[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5921-5937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00929]



[[Page 5921]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 79

[MB Docket No. 12-108; FCC 15-156]


Accessibility of User Interfaces, and Video Programming Guides 
and Menus

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts additional rules under 
the authority of Sections 204 and 205 of the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), which 
mandate the accessibility of user interfaces on digital apparatus and 
navigation devices used to view video programming. First, the document 
adopts usability requirements for entities covered by Section 204 of 
the CVAA and information, documentation, and training requirements for 
entities covered by both Section 204 and Section 205 of the CVAA. The 
document also adopts rules that will require manufacturers of digital 
apparatus and navigation devices to publicize the availability of 
accessible devices on manufacturer Web sites that must be accessible to 
those with disabilities. These requirements will ensure that 
individuals with disabilities have access to information and 
documentation about the availability of accessible video devices and 
how to operate them. The document declines to adopt a requirement that 
multichannel video programming providers include more detailed program 
information for public, educational, and governmental channels in their 
video programming guides, finding that such a requirement is outside 
the scope of Section 205 of the CVAA. Finally, the document reconsiders 
guidance on which activation mechanisms for closed captioning are 
reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon.

DATES: Effective March 7, 2016, except for Sec. Sec.  79.107(a)(5), 
(d), and (e) and 79.108(d)(2) and (f), which contain information 
collection requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management 
and Budget. The Commission will publish a document in the Federal 
Register announcing the effective date for those sections.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Mullarkey, 
[email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 
418-2120. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction 
Act information collection requirements contained in this document, 
contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918 or send an email to 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 15-156, adopted on 
November 18, 2015, and released on November 20, 2015. The full text of 
this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic 
Document Management System (EDOCS) Web site at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the FCC's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS) Web site at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 
Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 
and/or Adobe Acrobat. This document is also available for public 
inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 
12th Street SW., CY-A257, 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).

I. Introduction

    1. In October 2013, the Commission adopted rules that advance the 
important goal of making video programming accessible to individuals 
with disabilities on a wide range of consumer devices, allowing 
consumers who are blind or visually impaired and deaf or hard of 
hearing to more fully enjoy the benefits of such programming. In this 
Second Report and Order (Order) and Order on Reconsideration, we take 
additional steps to fulfill this goal by continuing the Commission's 
implementation of Sections 204 and 205 of the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (``CVAA''), which 
mandate the accessibility of user interfaces on digital apparatus and 
navigation devices used to view video programming.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010) (as codified at 47 
U.S.C. 303(aa), 303(bb)). See also Amendment of Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-
265, 124 Stat. 2795 (2010) (making technical corrections to the 
CVAA). The foregoing are collectively referred to herein as the 
CVAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. This Order addresses three areas in which the Commission sought 
comment in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``Further NPRM'') 
that accompanied the first Report and Order issued in this 
proceeding.\2\ First, it implements Section 204's requirement that both 
the ``appropriate built-in apparatus functions'' and the ``on-screen 
text menus or other visual indicators built in to the digital 
apparatus'' to access such functions be ``usable by individuals who are 
blind or visually impaired'' \3\ by relying on the Commission's 
existing definition of ``usable'' in Section 6.3(l) of our rules.\4\ In 
addition, it adopts information, documentation, and training 
requirements comparable to those in Section 6.11 of our rules for 
entities covered by both Section 204 and Section 205 of the CVAA.\5\ 
Second, it adopts consumer notification requirements for equipment 
manufacturers of digital apparatus and navigation devices that will 
require manufacturers to publicize the availability of accessible 
devices on manufacturer Web sites that must be accessible to those with 
disabilities. While multichannel video programming distributors 
(``MVPDs'') are already subject to Web site notification requirements 
pursuant to the rules we adopted in the Report and Order, the Order 
also requires MVPDs, as well as manufacturers, to ensure that the 
contact office or person listed on their Web site is able to answer 
both general and specific questions about the availability of 
accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to 
consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate 
information about how to activate and use accessibility features. 
Finally, the Order declines to adopt a requirement that MVPDs include 
more detailed program information for public,

[[Page 5922]]

educational, and governmental (``PEG'') channels in their video 
programming guides, finding that such a requirement is outside the 
scope of Section 205 of the CVAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Accessibility of User Interfaces, and Video Programming 
Guides and Menus; Accessible Emergency Information, and Apparatus 
Requirements for Emergency Information and Video Description: 
Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010, MB Docket Nos. 12-108, 12-107, Report and 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 78 FR 77210, 78 FR 
77074, paras. 138-52 (2013) (``Report and Order and Further NPRM''). 
The Commission also inquired in the Further NPRM whether to require 
manufacturers of apparatus covered by Section 203 of the CVAA to 
provide access to the secondary audio stream for audible emergency 
information by a mechanism reasonably comparable to a button, key, 
or icon. Id. at paras. 145-47. The Commission addressed this issue 
in a recent order in MB Docket No. 12-107. See Accessible Emergency 
Information, and Apparatus Requirements for Emergency Information 
and Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, MB Docket No. 
12-107, Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 39698, 80 FR 39722 (2015).
    \3\ 47 U.S.C. 303(aa)(1)-(2).
    \4\ 47 CFR 6.3(l).
    \5\ Id. Sec.  6.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Addressing a Petition for Reconsideration filed by several 
consumer and academic organizations,\6\ the Order on Reconsideration 
modifies our decision in the Report and Order by finding that, when a 
voice control is the sole means of activation for closed captioning, it 
will not be considered ``reasonably comparable to a button, key, or 
icon'' under Sections 204 or 205 due to the difficulty many people who 
are deaf and hard of hearing would encounter in using such an 
activation mechanism. At the same time, the Order finds that closed 
captioning and video description activation mechanisms relying on 
gesture control will be considered ``reasonably comparable to a button, 
key, or icon'' if they are simple and easy to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Petition for Reconsideration of the National Association of 
the Deaf, Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., 
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network, Association of 
Late-Deafened Adults, Inc., Hearing Loss Association of America, 
California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of 
Hearing, Cerebral Palsy and Deaf Organization, Technology Access 
Program Gallaudet University, filed Jan. 20, 2014 (``Consumer/
Academic Groups Petition''). A substantially similar group of 
organizations, which included Telecommunication-RERC, but not 
Technology Access Program Gallaudet University, filed comments and 
reply comments in response to the Further NPRM (``Consumer/Academic 
Groups Comments'' and ``Consumer/Academic Groups Reply''). 
Hereinafter, both groups of organizations will be collectively 
referred to as the ``Consumer/Academic Groups.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    4. Among the CVAA's mandates is a requirement that the Commission 
adopt rules to ensure the accessibility of the user interfaces and 
video programming guides and menus for digital apparatus and navigation 
devices.\7\ The CVAA also required the Commission to establish an 
advisory committee known as the Video Programming Accessibility 
Advisory Committee (``VPAAC''),\8\ which submitted its statutorily 
mandated report addressing user interfaces and video programming guides 
and menus to the Commission on April 9, 2012.\9\ The Commission issued 
an NPRM in this proceeding on May 30, 2013,\10\ and adopted the Report 
and Order and Further NPRM on October 29, 2013. In the NPRM and the 
Report and Order, the Commission provided extensive background 
information regarding the history of the applicable provisions of the 
CVAA and the VPAAC Second Report: User Interfaces.\11\ The Report and 
Order and Further NPRM were published in the Federal Register on 
December 20, 2013.\12\ Covered entities must comply with the rules 
adopted in the Report and Order by December 20, 2016, subject to 
certain exceptions.\13\ Consumer/Academic Groups filed a timely 
petition for reconsideration within 30 days of the Federal Register 
publication date.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Public Law 111-260, secs. 204, 205.
    \8\ Id. at sec. 201(e)(2). Section 201(e)(2) of the CVAA also 
required the report to include information related to the provision 
of emergency information and video description, which is part of a 
separate Commission rulemaking proceeding that addresses Sections 
202 and 203 of the CVAA. See Accessible Emergency Information, and 
Apparatus Requirements for Emergency Information and Video 
Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010; Video 
Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, MB Docket Nos. 
12-107, 11-43, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 78 FR 31800, 78 FR 31769 (2013) (``Emergency 
Information/Video Description Order'').
    \9\ Second Report of the Video Programming Accessibility 
Advisory Committee on the Twenty-First Century Communications and 
Video Accessibility Act of 2010: User Interfaces, and Video 
Programming Guides and Menus, Apr. 9, 2012, available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021913531 (``VPAAC Second 
Report: User Interfaces'').
    \10\ See Accessibility of User Interfaces, and Video Programming 
Guides and Menus, MB Docket No. 12-108, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 78 FR 36478 (2013) (``NPRM'').
    \11\ NPRM, paras. 2-4; Report and Order and Further NPRM, paras. 
8-11.
    \12\ Federal Communications Commission, 47 CFR part 79, 
Accessibility of User Interfaces, and Video Programming Guides and 
Menus, Final Rule, 78 FR 77210 (Dec. 20, 2013); Federal 
Communications Commission, 47 CFR part 79, Accessibility of User 
Interfaces, and Video Programming Guides and Menus; Accessible 
Emergency Information, and Apparatus Requirements for Emergency 
Information and Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-
First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 
Proposed Rule, 78 FR 77074 (Dec. 20, 2013).
    \13\ See 47 CFR 79.107(b), 79.108(b), 79.109(c). See also Report 
and Order and Further NPRM, paras. 111-19.
    \14\ 47 CFR 1.429(d). The Consumer Electronics Association, 
Entertainment Software Association, National Cable & 
Telecommunications Association, and Telecommunications Industry 
Association each filed oppositions to the Petition for 
Reconsideration, and Consumer/Academic Groups filed a reply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Second Report and Order

A. Usability and Information, Documentation, and Training Requirements

    5. Section 204 Digital Apparatus. We will rely on the Commission's 
existing definition of ``usable'' in Section 6.3(l) of our rules to 
implement Section 204's requirement that both the ``appropriate built-
in apparatus functions'' and ``on-screen text menus or other visual 
indicators built in to the digital apparatus'' to access such functions 
be ``usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired.'' \15\ 
Consistent with the language in Section 204 of the CVAA, the Commission 
required in the Report and Order that covered digital apparatus, ``if 
achievable . . . be designed, developed, and fabricated so that control 
of appropriate built-in apparatus functions are accessible to and 
usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired.'' \16\ The 
Commission also required, as mandated by Section 204 of the CVAA, that 
on-screen text menus or other visual indicators used to access the 
appropriate built-in apparatus functions ``be accompanied by audio 
output . . . so that such menus or indicators are accessible to and 
usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired in real-
time.'' \17\ While the Report and Order specified accessibility 
requirements, i.e., how covered entities should make the appropriate 
built-in functions ``accessible,'' the Further NPRM sought comment on 
usability requirements, i.e., how covered entities should make the 
appropriate built-in functions ``usable.'' \18\ Specifically, the 
Further NPRM inquired whether to adopt the definition of ``usable'' set 
forth in Section 6.3(l) of our rules and whether to impose information, 
documentation, and training requirements consistent with those set 
forth in Section 6.11 of our rules.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 47 U.S.C. 303(aa)(1)-(2).
    \16\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 53. The 
appropriate built-in apparatus functions are those that are used for 
the reception, play back, or display of video programming and, at 
this time, include the following functions: Power on/off; volume 
adjust and mute; channel/program selection; display channel/program 
information; configuration--setup; configuration--CC control; 
configuration--CC options; configuration--video description control; 
display configuration info; playback functions; and input selection. 
Id. at para. 58; 47 CFR 79.107(a)(4)(i)-(xi). The Commission has 
stated that it ``may revisit this list if and when technology 
evolves to a point where devices incorporate new user functions 
related to video programming that were not contemplated by the 
VPAAC.'' Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 59.
    \17\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 53.
    \18\ Id. at para. 138.
    \19\ Id. at paras. 138-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Relying on the existing definition of usability in Section 
6.3(l), we require manufacturers of Section 204 digital apparatus to 
ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to information 
and documentation on the full functionalities of digital apparatus, 
including instructions, product information (including accessible 
feature information), documentation, bills, and technical support which 
are provided to individuals without disabilities.\20\ Industry and 
academic

[[Page 5923]]

commenters were united in their support of our proposal to rely on the 
Section 6.3(l) usable definition to implement Section 204.\21\ As the 
Further NPRM stated, the Commission has relied on the Section 6.3(l) 
definition in other CVAA contexts,\22\ and, given the agreement in the 
record on this point, we see no reason to depart from that approach 
here. The Consumer Electronics Association (``CEA'') asks that we 
``clarify'' that application of the usability requirement under Section 
204 to the ``appropriate'' built-in functions of covered digital 
apparatus only applies ``to the extent the apparatus includes those 
functions.'' \23\ We agree with CEA that such an approach would be 
consistent with the Commission's approach in the Report and Order and 
adopt it here. Under the standard set forth in the Report and Order 
when implementing Section 204, a digital apparatus manufacturer is 
required to make an ``appropriate built-in apparatus function'' of a 
digital apparatus accessible only to the extent such function is 
``included in the device.'' \24\ Similarly, a digital apparatus 
manufacturer will be required under Section 204 to make usable an 
``appropriate built-in apparatus function'' \25\ or an on-screen text 
menu or other visual indicator that is used to access such function 
\26\ only to the extent it is included in the device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 47 CFR 6.3(l). The Commission adopted the definition of 
``usable'' in Section 6.3(l) of its rules pursuant to Section 255 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which requires 
telecommunications providers and equipment manufacturers to make 
their products ``accessible to and usable by'' persons with 
disabilities. See Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996; Access to Telecommunications Service, 
Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by 
Persons with Disabilities, WT Docket No. 96-198, Report and Order 
and Further Notice of Inquiry, 16 FCC Rcd 6417, paras. 21-29 (1999).
    \21\ See Comments of the Consumer Electronics Association at 2-3 
(``CEA Comments''); Comments of DISH Network L.L.C. and EchoStar 
Technologies L.L.C. at 2 (``DISH/EchoStar Comments''); Reply 
Comments of Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless 
Technologies at 4 (``Wireless RERC Reply'').
    \22\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 138 (discussing 
the Commission's reliance on the Section 6.3(l) usable definition 
when implementing Sections 255, 716, and 718 of the Communications 
Act).
    \23\ CEA Comments at 3.
    \24\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 58. See also id. 
at para. 60 (``[A]n apparatus covered by Section 204 is not required 
to include all 11 functions deemed to be `appropriate,' 
understanding that some of these functions may not be provided for 
any users on certain devices. We agree with commenters that Section 
204 `do[es] not mandate the inclusion of any specific functions' in 
the design of a covered apparatus. However, to the extent that an 
apparatus is designed to include an `appropriate' built-in apparatus 
function, such function must be made accessible in accordance with 
our rules.'') (citations omitted).
    \25\ 47 U.S.C. 303(aa)(1).
    \26\ Id. at sec. 303(aa)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. In addition to implementing the usability requirement of Section 
204, we also adopt information, documentation, and training 
requirements consistent with those set forth in Section 6.11 of our 
rules. As noted in the Further NPRM, the Commission ``adopted 
information, documentation, and training requirements when implementing 
Sections 716 and 718'' of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(``Act''),\27\ which impose accessibility requirements on providers and 
manufacturers with respect to advanced communications services and 
equipment and Internet browsers on mobile phones and, like Section 204, 
require that covered products be ``accessible to and usable by'' 
individuals with disabilities.\28\ Section 6.11 requires that 
manufacturers ensure access to information and documentation it 
provides to its customers.\29\ Such information and documentation 
includes user guides, bills, installation guides for end-user 
installable devices, and product support communications, regarding both 
the product in general and the accessibility features of the 
product.\30\ In addition, Section 6.11 requires manufacturers to 
include the contact method for obtaining the information required by 
Section 6.11(a) in general product information, to consider certain 
accessibility-related topics when developing or modifying training 
programs, and to take other steps, as necessary.\31\ We agree with the 
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies 
(``Wireless RERC'') that imposing these requirements in this context as 
well will provide a consistent experience for individuals with 
disabilities regardless of the product they are purchasing.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id. at secs. 617, 619. See also Public Law 111-260, sec. 
104 (adding Sections 716 and 718 of the Act).
    \28\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 139; 47 CFR 
14.20(d).
    \29\ 47 CFR 6.11(a).
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id. Sec.  6.11(a)-(c).
    \32\ See Wireless RERC Reply at 4. See also Comments of Verizon 
and Verizon Wireless at 3 (``Verizon Comments'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. We disagree with the argument made by CEA and DISH Network 
L.L.C./EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. (``DISH/EchoStar'') that imposing 
information, documentation, and training requirements will be redundant 
with the usability requirements in Section 6.3(l) that we adopt 
herein.\33\ While Section 6.3(l) provides a definition of usability in 
the definitional section of our rules, Section 6.11 outlines the 
specific actions that covered entities must take to provide access by 
people with disabilities to information and documentation, as well as 
information to be considered for inclusion in an appropriate 
manufacturer training program.\34\ Thus, for example, Section 6.11 
directs manufacturers to provide access to user guides, bills, 
installation guides and product support communications.\35\ In 
addition, it directs manufacturers to provide a description of the 
accessibility and compatibility features of the product upon request, 
including, as needed, in alternate formats or alternate modes at no 
additional charge,\36\ and to ensure usable customer and technical 
support in call centers and service centers at no additional 
charge.\37\ With respect to training, Section 6.11 states that 
manufacturers shall consider various topics, including the 
accessibility requirements of, and means of communicating with, people 
with disabilities; adaptive technology commonly used by people with 
disabilities; and designs and solutions for accessibility.\38\ 
Therefore, we find that the information, documentation, and training 
requirements found in Section 6.11 are not redundant with the usability 
requirements in Section 6.3(l), but set forth a more specific set of 
obligations to which the manufacturers of Section 204 apparatus must 
adhere. Thus, we apply these requirements to entities covered by 
Section 204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ CEA Comments at 4; Reply Comments of the Consumer 
Electronics Association at 8-9 (``CEA Reply''); DISH/EchoStar 
Comments at 3.
    \34\ 47 CFR 6.11.
    \35\ Id. Sec.  6.11(a).
    \36\ Id. Sec.  6.11(a)(1). Similarly, manufacturers must provide 
end-user product documentation in alternate formats or alternate 
modes upon request at no additional charge. Id. Sec.  6.11(a)(2).
    \37\ Id. Sec.  6.11(a)(3).
    \38\ Id. Sec.  6.11(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Section 205 Navigation Devices. We also adopt the information, 
documentation, and training requirements outlined in Section 6.11 of 
our rules as part of entities' obligations under Section 205. In the 
Further NPRM, we inquired whether we should impose Section 6.11 
information, documentation, and training requirements on entities 
covered by Section 205, which applies to navigation devices, pursuant 
to our authority to ``prescribe such regulations

[[Page 5924]]

as are necessary to implement'' the requirements of that section.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 139. See also 
Public Law 111-260, sec. 205(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. We find that Section 205 of the CVAA provides the Commission 
with sufficient authority to adopt information, documentation, and 
training requirements. CEA, the National Cable & Telecommunications 
Association (``NCTA''), and the American Cable Association (``ACA'') 
point out that Section 205 does not include the Section 204 
``accessible to and usable by'' language that the Commission has relied 
upon in the past to adopt information, documentation, and training 
requirements and, therefore, they question the Commission's statutory 
authority to adopt such requirements in the Section 205 context.\40\ We 
disagree with industry's arguments. Section 205 requires that on-screen 
text menus and guides provided by navigation devices are ``audibly 
accessible'' by individuals who are blind or visually impaired.\41\ In 
addition, Section 205(b)(1) empowers the Commission to ``prescribe such 
regulations as are necessary to implement'' the requirements of Section 
205.\42\ If consumers do not know how to access a feature then, as a 
practical matter, it is not ``accessible.'' \43\ Information, 
documentation, and training requirements are thus necessary for 
individuals with disabilities to be able to operate navigation devices 
that are made accessible in accordance with the requirements of Section 
205. As described above, such requirements ensure that persons with 
disabilities are provided with accessible product information and 
documentation, such as user guides, bills, installation guides, and 
product support communications, with a description of the accessibility 
features of the device upon request,\44\ and with customer and 
technical support in call centers and service centers.\45\ While we 
note that under the rule, covered entities are required to provide a 
description of accessibility features and product documentation ``upon 
request'' by the consumer,\46\ we will treat a consumer's request for 
an accessible navigation device pursuant to Section 205 to also 
constitute a request for a description of the accessibility features of 
the device and end-user product documentation in accessible formats so 
that the consumer is able to operate the device. Such requirements also 
ensure that manufacturers and service providers consider various 
accessibility-related topics when designing training programs.\47\ We 
believe that these requirements are necessary for individuals with 
disabilities to have access to the accessibility features and 
functionality of Section 205 accessible navigation devices and to fully 
obtain the benefits of these devices.\48\ While these requirements 
broadly outline the steps covered entities must take to ensure access 
to information, documentation, and training for persons with 
disabilities, covered entities have flexibility to implement these 
requirements within the guidelines set forth in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See CEA Comments at 5; CEA Reply at 9. See also Comments of 
the National Cable & Telecommunications Association at 7 (``NCTA 
Comments''); Reply Comments of the National Cable & 
Telecommunications Association at 8 (``NCTA Reply''); Reply Comments 
of the American Cable Association at 3-4 (``ACA Reply'').
    \41\ 47 U.S.C. 303(bb)(1).
    \42\ See Public Law 111-260, sec. 205(b)(1). See also Report and 
Order and Further NPRM, para. 139.
    \43\ For these reasons, we reject ACA's argument that the 
Commission cannot rely on its authority to ``prescribe such 
regulations as are necessary to implement'' the requirements of 
Section 205 to adopt information, documentation, and training 
requirements, or that imposing such a requirement would lead to an 
inconsistent interpretation of the CVAA. See ACA Reply at 4 & n. 10.
    \44\ Specifically, Section 6.11(a) requires covered entities to 
provide a description of the accessibility and compatibility 
features of the product upon request, including, as needed, in 
alternate formats or alternate modes at no additional charge, and to 
provide end-user product documentation in alternate formats or 
alternate modes upon request at no additional charge. 47 CFR 
6.11(a)(1)-(2).
    \45\ Id. Sec.  6.11(a)(1)-(3).
    \46\ Id. Sec.  6.11(a)(1)-(2).
    \47\ Id. Sec.  6.11(c).
    \48\ See Wireless RERC Reply at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Further, we disagree with CEA, NCTA, and DISH/EchoStar's 
argument that information, documentation, and training requirements 
will not be necessary because Section 205 navigation devices are 
provided upon request and the notification requirements already adopted 
under Section 205 in the Report and Order will be sufficient to ensure 
that consumers are able to obtain accessible navigation devices.\49\ 
Those notification requirements focus on ensuring that consumers with 
disabilities are provided with information about the availability of 
accessible navigation devices and how to obtain such devices.\50\ In 
contrast, the information, documentation, and training requirements 
that we adopt herein focus on ensuring that consumers with disabilities 
are provided with information about how to operate the accessibility 
features and functions of such devices in an accessible format and are 
provided with appropriate customer support for such devices. Thus, we 
find that the notification requirements already adopted in the Report 
and Order do not obviate the need for adopting information, 
documentation, and training requirements as set forth in Section 6.11, 
and we apply these requirements to entities covered by Section 205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See CEA Comments at 5; CEA Reply at 8; DISH/EchoStar 
Comments at 3-4; NCTA Comments at 7-8; NCTA Reply at 8.
    \50\ Under Section 205, MVPDs must notify consumers that 
navigation devices with the required accessibility features are 
available to consumers who are blind or visually impaired upon 
request. 47 CFR 79.108(d). Specifically, when providing information 
about equipment options in response to a consumer inquiry about 
service, accessibility, or other issues, MVPDs must clearly and 
conspicuously inform consumers about the availability of accessible 
navigation devices. Id. Sec.  79.108(d)(1). In addition, MVPDs must 
provide notice on their official Web sites about the availability of 
accessible navigation devices. Id. Sec.  79.108(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Achievability. We find that the usability requirement 
applicable to Section 204 devices and the information, documentation, 
and training requirements applicable to Section 204 and 205 devices 
adopted herein apply only ``if achievable,'' meaning ``with reasonable 
effort or expense, as determined by the Commission.'' \51\ Section 
303(aa)(1) of the Act indicates that apparatus covered by Section 204 
are required to make appropriate built-in apparatus functions 
accessible to and usable by individuals who are blind or visually 
impaired only ``if achievable.'' \52\ Similarly, Section 303(bb)(1) 
requires on-screen text menus and guides for the display or selection 
of multichannel video programming on navigation devices covered by 
Section 205 to be audibly accessible by individuals who are blind or 
visually impaired only ``if achievable.'' \53\ The Commission will 
determine whether compliance is ``achievable'' on a case-by-case basis, 
consistent with the approach adopted in the Report and Order. \54\ In 
particular, the Commission will consider the following factors in 
determining whether compliance with the usability and information, 
documentation, and training requirements are achievable in particular 
circumstances: (1) The nature and cost of the steps needed to meet the 
requirements of this section with respect to the specific equipment or 
service in question; (2) the technical and economic impact on the 
operation of the manufacturer or provider and on the operation of the 
specific equipment or

[[Page 5925]]

service in question, including on the development and deployment of new 
communications technologies; (3) the type of operations of the 
manufacturer or provider; and (4) the extent to which the service 
provider or manufacturer in question offers accessible services or 
equipment containing varying degrees of functionality and features, and 
offered at differing price points.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See 47 U.S.C. 303(aa)(1), 303(bb)(1); 47 CFR 79.107(c), 
79.108(c); Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 77 (citing 47 
U.S.C. 617(g)).
    \52\ 47 U.S.C. 303(aa)(1).
    \53\ Id. at sec. 303(bb)(1).
    \54\ See Report and Order and Further NPRM, paras. 77-78.
    \55\ Id. at para. 77; 47 CFR 79.107(c)(2)(i)-(iv), 
79.108(c)(2)(i)-(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Compliance Deadlines. We continue to require the same 
compliance deadlines for the usability and information, documentation, 
and training requirements that the Commission adopted in the Report and 
Order for rules to ensure the accessibility of user interfaces and 
video programming guides and menus under Sections 204 and 205.\56\ We 
decline to provide additional time for entities to come into compliance 
with the usability requirements for Section 204 devices and the 
information, documentation, and training requirements for Section 204 
and 205 devices adopted herein.\57\ With the exception of ACA, no 
commenter requested additional time to come into compliance with these 
requirements. ACA requests that small- and medium-sized cable operators 
receive an extended deadline to come into compliance with any 
information, documentation, and training requirements imposed on 
Section 205 entities.\58\ ACA contends that such operators ``would 
likely lack the legal, technical, or financial ability to incorporate 
the [information, documentation, and training] requirements,'' and, 
therefore, the Commission should provide them with an extended 
compliance deadline to alleviate these burdens.\59\ While we agree that 
providing some relief to small- and mid-sized operators is reasonable, 
we note that the Commission in the Report and Order already delayed the 
time by which mid-sized and smaller MVPD operators and small MVPD 
systems must comply with the requirements of Section 205 by two 
years.\60\ We believe that the delay already afforded to certain mid-
sized and smaller MVPD operators and small MVPD systems will provide 
sufficient time in which to implement the information, documentation, 
and training requirements adopted herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Covered entities must comply with these rules by December 
20, 2016, subject to certain exceptions. See 47 CFR 79.107(b), 
79.108(b), 79.109(c). See also Report and Order and Further NPRM, 
paras. 111-19.
    \57\ See 47 CFR 79.107(b), 79.108(b).
    \58\ See ACA Reply at 3-5.
    \59\ Id. at 4-5.
    \60\ See 47 CFR 79.108(b); Report and Order and Further NPRM, 
paras. 114-19. Specifically, (1) MVPD operators with 400,000 or 
fewer subscribers as of year-end 2012; and (2) MVPD systems with 
20,000 or fewer subscribers that are not affiliated with an operator 
serving more than 10 percent of all MVPD subscribers as of year-end 
2012, were afforded with a two-year delay of the compliance 
deadline. Id. These MVPDs must be in compliance with the rules by 
December 20, 2018. The Commission also committed to undertake a 
review of the marketplace after the December 20, 2016 compliance 
deadline for larger MVPDs to consider whether the delayed compliance 
deadline should be retained or extended (in whole or in part). 
Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Notifications

1. Equipment Manufacturer Notifications Under Sections 204 and 205
    14. We adopt the Further NPRM's tentative conclusion to require 
manufacturers of navigation devices subject to Section 205 to inform 
consumers about the availability of audibly accessible devices and 
accessibility solutions.\61\ Specifically, consistent with our proposal 
in the Further NPRM, we require manufacturers subject to Section 205 to 
prominently display information about audibly accessible devices and 
other accessibility solutions on their official Web sites.\62\ We also 
adopt a similar notification requirement for manufacturers of digital 
apparatus that are subject to Section 204. However, we decline to adopt 
labeling requirements or other point of sale notifications for either 
Section 205 navigation devices or Section 204 digital apparatus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 150. We note 
that the deadlines adopted in the Report and Order apply to the 
notification requirements adopted herein. See 47 CFR 79.107(b), 
79.108(b). No commenter requested additional time to come into 
compliance with these requirements.
    \62\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Pursuant to Section 205(b)(1) of the CVAA, we require equipment 
manufacturers subject to Section 205 to inform consumers about the 
availability of audibly accessible devices and accessibility solutions 
by prominently displaying accessibility information on their official 
Web sites, such as through a link on their home page.\63\ Our rules 
currently require MVPDs to notify consumers that navigation devices 
with the required accessibility features are available to consumers who 
are blind or visually impaired upon request, and, as part of these 
requirements, MVPDs must provide notice on their official Web sites 
about the availability of accessible navigation devices.\64\ In the 
Further NPRM, we inquired whether to impose similar requirements on 
manufacturers of navigation devices.\65\ Among the few commenters who 
addressed Web site notifications for manufacturers subject to Section 
205, there appears to be general agreement that, at a minimum, 
equipment manufacturers should be required to prominently provide 
information about the availability of accessible devices on their Web 
sites.\66\ Further, we adopt our proposal in the Further NPRM to 
require manufacturers to convey through the Web site notice the means 
of making requests for accessible equipment and the specific person, 
office, or entity to which such requests are to be made.\67\ Because 
Section 205 allows covered entities to distribute accessible navigation 
devices ``upon request'' to blind and visually impaired 
individuals,\68\ we find that, similar to the requirement for 
MVPDs,\69\ the Web site notice provided by navigation device 
manufacturers must provide information on how individuals who are blind 
or visually impaired can request accessible equipment, as well as the 
specific person, office, or entity to which such requests are to be 
made. Although the Web site is required to contain information only 
about the availability of accessible devices and the means for making 
requests for such equipment, the contact office or person listed on the 
Web site must be able to answer both general and specific questions 
about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if 
necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to 
a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use 
accessibility features.\70\ In addition, as is

[[Page 5926]]

required for MVPD Web site notices, the information required herein by 
navigation device manufacturers must be provided in a Web site format 
that is accessible to individuals with disabilities.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See id.
    \64\ 47 CFR 79.108(d)(1)-(2).
    \65\ See Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 150.
    \66\ See CEA Comments at 9-10; CEA Reply at 6-7; Consumer/
Academic Groups Comments at 12; Reply Comments of Montgomery County, 
Maryland at 35 (``Montgomery County Reply'') (arguing that Web site 
notifications may be a component of increasing consumer awareness of 
accessible devices, but should not be considered an ``all-
encompassing solution'').
    \67\ See Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 150.
    \68\ 47 U.S.C. 303(bb)(1).
    \69\ See 47 CFR 79.108(d)(2); Report and Order and Further NPRM, 
para. 134.
    \70\ See Consumer/Academic Groups Comments at 13 (``Too often 
have deaf and hard of hearing customers reached out to customer 
service representatives asking how to access the closed captioning 
features on products and encountered puzzled customer service 
representatives.''); Consumer/Academic Groups Reply at 5 
(``[C]onsumers have told us that the sales people in stores as well 
as customer support people over the phone often are unfamiliar with 
the closed captioning features on their products.''); Wireless RERC 
Reply at 4-5 (``[C]ustomer service is central to providing 
information to people who have vision loss, as oftentimes the online 
and print information is not consistently accessible. . . . The 
common theme was that customer support agents simply did not have 
the required expertise to address specific inquiries made by people 
with disabilities, hence support was inadequate.'').
    \71\ See 47 CFR 79.108(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Device manufacturers that produce Section 204 digital apparatus 
will also be required to provide prominent notification about the 
availability of accessible devices on their official Web sites as is 
required for Section 205 navigation devices. In the Further NPRM, we 
sought comment on whether to impose notification requirements on 
equipment manufacturers subject to Section 204 to ensure that consumers 
with disabilities are informed about which products contain the 
required accessibility features and, more specifically, whether we 
should require manufacturers to prominently display information about 
the availability of accessible devices and about which products contain 
the required accessibility features on their official Web sites, such 
as through a link on their home pages, and whether we should require a 
point of contact who can answer consumer questions about which products 
contain the required accessibility features.\72\ Consumer/Academic 
Groups support adopting a Web site notification requirement for both 
digital apparatus and navigation devices, recognizing that ``access is 
not possible if those who need the access are not aware of its 
availability.'' \73\ We agree and therefore adopt a Web site 
notification requirement for equipment manufacturers subject to Section 
204. Just as we require for Section 205 manufacturers, the contact 
office or person listed on the Web site must be able to answer both 
general and specific questions about the availability of accessible 
equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to consumers 
or directing consumers to a place where they can locate information 
about how to activate and use accessibility features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 152.
    \73\ Consumer/Academic Groups Comments at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. We disagree with CEA's contention that adopting the definition 
of ``usable'' for Section 204 devices obviates the need for any 
additional notification requirements for digital apparatus.\74\ Rather, 
we find that a Web site notification requirement will be minimally 
burdensome and may enhance manufacturers' efforts to comply with the 
usability requirement. Specifically, although not required, digital 
apparatus manufacturers may choose to use the notification portion of 
their Web site to include additional information about accessibility 
features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ CEA Comments at 10 (``In fact, there is no need to impose 
notification requirements on manufacturers of digital apparatus if 
the Commission adopts the definition of `usable.' . . . Doing so 
would ensure that information is available to consumers regarding 
the accessibility features of digital apparatus, without the need 
for additional notification requirements.''); CEA Reply at 7 
(``Because Section 204 applies to all of these devices, relying on 
the existing definition of `usable' in the Section 204 context will 
ensure that information is available to consumers regarding the 
accessibility features of digital apparatus, without the need for 
specific, and burdensome, labeling or other notification 
requirements.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. We decline to impose labeling requirements or other point of 
sale notifications for navigation devices or digital apparatus at this 
time, but we emphasize that entities covered by Sections 204 and 205 of 
the CVAA are required to provide information about the accessibility 
features of devices, including information about how to access closed 
captioning controls and settings, as part of the information, 
documentation, and training requirements that we adopt herein. The 
Further NPRM sought comment regarding what notification, if any, should 
be required at the point of sale for consumers that wish to purchase 
accessible Section 205 or Section 204 devices at retail, such as a 
labeling requirement to identify accessible devices.\75\ Comments 
regarding point of sale notifications focused almost exclusively on 
whether the Commission should adopt a product labeling requirement. 
Consumer/Academic Groups support a labeling requirement for both 
navigation devices and digital apparatus that would inform consumers at 
the point of sale about product accessibility, including a notice on 
the packaging that ``explain[s] how to access the closed captioning 
control as well as display settings.'' \76\ Consumer/Academic Groups 
also contend that manufacturers should be required to provide ``step-
by-step instructions with pictures explaining how to access the closed 
captioning features'' either inside the packaging or on the 
packaging.\77\ CEA, the Entertainment Software Association (``ESA''), 
and the Telecommunications Industry Association (``TIA'') strongly 
oppose any labeling requirement for digital apparatus or navigation 
devices.\78\ For example, CEA argues that manufacturers should be able 
to work with retailers, without regulation, to determine how point of 
sale notifications should work and that manufacturers already have 
incentives to provide all necessary information to ensure that 
consumers know how to operate their devices.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, paras. 151-52.
    \76\ Consumer/Academic Groups Comments at 13.
    \77\ Id.
    \78\ See CEA Comments at 10-11; CEA Reply at 7-8; Reply Comments 
of the Entertainment Software Association at 5 (``ESA Reply''); 
Reply Comments of the Telecommunications Industry Association at 2-3 
(``TIA Reply'').
    \79\ See CEA Comments at 10-11; CEA Reply at 7-8. In addition, 
ESA and TIA argue that Consumer/Academic Groups' proposal to include 
explanations and instructions on the packaging would be difficult to 
implement and that, in any event, packaging labels are not 
accessible to those who are blind or visually impaired. ESA Reply at 
5; TIA Reply at 2-3. See also CEA Reply at 8. TIA submits that the 
most logical place for instructions is not a packaging label but the 
product's manual or help guide. TIA Reply at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. We agree with Consumer/Academic Groups that it is important 
that consumers with disabilities be provided with information about the 
accessibility features of digital apparatus and navigation devices. The 
Section 6.3(l) usability and Section 6.11 information and documentation 
requirements adopted by the Commission here require covered entities to 
provide consumers with such information. Pursuant to the usability 
requirements we adopt here, manufacturers subject to Section 204 of the 
CVAA must provide access to information and documentation on the full 
functionalities of digital apparatus, including instructions, product 
information (including accessible feature information), documentation, 
bills and technical support.\80\ Further, as part of the information 
and documentation requirements we adopt here, entities subject to both 
Section 204 and Section 205 of the CVAA must provide access to 
information and documentation, including installation guides and 
product support communications, and, in particular, must provide a 
description of the accessibility and compatibility features of the 
product upon request, including, as needed, in alternate formats or 
alternate modes at no additional

[[Page 5927]]

charge.\81\ Thus, covered entities will be required to provide the 
information about product accessibility features, including information 
on how to access closed captioning features and display settings, and 
such information must be provided in accessible formats, but it will 
not need to be included on a label.\82\ As industry gains experience 
with the informational requirements, we may revisit our rules in the 
future to ensure that consumers are receiving information as intended 
by the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 47 CFR 6.3(l) (emphasis added). We interpret this 
requirement to mean that, if a manufacturer generally provides 
instructions or a user manual with its product, such instructions or 
user manual shall include information and instructions on how to use 
accessibility features. We also interpret this requirement to mean 
that, even if a manufacturer does not routinely provide instructions 
or a user manual with its product, it still must provide product 
information and instructions on how to use accessibility features in 
an accessible format upon request to consumers with disabilities.
    \81\ Id. Sec.  6.11(a)(1)-(2) (emphasis added). As noted above, 
if a consumer with a disability requests an accessible navigation 
device pursuant to Section 205, this also constitutes a request for 
a description of the accessibility features of the device and end-
user product documentation in accessible formats.
    \82\ Such formats include picture instructions for individuals 
who are deaf and hard of hearing and Braille/audible instructions 
for individuals who are blind or visually impaired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Consumer/Academic Groups support requiring manufacturers to 
provide not just Web site notifications about the availability of 
accessible devices and the contact information for requesting 
accessible devices, but also Web site information ``explaining the 
accessibility of their devices and how to access important 
accessibility features such as the closed captioning control and 
display settings.'' \83\ As noted above, while the information and 
documentation requirements that we adopt broadly outline the steps 
covered entities must take to ensure that persons with disabilities 
have access to information about accessibility features, covered 
entities have flexibility to implement these requirements within the 
guidelines set forth in the rule. Thus, we do not require that such 
information be posted on Web sites. However, we agree that providing 
this information on Web sites would be useful for consumers to be able 
to effectively use a device's accessibility features and therefore 
encourage covered entities to provide the required information and 
documentation about accessibility features on their Web sites in a 
format that is accessible to individuals with disabilities. With 
respect to both Section 204 and 205 devices, as we state above, we 
require persons listed as the point of contact for requests for 
accessible equipment to also be able to provide information about the 
availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, 
providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place 
where they can locate information about how to activate and use 
accessibility features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Consumer/Academic Groups Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. In addition, Consumer/Academic Groups request a central Web 
site, similar to the Commission's Accessibility Clearinghouse,\84\ 
which would include accessibility information for all digital apparatus 
and navigation devices.\85\ The Accessibility Clearinghouse was set up 
for equipment subject to Sections 255, 716, and 718 of the Act, namely 
telecommunications equipment, advanced communications services 
equipment, and Internet browsers on mobile phones, pursuant to a 
Congressional mandate within the CVAA,\86\ and we note that Congress 
did not mandate a similar Web site for equipment subject to Sections 
204 and 205. Nevertheless, we find that consumers would benefit from 
this information being included within the framework of the already 
established Accessibility Clearinghouse. To date, the Accessibility 
Clearinghouse largely relies on manufacturers to update their product 
information on wireless communication technologies.\87\ A similar 
commitment by CEA, NCTA, and their memberships that could enable the 
inclusion and updating of information about accessible digital 
apparatus and navigation devices within the Accessibility Clearinghouse 
would be useful to consumers. Therefore, we encourage CEA and NCTA to 
coordinate with the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (``CGB'') 
to determine the feasibility of including information about the 
accessibility of digital apparatus and navigation devices within the 
current Accessibility Clearinghouse. We recommend that such 
coordination take place with CGB well before the December 20, 2016 
compliance deadline for our digital apparatus and navigation device 
accessibility requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Established pursuant to Section 717(d) of the Act, the 
Accessibility Clearinghouse is ``a clearinghouse of information on 
the availability of accessible products and services and 
accessibility solutions required under sections 255, 617, and 619.'' 
47 U.S.C. 618(d). The information is made publicly available on the 
Commission's Web site and includes an annually updated list of 
products and services with accessibility features. Id. The 
Accessibility Clearinghouse can be accessed at http://ach.fcc.gov/.
    \85\ See Consumer/Academic Groups Comments at 12.
    \86\ See Pub. L. 111-260, sec. 104.
    \87\ See Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket No. 
10-213, Biennial Report to Congress as Required by the Twenty-First 
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, DA 12-
1602, 27 FCC Rcd 12204, para. 91, n. 258 (CGB 2012) (``In 2010, CTIA 
revamped its accessibility Web site, AccessWireless.org, to better 
inform consumers with disabilities about the availability of 
accessible mobile phone options. . . . The Commission ultimately 
used the information contained on this new site, largely derived 
from the Global Accessibility Reporting Initiative (GARI) of the 
Mobile Manufacturers Forum, to help develop its Accessibility 
Clearinghouse. For more information about GARI and the Mobile 
Manufacturers Forum, visit http://MobileAccessibility.info.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. MVPD Notifications Under Section 205
    22. Just as we require for manufacturers of Section 204 and 205 
devices, we require MVPDs to ensure that the contact office or person 
listed on their Web site is able to answer both general and specific 
questions about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if 
necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to 
a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use 
accessibility features. This new requirement is in addition to the two 
existing notification requirements for MVPDs that the Commission 
adopted in the Report and Order. First, MVPDs are required to clearly 
and conspicuously inform consumers about the availability of accessible 
navigation devices whenever MVPDs provide ``information about equipment 
options in response to a consumer inquiry about service, accessibility, 
or other issues.'' \88\ Second, MVPDs must provide notice on their 
official Web sites about the availability of accessible navigation 
devices, in a way that is both prominent and accessible to those with 
disabilities.\89\ In particular, the Web site notice must prominently 
display information about accessible navigation devices in a way that 
makes such information available to all current and potential 
subscribers, and must list the specific person, office, or entity to 
which requests for accessible equipment are to be made.\90\ The Further 
NPRM inquired as to whether additional notification requirements, such 
as annual notices to subscribers or required marketing efforts,\91\ 
should be imposed and asked for information about the costs and 
benefits that might be associated with additional types of 
notification.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 134; 47 CFR 
79.108(d)(1).
    \89\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 134; 47 CFR 
79.108(d)(2).
    \90\ Id.
    \91\ See Comments of Montgomery County, Maryland, MB Docket No. 
12-108, at 20 (filed July 15, 2013); Reply Comments of the American 
Foundation for the Blind, MB Docket No. 12-108, at 8 (filed Aug. 7, 
2013); Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 148.
    \92\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, paras. 148-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. MVPD commenters argue that it would be premature to impose 
additional notification requirements for MVPDs without first observing 
the efficacy of the notification requirements

[[Page 5928]]

adopted by the Report and Order.\93\ On the other hand, Montgomery 
County, Maryland (``Montgomery County'') expresses the concern that 
consumers will not be aware of the availability of accessible 
navigation devices unless MVPDs promote such availability and urges the 
Commission to adopt additional notification requirements including 
periodic announcements about accessible equipment in the program 
guide.\94\ Verizon and NCTA contend that additional requirements are 
unnecessary because market forces will incentivize MVPDs to promote the 
accessible capabilities of products.\95\ Although we do not agree that 
periodic announcements are necessary at this time, we conclude that 
MVPDs should take additional action to ensure that consumers are aware 
of the availability of accessible navigation devices. Specifically, we 
require that the contact office or person listed on an MVPD's Web site 
must be able to answer both general and specific questions about the 
availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, 
providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place 
where they can locate information about how to activate and use 
accessibility features. We believe that this additional obligation, 
along with the notification requirements adopted in the Report and 
Order, will ensure that all current and potential subscribers that 
contact an MVPD looking for information about accessible navigation 
devices will be provided with information about accessible equipment 
options.\96\ Moreover, we believe that the incremental cost, if any, of 
implementing this requirement is slight and the potential benefit in 
assisting consumers is great.\97\ In the event that information is 
brought to our attention demonstrating that the MVPD notification 
requirements adopted in the Report and Order and herein have proven 
insufficient to inform consumers about the availability of accessible 
equipment, the Commission may revisit this issue.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See Verizon Comments at 4-6; ACA Reply at 6; Reply Comments 
of CenturyLink at 3 (``CenturyLink Reply''); NCTA Reply at 8-9.
    \94\ Montgomery County Reply at 34-35. Montgomery County 
expresses concern that Web site notifications by MVPDs will not be 
sufficient as they claim that the disability community has a low 
rate of broadband adoption and usage and Web site information may 
not be accessible. Id. at 35. We note that our notification rules 
for MVPDs are not limited to Web site notifications. MVPDs must 
provide clear and conspicuous information to consumers about the 
availability of accessible navigation devices whenever MVPDs provide 
information about equipment options in response to a consumer 
inquiry about service, accessibility, or other issues. 47 CFR 
79.108(d)(1). MVPDs are also required to ensure that the information 
on their Web site about the availability of accessible devices is 
provided in a Web site format that is accessible to people with 
disabilities. Id. Sec.  79.108(d)(2).
    \95\ See Verizon Comments at 5; NCTA Reply at 9. We note that 
Comcast is conducting outreach on accessible user interfaces, 
program guides, and menus, and as part of those outreach efforts, 
Comcast has shown a commercial introducing its talking guide that 
aired on television during prime time. See Comcast, Explore Emily's 
Oz, available at http://www.comcast.com/emilysoz; Comcast, 
Accessibility, Talking Guide + Video Description, available at 
http://www.comcast.com/accessibility.
    \96\ See Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 134; 47 CFR 
79.108(d)(2).
    \97\ Because the contact person designated by the MVPD is 
already required to accept requests for accessible equipment, we do 
not believe it would be a significant added burden for the contact 
person to also be able to answer questions about the availability of 
accessible equipment. In addition, it would be a benefit for 
consumers with disabilities who are looking to acquire accessible 
equipment to be able to obtain information about accessible 
equipment options from a single, centralized source.
    \98\ For the same reasons, we reject Montgomery County's 
proposal to require that MVPDs report to the Commission their 
accessibility equipment promotion efforts and the rates for 
accessible equipment. See Montgomery County Reply at 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Program Information for PEG Channels
    24. We decline to adopt a requirement that MVPDs include more 
detailed program information for public, educational, and governmental 
(``PEG'') channels in their video programming guides. In the Further 
NPRM, we sought comment on possible sources of authority for requiring 
MVPDs to ensure that video programming guides and menus that provide 
channel and program information include ``high level channel and 
program descriptions and titles, as well as a symbol identifying the 
programs with accessibility options (captioning and video 
description).'' \99\ The Alliance for Communications Democracy 
(``ACD'') and Montgomery County contend that the Commission has 
authority to adopt such a requirement pursuant to Section 205 of the 
CVAA, which requires that ``on-screen text menus and guides provided by 
navigation devices . . . for the display or selection of multichannel 
video programming [be made] audibly accessible in real-time upon 
request by individuals who are blind or visually impaired.'' \100\ 
According to ACD, the Commission can require MVPDs to include certain 
program information in program guides as part of implementing 
regulations that construe the terms ``on-screen guide'' and ``audibly 
accessible in real-time . . . by individuals who are blind or visually 
impaired.'' \101\ NCTA, DISH/EchoStar, Verizon, CenturyLink, and ACA 
argue that the Commission does not have authority to impose such a 
requirement.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 144 (citation 
omitted).
    \100\ See 47 U.S.C. 303(bb)(1); Comments of the Alliance for 
Communications Democracy at 4-5 (``ACD Comments''); Montgomery 
County Reply at 13-22.
    \101\ See ACD Comments at 4-5.
    \102\ See NCTA Comments at 2-4; DISH/EchoStar Comments at 7-8; 
Verizon Comments at 8-10; ACA Reply at 8-9; CenturyLink Reply at 3; 
NCTA Reply at 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. We find that requiring MVPDs to include particular information 
in program guides is beyond the scope of Section 205 of the CVAA. In 
particular, we disagree with ACD's and Montgomery County's argument 
that the requirement to make on-screen text menus and guides on 
navigation devices audibly accessible gives the Commission authority to 
determine whether the substantive information provided in program 
guides is adequate and to require that particular information be 
included. As we stated in the Report and Order, while Section 205 of 
the CVAA requires that on-screen text menus and guides provided by 
navigation devices for the display or selection of multichannel video 
programming be made audibly accessible, it does not govern the 
underlying content in the menus and guides.\103\ As noted in the Report 
and Order, we encourage MVPDs to provide more detailed information in 
their program guides for PEG programs when such information is provided 
by PEG providers and when it is technically feasible.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 75 (``In other 
words, this section requires that if there is text in a menu or 
program guide on the screen, then that text must be audibly 
accessible, but it does not impose requirements with regard to what 
substantive information must appear in the on-screen text.'') 
(emphasis in original).
    \104\ Id. at para. 75. We note that there is a separate, pending 
proceeding with a record that specifically addresses these issues. 
See Petition for Declaratory Ruling of The Alliance for Community 
Media, et al., that AT&T's Method of Delivering Public, Educational 
and Government Access Channels Over Its U-Verse System is Contrary 
to the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, and Applicable 
Commission Rules, MB Docket No. 09-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Order on Reconsideration

    26. In response to Consumer/Academic Groups Petition,\105\ we

[[Page 5929]]

reconsider guidance we provided in the Report and Order concerning 
which activation mechanisms are ``reasonably comparable to a button, 
key or icon'' \106\ as required under the CVAA \107\ and our 
implementing rules.\108\ First, we find on reconsideration that closed 
captioning activation mechanisms that rely solely on voice control will 
not fulfill the requirement that a closed captioning activation 
mechanism be reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon. However, 
as explained more fully below, we do not prohibit the use of voice 
controls to activate closed captioning as long as there is an 
alternative closed captioning activation mechanism that is simple and 
easy to use for deaf and hard of hearing individuals.\109\ Second, we 
reaffirm our finding in the Report and Order that captioning and video 
description activation mechanisms that rely on gesture control will be 
considered compliant with the requirements of our rules implementing 
Sections 204 and 205 if the gesture activation mechanism is simple and 
easy to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ The Consumer/Academic Groups Petition urges the Commission 
to ``reconsider allowing voice commands and gestures as compliant 
mechanisms for activating the closed captioning or accessibility 
features.'' Consumer/Academic Groups Petition at 2. Consumer/
Academic Groups argue that ``providing voice or gesture controls is 
acceptable only where there is also a way for people who are deaf or 
hard of hearing to access the accessibility features through a 
mechanism that is reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon.'' 
Reply to Petition for Reconsideration Oppositions of the National 
Association of the Deaf, Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of 
Hearing, Inc., Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network, 
Association of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc., Hearing Loss Association 
of America, California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and 
Hard of Hearing, Cerebral Palsy and Deaf Organization, Technology 
Access Program Gallaudet University, filed Feb. 25, 2014, at 3 
(``Consumer/Academic Groups Reply to Oppositions''). CEA, ESA, NCTA, 
and TIA all filed oppositions to the Consumer/Academic Groups 
Petition, arguing that the Commission correctly decided that voice 
and gesture controls are compliant mechanisms reasonably comparable 
to a button, key, or icon for activating closed captioning and video 
description. See Opposition of the Consumer Electronics Association, 
filed Feb. 18, 2014 (``CEA Opposition''); Opposition of the 
Entertainment Software Association, filed Feb. 18, 2014 (``ESA 
Opposition''); Opposition of the National Cable & Telecommunications 
Association, filed Feb. 18, 2014 (``NCTA Opposition''); Opposition 
of the Telecommunications Industry Association, filed Feb. 14, 2014 
(``TIA Opposition'').
    \106\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 81 (``Although we 
codify the statutory language that requires a mechanism reasonably 
comparable to a button, key, or icon to activate certain 
accessibility features and reject a single step requirement, we 
believe it is useful to provide guidance to covered entities as to 
what `reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon' means.''); 
id. at para. 81 (``To provide some clarity to covered entities, we 
provide some examples of mechanisms that we consider to be . . . 
reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon. For example, we 
believe that compliant mechanisms include, but are not limited to, 
the following: A dedicated button, key, or icon; voice commands; 
gestures; and a single step activation from the same location as the 
volume controls.'').
    \107\ Section 303(aa)(3) of the Act requires digital apparatus 
covered by Section 204 of the CVAA to provide ``built in access to 
[] closed captioning and video description features through a 
mechanism that is reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon 
designated for activating the closed captioning or accessibility 
features.'' 47 U.S.C. 303(aa)(3) (emphasis added). Similarly, 
Section 303(bb)(2) requires ``navigation devices with built-in 
closed captioning capability'' covered by Section 205 of the CVAA to 
provide ``access to that capability through a mechanism [that] is 
reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon designated for 
activating the closed captioning, or accessibility features.'' 47 
U.S.C. 303(bb)(2) (emphasis added).
    \108\ See 47 CFR 79.109(a)(1)-(2), 79.109(b).
    \109\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 81 (``In 
determining whether an activation mechanism is reasonably comparable 
to a button, key, or icon, the Commission will consider the 
simplicity and ease of use of the mechanism.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Activation of Closed Captioning by Voice Control

    27. On reconsideration, we find that closed captioning activation 
mechanisms that rely solely on voice control will not fulfill the 
requirement of our rules implementing Sections 204 and 205, which 
mandate a closed captioning activation mechanism reasonably comparable 
to a button, key, or icon.\110\ The Report and Order stated that, 
``[i]n determining whether an activation mechanism is reasonably 
comparable to a button, key, or icon, the Commission will consider the 
simplicity and ease of use of the mechanism.'' \111\ As the Commission 
explained, ``[w]e believe this approach is consistent with Congress's 
intent `to ensure ready access to these features by persons with 
disabilities,' while still giving covered entities the flexibility 
contemplated by the statute.'' \112\ Among the examples given by the 
Commission for compliant activation mechanisms were both voice and 
gesture activation.\113\ Specifically, the Commission stated ``that 
compliant mechanisms include, but are not limited to, the following: a 
dedicated button, key, or icon; voice commands; gestures; and a single 
step activation from the same location as the volume controls.'' \114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See 47 CFR 79.109(a)(1), 79.109(b).
    \111\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 81.
    \112\ Id. para. 81, citing H.R. Rep. No. 111-563, 111th Cong., 
2d Sess. at 31 (2010); S. Rep. No. 111-386, 111th Cong., 2d Sess. at 
14 (2010).
    \113\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 81.
    \114\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. The Consumer/Academic Groups Petition submits that ``many'' 
deaf and hard of hearing people, especially those who communicate using 
American Sign Language, ``do not speak or speak clearly enough to use 
speech recognition technology.'' \115\ As a result, Consumer/Academic 
Groups contend that the use of voice controls to activate closed 
captioning ``will effectively deny millions of deaf and hard of hearing 
people access to closed captioning and/or other accessibility 
features.'' \116\ Upon further review, we agree that voice activation 
would not be simple and easy to use for many individuals who are deaf 
and hard of hearing and, thus, should not be considered reasonably 
comparable to a button, key, or icon for activating closed captioning. 
Therefore, the use of voice activation for closed captioning, without 
an alternative closed captioning activation mechanism that is simple 
and easy to use for individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing, does 
not satisfy the obligation under Section 79.109(a)(1) and (b) of our 
rules and Sections 204 and 205 of the CVAA to provide a mechanism 
reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Consumer/Academic Groups Petition at 3.
    \116\ Id. at 4.
    \117\ See Consumer/Academic Groups Reply to Oppositions at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. While some opposing the Consumer/Academic Groups Petition 
express concern about the Commission prohibiting the use of voice 
controls to achieve accessibility,\118\ we emphasize that this Order 
does not prohibit use of voice controls to activate closed captioning 
as long as there is an alternative closed captioning activation 
mechanism that is simple and easy to use for the many deaf and hard of 
hearing individuals who cannot use their voices to activate this 
accessibility feature. NCTA and TIA both submit that voice control is 
likely to be only one method for activating accessibility 
features,\119\ and it is not our intent to prevent manufacturers from 
offering multiple avenues of accessibility. Rather, we find that solely 
providing a voice activation mechanism for closed captioning would not 
fulfill the MVPD's or manufacturer's obligation to provide an 
activation mechanism ``reasonably comparable to a button, key, or 
icon'' under our rules and Sections 204 and 205 of the CVAA.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See CEA Opposition at 4; NCTA Opposition at 7; TIA 
Opposition at 2-3, 5.
    \119\ See NCTA Opposition at 7; TIA Opposition at 5.
    \120\ CEA and ESA point out the potential benefits of voice 
activation for those who are blind or visually impaired. See CEA 
Opposition at 4; ESA Opposition at 2. We note that the Order does 
not prohibit the use of simple and easy to use voice controls as the 
sole mechanism of activating video description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Activation of Closed Captioning and Video Description by Gesture 
Control

    30. With respect to gesture control, we decline to reconsider our 
finding that gesture control that is simple and easy to use will be 
considered a compliant activation mechanism for closed captioning and 
video description under Sections 204 and 205.\121\ The

[[Page 5930]]

Consumer/Academic Groups Petition argues that gesture control should 
not be considered a compliant closed captioning activation mechanism, 
because some deaf people may have mobility disabilities that prevent 
them from using gestures.\122\ Consumer/Academic Groups also note that 
they ``are seriously concerned about the ability of blind and visually 
impaired people to access critical accessibility features through 
gestures.'' \123\ In response, CEA points out that the use of a button, 
key, or icon as an activation mechanism, clearly permissible under 
Sections 204 and 205, would be difficult for some individuals with 
disabilities such as ``limited manual dexterity, limited reach or 
strength, or prosthetic devices.'' \124\ Sections 204 and 205 require 
that the activation mechanism be ``reasonably comparable to a button, 
key, or icon,'' \125\ and we find that the Commission's interpretation 
of the phrase ``reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon'' in 
the Report and Order to mean a mechanism that is simple and easy to use 
was both a reasonable and supportable interpretation of the language 
used by Congress.\126\ Furthermore, we find that a gesture control that 
is simple and easy to use complies with the requirements under Section 
204 or 205 to provide an activation mechanism reasonably comparable to 
a button, key, or icon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Contrary to Petitioners' argument, see Consumer/Academic 
Groups Petition at 4-5, the parties were on notice that we would 
consider in this proceeding whether gesture controls satisfy the 
requirement for activation mechanisms that are ``reasonably 
comparable to a button, key, or icon.'' The NPRM asked for comment 
on whether we should require single step activation, and provided 
examples of gesture activation that we would consider, such as 
``pressing'' or ``clicking'' a button, key, or icon. See NPRM, para. 
43 (seeking comment about single step activation, that is ``users 
would be able to activate closed captioning features on an MVPD-
provided navigation device or other digital apparatus immediately in 
a single step just as a button, key, or icon can be pressed or 
clicked in a single step''). Indeed, four commenters addressed 
gesture activation in their comments submitted in response to the 
NPRM. See Comments of the Consumer Electronics Association at 20 
(``Even more significantly, some devices do not include any buttons 
but instead rely on voice or gesture recognition to activate and 
deactivate certain features, which for some users may be better 
accessibility solutions than a designated physical button.''); 
Comments of DIRECTV, LLC at 9 (``Thus, a user could access this 
[closed captioning] functionality by simultaneously pressing two 
specified keys on the remote control. Alternatively, the user could 
shake a hand-held device or swipe her fingers across a touchscreen 
device, interact with a device that responds to voice commands, or 
even interact with a device that detects motion patterns.''); 
Comments of the Information Technology Industry Council at 7 
(``[S]ome devices do not have buttons at all, but rather, rely 
either on touch interfaces, gestures or voice commands.''); Comments 
of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association at 14-15 
(``[O]perators may eventually deploy devices with gesture 
recognition that will revolutionize accessibility.''). All comments 
above were filed July 15, 2013 in MB Docket No. 12-108.
    \122\ Consumer/Academic Groups Petition at 4.
    \123\ Id.
    \124\ CEA Opposition at 5.
    \125\ 47 U.S.C. 303(aa)(3), 303(bb)(2).
    \126\ Report and Order and Further NPRM, para. 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. Industry commenters contend that gestures are likely to be one 
of multiple methods for activating accessibility features,\127\ and we 
agree that manufacturers should have the flexibility to offer multiple 
avenues of accessibility. We encourage covered entities to provide 
alternatives for the consumer, so that the consumer can choose the 
disability solution that works best based upon his or her need. While 
manufacturers have flexibility in their selection of a mechanism that 
is comparable to a button, key, or icon, we strongly recommend that 
they consult with consumers with disabilities about the method(s) they 
select to activate closed captions and video description, to ensure 
that these achieve Congress's goal of facilitating access to such 
accessibility features. For example, the Commission previously 
recognized that some individuals with hearing loss also have other 
disabilities.\128\ This is particularly true of older Americans who may 
have lost, or be in the process of losing, some of their sight or hand/
eye coordination. For such persons, some gesture controls may not be 
``simple and easy to use.'' Providing multiple means to access captions 
and video description will undoubtedly result in reaching a larger 
portion of the deaf and hard of hearing and blind or visually impaired 
populations, a goal that the Commission previously has stated is in 
keeping with Congressional intent.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ See NCTA Opposition at 7; TIA Opposition at 5.
    \128\ For example, the Commission has stated that captions can 
benefit Americans with hearing disabilities who also have a visual 
disability. Closed Captioning Requirements for Digital Television 
Receivers; Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video 
Programming, Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, ET Docket No. 99-254, 
MM Docket No. 95-176, Report and Order, 65 FR 58467, para. 10 (2000) 
(``DTV Closed Captioning Order'').
    \129\ See id. at para. 13, in which the Commission, in adopting 
requirements for captioning display standards, stated that ``[o]nly 
by requiring decoders to respond to these various features can we 
ensure that closed captioning will be accessible for the greatest 
number of persons who are deaf and hard of hearing, and thereby 
achieve Congress' vision that to the fullest extent made possible by 
technology, people who are deaf or hard of hearing have equal access 
to the television medium.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Procedural Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act

    32. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (``RFA''), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(``IRFA'') was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (``FNPRM'') in this proceeding. The Federal Communications 
Commission (``Commission'') sought written public comment on the 
proposals in the FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. 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 Report and Order
    33. Pursuant to the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010 (``CVAA''), the Second Report and Order 
adopts additional rules requiring the accessibility of user interfaces 
on digital apparatus and navigation devices used to view video 
programming for individuals with disabilities. The rules we adopt here 
will effectuate Congress's goals in enacting Sections 204 and 205 of 
the CVAA by enabling individuals who are blind or visually impaired to 
more easily access video programming on a range of video devices, and 
enabling consumers who are deaf and hard of hearing to more easily 
activate closed captioning on video devices. Specifically, the Second 
Report and Order adopts rules requiring manufacturers of Section 204 
digital apparatus to ensure that both the ``appropriate built-in 
apparatus functions'' and the ``on-screen text menus or other visual 
indicators built in to the digital apparatus'' to access such functions 
be ``usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired.'' In 
addition, the Second Report and Order adopts information, 
documentation, and training requirements comparable to those in Section 
6.11 of our rules for entities covered by both Section 204 and Section 
205 of the CVAA. Further, the Second Report and Order adopts consumer 
notification requirements for equipment manufacturers of digital 
apparatus and navigation devices that will require manufacturers to 
publicize the availability of accessible devices on manufacturer Web 
sites that must be accessible to those with disabilities. While 
multichannel video programming distributors (``MVPDs'') are already 
subject to Web site notification requirements pursuant to the rules the 
Commission adopted in the Report and Order, the Second Report and Order 
also requires MVPDs, as well as manufacturers, to ensure that the 
contact office or person listed on their Web site is able to answer 
both general and specific questions about the availability of 
accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to 
consumers or directing

[[Page 5931]]

consumers to a place where they can locate information about how to 
activate and use accessibility features. The regulations adopted herein 
further the purpose of the CVAA to ``update the communications laws to 
help ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to fully 
utilize communications services and equipment and better access video 
programming.''
    34. Legal Basis. The authority for the action taken in this 
rulemaking is contained in the Twenty-First Century Communications and 
Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, 
and Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(aa), 303(bb), and 716(g) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 
303(aa), 303(bb), and 617(g).
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised in Response to the IRFA
    35. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA.
    36. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission 
is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a 
detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result 
of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in 
response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply
    37. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will 
be affected by the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order. The 
RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same 
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and 
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one 
which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in 
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the SBA. Small entities that are directly affected by 
the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order include manufacturers 
of digital apparatus and navigation devices and MVPDs.
    38. Cable Television Distribution 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. This category is defined 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.'' 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.
    39. 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 rules, a ``small cable company'' is 
one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Industry data 
shows that there were 1,141 cable companies at the end of June 2012. Of 
this total, all but 10 incumbent cable companies are small under this 
size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation 
rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer 
subscribers. Current Commission records show 4,945 cable systems 
nationwide. Of this total, 4,380 cable systems have less than 20,000 
subscribers, and 565 systems have 20,000 subscribers or more, based on 
the same records. Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most 
cable systems are small.
    40. 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.'' There are approximately 56.4 million 
incumbent cable video subscribers in the United States today. 
Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 564,000 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 at this time 
to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators 
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.
    41. 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 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. However, the data 
we have available as a basis for estimating the number of such small 
entities were gathered under a superseded SBA small 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 offer subscription services. DIRECTV and DISH Network 
each report 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

[[Page 5932]]

wherewithal to become a DBS service provider.
    42. 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 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.
    43. 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.
    44. 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.
    45. Wireless cable systems--Broadband Radio Service and Educational 
Broadband Service. Wireless cable systems use the Broadband Radio 
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) to transmit video 
programming to subscribers. In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, 
the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity 
that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in 
the previous three calendar years. 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.
    46. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television 
Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting 
Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad 
economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which 
was developed for small wireline businesses. This category is defined 
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.'' 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

[[Page 5933]]

employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate 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.
    47. 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.
    48. 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.
    49. 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.
    50. 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 
those, 912 operated with fewer than 500 employees, and 27 operated with 
500 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the 
majority of such establishments can be considered small.
    51. 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 there were 492 
establishments in this category operated for part or all of the entire 
year. Of those, 488 operated with fewer than 500 employees, and four 
operated with 500 or more employees. Therefore, under this size 
standard, the majority of such establishments can be considered small.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
    52. In this section, we describe the reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other compliance requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order 
and consider whether small entities are affected disproportionately by 
these requirements.
    53. Reporting Requirements. The Second Report and Order does not 
adopt reporting requirements.
    54. Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements. The Second 
Report and Order adopts certain recordkeeping and other compliance 
requirements, which are applicable to covered small entities. First, 
the Second Report and Order requires manufacturers of Section 204 
digital apparatus to ensure that both the ``appropriate built-in 
apparatus functions'' and ``on-screen text menus or other visual 
indicators built in to the digital apparatus'' to access those 
functions be ``usable by individuals who are blind or visually 
impaired.'' Specifically, the Second Report and Order requires require 
manufacturers of Section 204 digital apparatus to ensure that 
individuals with disabilities have access to information and 
documentation on the full functionalities of digital apparatus, 
including instructions, product information (including accessible 
feature information), documentation, bills, and technical support which 
are provided to individuals without disabilities.
    55. Second, the Second Report and Order adopts information, 
documentation, and training requirements consistent with those set 
forth in Section 6.11 of our rules for entities covered by both Section 
204 and Section 205 of the CVAA. These rules require covered entities 
to ensure access to information and documentation it provides to its 
customers, if achievable. Such information and documentation includes 
user guides, bills, installation guides for end-user installable 
devices, and product support communications, regarding both the product 
in general and the accessibility features of the product. In addition, 
the rules require covered entities to include the contact method for 
obtaining the required information and documentation in general product 
information, to consider certain accessibility-related topics when 
developing or modifying training programs, and to take other achievable 
steps, as necessary.
    56. Third, the Second Report and Order imposes notification 
requirements for manufacturers of digital apparatus and navigation 
devices. Digital apparatus manufacturers must provide prominent notice 
on their official Web sites about the availability of accessible 
digital apparatus in a Web site format that is accessible to people 
with disabilities. The notice must publicize

[[Page 5934]]

the availability of accessible devices and the specific person, office, 
or entity who can answer consumer questions about which products 
contain the required accessibility features. Navigation device 
manufacturers must also provide prominent notice on their official Web 
site about the availability of accessible navigation devices in a Web 
site format that is accessible to people with disabilities. For 
navigation device manufacturers, the notice must publicize the 
availability of accessible devices and solutions and explain the means 
for making requests for accessible equipment and the specific person, 
office, or entity to which such requests are to be made.
    57. Potential for disproportionate impact on small entities. 
Section 204 of the CVAA requires both ``the appropriate built-in 
apparatus functions'' and ``on-screen text menus or visual indicators 
built in to the digital apparatus'' to access those functions to be 
``usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired.'' The 
Second Report and Order adopts the definition of ``usable'' in Section 
6.3(l) of the Commission's rules to implement this Section 204 mandate. 
The definition of ``usable'' requires that individuals with 
disabilities have access to information and documentation on the full 
functionalities of digital apparatus, including instructions, product 
information (including accessible feature information), documentation, 
bills, and technical support which are provided to individuals without 
disabilities. No commenter provided information concerning the costs 
and administrative burdens associated with this specific compliance 
requirement. Nevertheless, both industry and consumer commenters 
supported the Commission's application of the Section 6.3(l) ``usable'' 
definition to implement Section 204. Manufacturers must comply with the 
usability standard only if compliance is ``achievable.'' Thus, in the 
event that this compliance requirement disproportionately affects small 
entities, the Commission will have a way to minimize the impact on such 
entities.
    58. The Second Report and Order also adopts the information, 
documentation, and training requirements in Section 6.11 of the 
Commission's rules for Section 204 digital apparatus and Section 205 
navigation devices. Specifically, the rules the Commission adopts 
require covered entities to ensure access to information and 
documentation it provides to its customers, if achievable. This 
includes user guides, bills, installation guides for end-user 
installable devices, and product support communications, regarding both 
the product in general and the accessibility features of the product. 
This requirement also considers achievability, which will allow to 
minimize the impact on small entities, and still further recognizes the 
impact on small businesses by requiring ``other achievable steps'' that 
should only be taken ``as necessary.'' In the record of this 
proceeding, the American Cable Association (``ACA'') expressed concern 
that the information, documentation, and training requirements ``would 
. . . disproportionately burden smaller cable operators who would have 
to produce the required accessibility support materials and training 
without the benefits of scale to help them to spread the costs of such 
initiatives over a large user base.'' As such, ACA requested that 
small- and medium-sized cable operators receive an extended deadline to 
come into compliance with any information, documentation, and training 
requirements imposed on Section 205 entities. The Commission agrees 
that providing some relief to small- and mid-sized operators is 
reasonable. The Second Report and Order notes that the Commission in 
the Report and Order already delayed the time by which mid-sized and 
smaller MVPD operators and small MVPD systems must comply with the 
requirements of Section 205 by two years. Therefore, while MVPDs 
generally must comply with the rules adopted in the Second Report and 
Order by December 20, 2016, certain mid-sized and smaller MVPD 
operators and small MVPD systems need not comply until December 20, 
2018. This delay afforded to certain mid-sized and smaller MVPD 
operators and small MVPD systems will provide sufficient time in which 
to implement the information, documentation, and training requirements 
adopted in the Second Report and Order. In addition, we note that 
covered entities, including small entities, may petition for a waiver 
of these requirements for good cause pursuant to the existing waiver 
process in Section 1.3 of our rules.
    59. The Second Report and Order also imposes notification 
requirements for manufacturers of digital apparatus and navigation 
devices and MVPDs. No commenter provided information concerning the 
costs and administrative burdens associated with this specific 
compliance requirement.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
    60. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities. The FNPRM invited comment on issues that had the potential to 
have significant impact on some small entities.
    61. The rules adopted in this Second Report and Order may have a 
significant economic impact in some cases, and that impact may affect 
small entities. Although the Commission has considered alternatives 
where possible, as directed by the RFA, to minimize economic impact on 
small entities, we emphasize that our action is governed by the 
congressional mandate contained in Sections 204 and 205 of the CVAA.
    62. In formulating the final rules, however, the Commission has 
considered a number of methods to minimize the economic impact on small 
entities. With regard to the usability and information, documentation, 
and training requirements modeled on Sections 6.3(l) and 6.11, the 
Second Report and Order adopts procedures enabling the Commission to 
grant exemptions to the rules where a petitioner has shown that 
compliance is not achievable (i.e., cannot be accomplished with 
reasonable effort or expense). This process will allow the Commission 
to address the impact of the rules on individual entities, including 
smaller entities, on a case-by-case basis and to modify the application 
of the rules to accommodate individual circumstances, which can reduce 
the costs of compliance for these entities. We note that two of the 
four statutory factors that the Commission will consider in determining 
achievability are particularly relevant to small entities: The nature 
and cost of the steps needed to meet the requirements, and the 
technical and economic impact on the entity's operations.
    63. The Second Report and Order also adopts consumer notification 
requirements for manufacturers of both digital apparatus and navigation 
devices

[[Page 5935]]

and MVPDs. Specifically, manufacturers are required to publicize the 
availability of accessible devices on their Web sites (which must also 
be accessible for those with disabilities). Both manufacturers and 
MVPDs must ensure that the contact office or person listed on their Web 
site is able to answer both general and specific questions about the 
availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, 
providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place 
where they can locate information about how to activate and use 
accessibility features. The Commission has not dictated the means by 
which manufacturers must comply with the requirements. Furthermore, in 
an attempt to simplify the notification requirements and facilitate 
small entity compliance, the Commission limits these requirements to 
Web sites only.
    64. Further, MVPD operators with 400,000 or fewer subscribers as of 
year-end 2012, and MVPD systems with 20,000 or fewer subscribers that 
are not affiliated with an operator serving more than 10 percent of all 
MVPD subscribers as of year-end 2012, were afforded with a two-year 
delay of the compliance deadline for the requirements adopted pursuant 
to Section 205 of the CVAA, and this deadline also applies to the rules 
adopted in the Second Report and Order. The delayed compliance deadline 
for small MVPDs will help minimize any disproportionate impact of the 
requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order.
    65. Overall, we believe we have appropriately considered both the 
interests of individuals with disabilities and the interests of the 
entities who will be subject to the rules, including those that are 
smaller entities, consistent with Congress' goal to ``update the 
communications laws to help ensure that individuals with disabilities 
are able to fully utilize communications services and equipment and 
better access video programming.''
6. Report to Congress
    66. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy 
of the Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. The Second Report and Order and FRFA 
(or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    67. The Second Report and Order contains new and modified 
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (PRA).\130\ The requirements will be submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) 
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be 
invited to comment on the information collection requirements contained 
in this proceeding. The Commission will publish a separate document in 
the Federal Register at a later date seeking these comments. In 
addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002 (SBPRA),\131\ we seek specific comment on how the 
Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. 104-13, 
109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.).
    \131\ The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA), 
Pub. L. 107-198, 116 Stat. 729 (2002) (codified in Chapter 35 of 
title 44 U.S.C.). See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Congressional Review Act

    68. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order 
and Order on Reconsideration in MB Docket No. 12-108 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. Ex Parte Rules

    69. We remind interested parties that this proceeding is treated as 
a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.\132\ Persons making ex parte presentations 
must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum 
summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the 
presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine 
period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are 
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all 
persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which 
the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may 
provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior 
comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page 
and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in 
lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). 
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ 47 CFR 1.1200 thorugh 1.1216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Ordering Clauses

    70. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the Twenty-First 
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Pub. L. 
111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, and the authority found in Sections 4(i), 
4(j), 303(r), 303(u), 303(aa), 303(bb), and 716(g) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 
303(r), 303(u), 303(aa), 303(bb), and 617(g), this Second Report and 
Order and Order on Reconsideration is adopted, effective March 7, 2016 
except for 47 CFR 79.107(a)(5), (d), and (e), 79.108(d)(2) and (f), 
which shall become effective upon announcement in the Federal Register 
of OMB approval and an effective date of the rules.
    71. It is ordered that, pursuant to the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-260, 
124 Stat. 2751, and the authority found in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 
303(u), 303(aa), 303(bb), and 716(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 303(u), 303(aa), 303(bb), 
and 617(g), the Commission's rules are hereby amended as set forth 
herein.
    72. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration in MB 
Docket No. 12-108, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    73. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of 
this Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration in MB Docket 
No. 12-108 in a report to be sent to Congress

[[Page 5936]]

and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    74. It is further ordered that Consumer/Academic Groups Petition 
for Reconsideration, filed January 20, 2014, is granted in part and 
denied 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.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the 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.  79.107 by adding paragraphs (a)(5), (d), and (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  79.107  User interfaces provided by digital apparatus.

    (a)(1) * * *
    (5) As used in this section, the term ``usable'' shall mean that 
individuals with disabilities have access to information and 
documentation on the full functionalities of digital apparatus, 
including instructions, product information (including accessible 
feature information), documentation, bills, and technical support which 
are provided to individuals without disabilities.
* * * * *
    (d)(1) Information, documentation, and training. Manufacturers of 
digital apparatus shall ensure access to information and documentation 
it provides to its customers, if achievable. Such information and 
documentation includes user guides, bills, installation guides for end-
user installable devices, and product support communications, regarding 
both the product in general and the accessibility features of the 
product. Manufacturers shall take such other achievable steps as 
necessary including:
    (i) Providing a description of the accessibility and compatibility 
features of the product upon request, including, as needed, in 
alternate formats or alternate modes at no additional charge;
    (ii) Providing end-user product documentation in alternate formats 
or alternate modes upon request at no additional charge; and
    (iii) Ensuring usable customer support and technical support in the 
call centers and service centers which support their products at no 
additional charge.
    (2) Manufacturers of digital apparatus shall include in general 
product information the contact method for obtaining the information 
required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
    (3) In developing, or incorporating existing training programs, 
manufacturers of digital apparatus shall consider the following topics:
    (i) Accessibility requirements of individuals with disabilities;
    (ii) Means of communicating with individuals with disabilities;
    (iii) Commonly used adaptive technology used with the 
manufacturer's products;
    (iv) Designing for accessibility; and
    (v) Solutions for accessibility and compatibility.
    (e) Notices. Digital apparatus manufacturers must notify consumers 
that digital apparatus with the required accessibility features are 
available to consumers as follows: A digital apparatus manufacturer 
must provide notice on its official Web site about the availability of 
accessible digital apparatus. A digital apparatus manufacturer must 
prominently display information about accessible digital apparatus on 
its Web site in a way that makes such information available to all 
consumers. The notice must publicize the availability of accessible 
devices and the specific person, office or entity who can answer 
consumer questions about which products contain the required 
accessibility features. The contact office or person listed on the Web 
site must be able to answer both general and specific questions about 
the availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, 
providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place 
where they can locate information about how to activate and use 
accessibility features. All information required by this section must 
be provided in a Web site format that is accessible to people with 
disabilities.

0
3. Amend Sec.  79.108 by revising paragraph (d) and adding paragraph 
(f) to read as follows:


Sec.  79.108  Video programming guides and menus provided by navigation 
devices.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) MVPD notices. Covered MVPDs must notify consumers that 
navigation devices with the required accessibility features are 
available to consumers who are blind or visually impaired upon request 
as follows:
    (i) When providing information about equipment options in response 
to a consumer inquiry about service, accessibility, or other issues, 
MVPDs must clearly and conspicuously inform consumers about the 
availability of accessible navigation devices.
    (ii) MVPDs must provide notice on their official Web sites about 
the availability of accessible navigation devices. MVPDs must 
prominently display information about accessible navigation devices and 
separate solutions on their Web sites in a way that makes such 
information available to all current and potential subscribers. The 
notice must publicize the availability of accessible devices and 
separate solutions and explain the means for making requests for 
accessible equipment and the specific person, office or entity to whom 
such requests are to be made. The contact office or person listed on 
the Web site must be able to answer both general and specific questions 
about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if 
necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to 
a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use 
accessibility features. All information required by this section must 
be provided in a Web site format that is accessible to people with 
disabilities.
    (2) Manufacturer notices. Navigation device manufacturers must 
notify consumers that navigation devices with the required 
accessibility features are available to consumers who are blind or 
visually impaired upon request as follows: A navigation device 
manufacturer must provide notice on its official Web site about the 
availability of accessible navigation devices. A navigation device 
manufacturer must prominently display information about accessible 
navigation devices and separate solutions on its Web site in a way that 
makes such information available to all consumers. The notice must 
publicize the availability of accessible devices and separate solutions 
and explain the means for making requests for accessible equipment and 
the specific person, office or entity to whom such requests are to be 
made. The contact office or person listed on the Web site must be able 
to answer both general and specific questions about the availability of 
accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to 
consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate 
information

[[Page 5937]]

about how to activate and use accessibility features. All information 
required by this section must be provided in a Web site format that is 
accessible to people with disabilities.
* * * * *
    (f)(1) Information, documentation, and training. MVPDs and 
manufacturers of navigation devices shall ensure access to information 
and documentation it provides to its customers, if achievable. Such 
information and documentation includes user guides, bills, installation 
guides for end-user installable devices, and product support 
communications, regarding both the product in general and the 
accessibility features of the product. MVPDs and manufacturers of 
navigation devices shall take such other achievable steps as necessary 
including:
    (i) Providing a description of the accessibility and compatibility 
features of the product upon request, including, as needed, in 
alternate formats or alternate modes at no additional charge;
    (ii) Providing end-user product documentation in alternate formats 
or alternate modes upon request at no additional charge; and
    (iii) Ensuring usable customer support and technical support in the 
call centers and service centers which support their products at no 
additional charge.
    (2) MVPDs and manufacturers of navigation devices shall include in 
general product information the contact method for obtaining the 
information required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (3) In developing, or incorporating existing training programs, 
MVPDs and manufacturers of navigation devices shall consider the 
following topics:
    (i) Accessibility requirements of individuals with disabilities;
    (ii) Means of communicating with individuals with disabilities;
    (iii) Commonly used adaptive technology used with the 
manufacturer's products;
    (iv) Designing for accessibility; and
    (v) Solutions for accessibility and compatibility.
    (4) If a consumer with a disability requests an accessible 
navigation device pursuant to Section 205, this also constitutes a 
request for a description of the accessibility features of the device 
and end-user product documentation in accessible formats.

[FR Doc. 2016-00929 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P