Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01155/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01155-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Communications Commission
Respondent
National Federation of the Blind
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 6, 2002 Decided November 8, 2002

No. 01-1149

Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., et al.,

Petitioners

v.

Federal Communications Commission and

United States of America,

Respondents

National Television Video Access Coalition, et al.,

Intervenors

---------

Consolidated with

01-1155

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the

Federal Communications Commission

---------

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 1 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Robert Corn-Revere argued the cause for petitioner Motion

Picture Association of America, Inc., et al. With him on the

briefs was Ronald G. London.

Daniel F. Goldstein argued the cause and filed the briefs

for petitioner National Federation of the Blind.

C. Grey Pash, Jr., Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the

brief were Jane E. Mago, General Counsel, Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel, and Jacob M. Lewis,

Attorney, United States Department of Justice. Catherine G.

O'Sullivan, Chief Counsel, and Nancy C. Garrison, Attorney,

United States Department of Justice, entered appearances.

Donald J. Evans argued the cause for intervenors. With

him on the brief were Liliana E. Ward, Keith A. Noreika,

and Robert A. Long, Jr.

Before: Edwards, Henderson, and Rogers, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Edwards.

Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge Henderson.

Edwards, Circuit Judge: The Telecommunications Act of

1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 ("the Telecommunications Act"), added new provisions covering video programming accessibility to the Communications Act of 1934, 47

U.S.C. s 151 et seq. ("the Act"). The new provisions, codified

in s 713 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. s 613, specifically dealt with "closed captioning" and "video description"

technologies that can be employed to enhance television video

services for hearing and visually impaired individuals.

Closed captioning displays the audio portion of television

signals as words displayed on the screen and can be activated

at a viewer's discretion. Video descriptions provide aural

descriptions of a television program's key visual elements

(such as the movement of a person in a scene) that are

inserted during pauses in the program dialogue. Video descriptions change program content because they require the

creation of new script to convey program details, whereas

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 2 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

closed captions present a verbatim transcription of the program's spoken words.

Congress treated the two technologies quite differently

when it passed the Telecommunications Act, which added

s 713 to the Communications Act. Section 713(a) required

the Commission to complete a closed captioning inquiry and

to report its findings to Congress within 180 days of the Act's

passage. 47 U.S.C. s 613(a). Sections 713(b) and (c) required the Commission to prescribe closed captioning regulations and established compliance deadlines. 47 U.S.C.

s 613(b)-(c). Sections 713(d) and (e) established exemptions

from the closed captioning rules. 47 U.S.C. s 613(d)-(e). In

contrast, subsections 713(f) and (g) - the sole subsections

dealing with video description - merely defined "video description" and required the FCC to prepare a report to

Congress. 47 U.S.C. s 613(f)-(g). Unlike the provisions

covering closed captioning, s 713 did not authorize the Commission to adopt regulations implementing video descriptions.

After releasing a report on video description, the FCC

announced that it was seeking commentary on proposed rules

mandating video description. Implementation of Video Description of Video Programming, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 F.C.C.R. 19,845 (1999) ("Notice of Proposed Rulemaking"). The FCC then adopted rules mandating television

programming with video descriptions. Implementation of

Video Description of Video Programming, Report and Order,

15 F.C.C.R. 15,230 (2000) ("Report and Order"). The Motion

Picture Association of America ("MPAA") and the National

Federation of the Blind ("NFB") both petitioned this court

for review of the agency's regulations mandating video descriptions. MPAA contends that the new regulations should

be struck down because they are not authorized by s 1 and

they are precluded by s 713 of the Act. See 47 U.S.C.

ss 151, 613. NFB contends that the regulations should be

rejected as arbitrary and capricious, because the FCC failed

to assess whether visually impaired persons actually want or

need video description, as opposed to rules requiring spoken

articulation of on-screen text.

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 3 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

By its terms, the Act does not provide the FCC with the

authority to enact video description rules. Contrary to the

FCC's arguments suggesting otherwise, s 1, 47 U.S.C. s 151,

does not give the FCC unlimited authority to act as it sees fit

with respect to all aspects of television transmissions, without

regard to the scope of the proposed regulations. We hold

that where, as in this case, the FCC promulgates regulations

that significantly implicate program content, s 1 is not a

source of authority. Because the FCC can point to no other

statutory authority, the video description regulations must be

vacated. Accordingly, MPAA's petition for review is hereby

granted. NFB's petition for review is dismissed as moot,

because the regulations to which they object will be vacated

pursuant to the court's judgment in this case.

I. Background

The Telecommunications Act added to the Communications

Act new video programming accessibility provisions involving

closed captioning and video description. 47 U.S.C. s 613.

Video description is defined in the statute to include "the

insertion of audio narrated descriptions of a television program's key visual elements into natural pauses between the

program's dialogue." Id. s 613(g). Video descriptions are

usually transmitted over a secondary audio programming

channel, a subcarrier that allows video distributors to transmit additional soundtracks, such as foreign language programming. Closed Captioning and Video Description of

Video Programming, Report, 11 F.C.C.R. 19,214, 19,221

(1996) ("Video Accessibility Report").

There is a marked difference between Congress' treatment

of closed captioning and video description in s 713 of the Act.

The new provision required the FCC to complete an inquiry

into closed captioning, and report the results to Congress

within 180 days of the Act's passage. 47 U.S.C. s 613(a). It

also affirmatively required that the FCC prescribe regulations for the implementation of closed captioning, id. s 613(b),

and established compliance deadlines for that action, id.

s 613(c). In contrast, s 713 only required that the FCC

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 4 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

prepare a video description report for Congress; it did not

mandate any implementation of visual descriptions. Id.

s 613(f).

The initial House bill preceding the enactment of s 713

would have required the FCC to adopt video description

rules. See Report and Order, 15 F.C.C.R. at 15,274 n.9

(Powell, dissenting) (noting that H.R. 3636 s 206 provided

that the FCC "shall, within 1 year of enactment of the [video

programming accessibility] section, prescribe such regulations

as are necessary to ensure that all video programming is fully

accessible to individuals with disabilities through the provision of closed captioning service and video description" (emphases and bracketed language in original)). However, the

bill was amended in committee to provide a discretionary

grant of authority rather than mandate that the FCC provide

video description. The new language provided that, "[f]ollowing the completion of such inquiry, the Commission may

adopt regulation [sic] it deems necessary to promote the

accessibility of video programming to persons with visual

impairments." Amendment No. 8 to H.R. 3636 (Moorhead)

(Mar. 16, 1994), reprinted in Joint Appendix ("J.A.") 237.

This new version of the bill passed the House in 1995. H.R.

1555, s 204(f), 104th Cong. (1st Sess. 1995), reprinted in J.A.

254-59.

The corresponding Senate bill, however, only directed the

FCC to report to Congress about video description: It neither mandated video description nor provided the FCC with

discretionary authority to adopt such rules. S. 652, s 305,

104th Cong. (1st Sess. 1995), reprinted in J.A. 251-53. The

conference committee adopted the Senate version, abandoning the House language providing the FCC with discretionary

authority. Congress passed this version of the bill and the

President signed it into law.

After the enactment of s 713, the FCC issued the report

that the Act mandated. The report stated that "the best

course is ... to continue to collect information and monitor

the deployment of video description and the development of

standards for new video technologies that are likely to affect

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 5 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the availability of video description." Video Accessibility

Report, 11 F.C.C.R. at 19,271. The FCC supplemented this

report with a second report, Annual Assessment of the Status

of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video

Programming, Report, 13 F.C.C.R. 1034 (1998). Then, in

1999, the FCC announced that it was seeking commentary on

proposed rules that would mandate video description. Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 F.C.C.R. 19,845. The Commission sought commentary, inter alia, about whether the FCC

possessed statutory authority to enact such rules. Id. at

19,857-59 pp 34-39.

After reviewing the comments, the FCC voted 3-2 to adopt

rules requiring certain video programmers to supplement

certain programming with video descriptions. See Report

and Order, 15 F.C.C.R. 15,230. The FCC concluded that it

possessed the statutory authority to adopt these rules pursuant to s 1 of the Act. 47 U.S.C. s 151. Section 1 gives the

FCC authority to regulate "interstate and foreign commerce

in communication by wire and radio so as to make available,

so far as possible, to all the people of the United States.... a

rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio

communication service...." 47 U.S.C. s 151. The FCC

majority also rejected the argument that s 713, 47 U.S.C.

s 613, precluded the agency from mandating video description merely because the provision only authorized the FCC to

conduct an inquiry. Report and Order, 15 F.C.C.R. at 15,252-

54 pp 57-61. Finally, the FCC found that the record demonstrated "the importance of video description to persons with

visual disabilities." Id. at 15,232 p 4. The FCC primarily

based this conclusion on the American Council for the Blind's

submission, which contained more than 250 e-mails and letters of support for the rules. Id.

The FCC's video description rules require commercial television broadcasters affiliated with the top four commercial

networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC) to provide fifty hours

of video description per quarter during either prime time or

children's programming. 47 C.F.R. s 79.3(b)(1). The rules

also require multichannel video programming distributors

that serve 50,000 or more subscribers to provide fifty hours of

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 6 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

video description per quarter during prime time or children's

programming on each channel that carries one of the top five

nonbroadcast networks. Id. s 79.3(b)(3).

Commissioners Powell and Furchtgott-Roth dissented from

the visual description order, because they did not believe that

the Communications Act authorized the FCC to adopt video

description rules. Id. at 15,268-69 (Furchtgott-Roth, dissenting); 15,272-76 (Powell, dissenting).

Various parties sought reconsideration of the FCC's Order,

primarily on the ground that the rules exceeded the FCC's

legal authority. Petition for Reconsideration of the MPAA,

MM Docket No. 99-339, Oct. 11, 2000, reprinted in J.A. 330-

38; Petition for Partial Reconsideration and Clarification

Submitted by the National Association of Broadcasters, MM

Docket No. 99-339, Oct. 11, 2000, reprinted in J.A. 339-54;

Petition for Reconsideration of the National Cable Television

Association, MM Docket No. 99-339, Oct. 11, 2000, reprinted

in J.A. 355-74. The FCC denied reconsideration, although it

did refine certain implementation issues related to the new

rules. Implementation of Video Description of Video Programming, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 16 F.C.C.R. 1251 (2001), erratum issued, 66 Fed.

Reg. 16,618 (Mar. 27, 2001). MPAA and NFB then filed

petitions for review.

II. Analysis

A. Standard of Review

In deciding whether to defer to the FCC's construction of

the Act, we adhere to the tests enunciated by the Supreme

Court in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) and United States v. Mead

Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). In Chevron, the Court held that,

"[i]f the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the

matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect

to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." 467

US. 842-43. This is so-called "Chevron Step One" review. If

Congress "has not directly addressed the precise question" at

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 7 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

issue, and the agency has acted pursuant to an express or

implicit delegation of authority, the agency's interpretation of

the statute is entitled to deference so long as it is "reasonable" and not otherwise "arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly

contrary to the statute." Id. at 843-44. This is so-called

"Chevron Step Two" review. In either situation, the agency's

interpretation of the statute is not entitled to deference

absent a delegation of authority from Congress to regulate in

the areas at issue. See Ry. Labor Executives Ass'n v. Nat'l

Mediation Bd., 29 F.3d 655, 671 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (en banc)

(Chevron "deference is warranted only when Congress has

left a gap for the agency to fill pursuant to an express or

implied 'delegation of authority to the agency."') (quoting

Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843-44).

Mead reinforces Chevron's command that deference to an

agency's interpretation of a statute is due only when the

agency acts pursuant to "delegated authority." 533 U.S. at

226-27. The Court in Mead also makes it clear that, even if

an agency has acted within its delegated authority, no Chevron deference is due unless the agency's action has the "force

of law." Id. at 227.

In this case, the principal question is whether Congress

"delegated authority" to the FCC to promulgate visual description regulations. Absent such authority, we need not

decide whether the regulations are otherwise "reasonable."

An agency may not promulgate even reasonable regulations

that claim a force of law without delegated authority from

Congress.

B. The FCC Lacks Statutory Authority to Adopt the

Video Description Rules

MPAA argues that s 713 precludes the adoption of rules

mandating video description and that s 1 does not otherwise

authorize the FCC to adopt video description rules. We

largely agree, although we rest principally on the latter point.

1. Section 713

There is no doubt that s 713, 47 U.S.C. s 613, by its terms,

does not provide the FCC with the authority to enact video

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 8 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

description rules, and the FCC does not suggest that it does.

The harder question is whether the provision effectively bars

the FCC from mandating video description.

Statutory provisions in pari materia normally are construed together to discern their meaning. Erlenbaugh v.

United States, 409 U.S. 239, 244 (1972) (noting that the rule

that statutes in pari materia should be construed together

"is ... a logical extension of the principle that individual

sections of a single statute should be construed together");

Holyoke Water Power Co. v. FERC, 799 F.2d 755, 766 (D.C.

Cir. 1986) ("The three sections are in pari materia and must

be read together."); FAIC Sec., Inc. v. United States, 768

F.2d 352, 363 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("[T]hese two statutes are in

pari materia and must be construed together."). Here, when

subsections (a), (b), and (f) of s 713 - all addressed to video

programming accessibility - are construed together, a strong

argument can be made that Congress meant not to authorize

the Commission to mandate video description. The dissenting opinion of FCC Chairman Powell powerfully demonstrates this point. See 15 F.C.C.R. at 15,274-76 (Powell,

dissenting).

Subsections (a) and (f) merely call for the FCC to undertake studies on closed captioning and video description, respectively. Subsection (f), which deals with video description,

provides:

Within 6 months after the date of enactment of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 [enacted Feb. 8, 1996],

the Commission shall commence an inquiry to examine

the use of video descriptions on video programming in

order to ensure the accessibility of video programming to

persons with visual impairments, and report to Congress

on its findings. The Commission's report shall assess

appropriate methods and schedules for phasing video

descriptions into the marketplace, technical and quality

standards for video descriptions, a definition of programming for which video descriptions would apply, and other

technical and legal issues that the Commission deems

appropriate.

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 9 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

47 U.S.C. s 613(f). In contrast, subsection (b) affirmatively

mandates that

the Commission shall prescribe such regulations as are

necessary to implement this section. Such regulations

shall ensure that - (1) video programming first published

or exhibited after the effective date of such regulations is

fully accessible through the provision of closed captions

...; and (2) video programming providers or owners

maximize the accessibility of video programming first

published or exhibited prior to the effective date of such

regulations through the provision of closed captions....

47 U.S.C. s 613(b). The difference in the language employed

in these sections makes it clear that subsection (f) is not

intended to provide a mandate for video description requirements. Subsection (f) neither parallels the closed captioning

mandate contained in subsection (b) nor suggests that Congress provided the FCC with discretionary authority to adopt

video description rules.

We need not decide whether s 713 positively forecloses

agency rules mandating video description. Rather, we find

that s 713 does not authorize the FCC to adopt such rules.

We also find that, when coupled with the absence of authority

under s 1 (discussed below), s 713 clearly supports the conclusion that the FCC is barred from mandating video description. We now turn to the question whether s 1, or any other

provision in the Act, authorizes the Commission to mandate

video description.

2. Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934

The FCC's Report and Order argues that the FCC's authority to mandate video description is derived from the

combination of s 1 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.

s 151, s 2(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. s 152(a) (stating that

"[t]he provisions of this Act shall apply to all interstate and

foreign communication by wire or radio ... and to all persons

engaged within the United States in such communication"),

s 4(i) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. s 154(i) (stating that "[t]he

Commission may perform any and all acts, make such rules

and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 10 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions"), and s 303(r) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. s 303(r) (stating

that "the Commission from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires shall ... [m]ake such

rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and

conditions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to

carry out the provisions of this Act"). At oral argument,

counsel for the FCC essentially conceded that if the agency

cannot find its authority in s 1 then the video description

regulations must be vacated by the court. We agree.

The FCC's majority opinion argues that s 1 authorizes the

agency to mandate video description, because

Congress ... authorized the Commission to make available to all Americans a radio and wire communication

service, and to promote safety and life through such

service, and to make such regulations to carry out that

mandate, that are consistent with the public interest and

not inconsistent with other provisions of the Act or other

law.

15 F.C.C.R. 15,252. This is a very frail argument, in no small

part because it completely ignores the fact that video description regulations significantly implicate program content.

There is no doubt that the video description rules regulate

programming content. Video description is not a regulation

of television transmission that only incidentally and minimally

affects program content; it is a direct and significant regulation of program content. The rules require programmers to

create a second script. As Chairman Powell noted in his

dissent, "video description is a creative work. It requires a

producer to evaluate a program, write a script, select actors,

decide what to describe, decide how to describe it and choose

what style or what pace. In contrast, closed captioning is a

straight translation of dialogue into text." Report and Order,

15 F.C.C.R. at 15,278 (Powell, dissenting). Ultimately, video

descriptions require a writer to amend a script to fill in audio

pauses that were not originally intended to be filled. Not

only will producers and script writers be required to decide

on what to describe, how to characterize it, and the style and

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 11 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

pace of video descriptions, but script writers will have to

describe subtleties in movements and mood that may not

translate easily. And many movements in a scene admit of

several interpretations, or their meaning is purposely left

vague to enhance the program content. In short, it is clear

that the implementation of video descriptions invariably

would entail subjective and artistic judgments that concern

and affect program content. The FCC has even acknowledged that the creation of this second script "raises creativity

... issues." Video Accessibility Report, 11 F.C.C.R. at

19,221. These effects are not insignificant, and there can be

no doubt that the result is a direct regulation of program

content.

The FCC's arguments to the contrary are entirely unpersuasive. See Report and Order, 15 F.C.C.R. at 15,254-56.

First, the Commission is wrong in its claim that video descriptions are the same as closed captioning. One is a simple

transcript, a precise repetition of the spoken words. The

other requires an interpretation of visual scenes. They are

not the same. Second, the FCC's statement that video

descriptions are "not related to content" is specious. Id. at

15,255. FCC's counsel would not even endorse that position

at oral argument. Requiring someone to change or add to a

program script is related to the program's content. Finally,

the FCC claims that the video description regulations are

"content-neutral." Id. at 15,254-55. We need not decide that

issue, because it is irrelevant. The question that we face is

whether s 1 provides the FCC with authority to promulgate

regulations that significantly regulate programming content.

The content-neutrality of the rules is irrelevant to the inquiry

of the FCC's delegated authority.

During oral argument, counsel for the FCC acknowledged

that it was not self-evident from the statute that the FCC is

authorized to regulate program content pursuant to s 1.

Counsel's hesitation was well placed, because s 1 merely

authorizes the agency to ensure that all people of the United

States, without discrimination, have access to wire and radio

communication transmissions. Section 1 does not otherwise

authorize the FCC to regulate program content, as the video

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 12 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

description regulations clearly do. Both the terms of s 1 and

the case law amplifying it focus on the FCC's power to

promote the accessibility and universality of transmission, not

to regulate program content. Neither the FCC's Order nor

its brief to this court cite any authority to suggest otherwise.

To regulate in the area of programming, the FCC must find

its authority in provisions other than s 1. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C.

s 531 (governing designation of cable channels for public,

educational, or governmental use).

The Communications Act was implemented for the purpose

of consolidating federal authority over communications in a

single agency to assure "an adequate communication system

for this country." S. Rep. No. 73-830, at 3 (1934); see also

H.R. Rep. No. 73-1850, at 3-4 (1934). Given the limited

distribution of communications facilities in 1934, s 1's mandate to serve "all the people of the United States" is a

reference to the geographic availability of service. See Michael J. Aguilar, Note, Micro Radio: A Small Step in the

Return to Localism, Diversity, and Competitiveness in

Broadcasting, 65 Brook. L. Rev. 1133, 1136-37 (1999) (explaining how limited facilities influenced passage of the Communications Act of 1934); see also Nat'l Broad. Co. v. United

States, 319 U.S. 190, 216 (1943) ("The facilities of radio are

limited and therefore precious; they cannot be left to wasteful use without detriment to the public interest."). Under

s 1, Congress delegated authority to the FCC to expand

radio and wire transmissions, so that they would be available

to all U.S. citizens. See, e.g., United States v. Midwest Video

Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 667-68 (1972) ("[T]he critical question ...

is whether the Commission has reasonably determined that

its origination rule will 'further the achievement of longestablished regulatory goals in the field of television broadcasting by increasing the number of outlets for community

self-expression and augmenting the public's choice of programs and types of services...."') (citation omitted); United

States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 172 (1968)

("[I]t was precisely because Congress wished to maintain,

through appropriate administrative control, a grip on the

dynamic aspects of radio transmission ... that it conferred

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 13 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

upon the Commission a unified jurisdiction and broad authority.") (citations, footnotes, and internal quotations omitted).

Section 1 does not address the content of the programs with

respect to which accessibility is to be ensured. In other

words, the FCC's authority under s 1 is broad, but not

without limits.

The cases cited to this court by the FCC do not hold

otherwise. These cases do not relate to program content.

See, e.g., United Video v. FCC, 890 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1989)

(FCC's "syndicated exclusivity" rules found to be contentneutral, not otherwise arbitrary and capricious, and not violative of the Copyright Act of 1976 or the Cable Act of 1984;

s 1 of the Communications Act not implicated); Rural Tel.

Coalition v. FCC, 838 F.2d 1307, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ("As

the Universal Service Fund was proposed in order to further

the objective of making communication service available to all

Americans at reasonable charges, the proposal was within the

Commission's statutory authority. We have recognized previously that universal service is an important FCC objective.");

North Am. Telecomm. Ass'n v. FCC, 772 F.2d 1282 (7th Cir.

1985) (action for review of FCC orders relating to conditions

upon which major telecommunications corporation's regional

operating companies could enter telephone equipment business); GTE Serv. Corp. v. FCC, 474 F.2d 724, 730 (2d Cir.

1973) (regulations prescribing conditions under which common carriers may sell data processing services, designed to

insure that "carriers provide efficient and economic service to

the public").

One of the reasons why s 1 has not been construed to allow

the FCC to regulate programming content is because such

regulations invariably raise First Amendment issues. E.g.,

Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 651 (1994) ("[O]ur

cases have recognized that Government regulation over the

content of program broadcasting must be narrow, and that

broadcast licensees must retain abundant discretion over

programming choices."); Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94, 126 (1973) (describing "the

risk of an enlargement of Government control over the content of broadcast discussion of public issues" as a "problem of

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 14 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

critical importance to broadcast regulation and the First

Amendment"). Indeed, the parties in this case have argued

over whether the video description rules infringe free speech

precepts. See Br. of Petitioner at 39-43; Br. of Respondent

at 35-41. To avoid potential First Amendment issues, the

very general provisions of s 1 have not been construed to go

so far as to authorize the FCC to regulate program content.

Rather, Congress has been scrupulously clear when it intends

to delegate authority to the FCC to address areas significantly implicating program content. E.g., 18 U.S.C. s 1464

("Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language

by means of radio communication shall be fined under this

title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."); 47

U.S.C. s 315 (governing provision of broadcast time to candidates for public office); 47 U.S.C. s 399 ("No noncommercial

educational broadcasting station may support or oppose any

candidate for political office."). And Congress has imposed

limitations on regulations implicating program content. See

47 U.S.C. s 544(f) (providing that "[a]ny Federal agency ...

may not impose requirements regarding the provision or

content of cable services, except as expressly provided in this

title"); see also 47 U.S.C. s 326 (providing that the FCC does

not possess the power of censorship, and "no regulation or

condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission

which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means

of radio communication"). It is therefore clear that s 1 is not

the provision in the Act from which the FCC can find

delegated authority to regulate the content of broadcast

programming. The FCC must look beyond s 1 to find

authority for regulations that significantly implicate program

content.

The FCC's position seems to be that the adoption of rules

mandating video description is permissible because Congress

did not expressly foreclose the possibility. This is an entirely

untenable position. See Ry. Labor Executives, 29 F.3d at 671

("Were courts to presume a delegation of power absent an

express withholding of such power, agencies would enjoy

virtually limitless hegemony, a result plainly out of keeping

with Chevron and quite likely with the Constitution as well.")

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 15 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

(emphasis in original). See also Halverson v. Slater, 129 F.3d

180, 187 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Ry. Labor Executives, 29

F.3d at 671); Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union v.

NLRB, 46 F.3d 82, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (same); see also Ethyl

Corp. v. EPA, 51 F.3d 1053, 1060 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ("We refuse

... to presume a delegation of power merely because Congress has not expressly withheld such power."); Natural Res.

Def. Council v. Reilly, 983 F.2d 259, 266 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

("'[I]t is only legislative intent to delegate such authority that

entitles an agency to advance its own statutory construction

for review under the deferential second prong of Chevron."')

(quoting Kansas City v. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., 923

F.2d 188, 191-92 (D.C. Cir. 1991)) (alteration in original).

Congress enacted the closed captioning and video description provisions of s 713 together. After originally entertaining the possibility of providing the FCC with authority to

adopt video description rules, Congress declined to do so.

This silence surely cannot be read as ambiguity resulting in

delegated authority to the FCC to promulgate the disputed

regulations.

3. Other Statutory Provisions Cited by the Commission

The Commission's brief to this court advances the somewhat opaque argument that the video description rules are

"obviously a 'valid communications policy goal' and in the

public interest." Respondent's Br. at 26. The Commission

thus claims that the regulations are justified under s 303(r),

which permits the FCC to regulate in the public interest "as

may be necessary to carry out the provisions of [the] Act."

47 U.S.C. s 303(r). But this statutory provision simply cannot carry the weight of the Commission's argument. The

FCC cannot act in the "public interest" if the agency does not

otherwise have the authority to promulgate the regulations at

issue. An action in the public interest is not necessarily

taken to "carry out the provisions of the Act," nor is it

necessarily authorized by the Act. The FCC must act pursuant to delegated authority before any "public interest" inquiry

is made under s 303(r). This of course means, as FCC

counsel conceded at oral argument, that the video description

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 16 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

rules are arguably justified only if the FCC had authority to

act pursuant to s 1 of the Act.

The FCC's suggestion that s 4(i), without more, gives the

agency authority to promulgate the disputed rules cannot

withstand scrutiny. Chairman Powell's discussion of this

provision says it all:

It is important to emphasize that section 4(i) is not a

stand-alone basis of authority and cannot be read in

isolation. It is more akin to a "necessary and proper"

clause. Section 4(i)'s authority must be "reasonably

ancillary" to other express provisions. And, by its express terms, our exercise of that authority cannot be

"inconsistent" with other provisions of the Act. The

reason for these limitations is plain: Were an agency

afforded carte blanche under such a broad provision,

irrespective of subsequent congressional acts that did not

squarely prohibit action, it would be able to expand

greatly its regulatory reach.

15 F.C.C.R. at 15,276 (Powell, dissenting). We agree.

Finally, there is really nothing to be said about s 2(a), 47

U.S.C. s 152(a), which was also cited by the FCC in support

of the video description regulations. This provision does not,

on its own, support the regulations. Neither the FCC's

Order nor counsel's argument on behalf of the FCC suggested otherwise.

In short, the FCC can point to no statutory provision that

gives the agency authority to mandate visual description

rules. The rules may be highly salutary. But that is not the

issue before this court and we offer no judgment on the

question. What is determinative here is the FCC acted

without delegated authority from Congress. Section 1 does

not furnish the authority sought, because the regulations

significantly implicate program content and the FCC can cite

no authority in which a court has upheld agency action under

s 1 where program content was at the core of the regulations

at issue. And it does not matter that the disputed rules here

are arguably "content-neutral." The point is that the rules

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 17 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

are about program content and therefore can find no authorization in s 1.

Finally, if there were any serious question about proper

result in this case, all doubt is resolved by reference to s 713.

In s 713(f), Congress authorized and ordered the Commission

to produce a report - nothing more, nothing less. The

statute does not, as with closed captioning, instruct (or even

permit) the FCC to promulgate regulations mandating video

description. Once the Commission completed the task of

preparing the report on video description, its delegated authority on the subject ended.

III. Conclusion

[G]iven the minimal extent to which the FCC and Congress actually influence the programming offered by

broadcast stations, it would be difficult to conclude that

Congress enacted [video description] in an effort to exercise content control.... In a regime where Congress or

the FCC exercised more intrusive control over the content of broadcast programming, an argument similar to

[the argument raised by the Commission] might carry

greater weight. But in the present regulatory system,

those concerns are without foundation.

Turner Broad. Sys., 512 U.S. at 652. Accordingly, for the

reasons given in this opinion, we hereby grant the petition for

review filed by MPAA, and reverse and vacate the Commission's Order insofar as it requires broadcasters to implement

video description.

So ordered.

Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge, concurring:

I believe that section 713 of the Communications Act, 47

U.S.C. s 613, plainly does not authorize the FCC to promulgate video description rules and, for that reason, I fully

concur in that portion of the majority opinion that so holds. I

do not agree, however, that the video description rules constitute "a direct and significant regulation of program content."

Maj. Op. at 11. I fail to see how video description need

consist of anything more than spoken stage directions. If so,

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 18 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

video description, at least in my view, does not regulate

program content. While I agree that section 1 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. s 151, does not provide the FCC

with authority to promulgate the video description rules, it is

not because the rules regulate program content; in my view,

neither section 1, nor any of the other provisions of the Act

the FCC relies on, independently delegates authority that

section 713 plainly withholds.

USCA Case #01-1155 Document #712800 Filed: 11/08/2002 Page 19 of 19