Source: http://thefederalregister.com/2012/11/28/2012-28716.html
Timestamp: 2018-03-17 14:39:45
Document Index: 43549863

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 79', '§ 79', '§ 79', 'art 11', 'art 11', '§ 79', '§ 79', '§ 79', '§ 79', '§ 79', '§ 79', '§ 79', '§ 79', '§ 79', '§ 79', '§ 76', '§ 79', '§ 79', '§ 79', '§ 203']

Federal Register | Accessible Emergency Information, and Apparatus Requirements
[MB Docket No. 12-107; FCC 12-142]
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes rules to implement provisions of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 ("CVAA") that mandate regulations to ensure that emergency information is accessible to individuals who are blind and visually disabled and that television apparatus are able to make available video description and accessible emergency information. The Commission seeks comment on rules that would apply to the distributors, providers, and owners of television video programming, as well as the manufacturers of devices that display such programming.
DATES: Comments are due on or before December 18, 2012; reply comments are due on or before December 28, 2012. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before January 28, 2013.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email toPRA@fcc.govand to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email toNicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.govor via fax at (202) 395-5167. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONsection of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this proceeding, contact Diana Sokolow,Diana.Sokolow@fcc.gov, or Maria Mullarkey,Maria.Mullarkey@fcc.gov, of the Policy Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email toPRA@fcc.govor contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 12-142, adopted on November 16, 2012, and released on November 19, 2012. 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., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS athttp://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email tofcc504@fcc.govor calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
This document contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due January 28, 2013.
Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,see44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
To view or obtain a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to this OMB/GSA Web page:http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, and (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR as show in theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONsection below (or its title if there is no OMB control number) and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.
OMB Control Number:3060-0967.
Title:Section 79.2, Accessibility of Programming Providing Emergency Information; Complaints Alleging Violations of the Apparatus Emergency Information and Video Description Requirements.
Respondents:Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions; State, local, or tribal governments.
Number of Respondents and Responses:80 respondents; 80 responses.
Estimated Time per Response:1-3 hours.
Obligation to Respond:Voluntary. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, and 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 154(j), 303, 307, 309, 310, 330(b) and 613.
Total Annual Burden:93 hours.
Total Annual Costs:$12,600.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment:Yes. The Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) was completed on June 28, 2007. It may be reviewed at:http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html.The Commission is in the process of updating the PIA to incorporate various revisions made to the SORN.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:Confidentiality is an issue to the extent that individuals and households provide personally identifiable information, which is covered under the FCC's system of records notice (SORN), FCC/CGB-1, “Informal Complaints and Inquiries.” As required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission also published a SORN, FCC/CGB-1 “Informal Complaints and Inquiries,” in theFederal Registeron December 15, 2009 (74 FR 66356) which became effective on January 25, 2010.
Needs and Uses:The Commission is seeking approval for this proposed information collection from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). On November 19, 2012, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 12-107; FCC 12-142. This rulemaking proposed information collection requirements that support the Commission's accessible emergency information and apparatus rules that would be codified at 47 CFR 79.2, 79.105, and 79.106, as required by the CVAA.
Complaints alleging violations of the emergency information rules.
Pursuant to existing rule 47 CFR 79.2, consumers may file complaints alleging violations of the accessible emergency information requirements. As a result of the proposed revisions to the existing rule, we have estimated in increase in the number of complaints filed annually pursuant to this rule.
Complaints alleging violations of the apparatus emergency information and video description requirements.
Pursuant to proposals contained in the NPRM, consumers could file complaints alleging violations of the proposed rules containing apparatus emergency information and video description requirements, 47 CFR 79.105-79.106. A complaint alleging a violation of the apparatus rules related to emergency information and video description may be transmitted to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau by any reasonable means, such as the Commission's online informal complaint filing system, letter in writing or Braille, facsimile transmission, telephone (voice/TRS/TTY), email, or some other method that would best accommodate the complainant's disability. Given that the population intended to benefit from the rules adopted would be blind or visually impaired, if a complainant calls the Commission for assistance in preparing a complaint, Commission staff would document the complaint in writing for the consumer and such communication would be deemed a written complaint. The NPRM proposes that such complaints should include certain information about the complainant and the alleged violation. The Commission will forward such complaints, as appropriate, to the named manufacturer or provider for its response, as well as to any other entity that Commission staff determines may be involved, and may request additional information from any relevant parties when, in the estimation of Commission staff, such information is needed to investigate the complaint or adjudicate potential violations of Commission rules.The Commission is seeking OMB approval for the proposed information collection requirements.
1. The Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) initiates this proceeding to implement the provisions of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (“CVAA”) requiring that emergency information be made accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired and that certain equipment be capable of delivering video description and emergency information to those individuals. First, pursuant to section 202 of the CVAA, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) proposes to make televised emergency information1 more accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired by requiring the use of a secondary audio stream to provide emergency information aurally that is conveyed visually during programming other than newscasts. Second, we seek comment under section 203 of the CVAA on how to ensure that television apparatus are able to make available video description,2 as well as to make emergency information accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. Our section 203 discussion focuses on the availability of secondary audio streams, because that is both the mechanism for providing video description and our proposed mechanism for making emergency information accessible.3 Our goal in this proceeding is to enable individuals who are blind or visually impaired to access emergency information and video description services more easily. The proposed revisions to our rules will help fulfill the purpose of the CVAA to “update the communications laws to help ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to fully utilize communications services and equipment and better access video programming.” H.R. Rep. No. 111-563, 111th Cong., 2d Sess. at 19 (2010) (“House Committee Report”); S. Rep. No. 111-386, 111th Cong., 2d Sess. at 1 (2010) (“Senate Committee Report”).
1“Emergency information” is defined in the Commission's rules as “[i]nformation, about a current emergency, that is intended to further the protection of life, health, safety, and property,i.e.,critical details regarding the emergency and how to respond to the emergency.” 47 CFR 79.2(a)(2). Emergency information might pertain to emergencies such as “tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tidal waves, earthquakes, icing conditions, heavy snows, widespread fires, discharge of toxic gases, widespread power failures, industrial explosions, civil disorders, school closings and changes in school bus schedules resulting from such conditions, and warnings and watches of impending changes in weather.”Id.“Critical details include, but are not limited to, specific details regarding the areas that will be affected by the emergency, evacuation orders, detailed descriptions of areas to be evacuated, specific evacuation routes, approved shelters or the way to take shelter in one's home, instructions on how to secure personal property, road closures, and how to obtain relief assistance.” Note to 47 CFR 79.2(a)(2).
2“Video description” is defined as “[t]he insertion of audio narrated descriptions of a television program's key visual elements into natural pauses between the program's dialogue.” 47 CFR 79.3(a)(3).
3A separate proceeding will address sections 204 and 205 of the CVAA, which pertain to user interfaces and video programming guides and menus. Public Notice,Media Bureau and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seek Comment on Second VPAAC Report: User Interfaces, and Video Programming Guides and Menus,27 FCC Rcd 4191 (2012).
2. Section 202 of the CVAA requires the Commission to complete a proceeding to “identify methods toconvey emergency information (as that term is defined in § 79.2 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations) in a manner accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.”4 47 U.S.C. 613(g)(1). The Commission must also “promulgate regulations that require video programming providers and video programming distributors (as those terms are defined in § 79.1 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations) and program owners to convey such emergency information in a manner accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” 47 U.S.C. 613(g)(2). In addition, section 203 of the CVAA directs the Commission to prescribe regulations requiring apparatus to have the capability to decode and make available emergency information in a manner that is accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, and to decode and make available video description services. 47 U.S.C. 303(u)(1). The CVAA requires that the Commission complete its proceeding on access to emergency information by April 9, 2013, and on apparatus requirements for video description and emergency information by October 9, 2013.
4Accessibility of this emergency information is a separate matter from accessibility of an activation of the Emergency Alert System (“EAS”), which facilitates emergency communications from the President, the heads of State and local government, their designated representatives, or the National Weather Service.See47 CFR 11.1. In this proceeding we consider revisions to § 79.2 of our rules, whereas EAS is governed by Part 11 of our rules.Compare47 CFR 79.2 with 47 CFR part 11. In a separate proceeding, the Commission considers ways to make EAS alerts more accessible to persons with disabilities. While the EAS rules apply only to certain emergency communications, as stated above, § 79.2 of the Commission's rules applies more broadly to televised emergency information.Compare47 CFR 11.1 with 47 CFR 79.2.
3. The CVAA also required the Chairman of the Commission to establish an advisory committee known as the Video Programming Accessibility Advisory Committee (“VPAAC”). The Commission announced the establishment of the VPAAC on December 7, 2010, and the committee began meeting in January 2011. The VPAAC divided itself into four advisory working groups, with Working Group 3 focused on emergency information and Working Group 2 focused on video description. Section 201(e)(2) of the CVAA required the VPAAC to submit a report on video description and emergency information to the Commission within 18 months after the date of enactment of the CVAA, or by April 9, 2012. The VPAAC submitted this report on April 9, 2012.5 In the VPAAC Second Report, Working Group 3 presented its findings on methods to convey emergency information to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, including alternatives that it considered and rejected. Working Group 3 concluded that crawls containing emergency information should be made accessible to persons who are blind or visually impaired by transmitting an audio representation of the emergency information on a secondary audio stream, as the Commission now proposes. Working Group 3 also suggested issues that should be analyzed further, and it described variables that may affect implementation deadlines. In a separate section of the same report, Working Group 2 presented information on technical capabilities, protocols, and procedures by which video description reaches the consumer, as well as developments for the delivery of video description. Working Group 2 then set forth its findings and recommendations pertaining to the creation and delivery of video description.6 The Media Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau sought comment on the portions of the VPAAC Second Report that address emergency information and video description.
5Second Report of the Video Programming Accessibility Advisory Committee on the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, available athttp://vpaac.wikispaces.com(“VPAAC Second Report”). The portion of the report that addresses video description is available athttp://vpaac.wikispaces.com/file/view/120409+VPAAC+Video+Description+REPORT+AS+SUBMITTED+4-9-2012.pdf.The portion of the report that addresses access to emergency information is available athttp://vpaac.wikispaces.com/file/view/120409+VPAAC+Access+to+Emergency+Information+REPORT+AS+SUBMITTED+4-9-2012.pdf.
6In presenting its findings and recommendations, the VPAAC discussed the consumer position separately from the industry position where there was not a consensus. Additionally, we note that the VPAAC presented certain recommendations regarding the provision of information about programming that is video described, including proposals that entities be required to provide information about video described programming on their Web sites and to programming information distributors. These issues are beyond the scope of this proceeding, and accordingly we will not consider them here.
4. The Commission previously addressed the issue of making televised emergency information accessible to those who are blind or visually impaired in 2000.Implementation of Video Description of Video Programming,Report and Order, 65 FR 54805 (2000) (“2000 Video Description Order”). The Commission adopted a rule that required broadcast stations and multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”) “that provide[] local emergency information to make the critical details of that information accessible to persons with visual disabilities” in certain situations. Specifically, pursuant to § 79.2 of the Commission's rules, the emergency information requirements for accessibility to persons with visual disabilities vary based on whether the information is provided in the video portion of a newscast. First, if emergency information is provided in the video portion of a regularly scheduled newscast, or in the video portion of a newscast that interrupts regular programming, it must be made accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired.7 47 CFR 79.2(b)(1)(ii). This requires the aural presentation of emergency information that is being provided to viewers visually to be included as part of the primary program audio stream. Second, if emergency information is provided solely visually during programming that is not a newscast (such as through an on-screen crawl), it must be accompanied by an aural tone. 47 CFR 79.2(b)(1)(iii). It is the second situation that is the focus of the instant proceeding. Industry has coalesced around the use of three high-pitched tones to indicate the presence of on-screen emergency information, although the Commission's rules do not specify that three tones must be used. In this situation, when an individual who is blind or visually impaired hears the three tones, he or she must take some other action, such as turning on a radio, to determine the nature and severity of the situation. As a result, individuals who are blind or visually impaired may have inadequate or untimely access to emergency information. This proceeding seeks to remedy this situation by ensuring that the critical details of emergency information provided visually during programming other than a newscast will be fully accessible to those members of the program's audience who are blind or visually impaired.
7Section 79.2 contains a separate requirement that video programming distributors must make emergency information that is provided in the audio portion of the programming accessible to persons with hearing disabilities by using closed captioning or a method of visual presentation. 47 CFR 79.2(b)(1)(i). That requirement is not at issue in this proceeding. Instead, this proceeding involves the portions of § 79.2(b) concerning accessibility to persons with visual disabilities. 47 CFR 79.2(b)(1)(ii) through (iii).
5. In addition to emergency information, we also consider access to video description in this proceeding. Video description services make video programming accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. Video description is the insertion of audio narrated descriptions of atelevision program's key visual elements into natural pauses between the program's dialogue. 47 CFR 79.3(a)(3). Last year, as directed by the CVAA, the Commission reinstated, with certain modifications, video description rules previously vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.See47 U.S.C. 613(f)(1)-(2);Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010,Report and Order, 76 FR 55585 (2011) (“2011 Video Description Order”). The rules require full-power affiliates of the top four national networks located in the top 25 television markets to provide 50 hours per calendar quarter of video-described prime time and/or children's programming. The rules also require MVPDs that operate systems with 50,000 or more subscribers to provide 50 hours per calendar quarter of video-described prime time and/or children's programming on each of the top five non-broadcast networks that they carry on those systems. Broadcast television stations and MVPDs must additionally “pass through” video description if they have the technical capability to do so. Broadcasters and MVPDs were required to be in full compliance with these requirements beginning on July 1, 2012. Video descriptions for digital television are provided as a secondary audio service, and typically a viewer can access video description through an onscreen menu provided by the viewer's home television receiver or set-top box.
6. At the outset, we do not, at this time, extend the scope of the emergency information and video description rules in this proceeding beyond the category of programming already covered by our existing emergency information and video description rules.8 47 CFR 79.2(a)-(b), 79.3(a)-(c). In other words, for purposes of this proceeding, the emergency information and video description rules will continue to apply to television broadcast services and MVPD services, but not to IP-delivered video programming that is not otherwise an MVPD service. Notably, Congress did not explicitly extend the scope of the emergency information rules to IP-delivered video programming, as it did in requiring closed captioning of IP-delivered video programming.9 See47 U.S.C. 613(c). Instead, Congress referenced television-based definitions of video programming distributors and providers. 47 U.S.C. 613(g)(2). In addition, as a practical matter, we note that the VPAAC found that “at this time * * * there does not appear to be any uniform or consistent methodology for delivering emergency information via the Internet.” Similarly, we note that the CVAA directs that the Commission's video description regulations “shall apply to video programming * * * insofar as such programming is transmitted for display on television in digital format.” 47 U.S.C. 613(f)(2)(A). Accordingly, the video description rules require video description only by television broadcast stations and MVPDs. Consistent with this view and as explained more fully below, we propose to limit the scope of the apparatus rules that the Commission will adopt in this proceeding to apparatus that make available the type of programming that is subject to our existing emergency information rules, as set forth in § 79.2, and our existing video description rules, as set forth in § 79.3,i.e.,apparatus designed to receive, play back, or record broadcast or MVPD service. We seek comment on this analysis.
8We note that Congress directed the Commission to conduct inquiries on further video description requirements in the future. 47 U.S.C. 613(f)(3).
9We note, however, that Congress charged the VPAAC to report and make recommendations to the Commission with respect to the delivery of accessible emergency information and video description using IP. Public Law 111-260, sections 201(e)(2)(B), (C), and (E) (charging the VPAAC to identify “the performance objectives * * * needed to permit content providers, content distributors, Internet service providers, software developers, and device manufacturers to reliably encode, transport, receive, and render video descriptions of video programming, except for consumer generated media, and emergency information delivered using Internet protocol or digital broadcast television”; to identify “additional protocols * * * for the delivery of video descriptions of video programming, except for consumer generated media, and emergency information delivered using Internet protocol or digital broadcast television * * *”; and to recommend “any regulations that may be necessary to ensure compatibility between video programming, except for consumer generated media, delivered using Internet protocol or digital broadcast television and devices capable of receiving and displaying such programming, except for consumer generated media, in order to facilitate access to video descriptions and emergency information”).
7. The CVAA requires us to “promulgate regulations that require video programming providers and video programming distributors [as defined in § 79.1 of our rules] and program owners to convey such emergency information in a manner accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” 47 U.S.C. 613(g)(2). Based upon the VPAAC Second Report and the record assembled in this proceeding regarding the relative advantages and disadvantages of several possible methods, discussed below, we propose to require covered entities to make emergency information that is provided visually during programming that is not a newscast (such as that provided via crawls) accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired by using a secondary audio stream to provide that emergency information aurally and concurrently with the emergency information being conveyed visually.
8. As noted above, our emergency information rules currently require video programming distributors to do two things to make emergency information accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.10 First, for emergency information that is provided in the video portion of a regularly scheduled newscast or a newscast that interrupts regular programming, they must make the emergency information accessible to persons with visual disabilities. 47 CFR 79.2(b)(1)(ii). This accessibility is achieved through the aural presentation in the main program audio of emergency information that is being provided to viewers visually. No commenters indicated a need to revise the existing rules for this situation. We, therefore, do not propose any substantive changes to this requirement and expect covered entities to comply with the existing rule.
10We note that, in addition to the provisions addressing accessibility to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, our emergency information rules also contain a provision addressing accessibility to individuals with hearing disabilities. 47 CFR 79.2(b)(1)(i) (requiring that “[e]mergency information that is provided in the audio portion of the programming must be made accessible to persons with hearing disabilities by using a method of closed captioning or by using a method of visual presentation, as described in § 79.1 of this part”). The emergency information provisions of section 202 of the CVAA are focused on individuals who are blind or visually impaired, and not on individuals who are deaf or hearing impaired. 47 U.S.C. 613(g) (requiring the Commission to adopt rules relating to conveying emergency information “in a manner accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired”). Accordingly, accessibility of emergency information to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing is not at issue in this proceeding.
9. Second, for emergency information that is provided in the video portion of programming that is not a regularly scheduled newscast or a newscast that interrupts regular programming, under our current rules video programming distributors must accompany the emergency information with an aural tone. 47 CFR 79.2(b)(1)(iii). We seek comment on our proposal to modify this requirement as the VPAAC advocates by requiring video programming distributors to make emergency information available on a secondary audio stream, if that information is provided visually in programming thatis not a newscast.11 Under this approach, consumers would be alerted to the presence of such emergency information through the already-required aural tone that accompanies this emergency information, and the emergency information would be accessible to consumers who are blind or visually impaired who switch to a secondary audio stream. The VPAAC, which includes representatives of the industry and consumer groups, supports the use of a secondary audio stream for this purpose. According to the VPAAC, MVPDs, including cable operators, direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) providers, and Internet protocol television providers (“IPTV providers”), are technically capable of providing access to emergency information through the secondary audio streams. The National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”) also supports the approach of using the secondary audio stream to provide emergency information that is conveyed in an onscreen crawl in a manner that is audibly accessible.
11We also propose a non-substantive edit to our existing emergency information rules. Specifically, we propose to change references to “[e]mergency information that is provided in the video portion” in the current rules to “[e]mergency information that is provided visually.” We welcome comment on this proposal.
10. We seek comment on the benefits of providing accessible emergency information on a secondary audio stream and the incremental costs of providing a secondary audio stream for this purpose. Are there any broadcasters or MVPDs that do not currently provide a secondary audio stream, and if so, should the new rules apply any differently to them? We explained in the2011 Video Description Orderthat certain stations and MVPDs may lack the technical capability to pass through video description, and therefore the Commission reinstated a technical capability exception. Are there technical capability issues that should be taken into account in the context of requiring emergency information to be provided on a secondary audio stream? If lack of technical capability is an issue, how should the Commission consider it in revising its emergency information rules as proposed herein? If a video programming distributor does not currently make available a secondary audio stream, but it has the technical capability to do so, should the Commission require it to make available a secondary audio stream that could be used to provide emergency information? Or are there alternative ways for video programming distributors that do not have a secondary audio stream to provide such information? What impact, if any, would the proposals contained in thisNPRMhave on broadcasters' ability to channel share? What additional bandwidth, if any, would MVPDs need to transmit multiple audio streams, and how would this affect their networks if they carry multiple audio streams for all channels? Are any broadcasters or MVPDs providing more than two audio streams? If there are more than two audio streams available, what is provided or should be provided on those audio streams and how will consumers know which one to tune to for emergency information? Should aurally accessible emergency information always be provided on the audio stream containing video description, rather than on a stream dedicated to aurally accessible emergency information or containing other program-related material, such as a Spanish or other language audio stream? We seek comment on whether and how the proposals contained herein should apply to EAS alerts. For example, to what extent is emergency information provided as visual-only EAS alerts?See47 CFR 11.51.
11. We invite input on the implementation of our proposal to require covered entities to make emergency information that is provided visually during programming that is not a newscast (such as that provided via crawls) accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired by using a secondary audio stream to provide that emergency information aurally and concurrently with the emergency information being conveyed visually. What time frame is appropriate for requiring covered entities to convey emergency information in a secondary audio stream? What steps must covered entities take to meet this requirement? Should we require covered entities to provide customer support services to assist consumers who are blind or visually impaired to navigate between the main and secondary audio streams to access accessible emergency information? We seek comment on whether the Commission should update its definition of “emergency information.”See47 CFR 79.2(a)(2). For example, to what extent are severe thunderstorms currently considered to be “emergencies” subject to our rule? To the extent they are currently covered, should they be added to the list of examples in the rule? Are there other examples of emergencies that should explicitly be included in our definition of “emergency information”? What impact would revising our definition of emergency information have on the availability of video description, given that, under our proposal above, both services will be provided using a secondary audio stream?
12. Assuming the Commission requires that visual emergency information be made accessible by means of a secondary audio stream, to what extent should the Commission permit the use of text-to-speech (“TTS”) technologies? TTS is a technology that generates an audio version of a textual message. The VPAAC found TTS to be essential for conveying emergency information because of the speed with which it can generate the necessary audio.12 In a proceeding regarding EAS earlier this year, the Commission initially noted “concerns in the record about whether text-to-speech software is sufficiently accurate and reliable to deliver consistently accurate and timely alerts to the public,” and deferred consideration of that issue to a later proceeding. However, upon reconsideration, the Commission subsequently determined that it would permit, but not require, regulated entities to use TTS to render EAS audio from the text of EAS alerts formatted in the Common Alerting Protocol until the merits of mandating TTS use for EAS purposes have been more fully developed in the record. We seek comment on the accuracy and reliability of current TTS technology and, more specifically, whether it is sufficiently accurate and reliable for rendering an aural translation of emergency information text on a secondary audio stream, as proposed above. What would be the costs and benefits of using TTS for this purpose? We also seek comment on other concerns related to this issue, including the need to timely provide emergency information. To the extent commenters consider TTS too unreliable for this purpose, we seek comment on how TTS can be made more reliable, as well as effective and timely alternatives to TTS and their costs and benefits.
12We also note that, if textual data is also transmitted as a separate file within the broadcast stream, it can also be made available for other assistive technologies and language translation systems that have the potential to enhance access to emergency information both for consumers with and without visual impairments. For example, in addition to providing audio, apparatus could display the textual information in large print for viewers who are deaf and have a visual impairment. Further, by permitting the text to be converted to speech in the apparatus, it could be possible for an apparatus to translate emergency information to a language other than English, or to provide emergency information when the viewer is using that apparatus for something other than watching covered video programming. We seek comment on these possibilities.
13. Should we require emergency information presented aurally to be identical to that presented textually, or should differences be permissible as long as the information presented aurally is comprehensive and satisfies the requirements of § 79.2(a)(2)? We note that emergency information is defined as “[i]nformation, about a current emergency, that is intended to further the protection of life, health, safety, and property,i.e.,critical details regarding the emergency and how to respond to the emergency.” 47 CFR 79.2(a)(2). The rule's accompanying note requires the inclusion of “specificdetails regarding the areas that will be affected by the emergency, evacuation orders, detailed descriptions of areas to be evacuated, specific evacuation routes, approved shelters or the way to take shelter in one's home, instructions on how to secure personal property, road closures, and how to obtain relief assistance.” Must the information provided aurally be verbatim to the text provided to comply with this directive? Should the emergency information provided aurally be abbreviated where the information presented textually is particularly lengthy, for example, where it lists many school district closings in the viewing area? Given the potential use of the secondary audio stream for both emergency information and video description, how can we ensure that video description is not unduly interrupted? Should we require covered entities to repeat the aural version of emergency information on the secondary audio stream or take some other action to ensure that consumers have sufficient time to tune in after hearing the required aural tones? Is visual but non-textual emergency information—such as a map showing the path of a storm—sometimes provided during programming that is not a newscast? Are such visual displays (e.g.,maps) always accompanied by a crawl or scroll containing a textual version of the emergency information conveyed by that visual display? What requirements should apply to the aural description of visual but non-textual emergency information?
14. The Commission's rules currently prohibit emergency information from blocking video description, and they prohibit video description from blocking emergency information provided by means other than video description. 47 CFR 79.2(b)(3)(ii). The VPAAC recommends eliminating the portion of this rule that prohibits emergency information from blocking video description, given their recommendation that “emergency information conveyed visually by crawl or scroll also be conveyed aurally utilizing the same audio stream as the video description audio stream.” The VPAAC recommends that § 79.2(b)(3)(ii) be amended to read as follows: “Any video description provided should not block any emergency information provided by video description or by means other than video description.” We propose that this be simplified to read as follows: “Any video description provided should not block any emergency information.” We seek comment on this proposal. Should this proposal be expanded to require such aural emergency information to supersede any content that may be present on the secondary audio stream (e.g.,video description, Spanish or other languages, a duplicate of the main audio, or silence)?
15. Do the proposed revisions to the emergency information requirements necessitate any revisions to FCC Form 2000C, the disability access complaint form, or the existing complaint procedures contained in § 79.2(c) of our rules? If so, what revisions are needed?
16. We also seek comment on the roles of the various entities listed in section 202. That provision mandates that we “require video programming providers and video programming distributors (as those terms are defined in section 79.1 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations) and program owners to convey such emergency information in a manner accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” 47 U.S.C. 613(g)(2). Section 79.1 of our rules defines a “video programming distributor” as “[a]ny television broadcast station licensed by the Commission and any multichannel video programming distributor as defined in § 76.1000(e) of this chapter, and any other distributor of video programming for residential reception that delivers such programming directly to the home and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.” 47 CFR 79.1(a)(2). That section defines a “video programming provider” as “[a]ny video programming distributor and any other entity that provides video programming that is intended for distribution to residential households including, but not limited to broadcast or nonbroadcast television network and the owners of such programming.” 47 CFR 79.1(a)(3). Section 79.2 of the Commission's rules currently imposes emergency information accessibility requirements on video programming distributors only, but section 202(a) of the CVAA requires us to promulgate regulations containing requirements for video programming providers and program owners as well as video programming distributors. 47 U.S.C. 613(g)(2). What role should video programming distributors, video programming providers, and program owners play in ensuring that emergency information is conveyed in an accessible manner? Should video programming distributors hold the primary responsibility, with video programming providers and program owners being prohibited from interfering with or hindering a video programming distributor's provision of accessible emergency information? Or, are there certain responsibilities that should be allocated to each of the covered entities? What entity is generally responsible for preparing a crawl or scroll containing emergency information, and how does that responsibility affect the obligation to provide an aural version of the information?
17. As noted, § 79.1 of the Commission's rules includes definitions for the terms “video programming provider” and “video programming distributor,” but it does not define “program owner.”See47 CFR 79.1(a)(2)-(3). The definition of “video programming provider” does, however, include a “broadcast or nonbroadcast television network and the owners of such programming.” 47 CFR 79.1(a)(3). We seek comment on whether it is necessary to separately define a video programming owner in the present context. In the context of closed captioning of IP-delivered video programming, the Commission defined a video programming owner as “any person or entity that either (i) licenses the video programming to a video programming distributor or provider that makes the video programming available directly to the end user through a distribution method that uses Internet protocol; or (ii) acts as the video programming distributor or provider, and also possesses the right to license the video programming to a video programming distributor or provider that makes the video programming available directly to the end user through a distribution method that uses Internet protocol.”Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010,Report and Order, 77 FR 19480 (2012) (“IP Closed Captioning Order”). Although the references in this definition to “a distribution method that uses Internet protocol” are specific to the IP closed captioning proceeding, and thus would not be applicable here, the definition may be useful as a startingpoint for purposes of defining “program owner” in this context. For example, for purposes of this proceeding, we seek comment on whether we should define a video programming owner as any person or entity that either (i) licenses the video programming to a video programming distributor or provider, as those terms are defined in § 79.1 of the Commission's rules; or (ii) acts as the video programming distributor or provider, and also possesses the right to license the video programming to a video programming distributor or provider, as those terms are defined in § 79.1 of the Commission's rules.
18. The VPAAC identified additional or alternative methods to convey emergency information in a manner accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, other than the use of a secondary audio stream.13 For example, the VPAAC considered alternatives such as: (1) Including a shortened audio version of the textual emergency information on the primary stream; or (2) broadcasting a 5 to 10 second audio message after the three high-pitched tones announcing the start of a textual message, to inform individuals who are blind or visually impaired of a means by which they could access the emergency information, such as a telephone number or radio station. According to the VPAAC, these alternatives could be used in concert with each other, but they would have disadvantages, including interruption to the main program audio and the need for sufficient resources to create and manage the brief audio messages. Should we require (on an interim basis) or permit covered entities to use one or more of these alternative approaches in concert with the use of the secondary audio stream that we propose above? The VPAAC also considered and rejected other alternatives that it determined either did not meet the requirements of the CVAA, relied upon technology or services that are not widely available, or involved additional problems.14 We invite comment on whether the alternatives rejected by VPAAC merit further consideration. We ask commenters to identify any other alternative methods by which video programming providers and distributors and program owners can make emergency information accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. Are any such alternatives preferable to our proposal, which requires the use of a secondary audio stream? How would the costs and benefits of any alternate proposals compare to the costs and benefits of the proposed use of the secondary audio stream discussed herein?
13The CVAA requires us to “identify methods to convey emergency information * * * in a manner accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” 47 U.S.C. 613(g)(1).
14The VPAAC rejected the following alternatives: (1) “dipping” or lowering the main program audio and playing an aural message over the lowered audio; (2) providing screen reader software or devices on request; (3) enabling users to select and enlarge emergency crawl text; (4) providing guidance for consumers, such as how to switch to a secondary audio channel, which is insufficient as a standalone solution; and (5) using an Internet-based standardized application to filter emergency information by location.
B. Apparatus Requirements for Emergency Information and Video Description
19. Pursuant to section 203 of the CVAA, the Commission must require certain apparatus to have the capability to decode and make available required video description services and emergency information in a manner accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. 47 U.S.C. 303(u), (z), 330(b). The Commission must prescribe these requirements by October 9, 2013. The regulations promulgated as part of the current proceeding must include “any technical standards, protocols, and procedures needed for the transmission of” video description and emergency information. Public Law 111-260, § 203(d). Below we seek comment on requirements for apparatus with regard to video description and emergency information. Our section 203 discussion focuses on the availability of secondary audio streams, because that is both the current mechanism for providing video description and our proposed mechanism for making emergency information accessible.
1. Requirements for Apparatus Subject to Section 203 of the CVAA
20. Pursuant to section 203 of the CVAA, “apparatus designed to receive or play back video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound, if such apparatus is manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States and uses a picture screen of any size,” must “have the capability to decode and make available the transmission and delivery of” required video description services. 47 U.S.C. 303(u)(1)(B). Such apparatus must also “have the capability to decode and make available emergency information * * * in a manner that is accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” 47 U.S.C. 303(u)(1)(C). We seek comment on the meaning of these requirements. What specific capabilities should the Commission mandate? What steps must manufacturers of covered apparatus take to ensure that video description services and emergency information provided via a secondary audio stream are available and accessible? How should we balance the costs of compliance for apparatus subject to section 203 of the CVAA and the benefits to consumers? With respect to MVPD-provided apparatus, should we impose different requirements on equipment provided by different types of MVPDs? For example, the House Committee Report indicated that DBS providers may face unique technical challenges pertaining to compliance with section 203 of the CVAA. We seek comment on whether apparatus should have the capability to make textual emergency information audible through the use of text-to-speech, consistent with our discussion above in paragraph 12 or whether there are any other specific capabilities that apparatus would need to include to comply with these requirements beyond the ability to select and decode a secondary audio stream. If so, should we require broadcasters and MVPDs to make the textual emergency information available to apparatus?
21. We also seek comment on the requirements for recording devices, namely, that “apparatus designed to record video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound * * * enable the rendering or the pass through of * * * video description signals, and emergency information * * * such that viewers are able to activate and de-activate the * * * video description as the video programming is played back on a picture screen of any size.” 47 U.S.C. 303(z)(1). What should we require of recording devices to “enable the rendering or the pass through of” video description and emergency information? We seek comment on the benefits and incremental costs to ensuring that video description and accessible emergency information, when provided as proposed on the secondary audio stream, are recorded and can be activated or de-activated when played back. How do requirements relating to emergency information apply to recording devices, given that emergency information is, by its nature, extremely time sensitive? How should we expect recording devices to ensure that the secondary audio stream is stored along with the associated video, such that a consumer may switch between the main program audio and the secondary audio stream when viewing recorded programming?
22. The Commission's rules must “provide performance and display standards for * * * the transmission and delivery of video descriptionservices, and the conveyance of emergency information as required * * * .” 47 U.S.C. 330(b). We seek comment on what performance and display standards we should impose for the transmission and delivery of video description and emergency information. We also seek comment on the VPAAC's suggestion that, when video description, alternate language audio, and emergency information are not available on a secondary audio channel, best efforts should be taken to ensure that the channel contains the main program audio rather than silence. Such an approach would enable consumers to tune to their secondary audio stream all of the time, instead of needing to switch back and forth depending on whether video description is available for a particular program or emergency information is being provided. Should we impose this as a requirement, or recommend it as a best practice?
23. Section 203 of the CVAA directs the Commission to require that “interconnection mechanisms and standards for digital video source devices are available to carry from the source device to the consumer equipment the information necessary to permit or render the display of closed captions and to make encoded video description and emergency information audible.” 47 U.S.C. 303(z)(2). It is our understanding that most, if not all, devices already use interconnection mechanisms that make available audio provided via a secondary audio stream. Thus, we do not believe that any further steps are necessary to implement this requirement. We seek comment on our understanding.
24. We seek comment on three issues that arose in the 2011 video description proceeding that may be relevant here. They pertain to equipment features that present challenges for video programming distributors and consumers. First, the2011 Video Description Orderobserved that “viewers with digital sets may be unable to find and activate an audio stream that has been properly labeled `VI' (`Visually Impaired') pursuant to the ATSC standard,” so the audio stream used for video description must be labeled as “CM” (“complete main”) for the system to work properly. Further, some television receivers do not handle two audio tracks identified as English properly, and thus to ensure compatibility, broadcasters often tag the video description stream as a foreign language. That is, rather than conveying metadata that indicates the audio stream is an English track for the visually impaired (VI-English), broadcasters convey metadata that the service is a “complete main” audio stream in a foreign language (typically CM-Spanish or CM-Portuguese) in order to provide a tag for the stream. In 2011, the Commission decided that this issue would be better addressed in a later proceeding. The VPAAC recognizes that there is a “need for a more user-friendly mechanism to allow the carriage of multiple audio services,” but it does not identify a timeframe for such a mechanism. We seek comment on whether the Commission should impose a requirement at this time that broadcast receivers detect and decode tracks marked for the “visually impaired.” How would consumers who have not upgraded their equipment be affected by such a requirement? How can we minimize any confusion or cost to such consumers? How can we mitigate the need for consumers to purchase new equipment to take advantage of the requirements proposed herein? Do the issues discussed in this paragraph pertain to MVPDs as well as broadcasters?
25. Second, Dolby Laboratories, Inc. commented that the audio experience for individuals accessing video-described programming could be enhanced if devices supported a “receiver-mix” technology that would enable the device to combine the full surround sound main audio with video description. Although it is technically possible for broadcasters and some MVPDs to provide two full surround channels, the additional bandwidth required to do so could pose a hardship for those entities. In the2011 Video Description Order,the Commission determined that this issue would also be better addressed in a later proceeding. We invite comment on whether any action should be taken on this issue at this time.
26. Third, although the ATSC standard for digital television broadcasting enables the use of multiple audio streams (including, for example, the concurrent use of a main audio stream, a secondary video description stream, and a third stream containing Spanish or other foreign language audio), it is our understanding that few, if any, broadcasters or MVPDs provide more than two audio streams, and few devices are able to accommodate more than two audio streams. The2011 Video Description Ordernoted that equipment limitations may prohibit some viewers from being able to access a third audio channel even if one were to be provided by a video programming distributor. Although we do not propose to require video programming distributors to carry more than one additional audio channel at this time, we are concerned that equipment limitations may be discouraging video programming distributors from doing so voluntarily. We seek comment on the suggestion of consumer members of the VPAAC that we “consider how best to facilitate a transition * * * to deliver multiple simultaneous ancillary audio services, so that both Spanish (or other alternate languages) and video description could be provided for the same program.” Although industry members of the VPAAC concluded that we do not need a single format, protocol, or standard for multiple audio services, we note the existence of what is known as “CEA-CEB21,”Recommended Practice for Selection and Presentation of DTV Audio,a bulletin that “provides recommendations to manufacturers to facilitate user setup of audio features in the receiver without professional assistance.”15 The VPAAC stated that consumer receiving devices could be built in accordance with the recommendations contained in CEA-CEB21. Is this a solution that the Commission should mandate? We seek comment on the costs associated with building a device in compliance with this bulletin, as well as any drawbacks to doing so. Would the benefits of building a device in compliance with CEA-CEB21 outweigh the costs? Are there other industry guidelines that could facilitate compatibility between apparatus and covered services containing multiple audio streams? If we require apparatus to comply with the recommendations contained in CEA-CEB21, are there corresponding requirements that we should impose on broadcasters and MVPDs, and if so, what?
15CEA-CEB21,Recommended Practice for Selection and Presentation of DTV Audio,June 2011,available at http://www.ce.org/Standards/Standard-Listings/R4-3-Television-Data-Systems-Subcommittee/CEA-CEB21.aspx.
27. We invite comment on the appropriate deadline by which we should require apparatus to meet the requirements that we adopt as part of this proceeding. We note that the Commission has previously imposed a two-year deadline for apparatus requirements, for example, in theIP Closed Captioning Order.We ask commenters to justify any deadline they propose by explaining what must be done by that deadline to comply with the new requirements. Should we consider here the argument made by the Consumer Electronics Association (“CEA”) in a pending petition for reconsideration of theIP Closed Captioning Orderthat the compliance deadline should be interpreted to referonly to the date of manufacture, and not to the date of importation?
28. In order to address any failures to comply with the new requirements after the established deadline, we propose imposing complaint procedures comparable to those adopted for apparatus complaints in theIP Closed Captioning Order.As a preliminary matter, we seek comment on whether the Commission should require MVPDs that provide set-top boxes to provide customer support services to assist consumers who are blind or visually impaired to navigate between the main and secondary audio streams to access video description and accessible emergency information. Would such a requirement help fulfill the CVAA's mandate that apparatus have the capability to decode and make available video description and accessible emergency information,e.g.,does the use of the term “make available” in the statute reasonably encompass more than simply apparatus functionality? 47 U.S.C. 303(u)(1)(B) and (C). Would such requirements benefit consumers and industry by encouraging the resolution rather than the filing of consumer complaints? Would consumers and industry benefit from the provision and publication of contact information for resolution of consumer concerns, such as we require in our closed captioning rules?See47 CFR 79.1(i). How should the Commission evaluate the potential benefits of a customer support requirement and the incremental costs, which we expect would be relatively minimal to the extent that a company already provides customer support services? What else can be done to make legacy equipment more accessible to and available to individuals with visual disabilities?
29. With respect to the filing of complaints, we propose that complaints alleging a violation should include: (a) The name, postal address, and other contact information of the complainant, such as telephone number or email address; (b) the name and contact information, such as postal address, of the apparatus manufacturer or provider; (c) information sufficient to identify the software or device used to view or to attempt to view video programming with video description or emergency information; (d) the date or dates on which the complainant purchased, acquired, or used, or tried to purchase, acquire, or use the apparatus to view video programming with video description or emergency information; (e) a statement of facts sufficient to show that the manufacturer or provider has violated or is violating the Commission's rules; (f) the specific relief or satisfaction sought by the complainant; and (g) the complainant's preferred format or method of response to the complaint. In addition, we propose that a complaint alleging a violation of the apparatus rules related to emergency information and video description may be transmitted to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau by any reasonable means, such as the Commission's online informal complaint filing system, letter in writing or Braille, facsimile transmission, telephone (voice/TRS/TTY), email, or some other method that would best accommodate the complainant's disability. Given that the population intended to benefit from the rules adopted will be blind or visually impaired, we also note that, if a complainant calls the Commission for assistance in preparing a complaint, Commission staff will document the complaint in writing for the consumer and such communication will be deemed to be a written complaint. We also propose that the Commission will