Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Closed Captioning of Video Programming
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of 
Hearing, Inc.
Petition for Rulemaking
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CG Docket No. 05-231
SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  December 12, 2014 Released: December 15, 2014
Comment Date:  [20 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date:  [30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second Further Notice), the 
Commission seeks additional comment on several issues related to matters raised in the Commission’s 
February 24, 2014 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) on closed captioning.
1
  After 
reviewing the comments, reply comments, and notices of ex parte presentations filed in the instant 
proceeding, the Commission has decided to issue this Second Further Notice to allow parties an 
opportunity to more thoroughly address several proposals made by commenters.  Specifically, the 
Commission invites comment on requiring video programmers to file contact information and 
certifications of captioning compliance with the Commission.  The Commission also invites comment on 
whether any other means would make programmer contact information and certifications more widely 
available to consumers, video programming distributors (VPDs), and other interested parties.  Further, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether these potential rule modifications alter previous Commission 
positions and whether there are justifications for the Commission changing course at this time.
II. BACKGROUND
2. In February 2014, the Commission adopted rules governing the quality of closed 
captioning in order to improve the accessibility of television programming for people who are deaf and 
hard of hearing.
2
   As an initial step, the Commission placed responsibility for compliance with these new 
rules on video programming distributors (VPDs).
3
  The Closed Captioning Quality Order explained that 
while Section 713 of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to ensure the provision of 
                                                     
1
See Closed Captioning of Video Programming; Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., 
Petition for Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 05-231, Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 2221 (2014) (Closed Captioning Quality Order).
2
Id.
3
Id. at 2255, ¶ 53.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
2
closed captioning of video programming “by providers and owners of video programming,”
4
in the 1997 
Closed Captioning Report and Order adopting the initial closed captioning rules, the Commission had 
chosen to place exclusive responsibility for compliance with the closed captioning requirements on VPDs 
because they are ultimately responsible for ensuring the delivery of programming to consumers.
5
At the 
same time, because closed captioning is most likely to be done at the production stage,
6
  the Commission 
in the Closed Captioning Quality Order agreed with the National Cable and Telecommunications 
Association (NCTA) that “the creation and delivery of good quality captions is not solely within the 
control of any one entity and often requires coordination and execution among many connected parties in 
the video delivery chain.”
7
  
3. Accordingly, the Commission kept open the question of which programming entities 
should bear responsibility for compliance with the captioning rules and in the Further Notice
accompanying the Closed Captioning Quality Order sought comment on extending some of the 
responsibilities for complying with its rules regarding the provision and quality of closed captioning on 
television beyond VPDs, to other entities involved in the production and delivery of video programming.
8
  
The Commission also sought comment in the Further Notice on adopting a burden-shifting approach for 
complaint resolution that would require both VPDs and video programmers to be involved in the 
                                                     
4
Id. at 2254, ¶ 51 (citing Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Implementation of 
Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, Report and Order, 13 FCC 
Rcd 3272, 3286, ¶ 27 (1997) (1997 Closed Captioning Report and Order), recon. granted in part, Order on 
Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 19973 (1998)).  Both the Closed Captioning Quality Order and the 1997 Closed 
Captioning Report and Order cited sections 713(b)(2), (d)(1) and (d)(3) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 613(b)(2), (d)(1) 
and (d)(3).  See Closed Captioning Quality Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 2254, n.460; 1997 Closed Captioning Report and 
Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3286, n.62. Section 713(b)(2) directs the Commission to prescribe regulations that “shall 
ensure” that “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” 
(emphasis added); sections 713(d)(1) and (3) authorize the Commission to exempt classes of programs where “the 
provision of closed captioning would be economically burdensome to the provider or owner of such programming” 
and authorize the “provider of video programming or program owner” to petition the Commission for an exemption 
from the captioning requirement (emphasis added).  See also Closed Captioning Quality Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 
2291, n.460.
5
Closed Captioning Quality Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 2254, ¶ 51 (citing 1997 Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 
FCC Rcd at 3286, ¶ 27); see also id. at 2291, ¶ 122; 47 U.S.C. § 613(b)(2), (d)(2) and (d)(3).
6
Closed Captioning Quality Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 2254, ¶ 52 (citing 1997 Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 
FCC Rcd at 3364, ¶ 199 (“[C]losed captioning is most likely to be done at the production stage or prior to 
distribution where it is most economically and technically efficient.”)).
7
Id. at 2254, ¶ 52 (quoting NCTA January 27, 2014 Ex Parte at 1).
8
Id. at 2291-96, ¶¶ 122-30.  The Further Notice explained that in two other contexts, the Commission has extended 
some of the captioning responsibilities to entities, other than VPDs, who are involved in the production and delivery 
of video programming. Id. at 2291-92, ¶ 122. Specifically, in the IP Captioning Report and Order (requiring 
television programs to retain their captions when re-shown over Internet protocol), the Commission required video 
programming owners to send program files used for the delivery of programming over Internet protocol to VPDs 
with all required captions.  Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video Programming:  Implementation 
of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 27 FCC Rcd 787, 798, ¶ 15.  
Similarly, the Commission’s rules requiring access to emergency information on television by individuals who are 
blind or visually impaired place some responsibilities on video programming providers.  In the Matter of Accessible 
Emergency Information, and Apparatus Requirements for Emergency Information and Video Description:  
Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Video 
Description:  Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 28 
FCC Rcd 4871, 4898-99, ¶ 34.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
3
resolution of consumer complaints.
9
  Further, the Commission asked whether section 79.1(g)(6) of the 
Commission’s rules, which permits VPDs to rely on certifications from programming suppliers to 
demonstrate compliance with the Commission’s captioning requirements,
10
should be eliminated if the 
Commission were to reapportion responsibility for compliance with the Commission’s television closed 
captioning rules,
11
and more generally whether other changes to its rules would be appropriate if the 
Commission decides to impose some obligations directly on programming entities other than VPDs.
12
    
III. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
4. In response to the Further Notice, some commenters have raised concerns regarding the 
ability of VPDs and consumers to locate the correct contact information for video programmers
13
for the 
resolution of closed captioning complaints, should the Commission decide to extend to video 
programmers some of the responsibilities for compliance with its closed captioning rules and for the 
resolution of captioning complaints.
14
Several commenters have proposed requiring video programmers 
to file contact information with the Commission for inclusion in the registry of VPD contact information 
(VPD Registry) or a separate database.
15
   
5. We therefore invite comment on whether such contact information should be filed, and if 
                                                     
9
Closed Captioning Quality Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 2293-94, ¶¶ 125-26.
10
47 C.F.R. § 79.1(g)(6).
11
Closed Captioning Quality Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 2295, ¶ 129.
12
Id. at 2295-96, ¶ 129.
13
“Video programmer” is defined as “[a]ny entity that provides video programming that is intended for distribution 
to residential households including, but not limited to, broadcast and nonbroadcast television networks and the 
owners of such programming.”  47 C.F.R. § 79.1(a)(9); Closed Captioning Quality Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 2254, 
¶ 52.
14
See Letter from Lisa Chandler Cordell, Attorney for Cincinnati Bell Extended Territories LLC, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission at 3 (August 11, 2014) (Cincinnati Bell August 11, 2014 
Ex Parte); Letter from Barbara Esbin, Counsel to the American Cable Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission at 3 (September 4, 2014) (ACA September 4, 2014 Ex Parte).
15
See 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(i)(3) (requiring VPDs to file with the Commission contact information for the handling of 
immediate and non-immediate closed captioning complaints).  In the Further Notice, the Commission sought 
comment on amending 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(i)(3) to require VPDs to file contact information through a web form, 
thereby eliminating the options to file with the Chief of the Disability Rights Office or by sending an email to 
CLOSEDCAPTIONING_POC@fcc.gov.  Closed Captioning Quality Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 2303, ¶ 147.  Several 
commenters suggested having such video programmer information filed with the Commission.  See e.g., ACA 
September 4, 2014 Ex Parte at 2-3 (discussing the possibility of “including video programmers in the Commission’s 
online VPD registry with the name of a dedicated contact person and information for reaching him or her”); Letter 
from Ian Dillner, Vice President, Federal Regulatory Affairs, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 2 
(August 21, 2014) (Verizon August 21, 2014 Ex Parte) (suggesting that “the Commission require [video 
programming owners (VPOs)] to add their names to the FCC contact database”); Verizon July 9, 2014 Comments at 
9 (recommending that “the Commission require collection of similar contact information [to that required from 
VPDs] from video programmers and owners, and use this information to allow consumers and the Commission to 
contact video programmers and owners with complaints regarding closed captioning”); Letter from William M. 
Wiltshire, Counsel for DIRECTV, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission at 1 
(August 11, 2014) (DIRECTV August 11, 2014 Ex Parte) (stating that resolution of closed captioning complaints 
“would be facilitated by having VPO contact information added to the existing VPD captioning contact registry”); 
Cincinnati Bell August 11, 2014 Ex Parte at 3 (suggesting that “much like the VPD registry, programmers should be 
obligated to provide the FCC with, and keep current, their contact information”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
4
so, whether such filings should utilize a web form.
16
  What are the costs and benefits of requiring video 
programmers to file contact information with the Commission?  Should the Commission require video 
programmers to provide the same contact information as is currently required of VPDs by our existing 
rules?
17
  Do video programmers generally have a designated person available to handle immediate closed 
captioning concerns, and if not, what benefits and burdens would result from a requirement that 
programmers designate such a person?  Is there additional information beyond that required of VPDs that 
the Commission should require video programmers to file?  Should video programmers also be required 
to place the contact information on their websites, if they have a website, or to provide the information in 
some other way for added access by the public?
18
6. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should alter its requirements 
regarding certifications by video programmers as to their compliance with rules on the provision and 
quality of closed captioning,
19
if the Commission decides to extend some responsibilities for compliance 
with its closed captioning rules to video programmers.  Section 79.1(g)(6) of the Commission’s rules 
allows VPDs to rely on certifications from video programming suppliers, including programming 
producers, programming owners, networks, syndicators and other distributors, to demonstrate compliance 
with the Commission’s rules for the provision of closed captioning.
20
  Section 79.1(j)(1) requires VPDs to 
exercise best efforts to obtain a certification from each video programmer from which the VPD obtains 
programming stating (i) that the video programmer’s programming satisfies the required caption quality 
standards;
21
(ii) that in the ordinary course of business, the video programmer adopts and follows the Best 
Practices in captioning its programming;
22
or (iii) that the video programmer is exempt from the closed 
captioning rules, under one or more properly obtained exemptions.
23
  
7. One commenter on the Further Notice suggests that the Commission require video 
programmers to file certifications pursuant to sections 79.1(g)(6) and 79.1(j)(1) with the Commission, 
rather than providing them to the VPD (in the case of section 79.1(g)(6)) or making them widely available 
(in the case of section 79.1(j)(1)).
24
  We seek comment on whether the Commission should amend section 
                                                     
16
By web form, we mean an interactive form on the Commission’s website designed to receive and transfer 
information to a publicly available Commission database. 
17
See 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(i)(1), (2) (requiring VPDs to provide a telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address
for immediate closed captioning concerns and the name of a person with primary responsibility for captioning issues 
and who can ensure compliance with our rules and the person’s title or office, telephone number, fax number, postal 
mailing address, and e-mail address for written closed captioning complaints).
18
See id. (requiring VPDs to make contact information for the handling of immediate closed captioning concerns 
and written closed captioning complaints available “on their Web sites (if they have a Web site), in telephone 
directories, and in billing statements (to the extent the distributor issues billing statements)”);  id. § 79.1(c)(2)(iii) 
(requiring video programming distributors and providers to make contact information available to end users for the 
receipt and handling of written IP closed captioning complaints, but not specifying where the contact information 
must appear).
19
See id. §§ 79.1(g)(6), (j)(1).
20
Id. § 79.1(g)(6).
21
See id. §79.1(j)(2) (stating the requirements with regard to the captioning quality standards).
22
See id. §79.1(k)(1) (stating the specific requirements with regard to Best Practices); see also id. § 79.1(k)(1)(iv) 
(stating the requirement for programmers who adopt the Best Practices to provide certification to VPDs that they 
adhere to Best Practices).
23
Id. §79.1(j)(1).  If a video programmer claims exemption from the captioning rules, it must specify the exact 
exemption.  Id.
24
See ACA September 4, 2014 Ex Parte at 3 (stating that video programmers should be required to file certifications 
with the Commission that they “have either provided captions as required and are in compliance with the new closed 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
5
79.1(j)(1) of its rules to require video programmers to file certifications on captioning quality with the 
Commission, or whether the Commission should require them to make such certifications widely 
available through other means.  Should the Commission additionally modify the Video Programmer Best 
Practices’ certification procedures set forth in section 79.1(k)(1)(iv) to make filing certifications with the 
Commission part of the video programmers’ best practices?
25
  Why should the Commission change its 
position and require video programmer certifications to be filed with the Commission rather than making 
such certifications widely available through other means?  What are the benefits and costs of requiring the 
certifications mandated by section 79.1(j)(1) and section 79.1(k)(1)(iv) to be filed with the Commission?  
What would be the expected volume of such video programmer certifications on captioning quality?  
Would requiring video programmers to file these certifications with the Commission assist VPDs, 
consumers and the Commission in locating the certifications, in addition to providing video programmers 
with a convenient means of making their certifications widely available?
26
  
8. We further seek comment on whether the Commission should otherwise amend its rules 
regarding certifications for the provision of closed captioning.  Currently, section 79.1(g)(6) allows VPDs 
to rely upon certifications from  “programming suppliers” to demonstrate compliance with the 
Commission’s closed captioning rules.
27
  According to section 79.1(g)(6), “programming supplier” 
includes “programming producers, programming owners, networks, syndicators and other distributors.”
28
  
If the Commission retains section 79.1(g)(6) in some form, either as a separate rule or incorporated into 
another rule, should the Commission amend the rule to replace the term “programming supplier” with the 
term “video programmer”?  We note that unlike the term “programming supplier,” the term “video 
programmer” does not include VPDs.  Rather, the term “video programmer” is defined as “any entity that 
provides video programming that is intended for distribution to residential households including, but not 
limited to, broadcast or nonbroadcast television networks and the owners of such programming.”
29
  Is this 
rule amendment necessary to help differentiate the responsibilities of regulated entities, if the 
Commission were to decide to impose some obligations directly on video programmers?  The term 
“programming supplier” also is used in section 79.1(e)(6).
30
  Should the use of the term in section 
79.1(e)(6) be replaced to be consistent with any changes to section 79.1(g)(6) or its successor rule?  Are 
there other subsections contained within section 79.1 in which the term “programming supplier” should 
be replaced with “video programmer”?
9. Further, although section 79.1(g)(6) allows VPDs to rely upon certifications from 
programming suppliers, it does not require programming suppliers to provide such certifications.
31
Should the Commission amend section 79.1(g)(6) of its rules to require programming suppliers or video 
programmers to file certifications with the Commission certifying that they are in compliance with the 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
captioning quality rules or are following best practices, or if they maintain they are not obligated to provide 
captions, identify the exemption they claim is applicable to their programming”).
25
47 C.F.R. § 79.1(k)(1)(iv).
26
See ACA September 4, 2014 Ex Parte at 3 (stating that if video programmers were required to file certifications 
with the Commission, “VPDs would immediately know where to go to find the information they need, and the 
information would always be current”).
27
See 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(g)(6).
28
Id. (emphasis added).
29
Id. § 79.1(a)(9).  Compare id. § 79.1(a)(11) (defining “video programming distributor”); see also Closed 
Captioning Quality Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 2292, n.470 (explaining that “[i]n the television captioning context, VPPs 
include VPDs as well as video programmers”).
30
47 C.F.R. § 79.1(e)(6).
31
See id. § 79.1(g)(6).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
6
Commission’s rules for the provision of closed captioning?  The Commission currently does not require 
such certifications from either VPDs or video programmers.  Is there a reason why the Commission 
should change its approach?  If a programming supplier or video programmer claims that it is exempt 
from providing closed captioning, should the Commission require it to specify the exemption it claims as 
part of the certification?  As an alternative to amending section 79.1(g)(6), should the Commission 
include within section 79.1(j)(1) or section 79.1(k)(1)(iv) certification language to the effect that the video 
programmer is in compliance with the Commission’s rules for the provision of closed captioning?  What 
are the benefits and costs of requiring programming suppliers or video programmers to provide such 
certification?  Would such certification help to ensure programming supplier or video programmer 
compliance with the Commission’s rules requiring the provision of closed captioning?  If so, how?
10. If the Commission requires video programmers to file certifications regarding the 
provision and quality of closed captioning with the Commission, should the Commission require each 
VPD, when arranging to carry a video programmer’s programming, to alert the video programmer to the 
requirement to provide such certification to the Commission?  Once a VPD alerts a video programmer of 
any such requirement and a video programmer fails to provide a certification to the Commission, should 
that video programmer be solely responsible for failing to comply with Commission rules?  Or, 
alternatively, should we task VPDs with monitoring video programmers’ compliance with a certification 
requirement and require them to report to the Commission any failure by a video programmer to comply?   
Would placing such an obligation on VPDs be inconsistent with the approach of shifting certain 
responsibilities in the areas of closed captioning from VPDs to video programmers?  What would be the 
costs and benefits of these requirements?  We seek comment on these and any other matters relating to 
VPDs’ obligations pertaining to such certifications.  Is there any reason that the Commission would not 
have statutory authority to impose the requirements proposed in this and other paragraphs of this Second 
Further Notice?
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
11. Regulatory Flexibility. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 603, 
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this Second Further Notice.  The
IRFA is set forth in the Appendix.  Written public comments are requested on the IRFA.  These 
comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to the 
Second Further Notice and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the 
IRFA.
12. Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s 
rules,
32
interested parties may file comments and reply comments regarding the Second Further Notice on 
or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document.  Comments may be filed using the 
Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
33
? Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 
? Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each 
filing.  Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, 
or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.  All filings must be addressed to the 
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
                                                     
32
Id. §§ 1.415, 1.419.
33
See Electronic Filings of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
7
? All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary 
must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12
th
St., SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, 
DC 20554.  The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  All hand deliveries must be held 
together with rubber bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering 
the building.  
? Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) 
must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD  20743.  
? U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12
th
Street, SW, Washington DC  20554.
13. Ex Parte Presentations.  This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
34
  Persons making ex parte presentations 
must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period 
applies).  Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentations must: (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex 
parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the 
presentation.  If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments 
already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the 
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or 
other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be 
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum.  Documents shown or given to Commission 
staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed 
consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
35
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission 
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission’s ex parte rules.
14. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.  This Second Further Notice seeks comment on 
proposed rule amendments that may result in new or revised information collection requirements.  If the 
Commission adopts any such proposals, the Commission will publish a separate notice in the Federal 
Register inviting the public to comment on the requirement, as mandated by the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995.
36
  In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
198,
37
we seek comment on how the Commission might “further reduce the information collection for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
38
15. People with Disabilities:  To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 
the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
                                                     
34
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200–1.1216.
35
Id. § 1.1206(b).
36
Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq.
37
44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).
38
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
8
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 
303(r) and 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r) and 613, 
this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED. 
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
9
APPENDIX
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended,
1
this Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Second Further Notice has been 
prepared.  An IRFA was previously included with the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further 
Notice or FNPRM) in the Closed Captioning Quality Order.
2
  Written public comments are requested on 
this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for 
comments on the Second Further Notice.  The Commission will send a copy of the entire Second Further 
Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(“SBA”).
3
  In addition, the Second Further Notice and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.
4
A. Need For, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. 
2. In the Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on extending some of the 
responsibilities for complying with its rules regarding the provision and quality of closed captioning on 
television beyond video programming distributors (VPDs) to other entities involved in the production and 
delivery of video programming.
5
  The Commission also sought comment on adopting a burden-shifting 
approach for complaint resolution that would require both VPDs and video programmers to be involved 
in the resolution of consumer complaints.
6
  Further, the Commission asked whether section 79.1(g)(6) of 
the Commission’s rules, which permits VPDs to rely on certifications from programming suppliers to 
demonstrate compliance with the Commission’s captioning requirements,
7
should be eliminated if the 
Commission were to reapportion responsibility for compliance with the Commission’s television closed 
captioning rules,
8
and more generally whether other changes to its rules would be appropriate if the 
Commission decides to impose some obligations directly on programming entities other than VPDs.
9
3. In response to the Further Notice, some commenters have raised concerns regarding the 
ability of VPDs and consumers to locate the correct contact information for video programmers for the 
resolution of closed captioning complaints, should the Commission decide to extend to video 
programmers some of the responsibilities for compliance with its closed captioning rules and for the 
resolution of captioning complaints.
10
  Several have proposed requiring video programmers to file contact 
                                                     
1
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see id. §§ 601-612, was amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2
Closed Captioning of Video Programming; Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., Petition 
for Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 05-231, Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 2221, 2348-66, Appendix D (2014) (Closed Captioning Quality Order).
3
  See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
4
  See id.
5
Closed Captioning Quality Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 2291-96, ¶¶ 122-30.
6
Id. at 2293-94, ¶¶ 125-26.
7
47 C.F.R. § 79.1(g)(6).
8
Closed Captioning Quality Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 2295, ¶ 129.
9
Id. at 2295-96, ¶ 129.
10
See Letter from Lisa Chandler Cordell, Attorney for Cincinnati Bell Extended Territories LLC, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission at 3 (August 11, 2014) (Cincinnati Bell August 11, 2014 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
10
information with the Commission for inclusion in a database.
11
  The Commission is therefore inviting 
comment on whether such contact information should be filed, and if so, whether such filings should 
utilize a web form.
12
4. Section 79.1(g)(6) of the Commission’s rules allows VPDs to rely on certifications from 
video programming suppliers, including programming producers, programming owners, networks, 
syndicators and other distributors, to demonstrate compliance with the Commission’s rules for the 
provision of closed captioning.
13
  Section 79.1(j)(1) requires VPDs to exercise best efforts to obtain a 
certification from each video programmer from which the VPD obtains programming stating (i) that the 
video programmers’ programming satisfies the required caption quality standards,
14
(ii) that in the 
ordinary course of business, the video programmers adopt and follow the Best Practices in captioning its 
programming,
15
or (iii) that the video programmers are exempt from the closed captioning rules, under 
one or more properly attained exemptions.
16
  
5. One commenter on the Further Notice suggests that the Commission require video 
programmers to file certifications pursuant to sections 79.1(g)(6) and 79.1(j)(1) with the Commission, 
rather than providing them to the VPD (in the case of section 79.1(g)(6)) or making them widely available 
(in the case of section 79.1(j)(1)).
17
  The Commission is inviting comment on whether the Commission 
should amend section 79.1(j)(1) of its rules to require video programmers to file certifications on 
captioning quality with the Commission, or whether the Commission should require video programmers 
to make such certifications widely available through other means.  The Commission specifically asks for 
comment on whether requiring video programmers to file these certifications with the Commission would 
assist VPDs, consumers and the Commission in locating the certifications, in addition to providing video 
programmers with a convenient means of making their certifications widely available.
18
  
6. The Commission is also inviting comment on whether the Commission should amend 
other Commission rules regarding certifications for the provision of closed captioning.  Although section 
79.1(g)(6) allows VPDs to rely upon certifications from programming suppliers, it does not require 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Ex Parte); Letter from Barbara Esbin, Counsel to the American Cable Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission at 3 (September 4, 2014) (ACA September 4, 2014 Ex Parte).
11
See e.g., ACA September 4, 2014 Ex Parte at 2-3; Letter from Ian Dillner, Vice President, Federal Regulatory 
Affairs, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 2 (August 21, 2014) (Verizon August 21, 2014 Ex Parte); 
Verizon July 9, 2014 Comments at 9; Letter from William M. Wiltshire, Counsel for DIRECTV, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission at 1 (August 11, 2014) (DIRECTV August 11, 2014 Ex 
Parte); Cincinnati Bell August 11, 2014 Ex Parte at 3.
12
By web form, the Commission means an interactive form on the Commission’s website designed to receive and 
transfer information to a publicly available Commission database. 
13
47 C.F.R. § 79.1(g)(6).
14
See id. § 79.1(j)(2) (stating the requirements with regard to the captioning quality standards).
15
See id. § 79.1(k)(1) (stating the specific requirements with regard to Best Practices); see also id. § 79.1(k)(1)(iv) 
(stating the requirement for programmers who adopt the Best Practices to provide certification to VPDs that they 
adhere to Best Practices).
16
Id. §79.1(j)(1).  If a video programmer claims exemption from the captioning rules, it must specify the exact 
exemption.  Id.
17
See ACA September 4, 2014 Ex Parte at 3.
18
See id. (stating that if video programmers were required to file certifications with the Commission, “VPDs would 
immediately know where to go to find the information they need, and the information would always be current”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
11
programming suppliers to provide such certifications.
19
  The Commission is therefore asking whether it
should amend section 79.1(g)(6) of its rules to require video programmers to file certifications with the 
Commission certifying that they are in compliance with the Commission’s rules for the provision of 
closed captioning.  Alternatively, the Commission is asking whether it should include within section 
79.1(j)(1) or section 79.1(k)(1)(iv) certification language to the effect that the video programmer is in 
compliance with the Commission’s rules for the provision of closed captioning.  The Commission also 
seeks comment on whether such certification would help to ensure video programmer compliance with 
the Commission’s rules requiring the provision of closed captioning. 
7. Additionally, the Commission is seeking comment on whether it should require each 
VPD, when arranging to carry a video programmer’s programming, to alert the video programmer to the 
requirement to provide certification to the Commission, and whether the VPD should be required to report 
to the Commission any video programmers that have failed to do so.  
B. Legal Basis.  
8. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in sections 4(i), 303(r) and 713 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r) and 613.     
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Impacted 
9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted.
20
  The 
RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” 
“small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
21
  In addition, the term “small business” has 
the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.
22
  A “small 
business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 
of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
23
   
10. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  Our 
action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore 
describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards that encompass 
entities that could be directly affected by the proposals under consideration.
24
  As of 2009, small 
businesses represented 99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to the SBA.
25
  
Additionally, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently 
owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”
26
  Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 
                                                     
19
See 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(g)(6).
20
  5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3). 
21
  Id. § 601(6). 
22
Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 
U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, 
after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public 
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and 
publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.” 
23
15 U.S.C. § 632. 
24
See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)–(6).
25
See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” available at 
http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqindex.cfm?areaID=24 (last visited Aug. 31, 2012).
26
5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
12
1,621,315 small organizations.
27
  Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally 
as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a 
population of less than fifty thousand.”
28
  Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,527 
governmental jurisdictions in the United States.
29
  We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,761 
entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.”
30
  Thus, we estimate that most governmental 
jurisdictions are small.
11. Cable Television Distribution Services.  These services have been included within the 
broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which is defined as follows:  
“This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to 
transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, 
text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks.  Transmission facilities may be based 
on a single technology or a combination of technologies.”
31
  The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for this category, which is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.
32
  To gauge small 
business prevalence for the Cable Television Distribution service, the Commission relies on data from the 
U.S. Census Bureau for the year 2007, the most recent year currently available.
33
  According to that 
source, there were 3,188 Wired Telecommunications Carrier firms that operated for the entire year in 
                                                     
27
INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC &DESK REFERENCE (2010).
28
5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
29
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2011, Table 427 (2007).
30
The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the 
population in each such organization. There were 89,476 local governmental organizations in 2007. If we assume 
that county, municipal, township, and school district organizations are more likely than larger governmental 
organizations to have populations of 50,000 or less, the total of these organizations is 52,095. If we make the same 
population assumption about special districts, specifically that they are likely to have a population of 50,000 or less, 
and also assume that special districts are different from county, municipal, township, and school districts, in 2007 
there were 37,381 such special districts.  Therefore, there are a total of 89,476 local government organizations.  As a 
basis of estimating how many of these 89,476 local government organizations were small, in 2011, we note that 
there were a total of 715 cities and towns (incorporated places and minor civil divisions) with populations over 
50,000.  CITY AND TOWNS TOTALS: VINTAGE 2011 – U.S. Census Bureau, available at 
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index.html.  If we subtract the 715 cities and towns that meet 
or exceed the 50,000 population threshold, we conclude that approximately 88,761 are small.  U.S. CENSUS 
BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 2011, Tables 427, 426 (Data cited therein are 
from 2007).
31
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” (partial 
definition), http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch, NAICS Search (last visited February 3, 2014).
32
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2012).
33
The Census Bureau conducts the Economic Census, an official five-year measure of American business and 
economy, for years ending in ‘2’ and ‘7.’  U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census Frequently Asked Questions, 
http://www.census.gov/econ/census/faqs.html (last visited February 4, 2014).  In December 2013, the Census 
Bureau began publishing the Advance Report of the 2012 Economic Census, which provides the preliminary totals 
for all economic sectors, and the U.S. Census Bureau will publish additional results from the 2012 Economic Census 
over the next few years.  Id; see also U.S. Census Bureau, Data Release Schedule – 2012 Economic Census, 
https://www.census.gov/econ/census/schedule.html (last visited February 4, 2014).  Currently, the American 
FactFinder, which provides comprehensive data from Census Bureau censuses and surveys, contains all data from 
the 2007 Economic Census, but not the 2012 Economic Census.  U.S. Census Bureau, Data Release Schedule –
2007 Economic Census, http://www.census.gov/econ/census07/www/data_release_schedule/index.html (last visited 
February 4, 2014).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
13
2007.
34
  Of these, 3,144 operated with less than 1,000 employees, and 44 operated with 1,000 or more 
employees.  However, as to the latter 44 there is no data available that shows how many operated with 
more than 1,500 employees.
35
  Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the vast majority of firms can be considered small.
12. Cable Companies and Systems.  The Commission has also developed its own small 
business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation.  Under the Commission’s rules, a “small 
cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.
36
  Industry data shows that there 
are 1,100 cable companies.
37
  Of this total, all but 10 incumbent cable companies are small under this size 
standard.
38
  In addition, under the Commission’s rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 
or fewer subscribers.
39
  Current Commission records show 4,945 cable systems nationwide.
40
  Of this 
total, 4,380 cable systems have less than 20,000 subscribers, and 565 systems have 20,000 subscribers or 
more, based on the same records.  Thus, under this second size standard, most cable systems are small.    
13. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard).  The Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the 
United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate 
exceed $250,000,000.”
41
  There were approximately 56.4 million incumbent cable video subscribers in 
                                                     
34
See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2007 Economic Census, Establishment and Firm Size: 
Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007, NAICS code 517110, 
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5&prod
Type=table (last visited February 3, 2014).
35
See id.
36
  47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e).  The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size 
standard of $100 million or less in annual revenues.  Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate 
Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 at ¶ 28 (1995).
37
NCTA, Industry Data, Number of Cable Operating Companies (June 2012), http://www.ncta.com/industry-data
(last visited February 3, 2014).  Depending upon the number of homes and the size of the geographic area served, 
cable operators use one or more cable systems to provide video service.  See Annual Assessment of the Status of 
Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 12-203, Fifteenth Report, 28 FCC 
Rcd 10496, 10505, ¶ 24 (2013) (15
th
Annual Competition Report).
38
See Implementation of the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, MB Docket No. 11-93, 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 15258, 15267,  ¶ 8 (2013) (“CALM Act FNPRM”) 
(citing SNL Kagan, “Top Cable MSOs – 12/12 Q”; available at 
http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/TopCableMSOs.aspx?period=2012Q4&sortcol=subscribersbasic&sortorder=desc.  
We note that, when applied to an MVPD operator, under this size standard (i.e., 400,000 or fewer subscribers) all 
but 14 MVPD operators would be considered small.  See NCTA, Industry Data, Top 25 Multichannel Video Service 
Customers (2012), http://www.ncta.com/industry-data (last visited February 3, 2014).  The Commission applied this 
size standard to MVPD operators in its implementation of the CALM Act.  See Implementation of the Commercial 
Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, MB Docket No. 11-93, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 17222, 
17245-46, ¶ 37 (2011) (CALM Act Report and Order) (defining a smaller MVPD operator as one serving 400,000 or 
fewer subscribers nationwide, as of December 31, 2011).
39
  47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).  
40
See CALM Act FNPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 15268, ¶ 8 (citing information from the Commission’s Cable Operations 
and Licensing System (COALS) database on Aug. 28, 2013 and noting that “[a] cable system is a physical system 
integrated to a principal headend”).
41
  47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f) and nn.1-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
14
the United States as of 2012.
42
  Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 564,000 subscribers shall be 
deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its 
affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.
43
  Based on available data, we find that all but 10 
incumbent cable operators are small under this size standard.
44
  We note that the Commission neither 
requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose 
gross annual revenues exceed $250 million.
45
  Although it seems certain that some of these cable system 
operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million we are unable at 
this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as 
small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.
14. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service.  DBS service is a nationally distributed 
subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” 
antenna at the subscriber’s location.  DBS, by exception, is now included in the SBA’s broad economic 
census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers,
46
which was developed for small wireline firms.  
Under this category, the SBA deems a Wired Telecommunications Carrier to be small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees.
47
  Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a great investment 
of capital for operation:  DIRECTV and DISH Network.
48
  Each currently offers subscription services.  
DIRECTV and DISH Network each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small 
business.  Because DBS service requires significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a small entity as 
defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS service provider.
15. Wireless Cable Systems – Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.  
Wireless cable systems use the Broadband Radio Service (BRS)
49
and Educational Broadband Service 
(EBS)
50
to transmit video programming to subscribers.  In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the 
Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross 
                                                     
42
See NCTA, Industry Data, Cable Video Customers, http://www.ncta.com/industry-data (last visited February 3, 
2014).
43
47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f); see FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, 
Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 2225 (Cable Services Bureau 2001).
44
See NCTA, Industry Data, Top 25 Multichannel Video Service Customers, http://www.ncta.com/industry-data
(visited February 3, 2014).
45
The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local 
franchise authority’s finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(f) of 
the Commission’s rules.  See 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f).
46
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2012).  The 2012 NAICS definition of the category of “Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers” is discussed under Cable Television Distribution Service, supra.
47
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2012).
48
See 15
th
Annual Competition Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 10507, ¶ 27.  As of June 2012, DIRECTV was the largest 
DBS operator and the second largest MVPD in the United States, serving approximately 19.9 million subscribers.  
DISH Network was the second largest DBS operator and the third largest MVPD, serving approximately 14.1 
million subscribers.  Id. at 10507, 10546, ¶¶ 27, 110-11.
49
BRS was previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MMDS).  See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Filing 
Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and 
Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-131, PP 
Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9593, ¶ 7 (1995).
50
EBS was previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS).  See id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
15
revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years.
51
  The BRS auctions resulted 
in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs).  Of the 67 
auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business.  BRS also includes licensees of stations 
authorized prior to the auction.  At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction 
winners, 48 remain small business licensees.  In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA 
authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities.
52
  
After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not 
already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as 
small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission’s rules.  In 2009, the Commission conducted 
Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas.
53
  The Commission offered three levels of bidding 
credits: (i) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not 
exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) received a 15 percent discount on its 
winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not 
exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) received a 25 percent discount on 
its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 
million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid.
54
  
Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses.
55
  Of the 10 winning bidders, two bidders that 
claimed small business status won four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won 
three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
16. In addition, the SBA’s placement of Cable Television Distribution Services in the 
category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting 
Services.  These services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses.  This category is 
defined as follows:  “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or 
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the 
transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. 
Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.  
Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) 
audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services.”
56
  The SBA has 
                                                     
51
See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint 
Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service, MM Docket No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-
253, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9668-9669, ¶¶ 191-192 (1995).
52
47 U.S.C. § 309(j).  Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of 
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).  For these pre-auction licenses, the 
applicable standard is SBA’s small business size standard of 1,500 or fewer employees.
53
Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses, Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing 
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 86, Public Notice, 24 
FCC Rcd 8277 (2009).
54
Id. at 8296.
55
Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down 
Payments Due November 23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, 
Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13572 (2009).
56
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers” (partial definition) 
at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited November 8, 2013).  Examples of this category 
are: broadband Internet service providers (e.g., cable, DSL); local telephone carriers (wired); cable television 
distribution services; long-distance telephone carriers (wired); closed circuit television (CCT) services; VoIP service 
providers, using own operated wired telecommunications infrastructure; direct-to-home satellite system (DTH) 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
16
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is all such businesses having 1,500 or 
fewer employees.
57
  Census Bureau data for 2007, the most recent year currently available, shows that 
there were 3,188 Wired Telecommunications Carrier firms that operated for the entire year in 2007.
58
  Of 
these, 3,144 operated with less than 1,000 employees, and 44 operated with 1,000 or more employees.
59
  
However, as to the latter 44 there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 
1,500 employees.
60
  Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of these businesses 
can be considered small entities.  In addition to Census Bureau data, the Commission’s internal records 
indicate that as of September 2012, there are 2,239 active EBS licenses.
61
The Commission estimates that 
of these 2,239 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts, 
which are by statute defined as small businesses.
62
17. Open Video Services.  Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide subscription 
services.
63
  The OVS framework was established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options
for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers.
64
The OVS framework 
provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems.  
Although some entities have filed for certifications to operate OVS systems, the Commission believes 
that most OVS subscribers are included in cable MVPD subscriber data and the Commission does not 
have a way to count them separately.
65
Because OVS operators provide subscription services,
66
OVS falls 
within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers.
67
The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is all such 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.
68
  To gauge small business prevalence for the OVS service, the 
Commission relies on data from the U.S. Census for the year 2007, the most recent year currently 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
services; telecommunications carriers (wired); satellite television distribution systems; and multichannel multipoint 
distribution services (MMDS).
57
13 C.F.R. § 121.201; 2012 NAICS code 517110.
58
See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2007 Economic Census, Establishment and Firm Size:  
Employment Size of Establishments for the United States:  2007, NAICS code 517110, 
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5&prod
Type=table (last visited February 3, 2014).
59
See id.
60
See id.
61
  http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/results.jsp (last searched February 10, 2014)  (active, regular licenses, 
excluding spectrum leases, were included in the search) . 
62
The term “small entity” within SBREFA applies to small organizations (non-profits) and to small governmental 
jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of 
less than 50,000).  5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)-(6).
63
  See 47 U.S.C. § 573.
64
Id. § 571(a)(3)-(4). See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video 
Programming, MB Docket No. 06-189, Thirteenth Annual Report, 24 FCC Rcd 542, 606, ¶ 135 (2009) (Thirteenth 
Annual Cable Competition Report).
65
15
th
Annual Competition Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 10509, ¶ 32.
66
See 47 U.S.C. § 573.
67
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers”; 
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517110&search=2012, NAICS Search (last visited 
February 3, 2014).
68
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2012).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
17
available.  According to that source, there were 3,188 firms that in 2007 were Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers.  Of these, 3,144 operated with less than 1,000 employees, and 44 operated with 1,000 or more 
employees.  However, as to the latter 44 there is no data available that shows how many operated with 
more than 1,500 employees.
69
  Based on this data, the majority of these firms can be considered small.  
18. Television Broadcasting. The SBA defines a television broadcasting station as a small 
business if such station has no more than $35.5 million in annual receipts.
70
  Business concerns included 
in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.”
71
  The 
Commission has estimated the number of licensed full power commercial television stations to be 1,388.
72
  
To gauge the number of broadcast stations that are owned by small businesses, the Commission relies on 
data from the U.S. Census for the year 2007, the most recent year currently available.  According to that 
source, there were 2,076 television broadcasting establishments in 2007.
73
  Of these, 1,515 establishments 
had receipts under $ 10 million, and 561 had receipts of $10 million or more.
74
  However, as to the latter 
561 there is no data available that shows how many had receipts in excess of $35.5 million.
75
  Based on 
this data, the majority of these establishments can be considered small. We note, however, that, in 
assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business control 
affiliations must be included.
76
  Because many of these stations may be held by large group owners, and 
the revenue figures on which our estimate is based does not include or aggregate revenues from control 
affiliates, our estimate likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action.  
19. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational 
(NCE) full power television stations to be 396.
77
  The Commission does not compile and otherwise does 
                                                     
69
See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2007 Economic Census, Establishment and Firm Size: 
Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007, NAICS code 517110, 
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5&prod
Type=table (last visited February 3, 2014).
70
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 515120 (2012).
71
  U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions “515120 Television Broadcasting,” http://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited February 3, 2014).  This category description continues, “These establishments 
operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the 
public.  These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, 
which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule.  Programming may originate in 
their own studios, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.”  Id.  Separate census categories pertain to 
businesses primarily engaged in producing programming.  See Motion Picture and Video Production, NAICS code 
512110; Motion Picture and Video Distribution, NAICS Code 512120; Teleproduction and Other Postproduction 
Services, NAICS Code 512191; and Other Motion Picture and Video Industries, NAICS Code 512199.
72
See Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2013, News Release, January 8, 2014 (Broadcast Station 
Totals), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf  
(last visited February 11, 2014).
73
See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2007 Economic Census, Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts 
Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007, NAICS code 515120, 
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ1&prod
Type=table (last visited February 3, 2014).  We recognize that this total differs from that contained in Broadcast 
Station Totals; however, we are using the U.S. Census Bureau estimate for purposes of this revenue comparison.
74
See id.
75
See id.
76
  “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one controls or has the power to control the other or a third 
party or parties controls or has to power to control both.”  13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(1).
77
See Broadcast Station Totals.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
18
not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how 
many such stations would qualify as small entities.  There are also 428 Class A television stations and 
1,986 low power television stations (LPTV).
78
  Given the nature of these services, the Commission will 
presume that all Class A television and LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition, 
even though a number of these stations may be owned by entities that do not qualify as small entities.
20. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be 
dominant in its field of operation.
79
The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the 
criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. 
Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television 
station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. 
Also as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated.
80
  The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these 
criteria in the context of media entities, and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be 
over-inclusive to this extent.
21. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs).  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for ILECs.  The appropriate size standard under 
SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees
81
and “is not dominant in its field of operation.”
82
  
The SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small ILECs are not dominant in their 
field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope.
83
  The Commission has 
therefore included small ILECs in this RFA analysis, although the Commission emphasizes that this RFA 
action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 
22. Census Bureau data for 2007, the most recent year currently available, show that there 
were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.
84
  Of this total, 3,144 had employment 
of less than 1000 employees, and 44 firms had had employment of 1,000 or more.
85
  According to 
Commission data, 1,307 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of ILEC services.
86
  
Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 
                                                     
78
See id. 
79
5 U.S.C. § 632.
80
Id.
81
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2012).
82
15 U.S.C. § 632.
83
  Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 
27, 1999).  The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small-business concern,” which the RFA incorporates 
into its own definition of “small business.”  See 15 U.S.C. § 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (RFA).  
SBA regulations interpret “small business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a national basis.  See 13 
C.F.R. § 121.102(b).
84
See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2007 Economic Census, Establishment and Firm Size: 
Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007, NAICS code 517110, 
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5&prod
Type=table (last visited February 3, 2014).
85
See id.
86
See Trends in Telephone Service, Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry 
Analysis and Technology Division at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in Telephone Service), available at 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf (last visited February 4, 2014).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
19
employees.
87
  Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of ILEC service are small 
entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted.  The Commission estimates that three large 
ILECs, each of whom employs more than 1,500 people, currently provide video programming.
88
23. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), 
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers.  Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers.  The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under 
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
89
  Census Bureau data for 
2007, the most recent year currently available, show that there were 3,188 firms in this category that 
operated for the entire year.
90
  Of this total, 3,144 had employment of less than 1000 employees, and 44 
firms had had employment of 1,000 employees or more.
91
  According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers 
reported that they were engaged in the provision of either CLEC services or CAP services.
92
  Of these 
1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more than 1,500 
employees.
93
  In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 
17 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees.
94
  Seventy-two carriers have reported that they are 
Other Local Service Providers,
95
and of the 72, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 2 have more than 
1,500 employees.
96
  Consequently, most CLECs, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other 
Local Service Providers can be considered small entities. 
24. Electric Power Distribution Companies.  These entities can provide video services over 
power lines (BPL).
97
  The Census Bureau defines Electric Power Distribution companies as “electric 
power establishments primarily engaged in either (1) operating electric power distribution systems (i.e., 
consisting of lines, poles, meters, and wiring) or (2) operating as electric power brokers or agents that 
arrange the sale of electricity via power distribution systems operated by others.”
98
  These types of 
MVPDs serve few subscribers and their subscriber base is declining.
99
  To gauge small business 
prevalence in the Electric Power Distribution category, the Commission relies on data from the U.S. 
                                                     
87
See id.
88
See 15
th
Annual Competition Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 10549-10551, ¶¶ 118-124.
89
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2012).
90
See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2007 Economic Census, Establishment and Firm Size: 
Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007, NAICS code 517110, 
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5&prod
Type=table (last visited February 3, 2014).
91
See id.
92
See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
93
See id.
94
See id.
95
See id.
96
See id.
97
See Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband 
over Power Line Systems, Carrier Current Systems, Including Broadband Over Power Line Systems, 19 FCC Rcd 
21265 (2004).
98
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 221122 Electric Power Distribution, http://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited February 4, 2014).
99
See 15
th
Annual Competition Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 10508-10509, ¶ 31.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
20
Census Bureau for the year 2007, the most recent year currently available.  The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for this category, which is all such firms having 1,000 or fewer employees.
100
  
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were 1,174 firms that operated for the entire year in this 
category.
101
  Of these firms, 50 had 1,000 employees or more, and 1,124 had fewer than 1,000 
employees.
102
  Based on this data, a majority of these firms can be considered small.
25. Cable and Other Subscription Programming.  These entities may be directly or indirectly 
affected by our action.  The Census Bureau defines this category as follows:  “This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a 
subscription or fee basis. . . . These establishments produce programming in their own facilities or acquire 
programming from external sources.  The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such 
as cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers.”
103
  To gauge small 
business prevalence in the Cable and Other Subscription Programming industries, the Commission relies
on data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the year 2007, the most recent year currently available.  The size 
standard established by the SBA for this business category is that annual receipts of $35.5 million or less 
determine that a business is small.
104
  According to 2007 Census Bureau data, there were 396 firms that 
were engaged in production of Cable and Other Subscription Programming.
105
  Of these, 349 had annual 
receipts below $25 million, 12 had annual receipts ranging from $25 million to $49,999,999, and 35 had 
annual receipts of $50 million or more.
106
  Thus, under this category and associated small business size 
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
26. Motion Picture and Video Production.  These entities may be directly or indirectly 
affected by our action.  The Census Bureau defines this category as follows:  “This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in producing, or producing and distributing motion pictures, videos, 
television programs, or television commercials.”
107
  We note that firms in this category may be engaged in 
various industries, including cable programming.  Specific figures are not available regarding how many 
of these firms produce and/or distribute programming for VPDs.  To gauge small business prevalence in 
the Motion Picture and Video Production industries, the Commission relies on data from the U.S. Census 
Bureau for the year 2007, the most recent year currently available.  The size standard established by the 
SBA for this business category is that annual receipts of $30 million or less determine that a business is 
small.
108
  According to 2007 Census Bureau data, there were 9,095 firms that were engaged in Motion 
                                                     
100
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 221122 (2012).
101
See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, Utilities: Subject Series - Establishment and Firm Size: Summary 
Statistics by Revenue Size of Firms for the United States: 2007, NAICS code 221122, 
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_22SSSZ5&prod
Type=table (last visited February 4, 2014).
102
See id.
103
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 515210 Cable and Other Subscription Programming, 
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited February 4, 2014). 
104
13 C.F.R § 121.201, NAICS Code 515210 (2012).
105
See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2007 Economic Census, Subject Series - Establishment and Firm 
Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2007, NAICS code 515210, 
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ4&prod
Type=table (last visited February 4, 2014).
106
See id.
107
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, NAICS Code 512110, http://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited February 4, 2014).
108
13 C.F.R § 121.201, NAICS Code 512110 (2012).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
21
Picture and Video Production.
109
  Of these, 8,995 had annual receipts of less than $25 million, 43 had 
annual receipts ranging from $25 million to $49,999,999, and 57 had annual receipts of $50 million or 
more.
110
  Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can 
be considered small. 
27. Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.  These entities may be 
indirectly affected by our action.  The Census Bureau defines this category to include “establishments 
primarily engaged in (1) publishing and/or broadcasting content on the Internet exclusively or (2) 
operating Web sites that use a search engine to generate and maintain extensive databases of Internet 
addresses and content in an easily searchable format (and known as Web search portals).  The publishing 
and broadcasting establishments in this industry do not provide traditional (non-Internet) versions of the 
content that they publish or broadcast.  They provide textual, audio, and/or video content of general or 
specific interest on the Internet exclusively.  Establishments known as Web search portals often provide 
additional Internet services, such as e-mail, connections to other web sites, auctions, news, and other 
limited content, and serve as a home base for Internet users.”
111
28. In this category, the SBA has deemed an Internet publisher or Internet broadcaster or the 
provider of a web search portal on the Internet to be small if it has fewer than 500 employees.
112
  For this 
category of manufacturers, Census Bureau data for 2007, the most recent year currently available, show 
that there were 2,705 such firms that operated that year.
113
  Of those 2,705 firms, 2,682 (approximately 
99%) had fewer than 500 employees, and 23 had 500 or more employees.
114
  Accordingly, the majority of 
establishments in this category can be considered small under that standard.  
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements. 
29. Certain rule changes proposed in the FNPRM, if adopted by the Commission, would 
modify rules or add requirements governing reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance obligations.  
30. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring video programmers to register and file 
contact information with the Commission or to make such contact information widely available through 
other means, such regulations would impose new reporting and recordkeeping obligations on video 
programmers, video programming owners, and other entities, including small entities.
31. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring video programmers to file certifications 
with the Commission regarding compliance with the Commission’s rules on the provisioning and quality 
of closed captioning, such regulations would impose different reporting and recordkeeping obligations 
than currently required on video programmers, video programming owners, and other entities, including 
                                                     
109
See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2007 Economic Census, Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts 
Size of Firms for the United States: 2007, NAICS code 512110 , 
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ4&prod
Type=table (last visited February 4, 2014).
110
See id.
111
See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, « 519130 Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web 
Search Portals, » http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch (last visited February 4, 2014).
112
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 519130 (2012).
113
See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2007 Economic Census, Establishment and Firm Size: 
Employment Size of Firms for the United States: 2007, NAICS code 519130, 
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5&prod
Type=table  (last visited February 4, 2014)
114
See id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
22
small entities.
32. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring each VPD, when arranging to carry a 
video programmer’s programming, to alert the video programmer of the requirement to provide 
certification to the Commission and to report to the Commission any video programmers that have failed 
to do so, such regulations would impose different reporting and recordkeeping obligations than currently 
required on VPDs, video programmers, video programming owners, and other entities, including small 
entities.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant 
Alternatives Considered. 
33. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account 
the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather 
than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
115
  
34. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring video programmers to register and file 
contact information with the Commission or to make such contact information widely available through 
other means, such regulations would impose new reporting and recordkeeping obligations on video 
programmers, video programming owners, and other entities, including small entities.  However, the 
proposed requirement takes into consideration the impact on small entities.  The filing of contact 
information is a simple task that should take no more than a few minutes.  In addition, such requirements 
may benefit other entities, such as VPDs and consumers, who would be able to search the registration 
information for contact information, thereby enabling them to more readily contact video programmers 
who can address their closed captioning concerns.
35. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring video programmers to file certifications 
with the Commission regarding compliance with the Commission’s rules on the provisioning and quality 
of closed captioning, such regulations would impose different reporting and recordkeeping obligations 
than currently required on video programmers, video programming owners, and other entities, including 
small entities.  The proposed rules would not impose additional burdens on such entities, because video 
programmers are already required to provide certifications to VPDs and to make such certifications 
widely available under the Commission’s rules.
116
  The proposed rule may ease the burden on video 
programmers, because video programmers would know to go directly to the Commission’s website to 
provide certification and would not need to determine how to make such certification widely available, 
and the proposed rules would ease the burden on VPDs and consumers by having all certifications in one 
easy to find place.
36. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring each VPD, when arranging to carry a 
video programmer’s programming, to alert the video programmer of the requirement to provide 
certification to the Commission and to report to the Commission any video programmers that have failed 
to do so, such regulations would impose different reporting and recordkeeping obligations than currently 
required on VPDs, video programmers, video programming owners, and other entities, including small 
entities.  The proposed rules would not impose additional burdens on such entities, because VPDs who 
are unable to locate certifications on widely available sources are already required to alert video 
                                                     
115
5 U.S.C. § 603(b). 
116
See 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(j)(1) and (k)(1)(iv); see also id. § 79.1(g)(6).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-206
23
programmers of the requirement and report such noncompliance to the Commission.
117
  The proposed rule 
may ease the burden on VPDs, because VPDs would be able to go directly to the Commission’s website 
to confirm whether the video programmer has registered and certified, which may be easier than having to 
determine on which website or other widely available place the information appears.
F. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the Commission's 
Proposals.  
37. None.
                                                     
117
See id. § 79.1(j)(1).