[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63381-63393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-16977]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 25, 73, and 76

[MB Docket No. 24-211; FCC 24-74; FR ID 235498]


Disclosure and Transparency of Artificial Intelligence-Generated 
Content in Political Advertisements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission or FCC) initiates a proceeding to provide greater 
transparency regarding the use of artificial intelligence-generated 
content in political advertising. Specifically, the Commission proposes 
to require radio and television broadcast stations; cable operators, 
Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers, and Satellite Digital Audio 
Radio Service (SDARS) licensees engaged in origination programming; and 
permit holders transmitting programming pursuant to section 325(c) of 
the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), to provide an on-air announcement 
for all political ads (including both candidate ads and issue ads) that 
contain artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content disclosing the 
use of such content in the ad. The Commission also propose to require 
these licensees and regulatees to include a notice in their online 
political files for all political ads that include AI-generated content 
disclosing that the ad contains such content.

DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before September 4, 
2024; reply comments are due on or before September 19, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 24-211, 
by any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's website: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    [ssquf] Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience 
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact 
Kathy Berthot, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy 
Division, (202) 418-7454.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 24-74, adopted on July 10, 2024, and 
released on July 25, 2024. The full text is available for public 
inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street 
SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available 
via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). Documents will be available 
electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative 
formats are available for people with disabilities

[[Page 63382]]

(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).
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be 
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. by 
the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
     Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the 
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701.
     Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, 
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street 
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis: This document proposes 
new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens and pursuant 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, invites the 
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment 
on these information collection requirements. In addition, pursuant to 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how 
it might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: Consistent with 
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-
9, a summary of this document will be available on: https://
www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Synopsis

    1. Recognizing the potentially beneficial use of AI in political 
advertisements while keeping in mind broadcasters and other regulated 
entities' statutory obligation to serve the public interest by taking 
responsibility for material--including false, misleading or deceptive 
material--disseminated to the public through their facilities, the 
Commission initiates the NPRM to provide greater transparency regarding 
the use of AI-generated content in political advertising. Specifically, 
the Commission proposes to require radio and television broadcast 
stations; cable operators, DBS providers, and SDARS licensees engaged 
in origination programming; and permit holders transmitting programming 
pursuant to section 325(c) of the Act, to provide an on-air 
announcement for all political ads that include AI-generated content 
disclosing the use of such content in the ad. The Commission also 
proposes to require these licensees and regulatees to include a notice 
in their online political files for all political ads that include AI-
generated content disclosing that the ad contains such content. To be 
clear, the Commission is not proposing to ban or otherwise restrict the 
use of AI-generated content in political ads. Rather, it is simply 
seeking to ensure that listeners and viewers are informed when 
political ads include such content so that the public can evaluate such 
ads for themselves.

The FCC's Role

    2. The presentation of political programming is considered an 
essential element of broadcasters' obligation to serve the public 
interest because of the critical role such programming plays in 
fostering an informed electorate, which in turn is vital to the 
effective operation of the democratic process. In keeping with this 
critical role, the political programming and recordkeeping requirements 
established by Congress and implemented by the Commission ensure that 
candidates for elective office have access to broadcast facilities and 
certain other media platforms and promote transparency about the 
entities that sponsor political ads. Further, the Commission has long 
recognized that broadcasters ``must assume responsibility for all 
material which is broadcast through their facilities,'' ``includ[ing] 
all programs and advertising material which they present to the 
public,'' and ``to take all reasonable measures to eliminate any false, 
misleading, or deceptive matter'' and that ``[t]his duty is personal to 
the licensee and may not be delegated.''
    3. Political Programming Requirements. The relevant statutory 
political programming provisions applicable to broadcasters are set 
forth in sections 315 and 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended (Act). Under section 315(a), if a broadcast licensee permits 
one legally qualified candidate for a public office to use its station, 
it must afford all other candidates for that office an ``equal 
opportunity'' to use the station. In addition, section 315(a) prohibits 
broadcast licensees from censoring candidate ads. The equal 
opportunities and no censorship requirements in section 315 also apply 
to cable system operators, SDARS licensees, and DBS service providers 
engaged in origination programming. Section 312(a)(7) requires 
broadcast licensees to give legally qualified candidates for Federal 
office the opportunity to purchase ``reasonable amounts of time.'' The 
reasonable access provisions of section 312(a)(7) also apply to SDARS 
licensees and DBS service providers engaged in origination programming, 
but are not applicable to cable system operators.
    4. Political Recordkeeping Requirements. The political 
recordkeeping requirements serve to reinforce the statutory protections 
for political programming. The Commission first adopted rules requiring 
broadcast stations to maintain public inspection files documenting 
requests for political advertising time more than 80 years ago, and 
political file obligations have been embodied in section 315(e) of the 
Act since 2002. Section 315(e)(1) requires broadcast licensees to 
maintain and make available for public inspection information about 
each request for the purchase of broadcast time that is made: (a) by or 
on behalf of a legally qualified candidate for public office, or (b) by 
an issue advertiser whose advertisement communicates a message relating 
to a political matter of national importance. It is crucial that 
stations maintain political files that are complete and up to date 
because the information in them directly affects, among other things, 
the statutory rights of opposing candidates to request equal 
opportunities under section 315(a) of the Act and present

[[Page 63383]]

their positions to the public prior to an election. In addition, as the 
Commission has stated, ``the disclosures included in the political file 
further the First Amendment's goal of an informed electorate that is 
able to evaluate the validity of messages and hold accountable the 
interests that disseminate political advocacy.'' Section 315(e)(2) 
specifies the kinds of records that must be maintained in political 
files, and section 315(e)(3) provides that these records must be placed 
in the political file ``as soon as possible'' and retained for a period 
of at least two years. The Commission has also applied political file 
rules to cable television system operators, DBS providers, and SDARS 
licensees engaged in origination programming.
    5. Sponsorship Identification Recordkeeping Requirements. Pursuant 
to section 317 of the Act and Sec.  73.1212 of the Commission's rules, 
broadcast stations are required to make on-air sponsorship 
identification announcements when any valuable consideration is paid or 
promised to them in exchange for the broadcast of program material. 
Section 73.1212(e) also requires broadcast stations to comply with 
certain recordkeeping requirements when the material broadcast is 
``political matter or matter involving the discussion of a 
controversial issue of public importance.'' The objective of the list 
retention requirement is to ``preserv[e] the audience's right to know 
by whom it is being persuaded.'' The Commission has extended to cable 
operators that engage in origination cablecasting sponsorship 
identification and recordkeeping requirements that are largely the same 
as those applicable to broadcasters.

Other Federal and State Actions

    6. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) currently is considering a 
petition for rulemaking filed by Public Citizen requesting that the FEC 
amend its rules to clarify that existing campaign law prohibiting 
fraudulent misrepresentation by candidates for Federal office and their 
agents applies to deliberately deceptive AI-generated content in 
campaign ads or other campaign communications. To date, eleven States--
California, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, 
Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin--have enacted legislation 
regulating AI-generated ``deepfakes'' in political ads and other 
campaign communications. In addition, similar legislation is awaiting 
governor signature or under consideration in 28 states.
    7. Notably, there are distinctions between these Federal and state 
actions and our proposals in the instant proceeding. For example, the 
FEC petition for rulemaking would clarify that a prohibition on 
fraudulent misrepresentation in campaign ads by or on behalf of 
candidates for Federal office applies to deceptive AI-generated content 
in such ads, while our proposal would require on-air disclosures in ads 
by or on behalf of candidates for both Federal and state offices and 
issue ads that contain any AI-generated content. Our proposals are 
meant to complement, not replace, this effort, which has the common 
goal of ensuring an informed public. The final and proposed state 
actions vary widely, and some explicitly exempt ads aired by broadcast 
stations. Our proposed on-air disclosure requirement would ensure that 
broadcast stations and other affected Commission licensees and 
regulatees face uniform requirements.

Potential Public Interest Benefits and Harms of Using AI-Generated 
Content in Political Ads

    8. With recent advancements and rapid growth in generative AI 
tools, the use of AI is expected to play a substantial role in the 
creation of political ads in 2024 and beyond. The Commission 
anticipates that the use of AI technologies in political ads could 
provide a number of benefits. The use of AI-generated content could 
help candidates and issue advertisers tailor their messages to specific 
communities. For example, a campaign could use AI tools to generate 
messages targeted to the unique concerns of certain demographics or to 
produce content in the candidate's voice in multiple languages. AI 
could also help to speed up and automate the generation of political 
ads, enabling campaigns and issue advertisers to create new content 
quickly in the final days leading up to an election. Additionally, 
because new AI tools are inexpensive, require little training to use, 
and are capable of generating a large volume of content, such tools 
could be valuable to smaller campaigns with limited financial 
resources, allowing them to reach more voters and compete more 
effectively with larger, well-funded campaigns. The Commission seeks 
comment on other benefits that the use of AI technologies in political 
ads could provide.
    9. The use of AI-generated content in political ads, however, also 
creates a potential for providing deceptive, misleading, or fraudulent 
information to voters. Of particular concern is the use of AI-generated 
``deepfakes''--altered images, videos, or audio recordings that depict 
people doing or saying things they did not actually do or say, or 
events that did not actually occur. Such manipulated media could 
mislead the public about candidates' assertions or positions on 
particular issues or about whether certain events actually happened, 
creating confusion and distrust among potential voters. Moreover, AI 
tools could be used to produce convincingly false messages about where 
or when to cast a ballot, or to discourage voters from showing up to 
their polling locations. To be sure, deceptive political advertising is 
nothing new. Even before the emergence of AI technologies, tools such 
as Photoshop have been used to manipulate images used in political ads. 
The advancement and widespread availability of AI tools, however, has 
made it easier, faster, and less expensive to make sophisticated and 
realistic ``deepfakes'' and other manipulated media, making it 
increasingly more difficult for voters to discern what is real and what 
is fake. The Commission seeks comment on these and other potentially 
harmful effects of using AI-generated content in political ads. Do 
these potentially harmful effects support Commission intervention in 
order to ensure that the public is informed of the presence of AI-
generated content?

Proposed Definition of ``AI-Generated Content''

    10. The Commission seeks comment on how to define ``AI-generated 
content'' for purposes of this proceeding. In general, AI can encompass 
a wide range of technologies and functions, and AI technologies include 
programs that emulate aspects of human intelligence, such as a human 
voice. While the Commission has not yet adopted a specific definition 
of ``artificial intelligence,'' various organizations and statutes have 
defined AI. In October 2023, President Biden's Executive Order on the 
Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial 
Intelligence (E.O. 14110, 88 FR 75191 (November 1, 2023)) drew upon a 
statutory definition of AI established by the National Artificial 
Intelligence Initiative in 2021 and set forth in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3), 
which defines AI as ``a machine-based system that can, for a given set 
of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or 
decisions influencing real or virtual environments.'' The Defense 
Authorization Act of 2019 provided similar definitions of artificial 
intelligence, including ``an artificial system designed to act 
rationally, including a software agent or embodied

[[Page 63384]]

robot that achieves goals using perception, planning, reasoning, 
learning, communication, decision making, and acting.''
    11. The Commission proposes to define ``AI-generated content'' for 
purposes of this proceeding as ``an image, audio, or video that has 
been generated using computational technology or other machine-based 
system that depicts an individual's appearance, speech, or conduct, or 
an event, circumstance, or situation, including, in particular, AI-
generated voices that sound like human voices, and AI-generated actors 
that appear to be human actors.'' The Commission believes this 
definition would adequately encompass content artificially created for 
use in political advertising. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposed definition and invites commenters to propose alternative 
definitions.

Proposal To Require Broadcasters To Disclose Use of AI-Generated 
Content in Political Ads

    12. The Commission proposes to require that all radio and 
television broadcast stations that air political ads inquire whether 
political ads scheduled to be aired on their stations contain AI-
generated content and provide an on-air announcement for all such ads 
disclosing the use of AI-generated content in the ad. It further 
proposes to require all broadcast stations that air political ads to 
include in their online political files a notice disclosing the use of 
AI-generated content for each political ad that contains such content. 
As discussed above, broadcasters have an obligation under the 
Communications Act to operate in the public interest. Given the 
potential for AI-generated content in political ads to provide false, 
misleading, and/or deceptive information to the public, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether requiring broadcasters to disclose the use of 
AI-generated content in political ads is consistent with their 
statutory obligation to serve the public interest by ensuring that 
listeners and viewers have the necessary information to evaluate such 
ads for themselves.
    13. Notably, the Commission is not proposing to ban or restrict the 
use of AI-generated content in producing political ads. Instead, it is 
merely proposing that listeners and viewers be informed when a 
political ad contains such content. The use of AI could help political 
advertisers provide timely, accurate, and relevant information to 
potential voters, or AI tools could be used to provide potential voters 
misleading or deceptive information. The Commission believes that 
disclosing that a political ad contains AI-generated content could help 
the listening or viewing audience make informed decisions about the 
information in that ad. The Commission seeks comment on this view.
    14. Proposal to Require Broadcasters to Inquire Whether Political 
Ads Contain AI-Generated Content. The Commission proposes to require 
that all broadcast stations that air political ads inquire whether 
political ads scheduled to be aired on their stations contain any AI-
generated content, as defined in this proceeding. Under this proposal, 
a broadcast station would fulfill its obligation by making a simple 
inquiry to the person or entity making the request for the purchase of 
airtime as to whether a political ad includes AI-generated content, as 
defined herein. Specifically, a broadcast station would be required to 
inform the person or entity requesting airtime, at the time an 
agreement is reached to air a political ad, that the station is 
required to make an on-air disclosure for any political ad that 
includes such AI-generated content and inquire whether the ad does in 
fact include such AI-generated content. Comment is sought on this 
proposal. Would such an inquiry be expected to identify all political 
ads that use AI-generated content (that is, would the person or entity 
making the request for airtime generally be expected to know whether 
the ad was created using AI-generated content)? Are there any 
additional or alternative actions that we should require broadcast 
stations to take to inquire whether a political ad uses AI-generated 
content? Comment is also sought on how stations should go about making 
the inquiry. For example, should we require that the station's inquiry 
to the person or entity making the request for the purchase of airtime 
be made in writing so that there is a record of the request? What if 
the person or entity requesting airtime fails to respond to a station's 
inquiry? Should a station that makes a simple inquiry consistent with 
the Commission's rules be deemed to have satisfied its obligations even 
if there is no response to the inquiry? Additionally, there may be 
instances where a station is informed by a third party that a political 
ad contains AI-generated content where there was no previous 
affirmative response to the station's inquiry. In these cases, should a 
station be required to re-inquire with the person or entity making the 
request for the purchase of airtime?
    15. Proposal to Require Broadcasters to Make On-Air Announcement 
Disclosing the Use of AI-Generated Content in Political Ads. In cases 
where a political ad scheduled to be aired on a broadcast station 
contains AI-generated content, the Commission proposes to require the 
station to make an on-air announcement disclosing that the ad contains 
AI-generated content. The station would be required to make the on-air 
announcement immediately preceding or during the broadcast of any ad by 
or on behalf of a legally qualified candidate for public office and any 
issue ad that contains AI-generated content. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal. The Commission seeks comment on whether a 
disclosure immediately preceding or during the ad would be more 
prominent and bring greater awareness of the fact that the ad contains 
AI-generated content than a disclosure immediately following the ad. 
Alternatively, The Commission seeks comment on whether broadcasters 
should be permitted to air the disclosure at any time immediately 
preceding, during, or immediately following the ad.
    16. The Commission further proposes that broadcasters use 
standardized language for the on-air disclosure. For radio ads, it 
proposes that broadcasters provide an on-air announcement orally in a 
voice that is clear, conspicuous, and a speed that is understandable, 
stating that: ``The following message contains information generated in 
whole or in part by artificial intelligence.'' For television ads, it 
proposes that broadcasters provide an on-air announcement immediately 
preceding or during the ad either (i) orally in a voice that is clear, 
conspicuous, and at a speed that is understandable, stating that: ``The 
following message contains information generated in whole or in part by 
artificial intelligence'' or ``This message contains information 
generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence,''; or (ii) 
visually with letters equal to or greater than four percent of the 
vertical picture height for at least four seconds, stating that: ``The 
following message contains information generated in whole or in part by 
artificial intelligence'' or ``This message contains information 
generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence.'' To the 
extent that we conclude that broadcasters should have the option to air 
the disclosure immediately following the ad, this language could be 
modified as appropriate to state: ``The preceding message contains 
information generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence.'' 
The Commission seeks comment on the proposal to require standardized 
language and on the specific language that we have proposed. Is the 
proposed language

[[Page 63385]]

sufficient to inform listeners and viewers that an ad's content may 
require further evaluation to determine whether it contains misleading 
or inaccurate information? Should the disclosure be in English, in the 
primary language of the broadcast if other than English, or both? 
Should television broadcasters have the option to make the on-air 
disclosure either orally or visually, or should they be required to 
make the disclosure both orally and visually to ensure that it is 
accessible to individuals with visual or hearing impairments? In 
instances where a simple inquiry to the candidate or other entity 
requesting airtime reveals that there is no AI-generated content in a 
political ad, the broadcaster would not be required to make any on-air 
disclosure. However, the Commission seeks comment on the appropriate 
actions for stations to take in cases where a station is informed by a 
credible third party that a political ad contains AI-generated content 
where there was no previous affirmative response to the station's 
inquiry or the station received a negative response to its inquiry. In 
these circumstances, should a station be required to follow up with the 
purchaser of the ad and/or insert the required disclosure? The 
Commission notes that candidate ads are already required to include an 
on-air disclosure that the candidate has approved the ad. It seeks 
comment on where the proposed on-air disclosure regarding AI-generated 
content would be placed in the audio or video feed relative to the 
existing disclosure.
    17. Proposal to Require Broadcasters to Include in Their Political 
Files a Notice Disclosing Use of AI-Generated Content in Political Ads. 
The Commission also proposes to require all broadcast stations to 
include in their online political files a notice disclosing the use of 
AI-generated content for each political ad that contains such content. 
Under this proposal, broadcasters would include a notice for each 
political ad that contains AI-generated content using the same 
standardized language discussed above: ``This message contains 
information generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence.'' 
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission believes 
that this requirement would help to foster greater transparency 
regarding the use of AI-generated content in political ads by, for 
example, allowing listeners, viewers, and other interested parties to 
confirm which ads aired by a station contained AI-generated content. 
Nevertheless, it seeks comment on whether it would be sufficient for 
the broadcaster to provide only an on-air disclosure.
    18. The Commission also seeks comment on whether notices of AI-
generated content included in broadcasters' political file would be 
``data assets'' potentially subject to the requirements of the OPEN 
Government Data Act. The OPEN Government Data Act requires agencies to 
make ``public data assets'' available under an open license and as 
``open Government data assets,'' i.e., in machine-readable, open 
format, unencumbered by use restrictions other than intellectual 
property rights, and based on an open standard that is maintained by a 
standards organization. This requirement is to be implemented ``in 
accordance with guidance by the Director'' of the OMB.
    19. The Commission tentatively concludes that notices of AI-
generated content included in broadcasters' political files would not 
constitute ``data assets'' as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(17). A ``data 
asset'' is defined as ``a collection of data elements or data sets that 
may be grouped together,'' and ``data'' as ``recorded information, 
regardless of form or the media on which the data is recorded.'' Each 
AI-generated content notice, however, is separate and distinct from one 
another and the information contained in the political files generally 
is unstructured rather than systematically arranged in a table or 
database, such that the information could not readily be grouped 
together in any meaningful way. The Commission tentatively concludes 
therefore that, in the absence of a standardized collection form, the 
proposed AI-generated content notices would not constitute a ``data 
asset'' subject to the requirements of the OPEN Government Data Act. 
The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
    20. Applicability of Proposed Disclosure Requirements to Political 
Ads Embedded in Network or Syndicated Programming. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether and how the proposed on-air and political file 
disclosure requirements should be applied to a candidate or issue ad 
that is embedded within a network or syndicated program aired by a 
broadcast station. The Commission notes that in instances where a 
political ad is embedded in network or syndicated programming, a 
broadcast station airing the programming would not have direct contact 
with the person or entity requesting to purchase airtime from the 
network or syndication company for the political ad. In such cases, how 
does a broadcast station airing the network or syndicated programming 
currently comply with its obligations under the political programming 
and political file rules? Does the network or syndication company 
generally inform the broadcast stations airing the programming, at some 
point prior to the scheduled broadcast date, that a particular program 
includes a political ad? Should the Commission require broadcast 
stations to make a simple inquiry to the respective network or 
syndication company, at the time the network or syndication company 
informs the stations airing the programming that a political ad is 
embedded in a particular program, whether the ad contains AI-generated 
content? Alternatively, should the Commission allow broadcast stations 
to make a simple inquiry of their network and syndication partners at 
specified intervals (e.g., annually or at the start of each television 
season) requesting that the network or syndication company inform the 
stations each time that a political ad embedded within a program 
contains AI-generated content, prior to the airing of that program? 
Would the network or syndication company be expected to know if a 
political ad embedded within its programming contains AI-generated 
content? If a simple inquiry to the network or syndication company is 
unlikely to reveal whether political ads embedded in network and 
syndicated programming contain AI-generated content, should we exempt 
broadcast stations from complying with the proposed on-air and 
political file disclosure requirements with respect to political ads 
embedded in network or syndicated programming? In cases where a station 
is informed by a credible third party that a political ad contains AI-
generated content where there was no previous affirmative response to 
the station's inquiry, should a station be required to insert the 
required disclosure? To the extent that a simple inquiry to a network 
or syndication company can be expected to reveal whether political ads 
embedded in network or syndicated programming contain AI-generated 
content, would it be technically feasible or practical for the stations 
to insert an on-air announcement disclosing that such ads contain AI-
generated content in the network or syndicated programming? If not, 
should stations be exempted from complying with the proposed on-air 
disclosure requirement but nevertheless required to comply with the 
proposed political file disclosure requirement?

[[Page 63386]]

Extension of Proposals to Cable Operators, DBS Providers, and SDARS 
Licensees That Engage in Origination Programming

    21. The Commission proposes to extend the proposals for broadcast 
stations discussed herein to cable operators, DBS providers, and SDARS 
licensees engaged in origination programming. As discussed above, 
``origination cablecasting'' is ``[p]rogramming (exclusive of broadcast 
signals) carried on a cable television system over one or more channels 
and subject to the exclusive control of the cable operator.'' 
Similarly, ``DBS origination programming'' is ``programming (exclusive 
of broadcast signals) carried on a DBS facility over one or more 
channels and subject to the exclusive control of the DBS provider.'' 
The Commission's rules do not include a definition of ``SDARS 
origination programming.'' The Commission proposes to amend the rules 
by adding a definition of to define ``SDARS origination programming'' 
as ``programming carried on a SDARS facility over one or more channels 
and subject to the exclusive control of the SDARS licensee.'' The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Cable operators, DBS 
providers, and SDARS licensees engaged in origination programming are 
subject to certain public interest obligations, including political 
programming and political file requirements. The Commission tentatively 
conclude that the same public interest justifications that support the 
proposed rules for broadcast stations apply equally to cable operators, 
DBS providers, and SDARS licensees engaged in origination programming. 
The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
    22. Consistent with our broadcast station proposals, cable 
operators, DBS providers, and SDARS licensees, when engaged in 
origination programming, would be required to inquire whether political 
ads scheduled to be aired on their systems or facilities contain any 
AI-generated content and provide an on-air announcement for all such 
ads disclosing the use of AI-generated content in the ad. The 
Commission also proposes to use the same standardized language for 
disclosure of AI-generated content in political ads as proposed for 
broadcast stations. Further, it proposes to require these entities to 
include in their political files a notice disclosing the use of AI-
generated content in political ads they air. The Commission seeks 
comment on application of these proposals to cable operators, DBS 
providers, and SDARS licensees engaged in origination programming.

Extension of Proposals to Section 325(c) Permit Holders

    23. The Commission proposes to extend the on-air disclosure 
proposed in this proceeding to political ads broadcast pursuant to a 
section 325(c) permit. A section 325(c) permit is required when an 
entity produces programming in the United States but, rather than 
broadcasting the programming from a U.S.-licensed station, transmits or 
delivers the programming from a U.S. studio to a non-U.S. licensed 
station in a foreign country and broadcasts the programming from the 
foreign station with a sufficient transmission power or a geographic 
location that enables the material to be received consistently in the 
United States. Section 325(c) permit applications are subject to the 
requirements of section 309 (applicable to applications for U.S. 
station licenses). Specifically, the Commission applies ``the same 
criteria for meeting the programming standards component of the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity requirement to both a domestic 
license proceeding under section 309 and a cross-border broadcast 
license proceeding under section 325.''
    24. Consistent with its proposals for U.S.-licensed broadcast 
stations, the Commission proposes to require section 325(c) permit 
holders to inquire whether political ads scheduled to be delivered from 
their U.S. studio to a non-U.S. broadcast station contain any AI-
generated content and provide an on-air notice for all such ads 
disclosing the use of AI-generated content in the ad. The Commission 
proposes to use the same standardized language for on-air notices as 
proposed for U.S.-licensed broadcast stations. Comment is sought on 
these proposals. In addition, comment is sought on whether any of the 
proposals should be modified for section 325(c) permit holders.
    25. The Commission tentatively concludes that applying the same on-
air disclosure requirements proposed in this proceeding for U.S.-
licensed stations to section 325(c) permit holders would serve the 
public interest because, like programming from a U.S.-licensed station, 
programming transmitted or delivered by a section 325(c) permit holder 
is received by audiences in the United States. Thus, the obligation to 
serve the public interest by taking responsibility for material--
including false, misleading or deceptive material--disseminated to the 
public through their facilities applies equally to section 325(c) 
permit holders. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative 
conclusion.

Statutory Authority

    26. We seek comment on whether the Commission has the authority to 
adopt the proposed on-air disclosure and political file requirements 
for AI-generated content in political ads. Section 303(r) authorizes 
the Commission, as ``public convenience, interest, or necessity 
requires, . . . to make such regulation and prescribe such 
restrictions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry 
out the provisions of this Act. . . .'' The Commission has relied on 
its authority under section 303(r) to develop rules necessary to the 
public interest. For example, the Commission relied on section 303(r), 
among other general provisions of the Act, to adopt contest rules, 
explaining that the presentation of false and misleading program 
material, including advertising, violates a licensee's basic duty to 
deal honestly with its audience and is contrary to the public interest. 
The confines of a title III licensee's duty are set by the general 
standard ``the public interest, convenience or necessity,'' and thus 
the Commission also has authority under various sections of the Act, 
including sections 307(a), 309(a), 309(k)(1)(a), and 335 (for DBS 
providers) to enact rules in the public interest. We seek comment on 
whether these provisions authorize us to require broadcasters, SDARS 
licensees and DBS providers engaged in origination programming, and 
section 325(c) permit holders to make the proposed on-air and political 
file disclosures regarding AI-generated content in political ads. In 
this regard, broadcasters, and SDARS licensees and DBS providers 
engaged in origination programming, are subject to statutory provisions 
and the Commission's rules governing political programming and 
recordkeeping, the fundamental purpose of which is to foster an 
informed electorate. Are the proposed on-air disclosure and political 
file requirements necessary to ensure broadcasters and other regulated 
entities take reasonable measures to address false, misleading, or 
deceptive material and to ensure that voters have the information 
needed to assess the reliability and credibility of political ads in 
order to make informed decisions and therefore would serve the public 
interest? Are there other statutory provisions, such as sections 
303(b), 315, 317, or others, that would support adoption of the 
proposed on-air disclosure and political file requirements for 
broadcasters, SDARS

[[Page 63387]]

licensees, and DBS providers engaged in origination programming?
    27. We note that cable operators engaged in origination programming 
are not subject to the Commission's rulemaking authority under section 
303(r). We seek comment on whether there are other statutory 
provisions, such as sections 315 or others, that would support adoption 
of the proposed on-air disclosure and political file requirements for 
cable operators engaged in origination programming. Section 315 of the 
Act imposes on broadcast licensees and cable operators certain 
programming obligations with respect to candidate ads and recordkeeping 
obligations with respect to both candidate and certain issue ads, and 
these obligations have been extended to DBS providers and SDARS 
licensees. Section 315(d) of the Act authorizes the Commission to 
``prescribe appropriate rules and regulations to carry out the 
provisions of this section'' and section 315(e) imposes certain 
political record keeping requirements. We seek comment on whether the 
proposed on-air disclosure and political file requirements are within 
the Commission's authority under sections 315(d) and/or 315(e). Given 
that section 315 imposes specific programming obligations only with 
respect to candidate ads, and not issue ads, does that suggest that 
this section provides authority to adopt the proposed on-air disclosure 
requirements only for candidate ads? Alternatively, would the same 
rationale for adopting the proposed on-air disclosure requirements for 
candidate ads also justify adopting the proposed disclosure 
requirements for issue ads?

First Amendment Issues

    28. The Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed rules 
raise First Amendment concerns, including those pertaining to 
broadcasters and cable operators, DBS providers, and SDARS licensees 
that engage in origination cablecasting. To the extent that our 
proposed rules implicate regulated entities' First Amendment right to 
free speech, there are various levels of constitutional scrutiny that 
might apply. For example, content neutral restrictions on broadcasters 
are subject to review under ``heightened rational basis,'' and will be 
upheld if reasonably tailored to satisfy a substantial government 
interest. If the proposed rules are not considered content-neutral 
restrictions, then, with respect to broadcasters, the disclosure 
requirements will be reviewed under intermediate scrutiny, the less 
rigorous standard applied to content-based restrictions on that medium. 
Under the intermediate scrutiny test, restrictions are upheld when the 
government advances ``important governmental interests unrelated to the 
suppression of free speech'' and does not ``burden substantially more 
speech than necessary to further those interests.'' If strict scrutiny 
applies, the disclosure requirements will be upheld if the government's 
interest is ``compelling,'' and the rules are both ``narrowly 
tailored'' to further that interest and the ``least restrictive means'' 
of accomplishing the desired objective. The Commission tentatively 
concludes that the proposed on-air disclosure and political file 
requirements comport with the First Amendment right to free speech, 
regardless which level of scrutiny applies. The Commission seeks 
comment on this tentative conclusion.
    29. Government interest. The Commission tentatively concludes that 
it has a compelling interest in providing greater transparency 
regarding the use of AI-generated content in political advertising. The 
Commission has long recognized that broadcasters must assume 
responsibility for all material which is broadcast through their 
facilities and must take reasonable measure to address any false, 
misleading, or deceptive matter. In addition, at the very heart of the 
political programming and recordkeeping requirements enacted by 
Congress and implemented by the Commission is a recognition of the 
critical role that political programming plays in fostering an informed 
electorate. The need for transparency about the use of AI-generated 
content is particularly pronounced when political ads intended to 
influence voters are involved. Recent advancements in generative AI 
technologies have led to their widespread use, and AI is expected to 
play a growing role in the future production of political ads. While 
the use of AI technologies to create political ads may provide 
benefits, it can also result in the dissemination of deceptive, 
misleading, or fraudulent information to voters.
    30. The proposed on-air disclosure and political file requirements 
would further the government interest in ensuring that broadcasters and 
other program distributors fulfill their responsibilities regarding the 
material which they relay through their facilities and take reasonable 
measures to address potentially false, misleading, or deceptive 
material and ensuring that the public has the information they need to 
make informed decisions about the political ads that are carried. 
Disclosing the use of AI-generated content in political ads is vital to 
ensuring that the public can assess the substance and credibility of 
the information they receive. Rather than abridging the free speech 
rights of broadcasters and cable operators, DBS providers, and SDARS 
licensees that engage in origination programming, the proposed on-air 
disclosure and political file rules would further the goals of the 
First Amendment and Communication Act by ensuring broadcasters and 
other regulated entities take reasonable measures to address 
potentially false, misleading, or deceptive political advertising and 
enhancing the public's ability to evaluate political ads, thus 
promoting an informed electorate and improving the quality of public 
discourse. The Commission tentatively concludes that this interest is 
sufficient to satisfy any standard of First Amendment review that may 
apply and seeks comment on this analysis.
    31. Tailoring. The Commission tentatively concludes that the 
proposed rules are appropriately tailored to serve the government 
interest. The proposed rules would require the disclosure of any 
political ad that uses artificial intelligence, defined as ``an image, 
audio, or video generated using computational technology or other 
machine-based system that depicts an individual's appearance, speech, 
or conduct, or an event, circumstance, or situation, including, in 
particular, AI-generated voices that sound like human voices, and AI-
generated actors that appear to be human actors.'' Since broadcasters 
and other affected Commission licensees and regulatees would be 
required to make on-air and political file disclosures only in 
instances where the ad contains content meeting this definition, and 
would be allowed to rely on the information provided to them by the 
person or entity making the request for the purchase of airtime, any 
administrative burden would be modest. Accordingly, the Commission 
tentatively concludes that the proposed rules are appropriately 
tailored to meet any standard that might apply. The Commission seeks 
comment on this analysis.
    32. The Means Chosen to Accomplish the Government's Objective. The 
Commission also tentatively concludes that the means chosen to 
accomplish the government's objective would meet any standard of First 
Amendment review that might apply. Our proposed on-air disclosure and 
political file requirements would not prevent or inhibit the airing of 
political ads, i.e., these requirements would not prevent anyone from 
speaking. Rather, these requirements would promote the goals

[[Page 63388]]

of the First Amendment and the Communications Act by ensuring 
broadcasters and other regulated entities take reasonable measures to 
address potentially false, misleading, or deceptive material and 
enhancing the public's ability to assess the substance and reliability 
of political ads, thus fostering an informed electorate and improving 
the quality of public discourse. As the Court has previously concluded, 
``disclosure is a less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive 
regulations of speech.'' Broadcasters and cable operators, DBS 
providers, and SDARS licensees engaged in origination programming would 
have the modest burdens of inquiring of the ad sponsor whether the 
political ad scheduled to be aired contains an AI-generated content 
and, if it does, making on-air and political file disclosures. For this 
reason, the Commission anticipates the proposed rules would have little 
if any impact on the decision to accept political ads containing AI-
generated content as compared to other ads. The Commission seeks 
comment on this analysis.
    33. In addition, the Commission tentatively concludes that the 
analysis provided here applies equally to those operating pursuant to 
section 325(c) permits, because there is nothing to differentiate them 
from other broadcast licensees when it comes to political programming 
requirements, and the governmental interest and effects on speech are 
the same as to content transmitted by U.S.-licensed broadcasters and 
content transmitted by section 325(c) permittees over the facilities of 
a non-U.S. broadcaster.
    34. The Commission also tentatively concludes that the proposed on-
air and political file disclosures would not violate the First 
Amendment rights of the candidates or other entities that sponsor 
political ads. These proposed rules would further the government's 
compelling interest in providing greater transparency regarding the use 
of AI-generated content in political advertising, ensuring that voters 
have the information they need to make informed decisions about the 
political ads that are carried on broadcast stations and other affected 
facilities. Additionally, the Commission tentatively concludes that the 
proposed rules are appropriately tailored to serve this interest. When 
purchasing airtime, broadcasters or other regulated entities would 
simply ask candidates and other entities that sponsor ads whether their 
ad was created using AI-generated content. If the answer is yes, then 
the broadcaster or regulated entity would add the necessary disclosure. 
The proposed definition of AI-generated content is straightforward and 
simple to apply. Thus, the administrative burden would be modest. 
Finally, the Commission tentatively concludes that the means chosen to 
achieve the government's objective would satisfy First Amendment 
review. The proposed rules would not suppress speech by preventing or 
inhibiting candidates and other entities that sponsor political ads 
from using artificial intelligence to produce their ads. Rather, the 
proposed disclosure requirements would promote the goals of the First 
Amendment by enhancing the public's ability to evaluate the substance 
and reliability of political ads, thus fostering an informed electorate 
and improving the quality of public discourse. As noted above, the 
Court has previously concluded that ``disclosure is a less restrictive 
alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech.'' The 
Commission seeks comment on this analysis.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

    35. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of our 
proposed rules on broadcasters, cable operators, DBS providers, and 
SDARS licensees that engage in origination programming, and section 
325(c) permit holders, particularly those that are small entities. The 
Commission tentatively concludes that requiring these entities to make 
a simple inquiry to the candidate or other entity that requests airtime 
as to whether a political ad contains AI-generated content would not 
impose a significant burden on these entities. In this regard, it 
expects that the candidate or other entity that requests airtime 
generally would be aware whether or not a particular ad contains AI-
generated content. The Commission also tentatively concludes the 
proposed rules would benefit the public by providing greater 
transparency regarding the use of AI-generated content in political 
ads, while imposing a modest burden on the affected entities (i.e., the 
burden of making a simple inquiry as to the use of AI-generated content 
and making an on-air disclosure and/or including a notice in the 
political file). The Commission seeks comment on these tentative 
conclusions and on other potential benefits and costs of the proposed 
rules. The benefits and costs of our rules for disclosing AI-generated 
content depend on the share of political advertisements for which such 
disclosure would plausibly be required. The Commission thus seeks 
estimates of the share of political advertisement for which disclosure 
of AI-generated would be required. The Commission also seeks comment on 
the cost to the affected entities of airtime for on-air disclosures 
aired prior to a political ad (i.e., airtime that could otherwise be 
sold to other advertisers). Given that candidate ads are already 
required to include an on-air disclosure that the candidate has 
approved the ad, the Commission seeks comment on any burden associated 
with requiring two on-air disclosures in a single candidate ad. In 
addition, it requests comment on whether there are any alternative 
actions that should be taken to minimize any burdens on affected 
entities, particularly on small entities. For example, should the 
proposed on-air disclosure and political file requirements be limited 
to political ads aired in the 60-day period leading up to a primary 
election and the 90-day period leading up to a general election? Would 
it significantly reduce burdens on small entities to require only an 
on-air disclosure informing the public of the use of AI-generated 
content, and not a separate notice in the online political file?

Digital Equity and Inclusion

    36. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance 
digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with 
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who 
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any 
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be 
associated with the issues discussed herein. Specifically, the 
Commission seeks comment on how any Commission actions taken to address 
the use of AI in political advertising may promote or inhibit advances 
in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    37. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and 
rules proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on 
this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and 
must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided in the DATES 
section of this document. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, 
including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA

[[Page 63389]]

(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    38. The presentation of political programming has long been 
recognized as an essential element of broadcasters' obligation to serve 
the public interest because of the critical role such programming plays 
in fostering an informed electorate, which in turn is vital to the 
effective operation of the democratic process. The political 
programming and recordkeeping requirements established by Congress and 
implemented by the Commission ensure that candidates for elective 
office have access to broadcast facilities and certain other media 
platforms and foster transparency about the entities that sponsor 
political ads.
    39. The use of emerging artificial intelligence (AI) technologies 
in political ads can serve the public interest in fostering an informed 
electorate by, for example, allowing candidates to tailor their 
messages to specific populations or empowering smaller political 
campaigns with limited financial resources to reach larger audiences. 
The use of AI technologies in political advertising, however, also has 
the potential to produce ``deepfakes'' and other deceptive and 
misleading information, creating confusion among the voting public. 
Accordingly, the Commission initiates the NPRM to further the public 
interest by ensuring broadcasters and other regulated entities take 
reasonable measures to address potentially false, misleading or 
deceptive material and promoting an informed electorate.
    40. The NPRM proposes to define ``AI-generated content'' for 
purposes of this proceeding as ``an image, audio, or video that has 
been generated using computational technology or other machine-based 
system that depicts an individual's appearance, speech, or conduct, or 
an event, circumstance, or situation, including, in particular, AI-
generated voices that sound like human voices, and AI-generated actors 
that appear to be human actors.'' The NPRM also proposes to require 
that all radio and television broadcast stations inquire whether 
political ads scheduled to be aired on their stations contain any AI-
generated content and make an on-air announcement for all such ads 
disclosing the use of AI-generated content in the ad. Under this 
proposal, broadcast stations would fulfill their obligation by making a 
simple inquiry to the person or entity that submits the request for the 
purchase of airtime as to whether a political ad includes AI-generated 
content. Further, the NPRM proposes to require that broadcasters make 
the on-air disclosure at the beginning of or during the ad and use 
standardized language for the disclosure and to require broadcast 
stations to include in their online political files a notice, using 
standardized language, disclosing the use of AI-generated content for 
each political ad that contains such content. Moreover, the NPRM 
proposes to extend these proposed on-air disclosure and political file 
requirements to cable operators, DBS providers, and SDARS licensees 
engaged in origination programming and to permit holders transmitting 
programming pursuant to section 325(c) of the Act. The NPRM does not 
propose to ban or otherwise restrict the use of AI-generated content in 
political ads. Instead, it merely seeks to ensure that the listening 
and viewing public is informed when political ads include such content.

B. Legal Basis

    41. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 
303, 307, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325(c)-(d), and 335 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303, 307, 309, 312, 
315, 317, 325(c)-(d), and 335.

C. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    42. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    43. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission 
has developed its own small business size standard 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. Based 
on industry data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S. Of 
these, only seven have more than 400,000 subscribers. In addition, 
under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system 
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Based on industry data, there are 
about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in the U.S. Of these, about 639 
have more than 15,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable systems are 
small.
    44. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a 
``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or 
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one 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.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the 
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer 
than 498,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will 
meet the definition of a small cable operator. Based on industry data, 
only six cable system operators have more than 498,000 subscribers. 
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system 
operators are small under this size standard. We note however, that the 
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable 
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 
revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, 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.
    46. 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 is included in the Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers industry which 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 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 Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, wired 
(cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband 
internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite

[[Page 63390]]

television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.
    47. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054 
firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 
2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data, 
the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small under 
the SBA small business size standard. According to Commission data 
however, only two entities provide DBS service--DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) 
and DISH Network, which require a great deal of capital for operation. 
DIRECTV and DISH Network both exceed the SBA size standard for 
classification as a small business. Therefore, we must conclude based 
on internally developed Commission data, in general DBS service is 
provided only by large firms.
    48. Radio Stations. This industry is comprised of ``establishments 
primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the 
public.'' Programming may originate in their own studio, from an 
affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA small business 
size standard for this industry classifies firms having $41.5 million 
or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that 2,963 firms operated in this industry during that year. Of 
this number, 1,879 firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million 
per year. Based on this data and the SBA's small business size 
standard, we estimate a majority of such entities are small entities.
    49. The Commission estimates that as of March 31, 2024, there were 
4,427 licensed commercial AM radio stations and 6,663 licensed 
commercial FM radio stations, for a combined total of 11,090 commercial 
radio stations. Of this total, 11,088 stations (or 99.98%) had revenues 
of $41.5 million or less in 2022, according to Commission staff review 
of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Database (BIA) on April 4, 
2024, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the 
SBA definition. In addition, the Commission estimates that as of March 
31, 2024, there were 4,320 licensed noncommercial (NCE) FM radio 
stations, 1,960 low power FM (LPFM) stations, and 8,913 FM translators 
and boosters. The Commission however does not compile, and otherwise 
does not have access to financial information for these radio stations 
that would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as 
small entities under the SBA small business size standard. 
Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this 
industry and the nature of radio station licensees, we presume that all 
of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small 
business size standard.
    50. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely 
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our 
action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, 
another element of the definition of ``small business'' requires that 
an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at 
this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish 
whether a specific radio or television broadcast station is dominant in 
its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses 
to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio or television 
station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is 
therefore possibly over-inclusive. An additional element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated. Because it is difficult to assess 
these criteria in the context of media entities, the estimate of small 
businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio or 
television station from the definition of a small business on this 
basis and similarly may be over-inclusive.
    51. Television Broadcasting. This industry is comprised of 
``establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with 
sound.'' These establishments operate television broadcast studios and 
facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the 
public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual 
programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn 
broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. 
Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated 
network, or from external sources. The SBA small business size standard 
for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in 
annual receipts as small. 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 
744 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of that 
number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000. Based on this 
data we estimate that the majority of television broadcasters are small 
entities under the SBA small business size standard.
    52. As of March 31, 2024, there were 1,382 licensed commercial 
television stations. Of this total, 1,263 stations (or 91.4%) had 
revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2022, according to Commission 
staff review of the BIA on April 4, 2024, and therefore these licensees 
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the 
Commission estimates as of March 31, 2024, there were 383 licensed 
noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 379 Class A TV 
stations, 1,829 low power television (LPTV) stations and 3,118 TV 
translator stations. The Commission, however, does not compile and 
otherwise does not have access to financial information for these 
television broadcast stations that would permit it to determine how 
many of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small 
business size standard. Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual 
receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of these television 
station licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as 
small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
    53. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as 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 communications networks. Transmission 
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of 
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired 
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a 
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP 
services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and 
wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments 
providing satellite television distribution services using facilities 
and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry. 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline 
carriers or fixed local service providers.
    54. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31,

[[Page 63391]]

2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of fixed local services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 4,146 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    55. The rule changes proposed in the NPRM, if adopted, would impose 
compliance and recordkeeping obligations on small, as well as other 
entities. Specifically, the NPRM proposes to require broadcast 
stations, cable operators, SDARS licensees, and DBS providers engaged 
in origination programming, and section 325(c) permit holders, to make 
a simple inquiry to the candidate or other entity that requests airtime 
as to whether a political ad contains AI-generated content and provide 
on air-disclosures informing listeners and viewers that such ads 
contain AI-generated content. The NPRM further proposes to require that 
broadcast stations, and cable operators, SDARS licensees, and DBS 
providers engaged in origination programming, include a notice in their 
online political files for all political ads that include AI-generated 
content disclosing that the ad contains such content.
    56. At this time the record does not include sufficient cost/
benefit analyses to allow the Commission to quantify the costs of 
compliance for small entities including whether it will be necessary 
for small entities to hire professionals to comply with the proposed 
rules if adopted. The Commission expects, however, that the proposed 
rules would impose only a modest burden on the affected entities (i.e., 
the burden of making a simple inquiry as to the use of AI-generated 
content and making an on-air disclosure and/or including a notice in 
the political file), because the candidates or entities requesting 
airtime should be aware of whether the ad which they seek to have aired 
contains AI-generated content. The NPRM nevertheless seeks comment, 
particularly for small entities, on the costs and burdens of the 
proposed rules and whether there are any actions it should take to 
minimize any burdens on small entities.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    57. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, 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 and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such 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.
    58. An alternative option that may reduce burdens on small entities 
considered in the NPRM is whether to limit the proposed on-air 
disclosure and political file requirements to political ads aired in 
the 60-day period leading up to a primary election and the 90-day 
period leading up to a general election. The NPRM also considers 
whether requiring only an on-air disclosure informing the public of the 
use of AI-generated content, and not a separate notice in the online 
political file, would significantly reduce burdens on small entities. 
To assist in its evaluation of the economic impact of the proposed 
rules on small entities, and to better explore options and 
alternatives, the Commission seeks comment on whether any of the 
burdens associated with the compliance and recordkeeping requirements 
described above can be minimized for small entities. The Commission 
expects to more fully consider the economic impact and alternatives for 
small entities based on its review of the record and any comments filed 
in response to the NPRM and this IRFA.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    59. None.

Ordering Clauses

    60. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 
1, 4(i), 303, 307, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325(c)-(d), and 335 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303, 
307, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325(c)-(d), and 335, the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.
    62. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 24-211 on or before thirty (30) 
days after publication in the Federal Register and reply comments on or 
before forty-five (45) days after publication in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 25, 73, and 76

    Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites, 
Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.

    For the reasons discussed herein, the Federal Communications 
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 25, 73, and 76 as follows:

PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 
332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  25.701 by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (b)(5); and
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (d)(4) as paragraph (d)(5); and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (d)(4).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  25.701  Other DBS Public interest obligations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Disclosure of artificial intelligence-generated content in 
political advertising. (i) Artificial intelligence-generated content is 
defined for purposes of this section as set forth in Sec.  73.1945(a) 
of this chapter.
    (ii) Political advertising is defined for purposes of this section 
as set forth in Sec.  73.1945(b) of this chapter.
    (iii) Each DBS provider engaged in origination programming must 
inquire whether any political advertising scheduled to be aired on its 
facilities contains any artificial intelligence-generated content. Such 
inquiry shall be made, in writing to the person or entity making the 
request for the purchase of political advertising time, at the time 
that an agreement is reached to air the political advertising on the 
DBS provider's facilities.
    (iv) If a DBS provider's inquiry pursuant to paragraph (b)(5)(iii) 
of this section finds that any political advertising scheduled to be 
aired on its facilities contains any artificial intelligence-generated 
content, the DBS provider must make an on-air announcement, immediately 
preceding or during the airing of the advertising, stating: ``[The 
following] or [This] message contains information generated in whole or 
in part by artificial intelligence.'' The on-air announcement

[[Page 63392]]

may be provided either orally in a voice that is clear, conspicuous, 
and at a speed that is understandable, or visually with letters equal 
to or greater than four percent of the vertical picture height for at 
least four seconds.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) In the case of political advertising, as defined in Sec.  
73.1945(b) of this chapter, found by inquiry from a DBS provider 
engaged in origination program to contain any artificial intelligence-
generated content, as defined in Sec.  73.1945(a) of this chapter, the 
DBS provider shall place in the online political file a notice stating 
that ``This message contains information generated in whole or in part 
by artificial intelligence.''
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  25.702 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a); and
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(5); and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (b)(4).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  25.702  Other SDARS Public interest obligations.

    (a) Political broadcasting requirements. The following political 
broadcasting rules shall apply to all SDARS licensees: 47 CFR 73.1940, 
73.1941, 73.1942, 73.1944, and 73.1945. SDARS origination programming 
is defined as programming carried on a SDARS facility over one or more 
channels and subject to the exclusive control of the SDARS licensee.
    (b) * * *
    (4) In the case of political advertising, as defined in Sec.  
73.1945(b) of this chapter, found by inquiry from a SDARS licensee 
engaged in origination program to contain any artificial intelligence-
generated content, as defined in Sec.  73.1945(a) of this chapter, the 
SDARS licensee shall place in the online political file a notice 
stating that ``This message contains information generated in whole or 
in part by artificial intelligence.''
* * * * *

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
4. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 
336, 339.

0
5. Amend Sec.  73.1943 by redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (e) 
and adding new paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  73.1943  Political file.

* * * * *
    (d) In the case of political advertising, as defined in Sec.  
73.1945(b), found by the licensee's inquiry to contain any artificial 
intelligence-generated content, as defined in Sec.  73.1945(a), the 
licensee shall place in the online political file a notice stating that 
``This message contains information generated in whole or in part by 
artificial intelligence.''
* * * * *
0
6. Add Sec.  73.1945 to read as follows:


Sec.  73.1945  Disclosure of artificial intelligence-generated content 
in political advertising.

    (a) Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content is defined for 
purposes of this section as an image, audio, or video that has been 
generated using computational technology or other machine-based system 
that depicts an individual's appearance, speech, or conduct, or an 
event, circumstance, or situation, including, in particular, AI-
generated voices that sound like human voices, and AI-generated actors 
that appear to be human actors.
    (b) Political advertising is defined for purposes of this section 
as:
    (1) Advertising that is made by or on behalf of a legally qualified 
candidate for public office; or
    (2) Issue advertising. Issue advertising is defined for purposes of 
this section as paid political programming that communicates a message 
relating to any political matter or controversial issue of public 
importance, but does not include advertising that is made by or on 
behalf of a legally qualified candidate for public office.
    (c) Each licensee must inquire whether any political advertising 
scheduled to be aired on its station contains any artificial 
intelligence-generated content. Such inquiry shall be made in writing 
to the person or entity making the request for the purchase of 
political advertising time, at the time that an agreement is reached to 
air the political advertising on the station.
    (d) If a licensee's inquiry pursuant to paragraph (c) of this 
section finds that any political advertising scheduled to be aired on 
its station contains any artificial intelligence-generated content, the 
licensee must make an on-air announcement, immediately preceding or 
during the airing of the advertising, stating: ``[The following] or 
[This] message contains information generated in whole or in part by 
artificial intelligence.'' For radio stations, the on-air announcement 
must be provided orally in a voice that is clear, conspicuous, and at a 
speed that is understandable. For television stations, the on-air 
announcement may be provided either orally in a voice that is clear, 
conspicuous, and at a speed that is understandable, or visually with 
letters equal to or greater than four percent of the vertical picture 
height for at least four seconds.

PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE

0
7. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 
303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 335, 338, 339, 340, 341, 
503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 
548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 562, 571, 572, 573.

0
8. Add Sec.  76.207 to read as follows:


Sec.  76.207  Disclosure of artificial intelligence-generated content 
in political advertising.

    (a) Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content is defined for 
purposes of this section as an image, audio, or video that has been 
generated using computational technology or other machine-based system 
that depicts an individual's appearance, speech, or conduct, or an 
event, circumstance, or situation, including, in particular, AI-
generated voices that sound like human voices, and AI-generated actors 
that appear to be human actors.
    (b) Political advertising is defined for purposes of this section 
as:
    (1) Advertising that is made by or on behalf of a legally qualified 
candidate for public office; or
    (2) Issue advertising. Issue advertising is defined for purposes of 
this section as paid political programming that communicates a message 
relating to any political matter or controversial issue of public 
importance, but does not include advertising that is made by or on 
behalf of a legally qualified candidate for public office.
    (c) Each cable television system operator must inquire whether any 
political advertising scheduled to be aired on its system contains any 
artificial intelligence-generated content. Such inquiry shall be made 
in writing to the person or entity making the request for the purchase 
of political advertising time, at the time that an agreement is reached 
to air the political advertising on the system.
    (d) If a cable television system operator's inquiry pursuant to 
paragraph (c) of this section finds that any political advertising 
scheduled to be aired on its station contains any artificial 
intelligence-generated content, the operator must make an on-air 
announcement, immediately preceding

[[Page 63393]]

or during the airing of the advertising, stating: ``[The following] or 
[This] message contains information generated in whole or in part by 
artificial intelligence.'' The on-air announcement may be provided 
either orally in a voice that is clear, conspicuous, and at a speed 
that is understandable, or visually with letters equal to or greater 
than four percent of the vertical picture height for at least four 
seconds.
0
9. Amend Sec.  76.1701 by redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as 
paragraphs (e) and (f) and adding new paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  76.1701  Political file.

* * * * *
    (d) In the case of political advertising, as defined in Sec.  
73.1945(b) of this chapter, found by inquiry from a cable operator 
engaged in origination cablecasting to contain any artificial 
intelligence-generated content, as defined in Sec.  73.1945(a) of this 
chapter, the cable operator shall place in the online political file a 
notice stating that ``This message contains information generated in 
whole or in part by artificial intelligence.''
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-16977 Filed 8-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P