA.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Second Order on Reconsideration
    36. One of the Commission's priorities is to ensure that all 
individuals, especially individuals with disabilities, are able to 
enjoy the full benefits of broadband technology, including the services 
that broadband enables such as online video programming. Online viewing 
of video programming is becoming increasingly significant, and one 
aspect of this development is that more and more consumers are 
receiving news, sports, and entertainment programming in the form of 
online video clips. In the Second Order on Reconsideration (``Video 
Clips Order''), as part of our continued implementation of the Twenty-
First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 
(``CVAA''), we conclude that clips of video programming covered by the 
statute must be captioned when delivered using Internet protocol 
(``IP'') and set out a schedule of deadlines.
    37. When the Commission initially adopted IP closed captioning 
requirements pursuant to its responsibilities under the CVAA it applied 
the requirements to full-length video programming and not to video 
clips. The Commission said that it might in the future extend the IP 
closed captioning requirements to video clips if it found that 
consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing are denied access to critical 
areas of programming, such as news, because the programming is posted 
online as video clips. In response to a petition for reconsideration 
filed by consumer groups, and at the Commission's direction, the Media 
Bureau issued a public notice seeking updated information on the closed 
captioning of IP-delivered video clips, including the extent to which 
the industry has voluntarily captioned these clips. After reviewing the 
record compiled in this proceeding, we find that a significant 
percentage of video clips continue to remain inaccessible to consumers 
who are deaf or hard of hearing. In addition, we have reconsidered the 
Commission's earlier interpretation of the statute and conclude that 
Congress intended the IP closed captioning requirements to extend to 
all covered video programming including clips, but left to our 
discretion the timeline for compliance with this requirement. 
Accordingly, to implement the statute fully, and in furtherance of 
Congress's intent to ensure that individuals who are deaf or hard of 
hearing have better access to online video programming, the Video Clips 
Order reconsiders the Commission's earlier decision and revises the 
Commission's regulations to require the provision of closed captioning 
on video clips delivered using IP when the programming was published or 
exhibited on television with captions. As discussed in Section III of 
the Video Clips Order, it imposes closed captioning requirements on IP-
delivered video clips by adopting rules that will:
     Extend the IP closed captioning requirements to IP-
delivered video clips if the video programming distributor or provider 
posts on its Web site or application (``app'') a video clip of video 
programming that it published or exhibited on television in the United 
States with captions, regardless of the content or length of the video 
clip.
     Pursuant to our authority to establish an appropriate 
schedule of deadlines for purposes of the IP closed captioning 
requirements, adopt a compliance deadline of January 1, 2016 for 
``straight lift'' clips, which contain a single excerpt of a captioned 
television program with the same video and audio that was presented on 
television, and January 1, 2017 for ``montages,'' which contain 
multiple straight lift clips.
     After the applicable deadlines, require IP-delivered video 
clips to be provided with closed captions at the time the clips are 
posted online, except as otherwise provided.
     For clips of video programming previously shown live or 
near-live on television with captions, require captions beginning July 
1, 2017 and for the present time allow a grace period of 12 hours after 
the live programming is shown on television and eight hours after the 
near-live programming is shown on television before the clip must be 
captioned online.
     Find that compliance with the new requirements would be 
economically burdensome for video clips that are in the video 
programming distributor's or provider's online library before January 
1, 2016 for straight lift clips, and January 1, 2017 for montages, and 
thus exempt this class of video clips from coverage; and
     Generally apply the IP closed captioning requirements to 
video clips in the same manner that they apply to full-length video 
programming, which among other things means that the quality 
requirements applicable to full-length IP-delivered video programming 
will apply to video clips.

In short, while we expect that some small entities will be impacted by 
these rules, we find that any economic impact of these rules on small 
entities will be mitigated by the availability of exemptions due to 
economic burden, and by the provision of the CVAA providing that a de 
minimis failure to comply with these rules will not be treated as a 
violation.
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA
    38. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA. Some parties 
have made filings on the record that address the potential impact on 
small entities of rules requiring closed captioning of IP-delivered 
video clips. Specifically, one commenter asserted that small 
broadcasters that currently voluntarily caption certain televised 
programming might cease doing so, to avoid triggering a requirement for 
captioning of online clips of that programming.\65\ Another commenter 
argued that the technology is still developing and stated, ``If 
broadcasters, perhaps particularly smaller ones, were immediately to 
face FCC complaint procedures and potential enforcement actions for 
failing to caption online video clips with the requisite quality, this 
would act as a disincentive to place video clips online, at least until 
clip captioning technology improves in both quality and reliability.'' 
\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Reply Comments of the Association of Public Television 
Stations and the Public Broadcasting Service at 2, 5-6. But see 
Consumer Groups Reply to Opposition of APTS/PBS, NAB, and NCTA at 5 
(arguing that reductions in captioning costs no longer justify the 
television closed captioning exemption cited by APTS/PBS, in any 
event, and that the availability of exemptions due to economic 
burden should alleviate the concerns of APTS/PBS).
    \66\ Reply Comments of the National Association of Broadcasters 
at 10. See also id. at 5, n. 8 (``Some small market stations report 
that they can only afford to caption clips online if owned and 
subsidized by a larger market station, given the cost of clip 
captioning and the lack of revenue from online video clips.''); 
Disney June 18 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (``[T]he key aspect in crafting 
a realistic regime would be a long implementation period so that 
stations and programmers (both big and small) could budget for and 
undertake such a reconfiguration.'') (emphasis in original).

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

[[Page 45366]]

3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply
    39. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and an 
estimate of the number of small entities to which the rules will apply. 
The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same 
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and 
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one 
which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in 
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the Small Business Administration (``SBA''). Below are 
descriptions of the small entities that may be affected by the rules 
adopted in the Video Clips Order, including, where feasible, an 
estimate of the number of such small entities.
    40. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. 
First, according to the SBA Office of Advocacy, in 2010, there were 
27.9 million small businesses in the United States. In addition, a 
``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise 
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 
field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 
small organizations. Finally, the term ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, towns, 
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a 
population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census Bureau data for 2011 
indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the 
United States. We estimate that, of this total, a substantial majority 
may qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate 
that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
    41. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The North American Industry 
Classification System (``NAICS'') defines ``Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers'' as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission 
facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the 
transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired 
telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a 
single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in 
this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that 
they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony 
services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video 
programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. By 
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution 
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are 
included in this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for wireline firms for the broad economic census category 
of ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' Under this category, a 
wireline business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census 
data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated 
for the entire year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer 
than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. 
Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of 
businesses can be considered small entities.
    42. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these 
services have been defined within the broad economic census category of 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which category is defined above. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, 
which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census 
data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated 
for the entire year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer 
than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. 
Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of 
businesses can be considered small entities.
    43. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed 
its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate 
regulation. Under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a ``small 
cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, 
nationwide. According to SNL Kagan, there are 1,258 cable operators. Of 
this total, all but 10 incumbent cable companies are small under this 
size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a ``small 
system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Current 
Commission records show 4,584 cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 
4,012 cable systems have fewer than 20,000 subscribers, and 572 systems 
have 20,000 subscribers or more, based on the same records. Thus, under 
this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small.
    44. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard 
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 
percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated 
with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the 
aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that an 
operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small 
operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual 
revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the 
aggregate. Based on available data, we find that all but 10 incumbent 
cable operators are small under this size standard. We note that the 
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable 
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 
revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of 
these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross 
annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable to estimate with 
greater precision the number of cable system operators that would 
qualify as small cable operators under this definition.
    45. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a 
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and 
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna 
at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the 
SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this 
category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 
establishments that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 30,178 
establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments 
had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the 
majority of such businesses can be considered small. However, the data 
we have available as a basis for estimating the number of such small 
entities were gathered under a superseded SBA small

[[Page 45367]]

business size standard formerly titled ``Cable and Other Program 
Distribution.'' The definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution 
provided that a small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in 
annual receipts. Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, 
which requires a great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and 
DISH Network. Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV and 
DISH Network each reports annual revenues that are in excess of the 
threshold for a small business. Because DBS service requires 
significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a small entity as 
defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS 
service provider.
    46. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known 
as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video 
distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without 
using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and 
distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple 
dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial 
multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV 
systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census 
category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for 
small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a 
wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had 
fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more 
employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such 
businesses can be considered small.
    47. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish 
segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home 
service offered to consumers, and involves the home reception of 
signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band 
frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are 
between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of 
unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from 
program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt 
of video programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD 
falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this 
category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 
establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 
establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments 
had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we 
estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small 
entities.
    48. Open Video Services. The open video system (OVS) framework was 
established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options 
for the provision of video programming services by local exchange 
carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution 
of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS 
operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small 
business size standard covering cable services, which is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for this category, which is: all such businesses having 
1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 
31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 
establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments 
had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we 
estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small 
entities. In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some 
OVS operators, with some now providing service. Broadband service 
providers (``BSPs'') are currently the only significant holders of OVS 
certifications or local OVS franchises. The Commission does not have 
financial or employment information regarding the entities authorized 
to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. Thus, again, 
at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.
    49. Wireless cable systems--Broadband Radio Service and Educational 
Broadband Service. Wireless cable systems use the Broadband Radio 
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) to transmit video 
programming to subscribers. In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, 
the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity 
that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in 
the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 
successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic 
Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition 
of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized 
prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small 
business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In 
addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there 
are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small 
entities. After adding the number of small business auction licensees 
to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we find that 
there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as 
small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules. In 
2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in 
the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: 
(i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed 
$15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years 
(small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; 
(ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed 
$3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years 
(very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning 
bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues 
that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years 
(entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid. 
Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the 10 
winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won 
four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won 
three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won 
six licenses.
    50. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television 
Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting 
Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad 
economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which 
was developed for small wireline businesses. The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for this category, which is: All such 
businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows 
that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this 
total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 
establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size 
standard, we estimate

[[Page 45368]]

that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. In 
addition to Census data, the Commission's internal records indicate 
that as of September 2012, there are 2,241 active EBS licenses. The 
Commission estimates that of these 2,241 licenses, the majority are 
held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts, which 
are by statute defined as small businesses.
    51. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. ILECs are included 
in the SBA's economic census category, Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows 
that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this 
total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 
establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size 
standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.
    52. Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. We have included small 
incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. A 
``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the 
pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone 
communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is not 
dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy 
contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange 
carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such 
dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included 
small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although 
we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses 
and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    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. 
These entities are included in the SBA's economic census category, 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under this category, the SBA deems a 
wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that 
operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 
100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. 
Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses 
can be considered small.
    54. Television Broadcasting. This economic census category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images 
together with sound.'' The SBA has created the following small business 
size standard for Television Broadcasting businesses: Those having 
$35.5 million or less in annual receipts. Census data for 2007 shows 
that 2,076 establishments in this category operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 1,515 establishments had annual receipts of 
$10,000,000 or less, and 561 establishments had annual receipts of more 
than $10,000,000. Because the Census has no additional classifications 
on the basis of which to identify the number of stations whose receipts 
exceeded $35.5 million in that year, the majority of such 
establishments can be considered small under this size standard.
    55. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the 
number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,388 stations. 
Of this total, 1,221 stations (or about 88 percent) had revenues of 
$35.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA 
Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on July 2, 2014. 
In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed 
noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 395. NCE 
stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities. 
Therefore, we estimate that the majority of television broadcast 
stations are small entities.
    56. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely 
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our 
action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include 
or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an 
element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity not 
be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to 
define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific 
television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, 
the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not 
exclude any television station from the definition of a small business 
on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.
    57. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The Census Bureau 
defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities 
for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis . . . . 
These establishments produce programming in their own facilities or 
acquire programming from external sources. The programming material is 
usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-
home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers.'' The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: 
All such businesses having $35.5 million or less in annual revenues. 
Census data for 2007 shows that there were 659 establishments that 
operated for the entire year. Of that number, 462 operated with annual 
revenues of fewer than $10 million, and 197 operated with annual 
revenues of $10 million or more. Therefore, under this size standard, 
the majority of such businesses can be considered small.
    58. Motion Picture and Video Production. The Census Bureau defines 
this category as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in producing, or producing and distributing motion 
pictures, videos, television programs, or television commercials.'' We 
note that firms in this category may be engaged in various industries, 
including cable programming. Specific figures are not available 
regarding how many of these firms produce programming for cable 
television. To gauge small business prevalence in the Motion Picture 
and Video Production industries, the Commission relies on data 
currently available from the U.S. Census for the year 2007. The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: 
Those having $30 million or less in annual receipts. Census data for 
2007 shows that there were 9,095 firms in this category that operated 
for the entire year. Of this total, 8,995 firms had annual receipts of 
fewer than $25 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $25 million to 
$49,999,999. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such 
businesses can be considered small.
    59. Motion Picture and Video Distribution. The Census Bureau 
defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in acquiring distribution rights and 
distributing film and video productions to motion picture theaters, 
television networks and stations, and exhibitors.'' We note that firms 
in this category may be engaged in various industries, including cable

[[Page 45369]]

programming. Specific figures are not available regarding how many of 
these firms distribute programming for cable television. To gauge small 
business prevalence in the Motion Picture and Video Distribution 
industries, the Commission relies on data currently available from the 
U.S. Census for the year 2007. The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for this category, which is: Those having $29.5 million 
or less in annual receipts. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 
450 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 434 firms had annual receipts of fewer than $25 million, and 7 
firms had receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. Therefore, under this 
size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.
    60. Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals. 
The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: ``This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in (1) publishing and/or 
broadcasting content on the Internet exclusively or (2) operating Web 
sites that use a search engine to generate and maintain extensive 
databases of Internet addresses and content in an easily searchable 
format (and known as Web search portals). The publishing and 
broadcasting establishments in this industry do not provide traditional 
(non-Internet) versions of the content that they publish or broadcast. 
They provide textual, audio, and/or video content of general or 
specific interest on the Internet exclusively. Establishments known as 
Web search portals often provide additional Internet services, such as 
email, connections to other Web sites, auctions, news, and other 
limited content, and serve as a home base for Internet users.'' The SBA 
has developed a small business size standard for this category, which 
is: All such businesses having 500 or fewer employees. Census data for 
2007 shows that there were 2,705 firms that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 2,682 firms had fewer than 500 employees, and 13 
firms had between 500 and 999 employees. Therefore, under this size 
standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.
    61. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as 
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless 
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 750 or 
fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 939 
establishments that operated for part or all of the entire year. Of 
this total, 912 establishments had fewer than 500 employees, and 10 
establishments had between 500 and 999 employees. Therefore, under this 
size standard, the majority of such establishments can be considered 
small.
    62. Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau 
defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing electronic audio and 
video equipment for home entertainment, motor vehicles, and public 
address and musical instrument amplification. Examples of products made 
by these establishments are video cassette recorders, televisions, 
stereo equipment, speaker systems, household-type video cameras, 
jukeboxes, and amplifiers for musical instruments and public address 
systems.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
this category, which is: All such businesses having 750 or fewer 
employees. Census data for 2007 shows that 492 establishments in this 
category operated for part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 
488 establishments had fewer than 500 employees, and three had between 
500 and 999 employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the 
majority of such establishments can be considered small.
    63. Closed Captioning Services. These entities may be indirectly 
affected by our action. The SBA has developed two small business size 
standards that may be used for closed captioning services. The two size 
standards track the economic census categories, ``Teleproduction and 
Other Postproduction Services'' and ``Court Reporting and Stenotype 
Services.''
    64. The first category of Teleproduction and Other Postproduction 
Services ``comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing 
specialized motion picture or video postproduction services, such as 
editing, film/tape transfers, subtitling, credits, closed captioning, 
and animation and special effects.'' The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for this category, which is: Those having $29.5 
million or less in annual receipts. Census data for 2007 indicates that 
there were 1,605 firms that operated in this category for the entire 
year. Of this total, 1,587 firms had annual receipts of fewer than $25 
million, and 9 firms had receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. 
Therefore, we estimate that the majority of firms in this category are 
small entities.
    65. The second category of Court Reporting and Stenotype Services 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing verbatim 
reporting and stenotype recording of live legal proceedings and 
transcribing subsequent recorded materials.'' The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for this category, which is: Those having 
$14 million or less in annual receipts. Census data for 2007 indicates 
that there were 2,706 firms that operated in this category for the 
entire year. Of this total, 2,687 had annual receipts of fewer than $10 
million, and 11 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. 
Therefore, we estimate that the majority of firms in this category are 
small entities.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
    66. The rules adopted in the Video Clips Order generally extend the 
IP closed captioning requirements, which previously applied only to 
full-length video programming, to video clips. The Video Clips Order 
does not adopt a new regulatory regime, but rather, applies the 
existing regime for full-length IP-delivered video programming to IP-
delivered video clips, with certain modifications in recognition of the 
differences between video clips and full-length video programming. 
Accordingly, there are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements. 
There will, however, be new compliance requirements for small entities. 
Specifically, the IP closed captioning requirements will extend to IP-
delivered video clips if the video programming distributor or provider 
posts on its Web site or app a video clip of video programming that it 
published or exhibited on television in the United States with 
captions. The Commission adopts a compliance deadline of January 1, 
2016 for ``straight lift'' clips, which contain a single excerpt of a 
captioned television program with the same video and audio that was 
presented on television, and January 1, 2017 for ``montages,'' which 
contain multiple straight lift clips. After the applicable deadlines, 
the new rules will require IP-delivered video clips to be provided with 
closed captions at the time the clips are posted online, except as 
otherwise provided. For clips of video

[[Page 45370]]

programming previously shown live or near-live on television with 
captions, the rules will require captions beginning July 1, 2017, and 
for the present time will allow a grace period of 12 hours after the 
live programming is shown on television and eight hours after the near-
live programming is shown on television before the clip must be 
captioned online. The Commission finds that compliance with the new 
requirements would be economically burdensome for video clips that are 
in the video programming distributor's or provider's online library 
before January 1, 2016 for straight lift clips and January 1, 2017 for 
montages, and thus the Commission exempts this class of video clips 
from coverage. In general, the Commission applies the IP closed 
captioning requirements to video clips in the same manner that they 
apply to full-length video programming, which among other things means 
that the quality requirements applicable to full-length IP-delivered 
video programming will apply to video clips.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
    67. The RFA requires an agency to describe the steps the agency has 
taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities 
consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including 
a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the 
alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other 
significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which 
affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
    68. As explained above, the Video Clips Order does not adopt a new 
regulatory regime, but rather, applies the existing regime for full-
length IP-delivered video programming to IP-delivered video clips, with 
certain modifications in recognition of the differences between video 
clips and full-length video programming. Accordingly, similar to the 
rules promulgated in the IP Closed Captioning Order, the rules adopted 
in the Video Clips Order may have a significant economic impact in some 
cases and that impact may affect a substantial number of small 
entities. Although the Commission has considered alternatives, where 
possible, to minimize economic impact on small entities, we note that 
our action is governed by the congressional mandate contained in the 
CVAA.
    69. Notably, the same aspects of the IP closed captioning rules 
applicable to full-length programming that ease compliance burdens on 
small entities also apply to small entities in the context of video 
clips. Specifically, in the IP Closed Captioning Order, the Commission 
adopted procedures enabling it to grant exemptions to the rules 
governing closed captioning of IP-delivered video programming pursuant 
to Section 202 of the CVAA, where a petitioner has shown that 
compliance would present an economic burden (i.e., a significant 
difficulty or expense), and pursuant to Section 203 of the CVAA, where 
a petitioner has shown that compliance is not achievable (i.e., cannot 
be accomplished with reasonable effort or expense) or not technically 
feasible. As was the case with regard to full-length programming, this 
exemption process will allow the Commission to address the impact of 
the extension of the rules to video clips on individual entities, 
including smaller entities, and to modify the application of the rules 
to accommodate individual circumstances. Further, as with full-length 
IP-delivered video programming, a de minimis failure to comply with the 
requirements adopted pursuant to Section 202 of the CVAA with regard to 
IP-delivered video clips will not be treated as a violation, and 
parties may continue to use alternate means of compliance to the rules 
adopted pursuant to either Section 202 or Section 203 of the CVAA. 
Individual entities, including smaller entities, may benefit from these 
provisions.
    70. Overall, in crafting its new requirements, the Commission 
addressed the issues described in Section B above by providing 
reasonable timeframes within which entities may come into compliance, 
and by providing a grace period within which captions may be added to 
video clips of live or near-live programming. All of these provisions 
should ease the burdens that small entities otherwise would face in 
complying with these requirements. Further, in recognition of the 
burdens that would be imposed on regulated entities, in particular 
smaller entities, if faced with a requirement to caption video clips 
that are in the video programming distributor's or provider's online 
library before January 1, 2016 for straight lift clips and January 1, 
2017 for montages, the Commission finds that such a requirement would 
be economically burdensome and thus exempts this category of video 
clips from coverage. We note, additionally, that a Commission 
requirement for captioning IP-delivered video clips will ensure that 
the content, including critical news programming, will be accessible to 
individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, thus significantly 
benefiting consumers and serving the stated public interest goal of the 
CVAA.
6. Report to Congress
    71. The Commission will send a copy of the Video Clips Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act.\67\ In addition, the Commission will send a 
copy of the Video Clips Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Video Clips Order and 
FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal 
Register.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    \68\ See id. 604(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    72. The Video Clips Order does not contain proposed information 
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new 
or modified information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

C. Congressional Review Act

    73. The Commission will send a copy of the Video Clips Order in MB 
Docket No. 11-154 in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

D. Additional Information

    74. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Diana 
Sokolow, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, 
(202) 418-2120.

V. Ordering Clauses

    75. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
found in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, and 713 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, and 613, this Second 
Order on Reconsideration IS adopted, effective thirty (30) days after 
the date of publication in the Federal Register.
    76. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 
4(i), 4(j), 303, and 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, and 613, the Commission's rules are 
hereby amended as set forth in the Final Rules below.
    77. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and

[[Page 45371]]

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Second Order on Reconsideration MB Docket No. 11-154, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    78. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of 
this Second Order on Reconsideration in MB Docket No. 11-154 in a 
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    79. It is further ordered that Consumer Groups' Petition for 
Reconsideration, filed April 27, 2012, is granted in part, to the 
extent provided herein.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 79

    Cable television operators, Communications equipment, Multichannel 
video programming distributors (MVPDs), Satellite television service 
providers, Television broadcasters.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 79 as follows:

PART 79--ACCESSIBILITY OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING

0
1. The authority citation for part 79 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, 310, 
330, 544a, 613, 617.


0
2. Amend Sec.  79.4 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  79.4  Closed captioning of video programming delivered using 
Internet protocol.

* * * * *
    (b) Requirements for closed captioning of Internet protocol-
delivered video programming. (1) All nonexempt full-length video 
programming delivered using Internet protocol must be provided with 
closed captions if the programming is published or exhibited on 
television in the United States with captions on or after the following 
dates:
    (i) September 30, 2012, for all prerecorded programming that is not 
edited for Internet distribution, unless it is subject to paragraph 
(b)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (ii) March 30, 2013, for all live and near-live programming, unless 
it is subject to paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (iii) September 30, 2013, for all prerecorded programming that is 
edited for Internet distribution, unless it is subject to paragraph 
(b)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (iv) All programming that is already in the video programming 
distributor's or provider's library before it is shown on television 
with captions must be captioned within 45 days after the date it is 
shown on television with captions on or after March 30, 2014 and before 
March 30, 2015. Such programming must be captioned within 30 days after 
the date it is shown on television with captions on or after March 30, 
2015 and before March 30, 2016. Such programming must be captioned 
within 15 days after the date it is shown on television with captions 
on or after March 30, 2016.
    (2) All nonexempt video clips delivered using Internet protocol 
must be provided with closed captions if the video programming 
distributor or provider posts on its Web site or application a video 
clip of video programming that it published or exhibited on television 
in the United States with captions on or after the applicable 
compliance deadline. The requirements contained in this paragraph shall 
not apply to video clips added to the video programming distributor's 
or provider's library before the video programming distributor or 
provider published or exhibited the associated video programming on 
television in the United States with captions on or after the 
applicable compliance deadline.
    (i) The requirements contained in paragraph (b)(2) of this section 
shall apply with the following compliance deadlines:
    (A) January 1, 2016, where the video clip contains a single excerpt 
of a captioned television program with the same video and audio that 
was presented on television.
    (B) January 1, 2017, where a single file contains multiple video 
clips that each contain a single excerpt of a captioned television 
program with the same video and audio that was presented on television.
    (C) July 1, 2017, for video clips of live and near-live 
programming.
    (ii) Closed captions must be provided for video clips of live 
programming within 12 hours after the conclusion of the associated 
video programming's publication or exhibition on television in the 
United States with captions. Closed captions must be provided for video 
clips of near-live programming within eight hours after the conclusion 
of the associated video programming's publication or exhibition on 
television in the United States with captions.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-18203 Filed 8-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P