WPC0 2MBVRKZ3|j7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4M (PCL)HPLA4MPC.PRSXj\  P6G;\)~XP2> K Z3|j"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN2K K$ KoK"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"""a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2&/##$%a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2^)&')((a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2%,)7**+a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2y2W,3,.e2a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:l|V?$V@l YA$xYTechnical 3Technical 3> Technical 4Technical 4?` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1@ Technical 7Technical 7A` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2LdB$[C]D`E.bTechnical 8Technical 8B` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1C` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3E` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2NkF~dGfHhIvjtoc 4toc 4F` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5G` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6H` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7I 2sJkKmLoMqtoc 8toc 8J` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9K` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1L` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2M` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2wN*tOvHvPlvQr*wtoatoaN` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionO _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionP endnote referenceendnote referenceQ 2yyRpwSq>xTexUey13,6gDocument Style=(/D ,*/3ER/0` ` ` 23-6gDocument Style=(/D -*/3ES1 2 . 33.6gDocument Style=(/D .*/3ET 34 43/6gDocument Style=(/D /*/3EU 56 2{VyWp>zXzY@{5306gDocument Style=(/D 0*/3EV*78   6316gDocument Style=(/D 1*/3EW9:` ` ` 7326gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EX8;<@   8336gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EYA=>@` `  ` ` ` 2~Z |[|\F}]}9346gDocument Style=(/D 4*/3EZ0? @    10356gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E[JAB` ` @  ` `  11366gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E\SCD` `  @  12376gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E]\EF` `  @hh# hhh 2^~_`ba313386gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E^eGH` `  hh#@( hh# 14396gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E_nIJ` `  hh#(@- ( 153:6gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E`wKL` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 163;6gDocument Style=(/D ;*/3EaFMN *  ׃  2Zbcd)eŃ173<6gTechnical Document StyleD <*/3Eb&OP  . 183=6gTechnical Document StyleD =*/3Ec&QR  . 193>6gTechnical Document StyleD >*/3Ed*ST    203?6gTechnical Document StyleD ?*/3Ee'UV   2چfg hЅiU213@6gTechnical Document StyleD @*/3Ef&WX   223A6gTechnical Document StyleD A*/3Eg4Y$Z     233B6gTechnical Document StyleD B*/3Eh&[\  . 243C6gTechnical Document StyleD C*/3Ei&]^  . 2|j k܈lmmCitatorD6gFormat Secretary's Citator Output File/3Ejx_`#d6X@7@# XX  XX ##Xj\  PG;XP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#d6X@7@# XX *  #Format Downl6gFormat Downloaded DocumentD H*/3EkUab XX    X\ #d6X@7@#MACNormalI6g U/=(/D I*/3El'cd    \ X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4PXP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a),X0Í Í,X0Í Í,0Í Í,0Í Í,XÍ.,XÍ.,Í.,Í. .,., US#:}D4PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP# .,., US#:}D4P XP#FootnoteL6g( U/=(/D L*/3Emef2nom-pq-footnote tex6g6 U/=(/D M*/3En'gh#FxX  P CXP#headerO6gD U/=(/D O*/3Eoi j  #FxX  P CXP# referenceP6g` U/=(/D P*/3Ep;kl#FxX  P CXP#itemizeQ6gn U/=(/D Q*/3Eq*mn F r#FxX  PCXP#2srmsbNtSupheader2R6g| U/=(/D R*/3Ero p`    #FxX  PCXP# heading 3S6g U/=(/D S*/3Esqr #FxX  PCXP# footerT6g U/=(/D T*/3Etst!#X\  PG;P#Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gu` ` ` 2svqwexe{yDocument[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gv  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gw  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gx  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gy*    2מzp{|}BDocument[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gz  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g{8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g|A@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g}0     2ϡ~ ZRight Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g~J` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O ge` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2٤ɢTRight Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&!"  . 2U ,Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&)*   27ATechnical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&/0  . Format DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2j}49̫Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  2EParagraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop 2}1L25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )/` ` ` 27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct ):` ` `  28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )E` ` `  2Ųy829S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q 2:4жDefault ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#2DvlvvXvιheading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 2vvvvbػheading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text footnote textfootnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#2t(ܾzdHeadingChapter HeadingJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd+. 21S1DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   2811nILETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedN X 2djj8EWHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice ,, $0$0  2 -883kMEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macroz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX 2X>[[[LNORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleSMALLSmall TypestyleFINEFine TypestyleLARGELarge Typestyle2v[[4dEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   A, B,|G?@6 Uppercase Letters=(*/|G?.E .2lA_Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 a12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  2z9a42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OSst` `  @  a52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\uv` `  @hh# hhh a62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oewx` `  hh#@( hh# a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( 23blfa82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp  ӎSMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#2("$Jnlbly remains several bly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awa` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (# Technical 4¸ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#T 2 Ҷ TechnicaT 2 Ҷ Technical 7Ҳ Right Par 7z INV` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#ОC:\mw3022.tmpC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\C 2<j*l:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMP` hp x (#` hp x (## P7P# ރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOCރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: ~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#2n: , : , ,0` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#е ,  , ,0` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#:\mw3024.tmpt :\mw3024.tmpt C:\WINDOWS\MSAPPS\TEXTCONV\RTF_W` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#wwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbwwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbbbwwwwbwwwwbwwwwbwbwwwbwbb` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2 lZp,,0kjH 1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` 2=Da31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Jmn` ` @  ` `  a41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Sop` `  @  a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')\qr` `  @hh# hhh a61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')est` `  hh#@( hh# 25qa71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')nuv` `  hh#(@- ( a81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')wwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.E9y z ` CHAPTER 3  Report Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.E{|  2&m:TitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I ''#Z*f9 x$X# #Z*f9 x%X#NotesTrianglee NotesH('0\F H rW?I Works CitedWorks Cited PageH('0\F H rW?I 99         Page TitlePage Title PageH('0\F H rW?I #  `  2Lw@ Hanging indent   #Xx PXP#  X` hp x (#%'0*#Xx PXP#para numnumbered indented paragraphs' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.ҲStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2 ~l]  e Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2|#?Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 2$Style 10oInitial Codes for Advanced U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2],p % K|% K' K*33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` "i~'^:LpddDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppdLd||p|||D8DpdDddXdXDdp88d8pdddLL8pXdXLD,DpD4ppDDD4DDDDDDdDd8dddddXXXXXL8L8L8L8pddddpppp|Xdddd|Xd|ddddXXpXXXXXdddpdppL8LdLDLdpppd|8|h|D|L|8pppddLLLpLpLpLpp|l|8|ppppppp|p|L|L|Ld|DppL|D|d4ddC8CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHddLdddddd4fx6X@`7X@ yO X-w  Federal Communications Commission`(#1FCC 974 ă  yxdddy   @-  -@ X (#Ԋ#C\  P6QIP#IZ Before the  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  yO"}Washington, D.C. 20554#XP\  P6Q XP# lU  XA-In the Matter of hh,V ) ` `  hh,V)  X-Closed Captioning and Video DescriptionV)  X-of Video Programminghh,V)  X-` `  hh,V)ppMM Docket No. 95176  X-Implementation of Section 305 of the V)  X-Telecommunications Act of 1996hh,V) ` `  hh,V)  X -Video Programming Accessibilityhh,V)  XD -  NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ĐlU  X- Adopted: ` ` January 9, 1997 hh,VReleased: January 17, 1997  X- By the Commission:  X- Comment Date:  February 28, 1997  X-Reply Comment Date: March 24, 1997  Xu-4 Table of Contents l  XG-lLParagraph (#U  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:previously published programming is increasing and thus it may be unnecessary to require  xjcompletion of closed captioned video libraries by a date certain. We ask that commenters who  x>support this approach indicate how the Commission would ensure that video programming  xproviders or owners "maximize the accessibility" of previously published programming, as required by Section 713(b)(2).  X- `  x` ` Exemption based on economic burden: Section 713(d)(1) provides for the  xexemption of classes of video programming or video providers where the requirement to close  Xe- xcaption programming would be economically burdensome. While Section 713 and its legis 0"ns lative  xhistory do not define the term "economic burden," we interpret this provision to permit us to  xexempt those classes of programming where the economic burden of captioning these  xprogramming types outweighs the benefits to be derived from captioning and, in some cases, the  xcomplexity of adding the captions. We seek to establish a general classification or a number of  x-general classifications of programming for which captioning would be economically burdensome.  xWe do not propose to exempt any class of provider since all classes of providers appear to have the technical capability to deliver closed captioning to their viewers intact. x  X"- ` x` ` Exemptions based on existing contracts:  We tentatively conclude that  x{programming subject to contracts in effect on the date of enactment of the 1996 Act (i.e.,  x]February 8, 1996) that specifically prohibit closed captioning should be exempt from any  xjcaptioning requirement. Comment is sought on other types of contract provisions that may be inconsistent with captioning. "#' ,-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ X- ` xH` ` Exemptions based on undue burden: The statute provides for petition for exemptions based on a showing of undue burden. Such exemptions would be available based on: x` ` (1) the nature and cost of the closed captions for the programming; x` ` (2) the impact on the operation of the provider or program owner; x` ` (3) the financial resources of the provider or program owner; and x` ` (4) the type of operations of the provider or program owner. H  XH- x We seek comment on how to apply these factors and whether there are any other factors which  xshould be considered when determining that closed captioning would result in an undue burden  x[for an individual programming provider. We also request comment on using standard "special  X -relief" or waiver type procedures for these types of requests. x  X - ` Ax` ` Standards for quality and accuracy: We propose to extend to other programming  x-providers the rule (Section 76.606) that requires cable operators to deliver existing captions intact  xto all video providers. However, we tentatively conclude that we should not adopt standards for  xthe nontechnical aspects of captioning, including accuracy of transcription, spelling, placement  x[and style, at the start of our phase in period for closed captioning. We propose to monitor the  xclosed captioning that results from our requirements and, if necessary, revisit this issue at a later  xdate. We also will not propose minimum credentials for captioners nor place any limits on the method used to create captions.  X- ` x` ` The enforcement process: We propose to rely on complaints as a primary  xlenforcement mechanism for the rules we adopt. Further, all complaints would initially be  x.directed to the program provider in an attempt to resolve problems privately within a specified  xtime period in order to minimize administrative resources devoted to matters that are better  x[resolved through informal processes. We also seek comment on other methods or information  xneeded to verify compliance, such as a requirement that each entity responsible for compliance  xwith the rules retain in its files, or have available upon appropriate request, records sufficient to verify compliance. x  X7- x C.` ` Current Regulation of Closed Captioning  X - ` x7.` ` Closed captioning was first used in the 1970s.Y L {O -ԍReport, FCC 96318 2528.Y Closed captioning is hidden as  xencoded data transmitted within the vertical blanking interval ("VBI") of the television signal,  xwhich, "when decoded, provides a visual depiction of information simultaneously being presented"Z,-(-(ZZ"  X- xin the aural channel (captions)."FL {Oy-  zԍxSee 47 C.F.R.  73.682(a)(22). In particular, closedcaptioning information may be transmitted on fields  xone and two of line 21 of the VBI. Standard television pictures are transmitted at a rate of 30 frames per second,  xwith two interlaced fields comprising each frame. Each field begins with a VBI of 21 lines, during which the picture  xJscanning beam is turned off (blanked) and is moved from the bottom of the screen to its starting position at the top  xof the screen. There are two VBIs transmitted per frame, one in each field. The placement of data within the VBI  {Oc- x\is described in terms of the particular blanking line used and the field (one or two) in which it occurs. See  {O-- xhPermissible Uses of the Vertical Blanking Interval, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92305, 8 FCC Rcd 90 n.1 (1992). A viewer wishing to see the closed captioning must use a settop decoder or a television receiver with builtin decoder circuitry.  X- ` Bx8.` ` In 1976, the Commission adopted rules which provide that line 21 of the VBI is  X- xto be primarily used for the transmission of closed captioning.$L {O+ -  \ԍxSee Captioning for the Deaf, Report and Order ("Captioning R&O"), Docket No. 20693, 63 FCC 2d 378  {O - xi(1976). See also Permissible Uses of the Vertical Blanking Interval, Report and Order, MM Docket No. 92305,  x8 FCC Rcd 3613 (permitting enhanced closedcaptioning and other broadcastrelated information services on line 21, field 2 of the VBI). The Commission's rules specify  X- x-technical standards for the reception and display of such captioning.: L {O-ԍxId.: The Commission also has  x=adopted technical standards for the cable carriage of closed captioning data that accompanies  X_- xprogramming carried on cable systems.Q\_T L {Od-  ԍx47 C.F.R.  76.606; Cable Television Technical and Operational Requirements, Report and Order, MM  {O.- xDocket No. 91169, 7 FCC Rcd 2021, 2031 (1992), recon. granted in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8676 (1992).Q Cable operators and open video system operators also  xare specifically required to carry the closed captioning data contained in line 21 of the VBI as  X1- xpart of their mustcarry obligations.^1xL {OZ-  ԍx47 U.S.C.  534(b)(3), 535(g)(1) and 47 C.F.R.  76.62 (e), (f) and 76.1506(k).  See Implementation of  {O$- x,Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Open Video Systems, Second Report and Order, CS Docket No.  {O-9646, FCC 96249 (released June 3, 1996), summarized at 61 Fed. Reg. 28698 (June 5, 1996). In 1976, the Commission adopted a rule requiring  X - xtelevision licensees to transmit emergency messages in a visual format.$ L {Oi-  ԍx47 C.F.R.  73.1250(h); Emergency Messages Television, Report and Order, Docket No. 20659, 61 FCC  {O3-2d 18 (1976), recon. granted in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 62 FCC 2d 565 (1977).$ In 1990, as part of the  X - xADA, L {O!-ԍxPub. L. No. 101336, 2, 104 Stat. 328 (1990) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.). a requirement was established that all federally funded public service announcements  X -must be closed captioned.w L yO)$-  ԍx47 U.S.C.  611. The ADA is a comprehensive civil rights statute that prohibits discrimination against  xindividuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, state and local government services, and in private places  {O%- xof public accommodation such as restaurants, law offices, and movie theaters. See generally Burgdorf, The  {O&- xAmericans with Disabilities Act: Analysis and Implications of a SecondGeneration Civil Rights Statute, 26 Harv. C.R.C.L. L. Rev. 413 (1991).w " @,-(-(ZZ^ "Ԍ X- ` ԙx9.` ` To implement the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 ("TDCA"),L yOy-ԍxPub. L. No. 101431, 104 Stat. 960 (1990) (codified at 47 U.S.C.  303(u), 330(b)). the  xzCommission adopted rules that require all television receivers with screen sizes 13 inches or  X- xlarger to be capable of receiving and displaying closed captions. For those whose television  xreceivers that are not capable of decoding and displaying closed captioning, separate decoders  xjmay be purchased. Existing technology, however, can only decode Latinbased alphabets and  xisymbols, so captioning of some nonEnglish language programming (Chinese, Japanese, Russian,  Xv- xArabic, etc.) is not possible using this system.K\vXL {O -  NԍxInternational Cable Channel Partnership, Ltd. ("ICCP") Reply Comments at 3. Electronic Industries  {OI - xiAssociation of America (EIA) Standard Recommended Practice for Line 21 Data Service (EIA Document #608) September 1994 at 142.K This transmission and display system is generally  xwell established and functions effectively. In 1995, 25 million decoderequipped television sets  XH- xwere sold in the U.S.H|L yOu-  ԍxElectronics Industries Association, Consumer Electronics Manufacturing Association ("CEMA") Comments at 4, citing Electronics Industry of America Market Research Department 1995 figures. It is estimated that between 50 and 60 million U.S. homes currently can  X1- xZreceive closed captioning.[1L yO-ԍxVITAC Comments at 12; Clark Comments at 6.[ Digital transmission systems under development are being designed  X -to include closed captioning capabilities.@\ d L {O/-  ԍxSee Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon Existing Television Broadcast Service, Fourth  {O- xReport and Order ("ATV R & O"), MM Docket No. 87268, FCC 96493, __ FCC Rcd __ (released December 27, 1996).@  X -x D.` ` Current Availability of Programming With Closed Captioning  X - ` x 10.` ` Currently, programming accessible to persons with hearing disabilities through  xkclosed captioning is the result of the voluntary efforts of program producers and providers,  X- xalthough the Commission has encouraged these efforts in several previous actions./6  L {O-  !ԍxThe Use of Telecasts to Inform and Alert Viewers With Impaired Hearing, Public Notice ("Use Public  {O- xNotice"), 26 FCC 2d 917 (1970) (alerting television licensees of the special needs of persons with hearing disabilities,  xand urging them to make use of visual as well as oral announcements of emergencies, position newscasters so as to  xhpermit the use of lip reading by viewers and feature visualization of materials in news, weather and sports programs).  {O- xwSee also Captioning R&O, 63 FCC 2d at 389 ("We continue to encourage broadcast licensees . . . to make television  {O - xa truly valuable medium for the hearingimpaired."); Renewal Applications Los Angeles, Memorandum Opinion  x<and Order, 69 FCC 2d 451, 459 (1978) (rejecting renewal challenges based on licensees' failure to provide closed  x,captioning, but "urg[ing] all television licensees to review the options presently available that, within reason, might  {O#- xLprovide some of the benefits of the medium of television for this nation's hearing impaired"), recon. denied,  {O#- x=Memorandum Opinion and Order, 72 FCC 2d 273 (1979), aff'd sub nom. Community Television of Southern  {O$- xCalifornia v. Gottfried, 459 U.S. 498 (1983).  See also Implementation of 1992 Cable Act Rate Regulation, Report  xZand Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5902 (1993) where the Commission urged cable operators to carry more video programming with closed captions./  Economic  x\support for these voluntary efforts comes from four principal sources. Financial assistance"y ,-(-(ZZ"  xprovided by the Department of Education ("DOE") represents approximately 40% of the cost of  xLall captioned video programming. This funding is available only for programming that reaches  xthe largest audiences national news, public affairs and children's programming, movies and  xprime time specials. The remaining support comes from a combination of directly credited  xZcorporate advertising support, charitable and foundation support, and producers and distributors of programming.  X_- ` px 11.` ` Today, significant amounts of nationally distributed programming is closed  XH- xkcaptioned and some programming produced locally or regionally is captioned.HL {O -ԍxSee Report, FCC 96318 5683, for detailed information regarding available programming with captions. Television  xZprogramming is produced initially for broadcast networks, broadcast stations, cable networks and  xcable systems. Other MVPDs, such as wireless and satellite providers, also offer their subscribers  xprogramming originally produced for broadcast and cable distribution and generally transmit  X -intact any closed captioning provided with programs.t ZL yO-  ԍxWireless Cable Association International, Inc. ("WCA") Comments at 2, 3, 7; Small Cable Business  xAssociation ("SCBA") Comments at 56. The one possible exception is when the scrambling system employed by  xsome wireless cable systems does not allow line 21 of the VBI to be passed through to the subscriber's television  x<set. Interview with Paul Sindebrand, Wilkerson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn, and Andrew Kreig, Vice President and General Counsel, Wireless Cable Association International (November 7, 1996).t  X - ` 'x 12.` ` Virtually all nationally broadcast programming, both commercial and  xKnoncommercial, contains closed captions, including prime time television programming, children's  xprogramming, news, daytime programming and some sports programming. The Public  xBroadcasting Service ("PBS") captions all children's programs, prime time programming and the  Xb- xyNewshour with Jim Lehrer.Cb L yO-ԍxPBS Comments at 2.C The few PBS programs that are not closed captioned are visually  xoriented (e.g., ballet or other dance performances), or are nonverbal in nature (e.g., a symphony  xZconcert). NonEnglish language operas are not closed captioned since they already contain open  X- xEnglish subtitles. DL yOj-  kԍxPBS Comments at 2. Foreign language programming, in general, is not captioned due to several logistical  xjproblems. Persons with expertise in nonEnglish language captioning may be scarce and, for some languages,  xvirtually unavailable. Also, the alphabets and characters used in certain nonEnglish languages cannot be processed  xxwith standard closed captioning. and the captioning decoders currently available in television sets used in the U.S.  {O - x;can only decode Latinbased alphabets and symbols. ICCP Reply Comments at 3. Electronic Industries Association  {OT!- xof America (EIA) Standard Recommended Practice for Line 21 Data Service (EIA Document #608) September 1994  xat 1422; Telephone Interview with Gerald Freda, Vice President, Production & Engineering, National Captioning Institute ("NCI") (June 17, 1996).  PBS has voluntarily adopted the practice of requiring producers to provide closed captioning in all programming funded by PBS' National Program Service. "  ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- ` x 13.` ` The majority of programming on each of the commercial broadcast networks also  X- xis already closed captioned.!L yOb-  ԍxNBC Comments at 3; CBS Comments at 9; Capital Cities/ABC Comments at 4; Association of lateDeafened Adults ("ALDA") Comments at 3. The primary exceptions are overnight news programs"  L yO-  ԍxABC, CBS and NBC distribute overnight news programs, broadcast between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m., which are  x<often a compilation of reports sent to them by their affiliates without captioning. The networks claim that the  xrelatively low ratings and limited advertising revenues of these programs do not justify the cost of captioning. Capital Cities/ABC Comments at 6. and regional  X- xsports feeds.(#XL yO -  ԍxOne exception has been the regional games of the 1995 and 1996 NCAA Men's Basketball tournament,  xwhich were captioned by CBS through joint efforts with funding and captioning agency partners. CBS Comments at 1415.( NBC closed captions an average of 83 hours of programming per week, or 88.3%  X- xof the 94 hours each week it distributes to affiliates.$( L yO-  \ԍxNBC Comments at 3; Telephone Interview with Ellen Agress, Vice President, Legal Policy and Planning, NBC (June 4, 1996). ABC offers on average about 90 hours  X- xof programming each week to its affiliates.R% L yO-ԍxCapital Cities/ABC Comments at 5.R Of that programming, a substantial majority,  X- x[including news, sports, children's and entertainment programming, is closed captioned.&L {ON-   ԍxId. at 57. ABC indicates that the major exceptions are World News Now, offered to affiliates Monday  {O-Friday, 2 a.m. 6 a.m. eastern time, and live regional sports. Id. at 5. CBS  xaverages 13.5 hours of programming with closed captions daily, or between 85 and 95 hours per  X_- xweek, depending on weekend sports programming schedules.E'_lL yO|-ԍxCBS Comments at 89.E The Fox Television Network  xdistributes 16 hours of prime time, late night and early Sunday morning programming, along with  X1- x19 hours of children's programming throughout the week, all of which is closed captioned.(1L yO-  ԍxInformation from Peggy Binzel, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, Fox Broadcasting Company (June 17, 1996). The  xWB Television Network ("WB") distributes five hours of prime time programming and five hours  xzof children's programming each week, all of which is closed captioned, with the exception of  X - x.some older cartoons.) TL yO -  zԍxTelephone Interview with Mitch Nedick, Head, Finance and Administration, the WB Television Network (July 8, 1996). The United Paramount Network ("UPN") distributes six hours of prime  xtime programming, one hour of children's weekend programming, and a movie on Saturday" ),-(-(ZZ] "  X- xiafternoons, all of which is closed captioned.*L yOy-  ԍxTelephone Interviews with Robert Kaplan, Programming Director, United Paramount Network and Robert Giese, Vice President, Chris Craft Broadcasting, (May 29, 1996). UPN includes captioning as a delivery requirement  X-in its programming contracts.R+ L {O-ԍxReport, FCC 96318  64.R  X- ` "x 14.` ` In the last few years, most syndicated programming has included closed captioning.  X- xThe amount of captioned firstrun syndicated programming (e.g., Jeopardy!, Wheel of Fortune,  X- xOprah) varies depending on who produces and who airs the programming.,L yO -ԍxVITAC Comments at 12; Californians for Television Access ("CTA") Comments at 3. Newer offnetwork  x-syndicated programming, especially that produced after the mid1980s, is often closed captioned.  Xc- xMost offnetwork syndicated programming produced before the mid1980s (e.g., Bewitched, The  XN-Honeymooners) was not captioned when produced and remains uncaptioned.i-NBL yOA-ԍxNational Association of the Deaf ("NAD") Comments at 16.i  X" - ` #x15.` ` With respect to nationally distributed cable programming networks, according to  xthe National Cable Television Association ("NCTA"), nearly 24% of the programming on the top  x20 basic and six most widely distributed premium cable channels is captioned at present, with  X - xcertain services providing as much as 80% of their programming with captions.F. L yO`-ԍxNCTA Comments at 35.F In addition,  xynearly 30% of prime time programming on the top 20 basic cable networks and over 60% on the  X - x!top six premium networks is closed captioned.;/ b L {O-ԍxId. ; Some national news on cable is closed  x[captioned. Cable news programming networks, such as CNN, CNN Headline News and CNBC,  X- xcaption between 25% and 50% of their programming each week.g0 L {O&-ԍxReport, FCC 96318 76; NBC Comments at 56.g Kaleidoscope, a 24hour a  xday cable programming network established for the purpose of serving persons with disabilities  XS- x.uses "open captions" that are visible to all viewers for its programming.)1S L yO-  ԍxNCTA Comments at 5; Telephone Interview with Ryan Prince, Director of Kaleidoscope's National  xAdvisory Board (May 29, 1996) ("Prince Interview"). Kaleidoscope has transmitted its service using digital  xcompression technology since April 1995, and is currently trying to expand its coverage through the DirecTV and  x<Primestar DBS systems. HSD owners who subscribe to Kaleidoscope need a special decoder to receive the digital signal.) Furthermore, Home  xBox Office ("HBO") and Cinemax, two of the most widely available premium cable network  xservices, provide a variety of programming, much of which is captioned. For example, in 1995,  x.HBO had captioning on 76% of its theatrical motion pictures, 83% of its musical programming," 61,-(-(ZZF"  x94% of its documentaries, 72% of its family programming, 82% of its series, 100% of its comedy  X-programs, and 100% of other categories of programming.C2L yOb-ԍxHBO Comments at 7.C  X- ` #x16.` ` Almost all widelydistributed motion pictures currently produced and distributed  xMby member companies of the Motion Picture Association of America ("MPAA") are closed  xcaptioned for distribution over broadcast television, home video and cable television following  Xv- xtheir theatrical release. While more than 6000 closed captioned titles have been distributed,G3vXL yO -ԍxMPAA Comments at 34. G  xaccording to MPAA, there are approximately 24,000 previously released films that have not been  XH- xclosed captioned.A4HL {O -ԍxId. at 12.A Many commercials scheduled during and adjacent to network programs are  xjcaptioned by the advertising agencies which produce them. Network promotions of upcoming  xnetwork programs ("interstitials") are generally not captioned. Broadcast and cable networks such  xas NBC and HBO state that even for uncaptioned promotional spots, information about the name  x[of the program and the time of the upcoming broadcast is often displayed visually by graphics  X -contained in the spot.[5 zL yO-ԍxNBC Comments at 4; HBO Comments at 1415..[  X - ` x17.` ` Many local television stations caption their news, at least the portion that is  x<scripted. According to a study conducted by the National Association of Broadcasters ("NAB")  xin February 1996, 70% of the stations responding provide closed captioning for some of their  Xb- xZnonnetwork programming.6b L yO-  ԍxFratrik, "The Television Industry's Provision of Closed Captioning Services in 1996," National Association of Broadcasters (March 15, 1996), NAB Comments, Attachment at 2. According to the NAB, 81.5% of stations caption their local news.U7bb L yOu-ԍxNAB Comments at 3; NAB Study at 45.U  xCable operators provide their subscribers with regional and local cable programming in addition  xto broadcast stations and national cable networks. The regional programming is primarily news  X- x.and sports channels that are generally not captioned.H8 L yO-ԍxNCTA Comments at 9, 11.H Much locally originated programming  x/carried by cable operators is on their public, educational and governmental ("PEG") access  xchannels. Programming over PEG access channels is usually produced by individuals, schools,  xlocal governments or small nonprofit organizations working with volunteer personnel. Most of  xythese program producers usually operate with very limited funding that results in a low level of  X-captioning of PEG programming.i9 L yO%-ԍxAlliance for Community Media ("Alliance") Comments at 7.i " 9,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-x E.` ` Methods of Closed Captioning  X- ` $x18.` ` As we reported in our July 29, 1996, Report to Congress, the methods used to  xcaption video programming vary primarily by programming type, with costs depending on the  xmethod used to add the captions, the quality of the captions and the entity providing the  X- x.captions.Y:L {O-ԍxReport, FCC 96318 4655.Y Organizations and suppliers that charge the most for their services are reported to  xprovide the highest quality and most accurate captioning. For prerecorded programming,  xcaptioning is generally "off line." Under this method, the captioning service gets an advance  xcopy of the script, tape or film before the program is aired. The audio portion of the program,  xincluding sound effects as well as dialogue, is transcribed and added in synchronization with the  xvideo content. After the program is captioned it is sent to a postproduction company or to the  xprogram producer on a computer disk or via modem. The captioning is encoded by the post X - xjproduction company or the producer onto line 21 of the VBI of the master tape to be telecast.k; ZL yO-ԍxNBC Comments at 2; Capital Cities/ABC Comments at 4.k  xZThis method of captioning entails a labor intensive process to ensure that the captions are placed  x<precisely where the corresponding audio appears and then locked into the proper position on the  xprogram tape. The captioners must ensure that the captions will appear at precisely the right  X- xmoment in a precise location on the screen.G<L yO--ԍxCBS Comments at 1011.G This type of captioning is used for feature films  xand many prerecorded entertainment programming, including prime time series and children's  Xd-programs.A=dzL {O-ԍxId. at 10.A Estimates of the cost of this type of captioning range from $800 to $2500 per hour.>d L yO!-  ԍxCBS Comments at 11; Capital Cities/ABC Comments at 7; Schwartz, Woods & Miller Comments at 10.  {O-See also Report, FCC 96318 47.  X6- ` x19.` ` A variation of this method is used for prerecorded programming such as daytime  x-dramas and late night entertainment shows, where there are only a few hours between taping and  X- xairing and the final edits for the program are not completed until close to air time.M?f L yO-ԍxCBS Comments at 1112.M Although  xZthese captions are prepared in advance of the time that the program is aired, they are not encoded  xjonto the program tape, but rather are transmitted with the program at the time it is aired. These  xcaptions are less precisely synchronized than offline captions, and are rolled from the bottom of the screen rather than appearing at precise locations on the screen.  X~- ` x20.` ` For live, unscripted programming, such as news, public affairs, sports, or awards  xshows, "real time" or "live captioning" is often used. Under this method, a specially trained"g ?,-(-(ZZ"  X- xL"stenocaptioner" transcribes the audio portion of the live program as it airs.{@\L yOy-  ԍxStenocaptioners are trained as court reporters. They also require additional training to obtain the skills  {OA- xxneeded to report the verbatim speech, use correct spelling, syntax and grammar, and understand what it said. See  {O -Report, FCC 96318 50 n.95.{ The captioner's  x\computer is linked to the telecast operation center and the captioning material is created for  x\telecast in "real time." Due to the transcription and computer processing required, real time  X- x;captioning appears on the screen about three seconds after the corresponding audio content.yAL yOX-ԍxNBC Comments at 2; Capital Cities/ABC Comments at 4; CBS Comments at 13.y The  xLcost of real time captioning for live programming is estimated to be between $120 and $1200 an  X-hour.B|L {O -  ԍxSee, e.g., ALDA Comments at 5; Caption Colorado Comments at 1, 3; NAD Comments at 2728; A & E  {O -Comments at 15; CBS Comments at 28. See also Report, FCC 96318 48.  X_- ` #x21.` ` Another method of captioning live programming is electronic newsroom ("ENR")  x<captioning, in which the captions come from the text in the station's news script computers. Only  xtext transmitted from the scripting computers onto the teleprompters is captioned. Therefore,  xjunscripted material, such as live reports from the field, reports of breaking stories, much sports  xand weather reporting, and ad libs and banter among the anchors that does not appear on the  X - xiteleprompters, is not captioned.fC L yOu-ԍxCapital Cities/ABC Comments at 4; CBS Comments at 17.f The electronic newsroom captioning method is commonly used  xfor local broadcast station newscasts. ENR captioning is virtually cost free once the equipment  x=and software are purchased. The cost of installing ENR capability is generally estimated to be  X -between $2500 and $5000.D h L {O-  >ԍxNAB Comments at 45, n.7; Capital Cities/ABC Comments at 7; CTA Comments at 5. See also Report, FCC 96318 51.  Xy- ` "x22.` ` Captions often must be reformatted when programming is rebroadcast or distributed  xkby a subsequent video provider. For a secondary use, a program may be edited to fit a time  xkperiod that is different from the original one and commercials may need to be inserted. This  X4- xediting can change synchronization of the captions and make reformatting necessary.RE4 L yO-ԍxCaption Database Comments at 3. R If parts  xof the program are removed or rearranged, the captions must be removed or rearranged  X- xaccordingly.CFR L yO #-ԍxPBS Comments at 3.C The cost of reformatting is approximately one fourth that of the original  X-captioning, or approximately $400 to $800 for a full length movie.fGL yO%-ԍxALDA Comments at 3; Caption Database Comments at 34.f Estimates of reformatting "rG,-(-(ZZ "  X- xcosts generally range between $350 and $450 per hour, depending on the amount of editing,`HL yOy-ԍxA&E Television Networks ("A&E") Comments at 15.`  X-although it is reported that the cost of reformatting can be as high as $750.EIXL yO-ԍxNCTA Comments at 15.E x  X-x F.` ` Available Captioning Resources  X- ` x23.` ` As we indicated in our July 29, 1996, Report to Congress, offline captioning  xresources appear to be more available than realtime captioning resources. There are more than  X_- x100 suppliers of closed captioning services.,JX_L yO -  ^ԍxWGBH Educational Foundation ("WGBH") Comments at 20; Media Captioning Services ("MCS")  xZComments at 5. Lists of suppliers of closed captioning are provided in the NAD Comments, Attachment G, and CTA Comments, Exhibit B., In its comments, the National Captioning Institute  XH- xk("NCI") states that "dozens" of firms currently offer captioning services,CKHL yO-ԍxNCI Comments at 3.C which it believes  X1- xKconstitute an adequate number of captioning firms to meet current demand at reasonable prices.kLZ1L {Oz-  ԍxId. at 5. However, there are six major suppliers of captioning. NCI and WGBH/The Captioning Center  x;are both notforprofit providers. VITAC, Media Captioning Services, Captions, Inc. and RealTime Captions, Inc. are commercial suppliers. Capital Cities/ABC Comments at 7.k  xLMedia Captioning Service ("MCS"), however, alleges that the supply of captioning services is  X - xoligopolistic, claiming that three dominant firms have captured the majority of the business.M L {On-ԍxMCS Comments at 5. According to MCS, the three firms are NCI, WGBH and VITAC. Id. at 3.  X - ` x24.` ` Availability of real time captioning resources appears more limited. Based on  xinformation from the National Court Reporter's Association which listed 83 members who are  xrealtime captioners in the Spring of 1996, VITAC estimates that there are likely to be only about  X- x100 real time captioners nationwide today.KNL L yO-ԍxVITAC Reply Comments at 1.K NCI also notes the limited supply of real time  xcaptioners, contending that significant amounts of on line captioning cannot normally be supplied  Xb- xZon short notice.EObL yO -ԍxNCI Comments at 56.E Alternatively, MCS estimates that there may be only 500 people in the industry  XK-at present, although it notes that there is a growing pool of talented real time captioners.CPKlL yOh#-ԍxMCS Comments at 5.C  X- ` x25.` ` Caption Colorado filed comments that also indicate real time captioning services  xmay be growing. This caption house reported that it employs 23 stenocaptioners across the  xcountry, with the capacity to provide 23,000 to 35,000 hours of news per year, and projected"P,-(-(ZZE"  xpotential growth over 18 months to provide 484,000 hours of real time stenocaptioning per year.  xZCaption Colorado claims the reduction in litigation and related discovery has reduced the demand  X-for court reporters, thus increasing the pool of potential stenocaptioners.RQL yOK-ԍxCaption Colorado Comments at 78.R  X- III.xCLOSED CAPTIONING REQUIREMENTS  Xv-x A.` ` Responsibility for Captioning  WH<x` ` 1. Background   X - ` x26.` ` In order to implement any closed captioning requirements that we may adopt, we  x/must determine where the responsibility lies for ensuring that video programming is closed  x captioned, and which parties shall be required to comply with those requirements. Section  x713(b)(1) focuses on the result that programming be closed captioned, rather than who is  xresponsible for accomplishing this goal, while Section 713(b)(2) refers to both video  xprogramming providers and program owners as being responsible for captioning of library programming.  Xb- ` Cx27.` ` Broadcast, cable, wireless and DBS commenters all generally agree that the  xresponsibility for captioning of prerecorded programming should be placed at the production  xsource, often noting that it would be inefficient and burdensome to require that captions be added  X- xat the distribution level.RXL {O&-  ԍxSee, e.g., NBC Comments at 12; WCA Comments at 5; CBS at 2122; NAB Comments at 8; HBO Comments at 12. This position is consistent with the House Report which states: "It is  xclearly more efficient and economical to caption programming at the time of production and to  xdistribute it with captions than to have each delivery system or local broadcaster caption the  X- xxprogram."ESL yO;-ԍxHouse Report at 114.E In contrast, the National Congress of the Jewish Deaf ("NCJD") supports placing the  xresponsibility for captioning on providers, noting that providers control what actually goes out  X- xover the airwaves.DTBL yO-ԍxNCJD Comments at 3.D The National Association of the Deaf ('NAD") and Telecommunications for  xthe Deaf ("TCD") also assert that providers should be responsible, analogizing responsibility for  x?captioning with our rules for telecommunications relay service ("TRS"), which place the  Xe- xresponsibility for providing service on the carriers.uUeL yO#-ԍxNAD Reply Comments at 25; TCD Comments at 4; 47 C.F.R.  64.604.u Other commenters representing persons with"eb U,-(-(ZZ"  xhearing disabilities state that the responsibility for captioning must be shared by video  X-programming providers and programming producers.VL {Ob-  ԍxSee, e.g., ALDA Comments at 78; No. Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons ("NVRC") Comments at 5; Dominick Comments at 56. x  W<x` ` 2. Request For Comment   X- ` $x28.` ` We propose that the responsibility for compliance with our closed captioning  xrequirements should be placed on video programming providers, which we define as all entities  xwho provide video programming directly to a customer's home, regardless of the distribution  xtechnologies employed by such entities. We believe that the programming providers are in the  x-best position to ensure that the programming they distribute is closed captioned because of their  xrole in the purchasing of programming from producers. For example, a provider can refuse to  xpurchase programming that is not closed captioned. We also believe that the direct link between  xconsumers and their video providers is an important consideration for ensuring compliance with  xour rules. We seek comment on this view. Commenters should address the possible effect such  xKa rule would have on video programming providers. Commenters who disagree with our proposal  xshould discuss, in detail, specific alternatives that would achieve our principal goal of increasing  xthe availability of closed captioned programming. Commenters should also address the effect that  xyour proposal might have on the diversity of available programming as well as the availability of closed captioned programming.  X4- ` x29.` ` We note that the language of Section 713 refers to "program providers and owners"  x.and may have been intended to provide the Commission with jurisdiction over other parties in  X- xthe production and distribution chain.PWX"L yO-  ԍxSee Sections 713(a), 713(b)(2) and 713(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3). The House report defines the term "provider"  xas "the specific television station, cable operator, cable network or other service that provides programming to the public." House Report at 114.P We believe that a number of parties could be the  xprogram owner, including the producer, copyright holder, syndicator or distributor, and request  xcomment on determining who is the owner of a program. We seek comment on the feasibility  x<of having program owners and providers share responsibility for compliance obligations with our closed captioning rules.  X|- ` x30.` ` Although we propose placing compliance obligations on video programming  xLproviders, we recognize that, from a practical standpoint, captioning at the production stage is  XN- x[often the most efficient manner to include closed captioning with video programming.RXXNBL yOA#-  ԍxThe House Report also notes "[i]t is clearly more efficient and economical to caption programming at the  xtime of production and to distribute it with captions than to have each delivery system or local broadcaster caption the program." House Report at 114.R Thus,  xwe anticipate that our rules will result in video programming providers incorporating such  xKrequirements into their contracts with video producers and owners, regardless of which party has" b X,-(-(ZZ"  xthe obligation to comply with our rules. We seek comment on this view and its effect on the  x-implementation of closed captioning requirements. Specifically, we seek comment from providers  xand distributors who currently include captioning as a contractual delivery requirement for their  xprogramming regarding their experiences in obtaining captioning in this manner. Has including  xcaptioning as a delivery requirement been met with opposition by program producers, and if so,  xhow have parties resolved such disputes? Has this requirement limited the program options  xavailable to these providers and distributors, i.e., is the pool of producers who are able or willing  xto comply with the requirement limited? We also seek comment on whether there are any  xanomalous situations created by our proposal to place the responsibility for compliance with our closed captioning rules on video programming providers.  X - ` x B.` ` Obligations as to NonExempt Programming Transition Rules for New  X -Programming (#` x  W < x` `  1. Background  X- ` nx31.` ` Although certain types of programming or program providers may be exempt from  xthe obligation to include closed captioning, the basic thrust of Section 713 is that programming  Xb- xshall, in general, be captioned.\YbL {O-ԍxSee Sections III D, E, F infra.\ The statute does, however, make a distinction between newly  xypublished and previously published material. Section 713(b) requires the Commission to adopt rules to ensure that:  _Xx(1) video programming first published or exhibited after the effective date of such  _regulations is fully accessible through the provision of closed captions, except as provided in subsection (d); and   Xx (2) video programming providers or owners maximize the accessibility of video  %programming first published or exhibited prior to the effective date of such  pregulations through the provision of closed captions, except as provided in subsection (d).   X7- ` x32.` ` In response to the Notice of Inquiry, commenters provided recommendations  X"- xkregarding the regulation of closed captioning.|Z"ZL {O-!-ԍxSee Notice of Inquiry, 11 FCC Rcd at 49244928 2536. | Commercial broadcast and cable television  x?networks would clearly prefer to maintain the status quo with regard to captioning of all  xjprogramming, new and old. For example, HBO asserts that "marketplace forces have proved to  xLbe a significant motivator to the provision of closed captioning," and there is thus no need for  X - xgovernment intervention to mandate captioning requirements.G[ L yOc&-ԍxHBO Comments at 1112.G In contrast, NCI points out that" |[,-(-(ZZ"  x-the hopes of greater voluntary commitment to captioning by video providers after passage of the  X-TDCA have not been fully realized.C\L yOb-ԍxNCI Comments at 3.C  X- ` x 33.` ` NAB has suggested that our objective should be "ensuring access by hearing x.impaired persons to a broad range of video programming and information," which NAB claims  xlcan be achieved even if certain older programs or programs with a small audience remain  Xv- xuncaptioned.F]vXL yO -ԍxNAB Comments at 78. F NCTA claims that many cable networks provide programming 24 hours a day,  x<seven days a week, which amounts to much more programming than the broadcast networks, and  xstates that these and other "unique" situations of the cable industry should be taken into account  X1- xin mandating captioning requirements.P^1L yO -ԍxNCTA Comments at 48, 1819. P We note, however, that this argument ignores the fact  xthat many cable networks cycle their programming, rebroadcasting programs several times over  xthe course of a month or season, which should significantly decrease the actual number of hours of programming to be captioned on an annual basis.  X - ` x!34.` ` At the very least, providers want broad discretion in making captioning decisions,  X - xjboth in the types of programs which will be captioned[_ xL yO-ԍxCBS Comments at 45; MPAA Comments at 35.[ and the method of captioning used for  X-different types of programming.Z`L yOI-ԍxNBC Comments at 12; CBS Comments at 2223Z  Xb- ` x"35.` ` Despite their preference that captioning efforts remain voluntary, most providers  xacknowledge that the 1996 Act requires captioning of new programming, and generally support  x<a phasein approach, though they do not offer specific transition recommendations. For example,  xZNBC asserts that mandatory requirements "must be phasedin over a long enough period to allow  X- xthe market to adjust and respond to new and increased demand."DaL yOO-ԍxNBC Comments at 11.D NCTA recommends that full  xcaptioning of new programming, with exceptions for "textual, interstitial and short form  X- xprogramming," be achieved over a multiyear period, in percentage increments.Hb( L yO!-ԍxNCTA Comments at 2325.H The Association  xof Local Television Stations ("ALTS") advocates a requirement that programming furnished with  xcaptions be delivered to consumers with captions intact immediately, but maintains that captioning  xof locallyproduced programming should be achieved on a phasedin basis, taking into account  X|-costs and other burdens.Dc| L yO&-ԍxALTS Comments at 3.D "|H c,-(-(ZZn"Ԍ X- ` ԙx#36.` ` Captioners generally did not comment on the need for a transition period to full  xcaptioning of new programming. Only MCS refers to the need for a transition to full captioning  x<of all programming, noting that providers with greater financial resources and who currently have  xMsignificant levels of captioned programming will need less of a phasein period than smaller  X-providers.DdL yO-ԍxMCS Comments at 10.D  Xv- ` x$37.` ` Although most of the commenters representing persons with hearing disabilities  xLindicate a preference for the required captioning of as much programming as possible, as soon  XH- xas possible, many recognize that it will be difficult to caption all programming immediately.eHXL {OQ -  ԍxSee, e.g., ALDA Comments at 1011; Andrews Comments at 45; Consumer Action Network ("CAN") Comments at 13, 1718; Cassidy Comments at 9; South Carolina Association of the Deaf Comments at 7.  xxSeveral commenters suggest that priority be given to certain types of programming first, gradually  xadding categories and percentages of captioned programming until the requirements of the 1996  xAct are met. Typically, emergency broadcasts, news reports, local/regional programs, and  xeducational programming are cited as being of higher priority for captioning than entertainment  X -and other programming.f L {O8-  =ԍxSee, e.g., MCS Comments at 10; Boston Chapter of Self Help for Hard of Hearing People ("Boston SHHH") Comments at 2; Cassidy Comments at 9.  X - ` 3x%38.` ` Many commenters offered general proposals for captioning deadlines for new  xprogramming. These proposals offer suggestions on how to prioritize closed captioning in order  xito require the captioning of programming that appears to be most important and attract the largest  xaudiences first. For example, one commenter with a hearing disability suggests a requirement  xof "increments of hours over the next few years, with the increase in the number of captioned  xhours dependent on the annual gross income of the television companies. Additional captioned  xhours should be distributed from the most popular to least popular viewing times until all  X- xKprograms are captioned."Gg L yO-ԍxAndrews Comments at 4.G Another commenter proposes that the rules first mandate captioning  X- xfor all news programs, followed by all national programming.GhL yO<-ԍxCassidy Comments at 9.G MCS argues that providers who  xzhave an impact on the public interest or general welfare, education and health of consumers  xshould be subject to a more rapid transition to full captioning, particularly where such providers  xMserve a larger market. MCS also suggests that cable providers that offer their programming  xnationally should have a phasen requirement based on the per subscriber cost they project for  xLcaptioning and their current levels of captioning, while providers who have offered captioning  xfor some time and have a substantial portion of their current programming captioned with federal  XN-assistance should have a shorter timetable than smaller networks.DiN, L yO+'-ԍxMCS Comments at 10.D "N i,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- ` ԙx&39.` ` Where specific captioning deadlines after the effective date of our rules were  xsuggested, they varied widely for different categories of programming. Among the proposals for  x<deadlines by which specific programming should be required to include closed captioning are the  X- xfollowing: (1) all previously captioned programming should be displayed with captions intact,jL yO4-  ԍxNAD Comments at 35; ALDA Comments at 10; American Society for Deaf Children ("ASDC") Comments at 4; Dominick Comments at 6.  X- xyand all emergency broadcastsKk L yOu-ԍxBoston SHHH Comments at 2.K and new programming, on the effective date of the rules;]lL yO -ԍxALDA Comments at 10; Dominick Comments at 6.] (2)  X- x@all premium cable programming (new or old),lm@L yO~ -ԍxNAD Comments at 36; ASCD Comments at 4; NCJD Comments at 4.l all major networks and premium cable  Xv- xprogramming,GnvL yO-ԍxPickell Comments at 5.G and real time captioning of all emergency announcements and local news within  X_- x90 days of the effective date;]o_` L yOp-ԍxALDA Comments at 11; Dominick Comments at 6.] (3) all new programming within six months of the effective  XH- xKdate;DpH L yO-ԍxNCJD Comments at 5.D (4) all news reportsKqH L yOy-ԍxBoston SHHH Comments at 2.K and all currently uncaptioned reruns within one year of the effective  X1- xdate;]r1L yO-ԍxALDA Comments at 10; Dominick Comments at 6.] and complete captioning of all new programs not subject to the undue burden exemption  X -within two years of the effective date.Xs L yOk-ԍxNAD Comments at 37; ASCD Comments at 4.X  X <x ` ` 2. Request For Comment   X - ` x'40.` ` We do not believe that it is practical to mandate immediate captioning of all non xexempt video programming. We recognize that certain limitations exist, such as the number of  xavailable captioners and captioning services, the costs of captioning, and the effect that immediate  ximplementation of mandatory captioning rules might have on the continued availability of certain  xtypes of video programming. In addition, given the plain language of the statute, appropriate  xZexemptions, undue burden arguments and preexisting contract considerations must be taken into  xaccount in crafting any rules that establish a deadline by which new programming must be  xcaptioned. Thus, we believe it appropriate to establish a reasonable transition period that will  xresult in the amount of video programming with closed captioning increasing over a period of  x\time until the full video accessibility for new programming mandated by Section 713(b)(1) is reached."0s,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- ` ԙx(41.` ` We propose a transition schedule of eight years that will phase in captioning of  x all nonexempt new programming by requiring an additional 25% every two years. In other  x words, at the end of two years after the effective date of our rules, 25% of nonexempt new  xprogramming must be closed captioned; 50% after the end of four years; 75% after the end of  x.six years; and 100% at the end of eight years. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether the  xphase in schedule be completed over a ten year period, with 25% after three years, 50% after five years, 75% after seven years, and 100% after ten years.  XH- ` x)42.` ` These proposals will provide program providers, owners, and producers significant  xdiscretion regarding what will be captioned to meet the requirements and how to use the funding  xavailable for captioning. We believe this approach is preferable to one in which the Commission  xspecifies precisely what types of programming needs to be captioned by when. Providers have  xaccess to information, such as advertising revenues or captioning sponsorships available for  xspecific programs or programming day parts, that may influence the choice of what programming  xgets captioned first. Further, program providers are the most direct link to the consumer and are  xxin a better position than the Commission to determine what should be captioned first. We request  x[comment on this proposal. While we propose to give program providers and owners flexibility  xin determining which programs to caption in order to comply with each stage of the  ximplementation schedule, market forces alone may not be sufficient to ensure that the closed  xcaptioning of some types of public interest programming, which may for various reasons be less  xcost effective to close caption, is not delayed until the final stages of the implementation  xschedule. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether there are certain types of programming,  x(i.e., live local news or public affairs programming) for which we should specify an earlier  X-implementation schedule.  X- ` x*43.` ` With respect to MVPDs, we propose to apply the percentages of programming that  xLmust be captioned on a systemwide basis. Under this approach, for example, a cable operator  x would be required to transmit a total of 25% of all the new, nonexempt programming on its  xcable system with closed captions by the end of the first benchmark period. We believe that this  xwould make possible a more rational, market driven allocation of captioning resources during the  xLtransition process. We note, however, that under this approach, a cable operator, for example,  xycould choose to transmit one particular cable network completely captioned, while transmitting  xthree others with no captioning. Also, it might be possible that a cable system could meet its  xobligation solely by passing through the captioned programs of the broadcast stations it carries.  xWe seek comment on these and other effects of this proposal, and request comment on whether the effects may differ among the various MVPDs.  X!- ` Ax+44.` ` Alternatively, we seek comment on whether the percentages of programming that  x.must be captioned should apply to each program service or channel transmitted by an MVPD.  xFurther, we seek comment on whether, if a broadcast station is retransmitted by an MVPD,  xcompliance with our rules should be the responsibility of the MVPD offering the service directly  x\to the subscriber or the broadcast station programming the channel? We seek comment on  x/similar situations where responsibility for compliance with our proposed closed captioning  xrequirements may rest with more than one video programming provider. We also ask that"#'s,-(-(ZZ%"  xcommenters address the manner in which such obligations should be shared by various providers.  X- ` x,45.` ` We seek comment on whether the determination that a percentage requirement has  xbeen met should be based on the amount of programming with captioning that has been shown  xover a month, or whether it should be based on a week or some other period of time. We  xrecognize that there might be legitimate reasons why certain weeks might have less captioned  x=programming than others. We seek comment on what the period of time should be if we apply  xthe percentages on a systemwide basis, and what it should be if we apply the percentages on a per channel basis.  X - ` Ax-46.` ` We recognize that, in some instances, the level of captioned programming shown  xalready may exceed our proposals. We expect that this level of captioning will continue. We  xare also aware that a significant portion of funding for current levels of closed captioning comes  xyfrom the federal government through Department of Education grants. The availability of such  x.funding for captioning in the future is unclear and may affect the amount of closed captioning that can be provided.  Xy- ` x.47.` ` Further, to the extent that programming delivered to program providers is closed  xcaptioned, and the provider does not edit the programming, we propose to require that the  x=provider must transmit the programming with captions, regardless of whether the provider has  xalready met any percentage requirement. Recognizing that program providers may edit  xprerecorded captioned programming, and that, therefore, the captioning would likely need to be  xreformatted, we seek comment on the costs of such reformatting and on whether we should also require that such programming be shown with captions.  X- ` x/48.` ` We recognize that as distribution technologies increasingly convert to digital  x<transmissions, there may be alternative means that become available for captioning programming.  x\For example, it is possible that in the future technology may become available that captions  xprogramming through the receiver rather than requiring the transmission of closed captions. We  xLseek comment on whether and if so, how, our captioning rules should be designed to take into  x[account the technological changes that may take place as a result of digital conversion and on  xwhat steps we should take to ensure that our captioning rules do not impede the development of such new technologies.  X- ` ~x049.` ` We also note that some programming services use multiplexing to offer several  xprograms at the same time. This practice may become more commonplace as there is increasing  xxuse of digital compression technology. We seek comment on how to determine closed captioning  xrequirements for programming services offering multiple programs simultaneously. We also seek  xcomment on any other situations, be they due to technological advances or otherwise, where compliance with our closed captioning requirements as proposed would be unworkable.  XQ%- ` x150.` ` We seek comment on all of these proposals. We ask that commenters explain in  xdetail why any of the proposals are not feasible and request specific alternatives. We recognize  xthat our requirements could incorporate various factors including the type of programming, the"#'s,-(-(ZZ%"  xtime of day the program is offered, audience size, the type of program provider, or number of  xhouseholds served by the provider (e.g., homes in the television market or homes passed by the  xcable system), or some combinations of these factors. We ask commenters to consider whether  xLthese factors should be incorporated into our phase in schedules or be the basis of alternative  x<proposals. Commenters offering such suggestions should be specific and provide information to  xsupport their conclusions. Finally, commenters proposing alternative phase in schedules should  xbear in mind Congress' intent in enacting Section 713 to provide full accessibility to video  xprogramming for persons with hearing disabilities and consider the importance of such accessibility.  X - x C.` ` Obligations as to NonExempt Programming Transition Rules for  X -x` ` Library Programming x  W < x` `  1. Background  X -x251.` ` Section 713(b)(2) requires that:  Xx (2) video programming providers or owners maximize the accessibility of video  %programming first published or exhibited prior to the effective date of such  pregulations through the provision of closed captions, except as provided in subsection (d).   xWe refer to programming first published or exhibited prior to the effective date of our closed captioning rules as "library programming."  X- ` bx352.` ` Networks and program producers request that no mandatory captioning  xrequirements be placed on programming libraries. They claim that attempts to caption such a  xjvast amount of programming immediately would be prohibitively expensive, and that providers  X|- x[are more likely to archive such materials rather than pay to have them captioned.t|L yO-  ԍxCBS Comments at 3738; HBO Comments at 1314; Schwartz, Woods & Miller Comments at 13; NCTA Comments at 21. CBS states  xNthat it would be unfair to require owners of vintage programming to assume the costs of  xcaptioning such programming now, as such costs were neither calculated into the purchase price  X7- xnor considered in planning the future use of video libraries.Gu7 L yO!-ԍxCBS Comments at 3738.G NBC recommends that captioning  xof libraries should only be required if the program was initially exhibited on a national broadcast  X - xor cable network, or if the program was captioned for its original exhibition.Dv L yOj$-ԍxNBC Comments at 13.D NAB opposes" @v,-(-(ZZL"  xa captioning requirement for library programming that is distributed by only a few stations or has  X-a very small audience.CwL yOb-ԍxNAB Comments at 9.C  X- ` Ax453.` ` HBO asserts that the amount of captioning of previously published programming  x/has been steadily increasing and that the success of voluntary captioning efforts proves it  X- xunnecessary to require completion of captioning video libraries by a date certain.GxXL yO-ԍxHBO Comments at 1112.G Similarly,  xjMPAA claims that a requirement of wholesale captioning of video libraries is unnecessary and  ximpractical, claiming that voluntary efforts of the motion picture industry have been successful  XH- xto date and that the industry will continue to meet demands for captioning where they exist.HyHL yO -ԍxMPAA Comments at 1113.H  xZNCTA asks that the Commission not impose mandatory captioning requirements on programming  xxlibraries due to the enormous financial burden such a requirement would place on cable providers.  xNCTA claims that providers will voluntarily caption popular library programs that are aired on  x=a regular basis, but a requirement that all library programming be captioned will "relegate older  X -movies and series permanently to the archives."Hz xL yO-ԍxNCTA Comments at 2122.H  X - ` `x554.` ` With regard to library programming, commenters representing individuals with  x[hearing disabilities interpret the requirement that our rules "maximize the accessibility" of such  Xy- xZprogramming to mean that all library programming should eventually be captioned.{yL {O2-ԍxSee, e.g., CAN Comments at 18; NAD Comments at 37; Pickell Comments at 5. NAD notes  x{that little or no cost should be involved in ensuring that previously published captioned  xprogramming is transmitted with captions intact, and that therefore such programming should be  X4- xrequired to include captions immediately upon the effective date of the rules.K|4L yO-ԍxNAD Comments at 1617, 35.K Many  xcommenters request that movies and programs that were captioned when first broadcast should  xzbe required to be captioned on rebroadcast as well as on videotape. Some commenters also  xkcomplain about the lack of captions on rental videos and videos of theatrical and broadcast  X-programs which are sold retail.q}* L {O!-ЍxSee, e.g., Burkhalter Comments at 34; Cassidy Comments at 9; Chertok Comments at 2; Gallaudet  {O}"-University's Technology Assessment Program Comments at 4; Neuhauser Comments at 2. But see PBS Comments at 4 (PBS uses best efforts to include captioning for programs licensed to PBS for home video distribution; where PBS's program rights do not include tape distribution, however, it cannot prevent a producer who captioned a program for PBS broadcast from furnishing an uncaptioned version of that same program to the tape distributor).q "},-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- ` x655.` ` NCI notes that very little captioning has been done of programming produced prior  xto early the 1980s; that which does exist is primarily home videos and offnetwork programming.  xNCI further claims that, to the extent older programming is in the public domain, there is usually  X- x?no one with sufficient economic interest in the program to fund captioning.C~L yO4-ԍxNCI Comments at 4.C Similarly,  xMColorado Assistive Technology Project et al. ("CATP") claim that relatively few previously  xpublished or exhibited programs are captioned when shown as reruns. CATP recommends that  xkwe draft regulations guaranteeing that once a program has been captioned, all copies of the  xiprogram must be equally captioned, with significant fiscal penalties levied on entities who remove  XH-or do not copy captioning from previouslycaptioned material.FHXL yOQ -ԍxCATP Comments at 34.F  X - ` x756.` ` Individuals with hearing disabilities also acknowledge that captioning of library  x0programming should be accomplished over a longer period of time than that allowed for  X - xcaptioning of new programming. L {O-ԍxSee, e.g., CAN Comments at 18; NAD Comments at 37; Pickell Comments at 5. NAD argues that previously published captioned  xprogramming should be required to be transmitted with captions immediately upon the effective  X - xdate of the rules.O zL yO-ԍxNAD Comments at 1617, and 35.O Captioning of other library programs should be mandated based on a  xtimetable beginning within six months of the effective date, and staggered to reflect differences  X- xin the size and resources of the provider, nature of the program, and time of day.D L yOK-ԍxNAD Comments at 37.D NAD further  xargues that the schedule for library programming should allow a three to five year period for  xcompletion of captioning of all library programming which is not subject to the undue burden  XK-exemption.DKL yO-ԍxNAD Comments at 37.D X` hp x !(#%'0*,.8135@8:63.` ` Section 713(d)(1) provides that: x  Xxthe Commission may exempt by regulation programs, classes of programs, or  services for which the Commission has determined that the provision of closed  captioning would be economically burdensome to the provider or owner of such programming.   X - ` 2x?64.` ` Many providers want broad categories of programming to be exempted from any  xmandatory captioning requirements, and most also do not want to caption "interstitials" (i.e.,  x/promotional spots for upcoming programs) or other shortform material. For example, NAB  xrecommends that overnight news feeds and other programming that attracts a small audience be  xexempted from captioning requirements, and also seeks to exempt local stations from captioning  X!- xadvertising, infomercials or other programming which they air but do not produce.E!  yO&$-ԍxNAB Comments at 89.E The  xRecording Industry of America ("RIAA") claims that captioning is not necessarily appropriate or  xeven possible for some music videos, and asks the Commission to exempt music videos from any"#X,-(-(ZZt""  X- xmandatory requirements.D  yOy-ԍxRIAA Comments at 3.D HBO recommends blanket exemptions for live and interstitial  X-programming, as well as payperview and payperchannel premium services.GX  yO-ԍxHBO Comments at 1316.G  X- ` ox@65.` ` The Wireless Cable Association International ("WCA") requests exemption of  xlocallyoriginated programming, citing the limited production budgets and resources available to  X- xsuch program producers.C  yO& -ԍxWCA Comments at 6.C Along similar lines, the Association of America's Public Television  xStations ("APTS") requests that the Commission take into account the limited operating budgets  xof public television stations in considering standards for exemptions or waivers of mandatory  XH- xcaptioning for locally produced programming.FHx  yOq-ԍxAPTS Comments at 78.F ALTS notes that the enormous costs involved  x<with captioning at the station level could exert substantial influence over a station's programming  x{decisions, forcing local stations to forego locallyproduced programming in favor of pre xpackaged, captioned programming which may not be responsive to the needs, tastes and interests  X -of local viewers.H   yO-ԍxALTS Comments at 1112.H  X - ` xA66.` ` Broadcast and cable providers also claim that a variety of technical issues argue  xagainst captioning sports in general, and specifically regional sports. These include: technical  xor logistical problems with delivering different games to affiliates in various parts of the country  x>at the same time; lack of stenocaptioning services in regions where particular games will be  xytelevised, making it impossible for the captioner to see the game and caption it in realtime; and  xlack of encoding equipment at the site from which the local programming is transmitted by  X4- xuplink.4  {O}-ԍxSee, e.g., ABC Comments at 1314; NBC Comments at 1314; NCTA Comments at 11. In addition, providers assert that sporting events are essentially visual, with statistics  xand progress typically indicated by graphics, thereby eliminating or reducing the need for  xcaptioning of such programming. Providers further claim that sports and other live programming  xis perishable, generally having no residual market, so that production costs may not be spread out  xNover multiple showings, and contend that there is no financial incentive to caption such  X- xprograms.:*  {O"-ԍxId.: However, we observe that much national sports programming is captioned despite  xjthese issues, and, as reported in the comments, CBS provided real time captioning of the entire  xy1995 and 1996 NCAA Men's Basketball Championships, in a joint effort among several funding  X|-and captioning resources.k|  yO&-ԍxCBS Comments at 1415 and nn. 17, 18; VITAC Comments at 4.k"|L ,-(-(ZZn"Ԍ X- ` ԙxB67.` ` While providers and program producers raise concerns associated with captioning  xcertain programming, commenters representing the hearing disabled are in favor of mandatory  xkcaptioning of all programming, stating that "there is no type of programming that should be  X- xNexempt from captioning."  {O4-  ԍxSee, e.g., CAN Comments at 13; LHH Comments at 5; ALDA Comments at 8; ASDC Comments at 3; Pickell Comments at 5. Captioners also want a requirement that all programming be  X- xcaptioned.n"  {Ow-ԍxSee, e.g., CaptionMax Comments at 3; MCS Comments at 8.n One commenter points out that cable subscribers with hearing disabilities pay for  x<full cable service even though they can access only a small selection of cable's program offerings  Xv- x]due to limited existing captions.Hv  yO -ԍxCassidy Comments at 1. H Many commenters representing the hearing disabled  xspecifically request mandatory captioning for several types of programming which providers argue  xshould be exempt from captioning requirements, or at least subject only to limited requirements,  X1-including weather, sports, interstitials, commercials, and locallyproduced programming.MZ1D  {O&-  ԍxSee, e.g., North Carolina Department of Human Resources Comments at 1; ALDA Comments at 45; League  xfor the Hard of Hearing ("LHH') Comments at 4; ALDA/Potomac Comments at 2; Burkhalter Comments at 9; Chertok Comments at 2; Clepper Comments at 2.M  X - ` xC68.` ` With respect to local, live programming, one commenter with a hearing disability  xpoints to weather and emergency broadcasts as being of great concern, noting that, without  x0captions, she must guess at the significance of information concerning storm alerts and  xinstructions from emergency management personnel. Several commenters request that captions  xbe required or encouraged for all news and weather programs as well as emergency  X- xannouncements.f  {O-  ԍxSee, e.g., Webster Comments at 2; Shepard Comments at 1; Andrews Comments at 34; Clepper Comments at 2. Although a high percentage of national and international news is captioned,  xcommenters report problems with local news, weather and emergency messages, which are often  xLpoorly captioned or not captioned at all. One commenter states that it is particularly important  xfor locally produced programming to be captioned so that persons with a hearing disability may  X4- x.fully participate in their community affairs.N4  yO-ԍxBurkhalter Comments at 3, 9. N A related problem mentioned in the comments is  xjthat emergency messages that scroll across the screen are brief, and usually refer the viewer to  X-an upcoming weather report, which is not captioned.GP  yO#-ԍxAndrews Comments at 3.G  X- ` xD69.` ` Several commenters involved in creating captions also support captioning for news  X- xprogramming. For example, CATP recommends a requirement that local news be captioned.D  yOR'-ԍxCATP Comments at 3.D "p,-(-(ZZ"  xOther commenters support realtime captioning as the only acceptable form of captioning for live  xLreports. MCS notes that local broadcast news programs typically use teleprompter captioning  xmethods (i.e., ENR captioning) which, MCS argues, may be justified for smaller markets, but are  xwholly inadequate in most major markets, where live coverage of local events is provided. MCS  xLclaims that ENR captioning provides only partial accessibility of the news, because it captions  X- xonly those portions of the news which are scripted.C  yO-ԍxMCS Comments at 3.C Caption Colorado also encourages the  x!adoption of real time captioning as the only acceptable standard for news and local live  x{programming, claiming that realtime is the overwhelming choice of persons with hearing  xdisabilities when given a choice between real time or ENR. This commenter claims that  xapproximately 30% of what is said during local live news broadcasts is scripted and therefore  x<using ENR leaves substantial portions of the news uncaptioned and inaccessible to persons with  X - xLhearing disabilities.T X  yO -ԍxCaption Colorado Comments at 3, 16.T They further assert that latebreaking and emergency news require real xtime reporting, as there is usually no time to prepare scripts for such reports. In this regard, they  xcontend that the absence of real time captioning leaves persons with hearing disabilities with only  X -the most basic, terse warnings in emergency situations.@   {OW-ԍxId. at 5.@  X<x` ` 2. Request For Comment  Vc-x` `  a.Exemption of Classes of Video Programming  X5- ` xE70.` ` Section 713(d)(1) states that the Commission may only exempt classes of  xLprogrammers and providers from our rules where the requirement to provide closed captioning  x\would prove to be economically burdensome for the entire class. While Section 713 and its  xZlegislative history do not define the term "economic burden," we interpret this provision to permit  xkus to exempt those classes of programming where the economic burden of captioning these  xprogramming types outweighs the benefits to be derived from captioning and, in some cases, the  xcomplexity of adding the captions. We believe the number and scope of our proposed class  xyexemptions must strike a careful balance between the economic burden imposed and Congress' goal of making video programming "fully accessible."  XO- ` xF71.` ` We seek to establish a general classification or a number of general classifications  x[of programming for which captioning would be economically burdensome. We note, however,  xZthat there are many variables that affect the costs and benefits relevant to closed captioning, and,  xthus we request detailed comments regarding the appropriate class exemptions that would be  xconsistent with the statutory mandate to make video programming fully accessible to individuals  xwith hearing disabilities. In particular we seek comment on whether a definition of economic  xburden should be based on factors such as relative market size, degree of distribution, audience" z,-(-(ZZ "  xratings or share, relative programming budgets or revenue base, lack of repeat value, or a combination of factors. The following discusses various classes of video programming.  X- ` xG72.` ` Foreign language programming: We ask whether our general exemption should  xcover foreign language programming. To what extent is the captioning of such programming  xfeasible? For example, are there captioners that are fluent in all other languages? Do foreign  x0language programmers generally tend to have small production budgets and/or provide  xprogramming that is viewed by a limited audience? We note that, as is explained above, existing  xtechnology in television receivers is only capable of decoding Latinbased alphabets and symbols.  xTo require nonLatinbased alphabets (e.g., Arabic, Hebrew, Japanese) to be captioned is likely  xto require costly technical upgrades that may be burdensome, if at all possible, to implement.  xAccordingly, we believe that, at a minimum, an exemption is appropriate for programming that  xis in languages which are not written using a Latinbased alphabet. We request comment on this  xzproposed exemption and whether this exemption should be extended to all foreign language  x=programming, regardless of the type of characters used to express that language in writing. In  xconsidering this proposal, we seek information on the benefits of captioning other foreign  x[programming where Latinbased alphabets may be used and that serves significant population groups, such as the Spanishspeaking population in the U.S.  XK- ` nxH73.` ` Programming that is primarily textual in nature. We further propose to encompass  xvideo programming that is primarily textual within the general exemptions from our requirements  xfor closed captioning. Such programming would include channels dedicated to onscreen program  xschedules or guides, stock tickers and bulletin boards, and could also include selected programs  xjoffered by other programming services. We believe that a requirement for captioning this type  xof programming is unnecessary because information is already provided visually, with little or  x-no relevant audio track. We seek comment on whether the textual information currently provided  xxby such programming is sufficient to ensure accessibility to persons with hearing disabilities. We  xjalso ask commenters to consider what, if any, definition of primarily textual video programming is needed for our rules.  XN- ` xI74.` ` Cable access programming. PEG access channel programming typically operates  X7- xon a relatively small production budget.H7  yO-ԍxAlliance Comments at 9.H Therefore, imposing a captioning requirement may  xplace an economic burden on the producers of such programming. However, we believe that  xsome PEG programming is of a high public interest value because it may present important  xLgovernmental, educational and community information. We request comment on whether PEG  x-access programming should be encompassed by our general exemptions. We also seek comment  xMon whether there are certain types of PEG access programming for which we should require  xcaptioning. If so, how should we distinguish between PEG access programming that should be encompassed by our general exemptions and that which should not be exempt? "#!X,-(-(ZZe""Ԍ X- ` xJ75.` ` We do not believe, however, that leased access channels should be encompassed  xby our general exemptions from captioning requirements. We do not believe that captioning  xyrequirements for leased access channels would be economically burdensome, as it might be for  xPEG access channels, since these channels are intended to serve as commercial outlets for  xprogramming. To some extent, commercial leased access channels are expected to be used by  xjnationallydistributed programming networks. We tentatively conclude that closed captioning  x<would not be economically burdensome on leased access programming as a class, although there  xmay be circumstances where exemptions under Section 713(d)(3), the undue burden standard,  xmight apply. We request comment on this tentative conclusion. Commenters supporting the  xinclusion of leased access programming within the general exemptions should consider whether there should be an exemption for some but not all leased access programming.  X - ` CxK76.` ` Instructional Programming.   L ocally produced and distributed instructional  X - xLprogramming typically operates on a relatively small production budget.D  yON-ԍxHBO Comments at 11.D Thus, a captioning  x[requirement may be economically burdensome to the program's providers or owners and might  xresult in the loss of such programming. We are concerned, however, that such an exemption  xmight deprive persons with hearing disabilities of access to important educational programming.  xWe seek comment on whether such programming should be encompassed by our general  xexemptions. We also request comment on whether there are alternatives to an exemption for this  xclass of programming that would allow it to be closed captioned without imposing significant  xeconomic burdens that would result in a loss of certain programs. With respect to nationally xdistributed instructional programming, we note at least some of this programming may be  x=prerecorded and have repeated showings. Should such programming be encompassed by our exemptions from closed captioning requirements?  X- ` xL77.` ` Advertising. There are several types of advertising including national and local  xshort form advertising (i.e., traditional commercials) and local and national long form advertising  x(e.g., infomercials). We seek comment on whether all advertising or certain types of advertising  x<should be encompassed by our general exemptions. We seek comment on whether a requirement  xZto close caption commercials would impose an economic burden relative to the typical production  xbudgets for such commercials, and the typical revenues the commercials generate. Could  xcaptioning costs be offset by the revenues produced by the commercials? Alternatively, would  xa captioning requirement significantly raise the cost of certain advertising, especially local  xadvertising that reaches small audiences which is currently inexpensive, and prevent some entities  xfrom advertising? We note that there is likely to be a marketplace incentive for advertisers to  xKcaption their commercials to attract consumers with hearing disabilities and seek comment on this  xassumption. We observe that many national advertisers have already recognized the benefits of  X!- xMcaptioning their commercials.R!X  {O%-ԍxReport, FCC 96318 66.R We further believe that there will be a greater incentive for  xadvertisers to caption their commercials once a significant amount of programming is captioned,""",-(-(ZZ!"  xas uncaptioned commercials will seem inconsistent with surrounding captioned programming for  xthe individuals with hearing disabilities who are attracted to the programming because of its  xaccessibility. We also note that in some advertising a portion of the information is provided textually or graphically and may serve as an alternative closed captioning.  X- ` xM78.` ` Home shopping programming. We are aware that home shopping channels are  xksimilar in some ways to commercials in that they are intended to sell products and present a  x.portion of the information provided to consumers in textual form. However, we do not believe  xthat all of the descriptive material and information provided by home shopping program hosts is  xcurrently available in textual form on the television screen. Thus, we do not propose to include  xNhome shopping programming in the classes of programming exempt from our captioning  xrequirements. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Commenters who contend that this  xxrequirement is not feasible or would pose an economic burden on the providers or owners of such  xprogramming are requested to provide specific support for their contentions, including relevant cost data.  X- ` xN79.` ` Interstitials and promotional advertisements. From the information we have  x gathered, we conclude that most interstitials and promotional advertisements provide their  Xb- xprincipal information in textual form.Nb  {O-ԍxId. NBC Comments at 4.N Thus, given the number of such announcements and the  xshort time period in which they are produced, we tentatively conclude that the burden of requiring  xcaptioning of interstitials and promotional advertisements outweighs the benefit of a mandatory  xzrequirement for captioning, and thus interstitials and promotional advertisements should be  x-included in our general exemptions. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We believe,  xhowever, that the basic information provided by these types of announcements should be  xZdisplayed in some textual or graphic form in order to provide accessibility to persons with hearing disabilities.  X- ` xO80.` ` Political advertising. Political advertising is important programming in that it  xMprovides information about candidates for public office, which is beneficial to persons with  xNhearing disabilities, as it is for all Americans. Requiring parties to close caption political  x[advertising, however, could impose an economic burden and, thus, might prevent some of this  xtype of advertising, especially political advertising for local elections. Accordingly, should this  x/programming be included within our general exemptions? If it is not exempt, to what extent  x.would a requirement for closed captioning of political advertisements be inconsistent with the  X-anticensorship provisions of Section 315 of the Communications Act?EZ  yO"-ԍx47 U.S.C. 315. E  X - ` @xP81.` ` Fundraising activities of noncommercial broadcasters. We tentatively conclude that  xylive portions of noncommercial broadcasting stations' fundraising activities, e.g., pledge drives  x\and onair auctions, should be included within the classes of programming exempt from our""#,-(-(ZZ!"  xclosed captioning requirement. Noncommercial stations use this type of programming in lieu of  xKcommercials to raise money to support their activities. We are aware that noncommercial stations  xgenerally have fewer resources than commercial providers to raise money to finance their  xoperations and the economic burden of captioning live fundraising activities might outweigh the  xbenefits of captioning such programming. We seek comment on whether there are less  xeconomically burdensome alternatives to closed captioning for such programming that would  xkensure accessibility. For example, should we require periodic textual graphics or captioning  xduring a fundraising program that would summarize the highlights of the program as an  xalternative to full closed captioning? We seek comment on this proposal and solicit alternative suggestions.  X - ` RxQ82.` ` Music programming. There are numerous types of music included in video  xprogramming and musical programming. We believe that some types of music should be  x\captioned, while it would be reasonable to include other types of music programming in the  x/classes of exempt programming. With respect to music videos, we note that many of these  xprograms are already being captioned, and that the lyrics of many songs are readily available for  xuse by off line captioners. Music videos are not highly perishable, and often have significant  Xy- xproduction budgets, sometimes along the lines of a short film. The cost of captioning music  xvideos can be spread over the many times they are distributed and thus a requirement to caption  xthem should not be overly burdensome. Thus, we tentatively conclude that these programs should  xxbe captioned. We seek comment on this proposal. However, we tentatively conclude that several  xtypes of music should be encompassed by the classes of programming we exempt from captioning  xrequirements. We believe that background music, and performances where the music is primarily  xinstrumental (e.g., symphony concerts, ballets) should be encompassed by the classes of  x=programming we exempt. We seek comment on whether live performances should be included  xwithin our general exemptions. With respect to background music, such as theme songs from  xtelevision shows and feature films, we recognize that the lyrics may be important to the  x\enjoyment of the programming and seek comment on whether we should require them to be  xcaptioned. We propose, however, to require that any rebroadcast of a live musical performance  Xe- x(that is not primarily instrumental) be captioned as it would be a prerecorded program.DXe  yO-  kԍxWe believe that this captioning requirement would be reasonable and note that HBO uses this practice for  xthe live concerts it distributes. Interview with Robert M. Zitter, Senior Vice President, Technology Operations, HBO (November 18, 1996).D We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.  X - ` xR83.` ` Weather programming. We propose not to include weather programming in our  x.general exemption. Although there is often graphic information included in this programming,  xwe believe that a significant amount of information is conveyed in the audio portion which is not  xcaptured by the graphics accompanying the report. Also, we note that satellite pictures, which  xare an integral part of most weather programs, are difficult to comprehend without the  xmeteorologist's oral explanation. Given that weather conditions can and often do directly affect  xhealth and safety concerns, we tentatively conclude that it would be inappropriate to include""$,-(-(ZZ!"  X- x]weather programming in our general exemptions from our captioning requirements.X  yOy-  {ԍxWe note that our rules requiring broadcasters to display emergency announcements visually have been  xextended to all other video program providers, and that the rules require that such announcements be displayed at the top of the screen, where captions typically do not appear. 47 C.F.R. 11.51(c)(1), (g)(3). In  x-addition, to the extent that weather reports are part of local news programming, we do not believe  xthat the captioning is economically burdensome. Weather reports can be scripted and included  x-in the teleprompter text that is converted to captioning at virtually no cost using the ENR method  xof captioning that is common at many local stations. We seek comment on this tentative  xconclusion. We also seek comment as to the feasibility of captioning weather programming, and whether the cost of such captioning would outweigh its utility.  XH- ` xS84.` ` Sports programming. We do not believe that all sports programming should be  xencompassed by our general exemptions. There is no evidence that the captioning of sports  xprogramming, in general, is economically burdensome. We note that a significant amount of  xnationally distributed sports programming has been captioned voluntarily as has some regional  xsports programming. We also do not believe that all local sports programming should be exempt  xfrom captioning because, to some extent, this type of programming may involve major league  xsports teams, large production budgets, and may achieve large audiences comparable to that of  xsome national services. There may be, however, types of sports programming for which a closed  xcaptioning requirement would be burdensome, such as locally produced college or high school  xsports. Should those types of sports programming for which closed captioning would be  xeconomically burdensome fall under our general exemptions? In addition, we seek comment on  xjwhether there are alternatives to a closed captioning requirement for this type of programming,  x?e.g, presentation of the basic information in textual or graphical form, that would be less burdensome than a closed captioning requirement.  X-x` ` b. Exempt Classes of Video Providers  X- ` xT85.` ` While the statute provides that we also may exempt classes of video providers, we  x/believe that a blanket exemption even for very small providers is unnecessary, because the  xvarious providers distribute the same types of programming to consumers, and all classes of  xproviders appear to have the technical capability to deliver closed captioning to viewers intact.  Xg-We request comment on whether this conclusion is sound.$g  yO -  =ԍxWe seek comment regarding the burden on small entities in an effort to achieve the market entry objectives  {O - xjset forth in Section 257 of the 1996 Act. 47 U.S.C. 257. See also Section 257 Proceeding to Identify and  {O!- xEliminate Market Barriers for Small Businesses, Notice of Inquiry, GN Docket No. 96113, FCC 96216, 11 FCC Rcd 6280 (1996). "P%,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-x E.` ` Exemptions Based on Existing Contracts  W< x` ` 1. Background   X- ` pxU86.` ` Section 713(d)(2) exempts video programming providers or owners from our  xiclosed captioning requirements to the extent that such requirements are inconsistent with existing  Xv-contracts.Jv  yO-ԍx47 U.S.C.  613(d)(2).J Specifically, Section 713(d)(2) states:  Xxa provider of video programming or the owner of any program carried by the  provider shall not be obligated to supply closed captions if such captions would  be inconsistent with contracts in effect on the date of enactment of the  oTelecommunications Act of 1996 [February 8, 1996], except that nothing in this  section shall be construed to relieve a video programming provider of its  X -obligations to provide services required by Federal law.: X  {O-ԍxId.:   W <x ` ` 2. Request For Comment   Xy- ` xV87.` ` The language of Section 713(d)(2) exempts programming from any closed  xycaptioning requirements we may adopt, if applying such requirements would be "inconsistent"  xwith an existing contract. We tentatively conclude that contracts which affirmatively prohibit  xclosed captioning would fall within this exemption and we seek comment on this conclusion.  xSuch contracts do not appear to be typical but may have been entered into when the program  xkcreator wishes to maintain total creative control over the product involved. A provider that  xentered into such a contract could find itself unable to use the product at all if this exemption provision did not exist.  X- ` _xW88.` ` However, we recognize that it is possible that contracts may contain more general  xlanguage, not explicitly mentioning closed captioning, that might nonetheless be inconsistent with  xOcaptioning. We seek comment on the types of provisions that might be contained in  xprogramming contracts that would be inconsistent with a captioning requirement. We seek such  x-comment in order to determine whether we need to identify types of contract provisions that may  xbe eligible for exemption under Section 713(d)(2) in addition to those that specifically prohibit  xclosed captioning. We note that a broad interpretation of this provision, which might exempt all  xLexisting contracts other than those that specifically provide for captioning, may be contrary to  xCongress' intent to increase the availability of captioning. Under this latter interpretation, a large  xjvolume of programming covered by long term contracts, but not yet produced, would never be captioned.  X"- x ""&,-(-(ZZ!"  X-xF.` ` Exemptions Based on the Undue Burden Standard  W< x ` ` 1. Background  X- xX89.` ` Section 713(d)(3) states that:  Xxa provider of video programming or program owner may petition the Commission  for an exemption from the requirements of this section, and the Commission may  grant such petition upon a showing that the requirements contained in this section  X1-would result in an undue burden.J1  yO -ԍx47 U.S.C. 613(d)(3).J  Section 713(e) defines undue burden:  X - XxUndue Burden. The term "undue burden" means significant difficulty or  expense. In determining whether the closed captions necessary to comply with the  `requirements of this paragraph would result in an undue economic burden, the factors to be considered include  Xx` ` (1) the nature and cost of the closed captions for the programming;  Xx` ` (2) the impact on the operation of the provider or program owner;  Xx` ` (3) the financial resources of the provider or program owner; and   X4-Xx` ` (4) the type of operations of the provider or program owner.I4X  yO=-ԍx47 U.S.C.  613(e). I   X- ` xY90.` ` Section 713(d)(3) allows individual video services providers or owners of  x programming to seek an exemption from the closed captioning requirements based on their  X- xparticular circumstances.J  yOq-ԍx47 U.S.C.  613(d)(3).J While Section 713(d)(1) permits the Commission to exempt an entire  xclass of programming or video provider from its closed captioning rules, this provision allows  xthe Commission to look at specific circumstances faced by an individual video service provider  xor program owner. Section 713(d)(3) provides for the Commission to establish a procedure to  xconsider exemptions from our closed captioning rules on a casebycase basis and to tailor a  xremedy to fit those circumstances. Significantly, the language of this provision does not limit  x-the Commission to considering only these factors, but rather seems to invite the consideration of  xother relevant factors. According to the legislative history, Congress intended to permit the  xCommission to balance the need for closed captioned programming against the possibility of" 'x,-(-(ZZ"  xjinhibiting the production and distribution of programming and thereby restricting the diversity  X-of programming available to the public.h  yOb-  ԍxThe Conference Committee reported that: "In making such determinations, the Commission shall balance  xithe need for closed captioned programming against the potential for hindering the production and distribution of  xYclosed captioning." Conference Report at 183. The House Report noted that: "In general, the Committee does not  xintend that the requirement for captioning should result in a previously produced programming not being aired due to the costs of the captions." House Report at 114.h  X-x   W<  x ` ` 2. Request For Comment   X- ` xZ91.` ` The Undue Burden Standard/Factors. We request that commenters address the  xfactors the Commission should consider when deciding whether particular petitions for  xexemptions based on undue burden should be granted. As already noted, the specific standard  xfor an exemption is whether the captioning would involve "significant difficulty or expense" and  xCongress identified four factors that are to be considered in addressing this question. Because  xjthe statute states that the factors to be considered "include" the four listed factors, the statute  xxseems to invite the Commission to consider other relevant factors besides those specifically listed  X - xin Section 713(e).h@ x  yO-  ԍxWe note that, although the House version of this provision contained only the four factors enumerated in  xSection 713(e), the House Report suggests consideration of the following: (1) the nature and cost of providing closed  xcaptions; (2) the impact on the operations of the program provider, distributor, or owner; (3) the financial resources  yOm- xJof the program provider, distributor, or owner and the financial impact the program; (4) the cost of the captioning,  xconsidering the relative size of the market served or the audience share; (5) the cost of the captioning, considering  xwhether the program is locally or regionally produced and distributed; (6) the non-profit status of the provider; and  x(7) the existence of alternative means of providing access to the hearing disabled, such as signing. We seek comment on this language. House Report at 115; Conference Report at 183 (citing discussion of House proposal). h Thus, we ask commenters to identify additional factors that might  x!demonstrate that a closed captioning requirement imposes an undue burden on a video  x/programmer or provider and should be exempt from a captioning requirement. Commenters  xsupporting wider discretion for parties seeking an exemption should offer guidelines to assist parties seeking relief and the Commission in its decision making process.  Xb- ` x[92.` ` How the Exemption Factors Should be Applied. Some commenters have proposed  XK- xstandards for individual exemptions based on the undue burden criteria. The Massachusetts  xCommission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing urges the Commission to adopt an objective  X- xstandard to determine if captioning is an undue burden on a small entity.y  yON!-ԍxMassachusetts Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Comments at 3.y Conversely, one  xZcommenter contends that formulas not be used because "creative bookkeeping" might be used to  X- x-manipulate such a standard.I  yO$-ԍxDominick Comments at 31.I NAD suggests that the Commission avoid specific standards and  X- xjinstead require a relatively high threshold for programmers to demonstrate an undue burden.D  yO)'-ԍxNAD Comments at 40.D "(0,-(-(ZZ"  xFurthermore, NAD suggests the Commission adopt the undue burden standard provided in the  X-ADA as a model.D  {Ob-ԍxId. at 4041.D  X- ` nx\93.` ` The League for the Hard of Hearing ("LHH") suggests that the undue burden test  X- xshould involve a cost/benefit analysis.CZ  yO-ԍxLHH Comments at 4.C Specifically, the LHH proposes the Commission  X- x-determine an acceptable percentage of production costs for captioning.:  {O( -ԍxId.: Productions for which  Xv- x=the cost of captioning would exceed that percentage would not be required to be captioned.:v|  {O -ԍxId.:  xThe LHH also suggests that at times the Commission should consider the percentage of the  XH- xzadvertising budget required to provide closed captioning.<H  {O-ԍxId. < One commenter proposes that  X1- xprograms with production budgets of less than $25,000 should be eligible.\1  yO-ԍxStuart and Marilyn Gopen Comments at 2831.\ They also suggest  X -that captioning should be required if it would represent less than 10% of the production budget.: 0  {O-ԍxId.:  X - ` x]94.` ` NAB suggests that the Commission should employ this provision to allow stations  xto experiment with other less expensive means of achieving the end result such as onscreen  X - xk"bugs" containing score and other information for sports programming.D  yO1-ԍxNAB Comments at 10.D A&E Television  xNetworks ("A&E") suggests that in formulating an undue burden standard, the Commission  xshould consider much the same type of economic factors to be considered in developing  Xy-exemptions under Section 713(d)(1).DyR  yO|-ԍxA&E Comments at 21.D  Vb-  XK- ` Ax^95.` ` To the extent objective criteria can be developed, we believe that would facilitate  xaction on exemption requests. Thus, we invite commenters to suggest what objective criteria  xmight be applicable. Commenters should address whether or not we should require parties to  x=provide specific facts or meet objective tests to prove an undue burden or whether petitioners  xishould have wider discretion in demonstrating that, under their specific circumstances, the closed  xcaptioning requirements would constitute an undue burden. Commenters supporting objective  xtests should provide specific examples of the kinds of financial, demographic or other data they  x<believe we should consider when making these determinations. Commenters also should provide"),-(-(ZZ"  xispecific parameters for evaluating these data. Commenters supporting wider discretion for parties  xseeking an exemption should offer guidelines to assist both parties seeking relief and the  xCommission in its decision making process. We also seek comment on what specific information petitioners should provide in order to demonstrate the factors needed to prove an undue burden.  X- ` x_96.` ` As noted, NAD urges that we adopt rules patterned after the ADA's undue burden  Xv- x[standard.Xv  {O-ԍxSee, e.g., NAD Comments at 4041.X However, we do not believe that the ADA process is directly transferable. In this  xregard, we note that there are significant differences between the ADA undue burden standard  XH- xZand the four factors adopted by Congress in Section 713.HZ  yOS -  ԍxIn contrast with the ADA undue burden standard, the legislative history here explicitly states that, when  xconsidering exemptions, "the Commission should focus on the individual outlet and not the financial conditions of  xthat outlet's corporate parent, nor the resources of other business units within the parent's corporate structure."  {O - xZHouse Report at 114115.  This is in contrast to the Department of Justice's regulations implementing the ADA  xJwhich state that among the factors to be considered is: "the overall financial resources of any parent corporation or  xentity." 28 C.F.R. 36.104. The potential economic effect on the availability of local and niche programming also  xadds weight to the argument against direct application of the ADA interpretation of undue burden in the context of  xKclosed captioning. It appears likely that a local television station, for example, might elect to cease providing a  x,locally produced public affairs program, instead electing to provide a nationally distributed program with captioning  x.if the additional cost of captioning made the local program financially unattractive. This might well be true regardless of whether the television station was independently owned or has some connection to other resources. However, we seek comment on what,  xLif any, portion of the ADA process may provide useful insight in the context of the captioning  X -exemption.g  yO- xԍ We acknowledge, in this regard, that Section 713's definition of "undue burden" was discussed in the  xlegislative process as being patterned after use of this term in the ADA. "Undue burden" in the ADA, in turn, was  xpatterned after the term "undue hardship," as that term has been used in the implementation of the Rehabilitation Act  {O- xsince 1973. S. Rep. No. 116, 101st Cong, 1st Sess. at 63 & 35-36. See, e.g., 140 Cong. Record H 5216 (letter of June 8, 1994 to Congressman Markey).g  X - ` nx`97.` ` Finally, we seek comment on the possibility of allowing undue burden exemptions  xsubject to conditions in some instances. This would allow us to require an alternative means of  xserving persons with hearing disabilities while waiving our closed captioning requirements. For  xinstance, a small local station might seek an exemption from closed captioning its local news.  xIn some situations, we might find it appropriate to grant an exemption subject to a condition that  xthe station provide, for example, greater use of textual graphics. Such conditional exemptions  xjwould allow us to encourage alternative (though admittedly less desirable) means of providing  xservice to persons with hearing disabilities in situations where no service would otherwise be available. X` hp x !(#%'0*,.8135@8:as viewing logs or video tapes. If we determine that the complaint appears valid, we would  xynotify the video programming provider of this determination. The video programming provider  xwould then be permitted to respond to the complaint. We seek comment on this proposal.  x/Commenters should address the potential effectiveness of the proposed process. We also  xencourage commenters to suggest modifications to this process which may improve its  xzeffectiveness and efficiency. Finally, commenters should address what elements we should  x/require for a valid complaint. For instance, in the case of subscriber complaints, should we  xrequire more than one complaint. We note that the legislative history provides that the remedies  xunder Sections 207 and 208 of the Communications Act are available to enforce compliance with  Xy-Section 713.Jy  yO-ԍxConference Report at 184.J We seek comment on the applicability of these provisions.  XK- ` xz123.` ` We are also concerned with maximizing administrative efficiency and minimizing  x-complaints that are better resolved by the video program provider or through informal processes.  xAccordingly, we seek comment on a proposal to require complainants to first notify the video  xprogramming provider before filing with the Commission and allowing the video programming  xprovider a period of time to resolve the complaint at the local level. Under this proposal, a party  xwould be permitted to file with the Commission only after the video provider fails to respond to  xthe complaint or does not satisfactorily resolve the problem. We believe that this proposal may  xserve to minimize the administrative burden on all parties involved in the process, including the  xCommission. We seek comment on this alternative as well as any others that might minimize the administrative burden and potential delays in resolution of valid complaints.  XN- ` #x{124.` ` We further seek comment on alternative methods or information needed to verify  xcompliance. We could require that each entity responsible for compliance with our closed  x=captioning rules retain in a public file, or have available on request, records sufficient to verify  xcompliance. For example, we could require video programming providers to demonstrate their  xcompliance by placing information regarding the amount of closed captioned programming they  xdistribute in a public file. Commenters should address the possible effectiveness of this type of procedure. We seek comment on this mechanism and how it might be implemented.  X"- ""3X,-(-(ZZ!"  X-V.xADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS  X-x A.` ` Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (#`  X- ` q x |125.` ` Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA"),Z  yO- xԍ 5 U.S.C.  603. The Regulatory Flexibility Act has been amended by the Contract With America  xAdvancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996)("CWAAA"). Subtitle II of the CWAAA is  {O-the "Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996" ("SBREFA"), codified at 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq.  the  x\Commission has prepared the following initial regulatory flexibility analysis ("IRFA") of the  xexpected impact of these proposed policies and rules on small entities. Written public comments  xare requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing  XH- x[deadlines as comments on the rest of the Notice but they must be have a separate and distinct  x.heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Secretary shall cause a copy of this  X - x/Notice to be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration  X -("SBA") in accordance with Section 603(a) of the RFA.>   yO-ԍ 5 U.S.C.  603(a).>  X - ` x}126.` ` Reason for Action and Objectives of the Proposed Rule: The 1996 Act requires  xthe Commission to promulgate rules designed to maximize the availability of closed captioned  X - xprogramming.C z  yO-ԍx47 U.S.C 613.C The Commission is issuing this Notice to seek comment on proposed rules intended to implement this provision of the 1996 Act.  Xj- ` x~127.` ` Legal Basis: This Notice is adopted pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j) and 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 613.  X'- ` x128.` ` Description and Number of Small Entities Affected: The Regulatory Flexibility Act  xdefines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small  X- xorganization," and "small business concern" under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.i   yO-ԍxRegulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (1980).i A  xsmall business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not  xMdominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the  X-SBA.D  yO"-ԍx15 U.S.C.  632.D  X- ` $x129.` ` Small MVPDs: SBA has developed a definition of a small entity for cable and  xLother pay television services, which includes all such companies generating $11 million or less  X\- xjin annual receipts.S\*  yO7'-ԍx13 C.F.R. 121.201 (SIC 4841).S This definition includes cable system operators, closed circuit television"\4 ,-(-(ZZ"  x\services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master  xantenna systems and subscription television services. According to the Bureau of the Census,  xthere were 1423 such cable and other pay television services generating less than $11 million in  X- xrevenue that were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992.  yO4-  zԍxU.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992 Economic Census, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities at Firm Size1-123. We will address each  x[service individually to provide a more succinct estimate of small entities. We seek comment on the tentative conclusions below.  X_- ` x130.` ` Cable Systems: The Commission has developed its own definition of a small cable  x company for the purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a "small cable  X3- xcompany," is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.$3   yO -  ԍx47 C.F.R.  76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based on its determinations that a small  {O - xcable system operator is one with annual revenues of $100 million or less. Implementation of Sections of the 1992  {O- x<Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995).  Based on our most  xrecent information, we estimate that there were 1439 cable operators that qualified as small cable  X - xcompanies at the end of 1995.   {O-ԍxPaul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995). Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve  xyover 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them  xto be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than  x1439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the decisions and rules proposed  X -in this Notice.  X}- ` Rx131.` ` The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small cable system  xoperator, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate  x fewer than 1% of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or  X8- xKentities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000."J8  yO-ԍx47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2).J The Commission  x[has determined that there are 61,700,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we found  x.that an operator serving fewer than 617,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its  xannual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not  X- xzexceed $250 million in the aggregate.K.  yO!-ԍx47 C.F.R.  76.1403(b).K Based on available data, we find that the number of  X- xcable operators serving 617,000 subscribers or less totals 1450.  {O4$-ԍxPaul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995). Although it seems certain that  x.some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues  xexceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number"5P ,-(-(ZZo"  xof cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.  X- ` x132.` ` MMDS: The Commission refined the definition of "small entity" for the auction  x-of MMDS as an entity that together with its affiliates has average gross annual revenues that are  X- xnot more than $40 million for the preceding three calendar years.F  yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  21.961(b)(1).F This definition of a small  Xx- x<entity in the context of the Commission's Report and Order concerning MMDS auctions that has  Xc-been approved by the SBA.$cX  {Ol - xԍ See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules With Regard to Filing Procedures in the  x Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j)  {O - x,of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 9431 and PP Docket No. 93253, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589 (1995).  X5- ` x133.` ` The Commission completed its MMDS auction in March 1996 for authorizations  x[in 493 basic trading areas ("BTAs"). Of 67 winning bidders, 61 qualified as small entities. Five  x>bidders indicated that they were minorityowned and four winners indicated that they were  xwomenowned businesses. MMDS is an especially competitive service, with approximately 1573  xpreviously authorized and proposed MMDS facilities. Information available to us indicates that  x.no MDS facility generates revenue in excess of $11 million annually. We tentatively conclude  xjthat for purposes of this IRFA, there are approximately 1634 small MMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.  X}-  Xf- ` x134.` ` ITFS: There are presently 2032 ITFS licensees. All but one hundred of these  xlicenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in the definition  X:- xyof a small business.3X:D  yO/- x-ԍ SBREFA also applies to nonprofit organizations and governmental organizations such as cities, counties,  xtowns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with populations of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C.  601(5). 3 However, we do not collect annual revenue data for ITFS licensees and  x.are not able to ascertain how many of the 100 noneducational licensees would be categorized  X - xas small under the SBA definition. Thus, we tentatively conclude that at least 1932 licensees are small businesses.  X- ` 4x135.` ` DBS: As of December 1996, there were eight DBS licensees. However, the  xCommission does not collect annual revenue data for DBS and, therefore, is unable to ascertain  xthe number of small DBS licensees that could be impacted by these proposed rules. Although  xyDBS service requires a great investment of capital for operation, we acknowledge that there are  xseveral new entrants in this field that may not yet have generated $11 million in annual receipts, and therefore may be categorized as a small business, if independently owned and operated. "?6d ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- ` x136.` ` HSD: The market for HSD service is difficult to quantify. Indeed, the service  xitself bears little resemblance to other MVPDs. HSD owners have access to more than 265  x<channels of programming placed on Cband satellites by programmers for receipt and distribution  X- xby MVPDs, of which 115 channels are scrambled and approximately 150 are unscrambled.o  {O6-ԍx1996 Competition Report, FCC 96496 49.o  xHSD owners can watch unscrambled channels without paying a subscription fee. To receive  xscrambled channels, however, an HSD owner must purchase an integrated receiverdecoder from  x[an equipment dealer and pay a subscription fee to an HSD programming packager. Thus, HSD  xZusers include: (1) viewers who subscribe to a packaged programming service, which affords them  x[access to most of the same programming provided to subscribers of other MVPDs; (2) viewers  xwho receive only nonsubscription programming; and (3) viewers who receive satellite  xOprogramming services illegally without subscribing. Because scrambled packages of  xprogramming are most specifically intended for retail consumers, these are the services most  X -relevant to this discussion.: Z  {O-ԍxId.:  X - ` x137.` ` According to the most recently available information, there are approximately 30  x@program packagers nationwide offering packages of scrambled programming to retail  X- x/consumers.:  {O/-ԍxId.: These program packagers provide subscriptions to approximately 2,314,900  X{- xsubscribers nationwide.:{~  {O-ԍxId.: This is an average of about 77,163 subscribers per program packager.  xThis is substantially smaller than the 400,000 subscribers used in the Commission's definition of  xa small MSO. Furthermore, because this an average, it is likely that some program packagers may be substantially smaller. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.  X- ` x138.` ` OVS: The Commission has certified three OVS operators. On October 17, 1996,  xBell Atlantic received approval for its certification to convert its Dover, New Jersey Video  X- x Dialtone ("VDT") system to OVS.  {O-  >ԍxBell AtlanticNew Jersey, Inc. (Certification to Operate an Open Video System), 11 FCC Rcd 13249 (CSB  {Og-1996)("Bell Atlantic OVS Certification"). Bell Atlantic subsequently purchased the division of  x-Futurevision which had been the only operating program package provider on the Dover system,  X- xand has begun offering programming on this system using these resources.l  {O"-  ԍxBell Atlantic, Bell Atlantic Now Offering Video Services in Dover Township New Jersey (news release), Nov. 1, 1996. Metropolitan Fiber  xSystems was granted certifications on December 9, 1996, for the operation of OVS systems in"7 ,-(-(ZZo"  X- xBoston and New York, both of which are being used to provide programming.  {Oy-  "ԍxSee Metropolitan Fiber Systems/New York, Inc. (Certification to Operate an Open Video System), Consolidated Order, __ FCC Rcd __, DA 962075 (CSB Dec. 9, 1996). On October  x10, 1996, Digital Broadcasting Open Video Systems received approval to offer OVS service in  X- xsouthern California."  {O-  ԍxSee Public Notice, DA 961703 (Oct. 10, 1996). Digital Broadcasting Video Systems proposes to use local exchange company facilities for the transmission of video services. Because these services have been introduced so recently, little financial  xinformation is available. Bell Atlantic and Metropolitan Fiber Systems have sufficient revenues  x<to assure us that they do not qualify as small business entities. Digital Broadcasting Open Video  xZSystems however is a general partnership just beginning operations. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that one OVS licensee qualifies as a small business concern.  XH- `   x139.` ` SMATVs: Industry sources estimate that approximately 5200 SMATV operators  X3- xwere providing service as of December 1995.b3|  {O`-ԍx1996 Competition Report FCC 96496 81.b Other estimates indicate that SMATV operators  X - xserve approximately 1.05 million residential subscribers as of September 1996:   {O-ԍxId.: The ten largest  X - x.SMATV operators together pass 815,740 units.:   {OV-ԍxId.: If we assume that these SMATV operators  xserve 50% of the units passed, the ten largest SMATV operators serve approximately 40% of  xithe total number of SMATV subscribers. Because these operators are not rate regulated, they are  xnot required to file financial data with the Commission. Furthermore, we are not aware of any  xprivately published financial information regarding these operators. Based on the estimated  xjnumber of operators and the estimated number of units served by the largest ten SMATVs, we tentatively conclude that a substantial number of SMATV operators qualify as small entities.  XM- ` x140.` ` LMDS: Unlike the above pay television services, LMDS technology and spectrum  xzallocation will allow licensees to provide wireless telephony, data, and/or video services. A  xLMDS provider is not limited in the number of potential applications that will be available for  xthis service. Therefore, the definition of a small LMDS entity may be applicable to both cable  xMand other pay television (SIC 4841) and/or radiotelephone communications companies (SIC  X- x4812). The SBA definition for cable and other pay services is defined in paragraph 129 supra.  X- xA small radiotelephone entity is one with 1500 employees or less.H2  yO"-ԍx13 C.F.R.  121.201.H However, for the purposes  X- x]of this Notice on closed captioning, we include only an estimate of LMDS video service providers.  Xm- ` x141.` ` LMDS is a service that is expected to be auctioned by the FCC in 1997. The vast  xzmajority of LMDS entities providing video distribution could be small businesses under the"V8 ,-(-(ZZ"  X- xSBA's definition of cable and pay television (SIC 4841).  {Oy-ԍxSee supra 129 for an estimate of the number of entities under SIC 4841. #Xj\  P6G; XP# However, in the Third NPRM, we  x!proposed to define a small LMDS provider as an entity that, together with affiliates and  xattributable investors, has average gross revenues for the three preceding calendar years of less  X-than $40 million.&$Z  {O-  ԍxIn the Matter of Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the  x;27.529.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.530.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies  xfor Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services and Suite 12 Group Petition for Pioneer's  {O" -Preference, ("Third NPRM") CC Docket No. 92297, 11 F.C.C. Rcd. 53 (1995),  188.& We have not yet received approval by the SBA for this definition.  X- ` x142.` ` There is only one company, CellularVision, that is currently providing LMDS  xvideo services. Although the Commission does not collect data on annual receipts, we assume  xthat CellularVision is a small business under both the SBA definition and our proposed auction  xrules. We tentatively conclude that a majority of the potential LMDS licensees will be small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.  X - ` x143.` ` Small Broadcast Stations: The SBA defines small television broadcasting stations  X -as television broadcasting stations with $10.5 million or less in annual receipts.H F  yO-ԍx13 C.F.R.  121.201.H  X - ` x144.` ` Estimates Based on Census and BIA Data: According to the Bureau of the Census,  xin 1992, 1155 out of 1478 operating television stations reported revenues of less than $10 million  X- xfor 1992. This represents 78% of all television stations, including noncommercial stations.  {O-  ԍxSee 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, May 1995, at 125.  xThe Bureau of the Census does not separate the revenue data by commercial and noncommercial  xstations in this report. Neither does it allow us to determine the number of stations with a  xmaximum of 10.5 million dollars in annual receipts. Census data also indicates that 81% of  xoperating firms (that owned at least one television station) had revenues of less than $10  X#-million.#0  yO-   ԍxAlternative data supplied by the SBA Office of Advocacy indicate that 65% of television station owners  x(627 of 967) have less than $10 million in annual revenue and that 39% of television stations (627 of 1591) have  xless than $10 million in annual revenue. These data were prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the Census under contract  xzto the SBA. These data show a lower percentage of small businesses than the data supplied directly to the  xCommission by the Bureau of the Census. Therefore, for purposes of our worst case analysis, we will use the data supplied directly to us by the Bureau of the Census.  X- ` _x145.` ` We also have performed a separate study based on the data contained in the BIA  x=Publications, Inc. Master Access Television Analyzer Database, which lists a total of 1141 full"9,-(-(ZZ"  X- xpower commercial television stations.  yOy-  ԍxThis figure excludes low power television ("LPTV") stations and translator stations from the calculations.  xAs of May 31, 1996, there were 1880 LPTV stations and 4885 television translators in the United States. FCC News  {O - xRelease, Broadcast Station Totals as of May 31, 1996, Mimeo No. 63298, released June 6, 1996. Given the nature  xiof LPTV stations, we will presume that all LPTVs qualify as small businesses. Because television translators pass  xthrough the signal of the parent station, we do not believe that any closed captioning requirements we may adopt will result in regulatory burden on those stations. It should be noted that, using the SBA definition of  xsmall business concern, the percentage figures derived from the BIA database may be  xNunderinclusive because the database does not list revenue estimates for noncommercial  xeducational stations, and these therefore are excluded from our calculations based on the  X- xdatabase.HXB  yO -  yԍxAPTS reports that there are 30 public televisions stations (out of 197 public television licensees) with annual  xoperating budgets of less than $1.5 million. Interview with Lonna M. Thompson, Director of Legal Affairs for APTS (December 3, 1996). H The BIA data indicate that, based on 1995 revenue estimates, 440 full power  xcommercial television stations had an estimated revenue of $10.5 million or less. That represents  x54% of full power commercial television stations with revenue estimates listed in the BIA  xprogram. The database does not list estimated revenues for 331 stations. Using a worst case  xscenario, if those 331 stations for which no revenue is listed are counted as small stations, there  x0would be a total of 771 stations with an estimated revenue of 10.5 million dollars or less,  xrepresenting approximately 68% of the 1141 full power commercial television stations listed in the BIA data base.  X - ` x146.` ` Alternatively, if we look at owners of commercial television stations as listed in  xthe BIA database, there are a total of 488 owners. The database lists estimated revenues for 60%  xMof these owners, or 295. Of these 295 owners, 156 or 53% had annual revenues of less than  xj$10.5 million. Using a worst case scenario, if the 193 owners for which revenue is not listed are assumed to be small, of small entities would constitute 72% of the total number of owners.  XK- ` x147.` ` In summary, based on the foregoing worst case analysis using Bureau of the  x^Census data, we estimate that our rules will apply to as many as 1150 commercial and  xnoncommercial television stations (78% of all stations) that could be classified as small entities.  xUsing a worst case analysis based on the data in the BIA data base, we estimate that as many as  xapproximately 771 commercial television stations (about 68% of all commercial televisions  xstations) could be classified as small entities. As we noted above, these estimates are based on  xa definition that we tentatively believe greatly overstates the number of television broadcasters  xthat are small businesses. Further, it should be noted that under the SBA's definitions, revenues  x\of affiliates that are not television stations should be aggregated with the television station  xrevenues in determining whether a concern is small. The estimates overstate the number of small  xentities since the revenue figures on which they are based do not include or aggregate such revenues from nontelevision affiliated companies. "7:b ,-(-(ZZ{"Ԍ X- ` X` hp x !(#%'0*,.8135@8: -  ԍx"Establishments primarily engaged in the distribution (rental or sale) of theatrical and nontheatrical motion  xipicture films or in the distribution of video tapes and disks, except to the general public." OMB SIC Manual, SIC 7822.7 and Theatrical  X- xProducers (Except Motion Pictures) and Miscellaneous Theatrical Services (SIC 7922).;X E| yOG-  >ԍx"Establishments primarily engaged in providing live theatrical presentations, such as road companies and  xsummer theaters. . . . Also included in this industry are producers of . . . live television programs." OMB SIC Manual, SIC 7922.; These  xSBA definitions provide that a small entity in the television programming industry is an entity  xwith $21.5 million or less in annual receipts for SIC 7812 and 7822, and $5 million or less in  Xa- xannual receipts for SIC 7922.oaE| yO"-ԍx13 C.F.R.  121.201.#x6X@`7 >fX@#o The 1992 Bureau of the Census data indicates the following:  xM(1) there were 7265 U.S. firms classified as Motion Picture and Video Production (SIC 7812),  x and that 6987 of these firms had $16,999 million or less in annual receipts and 7002 of these  X - xfirms had $24,999 million or less in annual receipts; E| yOm-  ԍxU.S. Small Business Administration 1992 Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Report, Table 2D, SIC  x7812, (Bureau of the Census data adapted by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business  xAdministration)(SBA 1992 Census Report). The Census data does not include a category for $21.5 million therefore,  xwe have reported the closest increment below and above the $21.5 million threshold. There is a difference of 15  xfirms between the $16,999 and $24,999 million annual receipt categories. It is possible that these 15 firms could have annual receipts of $21.5 million or less and therefore, would be classified as small businesses. (2) there were 1139 U.S. firms classified  xas Motion Picture and Tape Distribution (SIC 7822), and that 1007 of these firms had $16,999  xmillion or less in annual receipts and 1013 of these firms had $24,999 million or less in annual" ;,-(-(ZZ" "  X- xreceipts; E| yOy-  ԍxSBA 1992 Census Report, SIC 7812. The Census data does not include a category for $21.5 million  xtherefore, we have reported the closest increment below and above the $21.5 million benchmark. There is a  xdifference of 6 firms between the $16,999 and $24,999 million annual receipt categories. It is possible that these 6 firms could have annual receipts of $21.5 million or less and therefore, would be classified as small businesses. and (3) there were 5671 U.S. firms classified as Theatrical Producers and Services  X-(SIC 7922), and that 5627 of these firms had less than $5 million in annual receipts.RE| yOJ-ԍxSBA 1992 Census Report, SIC 7922.R  X- ` Cx149.` ` Each of these SIC categories are very broad and includes firms that may be  X- x-engaged in various industries including television.@E| yO -  /ԍxWe tentatively conclude that cable networks that are essentially program distributors are included in this category. Specific figures are not available as to how  xmany of these firms exclusively produce and/or distribute programming for television or how  xmany are independently owned and operated. Consequently, we tentatively conclude that there  xare approximately 6987 small entities that produce and distribute taped television programs, 1013  xysmall entities primarily engaged in the distribution of taped television programs, and 5627 small  X1-producers of live television programs that may be affected by the proposed rules in this Notice. .  X - ` x150.` ` Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Requirements: The Notice tentatively  xproposes requiring video programming providers (including broadcast licensees and MVPDs) to  xsubstantially increase the volume of closed captioned video programming carried over a period  xof time. Virtually all future programming and a gradually increasing volume of previously  xreleased programming is expected to be captioned over time. If this proposal is adopted ideo  xprogramming providers may be choose to maintain records of the volume of closed captioned  X}-programming carried in order to resolve any disputes which may arise regarding compliance.H}E| {O-ԍxSection IV supra.H  XO- ` x151.` ` In addition to seeking comment on a complaint process, the Commission invites  x\comments regarding alternative enforcement procedures including a requirement that video  xprogramming providers their compliance with by placing information regarding the amount of  x<closed captioning they distribute in a public file. The Commission invites commenters to address  x the possible effectiveness of this alternative enforcement mechanisms and how it might be  X-implemented.:* E| {O!-ԍxId.:  X- ` x152.` ` Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With the Commission's  X-Proposal: None.  Xm- ` px153.` ` Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact On Small Entities and  XX- xZConsistent With the Stated Objectives: The statutory language provides for exemptions from any"X< ,-(-(ZZ"  xclosed captioning requirements the Commission may adopt, when imposing those requirements  X- xwould create an economic burden.GE| yOb-ԍx47 U.S.C. 613(e).G Consistent with this directive, the Notice seeks comment  xon several mechanisms which would allow small entities to be exempt in whole or in part from  xthe closed captioning requirements. These measures are intended, in part, to minimize the regulatory impact on small entities.  Xx- `  x154.` ` Section 713(d)(1) provides that the Commission may exempt classes of video  x[programming or video providers where closed captioning would be economically burdensome.  xPursuant to this provision, the Commission proposes to establish a general classification or a  xnumber of classifications of programming for which captioning would be economically  X - xzburdensome.K  XE| {O% -ԍxSection III D supra.K Thus, the Commission seeks comment on whether a definition of economic  xKburden should be based on relative size, degree of distribution, audience ratings or share, relative programming budgets or revenue base, lack of repeat value, or a combination of factors.  X - ` x155.` ` Section 713(d)(3) permits video programming providers or program owners to  xpetition the Commission for an exemption where our video captioning requirements would  X- xconstitute an undue burden.J E| yO--ԍx47 U.S.C. 613(d)(3).J Section 713(d)(3) further provides specific factors to be considered  X{- x<when resolving such petitions.: {zE| {O-ԍxId.: Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on how to apply  xthese factors and whether there are any factors which should be considered when determining if  xa requirement for closed captioning results in an undue burden for an individual video  X6-programming provider or program owner.K 6 E| {O-ԍxSection III F supra.K  X-x B. ` ` Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis  X- ` `x156.` ` This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) may contain either proposed or  xmodified information collections. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens,  xjwe invite the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections  X-contained in this Notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No.  X- x10413. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on the Notice.  x[Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for  xLthe proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information  xshall have practical utility; (b) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information  x^collected; and (c) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the"(= ,-(-(ZZ"  xrespondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  X- xC. ` ` Procedural Provisions  X- ` x157.` ` Ex parte Rules NonRestricted Proceeding. This is a nonrestricted notice and  Xx- xcomment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the  xzSunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's  XL-rules.v LE| {O -ԍxSee generally 47 C.F.R. 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).v  X - ` x158.` ` Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the  xCommission's rules, interested parties may file comments on or before February 28, 1997, and  x.reply comments on or before March 24, 1997. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file  x=an original plus six copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you  x-would like each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments and reply comments,  xyou must file an original plus 11 copies. We also encourage commenters to include a computer  xdisk copy of their comments with their official filings whenever possible, as this will allow the  xcomments to be easily transferred to the Commission's Internet site. You should send comments  x.and reply comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919  xM Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for  xpublic inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room 239, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street N.W., Washington D.C. 20554.  X- ` 3x159.` ` Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information  X- x.collections are due 60 days after publication of this Notice in the Federal Register. A copy of  xany comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Dorothy  xConway, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to dconway@fcc.gov.  Xk- xD. ` ` Ordering Clauses  X=- ` x160.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority found 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.  X- ` Bx161.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice  X- xof Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief  xiCounsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with paragraph 603(a)  X!- x]of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. (1981). "#>Z ,-(-(ZZe""Ԍ X- ` nx162.` ` For further information, contact Marcia Glauberman, John Adams or Alexis Johns, Policy and Rules Division, Cable Services Bureau, at (202) 4187200, TTY (202) 4187172. x x` ` FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x x` ` William F. Caton  X -x` ` Acting Secretary h" ? ,-(-(ZZ " x X-TTT) APPENDIX A T  X- List of Commenters TP  X- Comments  X_-1.xA&E Television Networks  XH-2.xALDA/Potomac  X1-3.xAlexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, Inc.  X -4.xAlliance for Community Media  X -5.xAloha State Association of the Deaf  X -6.xAmerican Academy of Audiology  X -7.xAmerican Foundation for the Blind  X -8.xAmerican Society for Deaf Children  X -9.xJoan Andrews  X-10.xAssociation of America's Public Television Stations  Xy-11.xAssociation of LateDeafened Adults  Xb-12.xAssociation of Local Television Stations, Inc.  XK-13.xAtlanta Hears Chapter/Self Help for Hard of Hearing People  X4-14.xAudio Optics, Inc.  X-15.xAudioVision, Inc.  X-16.xBell Atlantic  X-17.xBoston Chapter of Self Help for Hard of Hearing People  X-18.xBroward County Library Access Services  X-19.xDick Burkhalter  X-20.xBurlington Chapter of North Carolina Association of the Deaf  X-21.xCalifornians for Television Access  X|-22.xCape Organization for Rights of the Disabled  Xe-23.xCapital Cities/ABC, Inc.  XN-24.xCaption Database, Inc.  X7-25.xCaptionMax  X -26.xJoan Cassidy  X -27.xCBS Inc.  X-28.xBarbara Liss Chertok  X-29.xCity of St. Louis Communications Division  X -30.xJoe Clark  X!-31.xMary Clepper  X"-32.xLaurence Anne Coe  X#-33.XxColorado Assistive Technology Project, DakotaLink (South Dakota Tech Act Project),(# XxX` ` Georgia Tools for Life, Hawaii Assistive Technology Training and Service, Iowa Program for Assistive Technology, Louisiana Assistive Technology Access Network, Maine Consumer Information and Technology Training Exchange (CITE), Maryland Technology Assistance Program, Massachusetts"#'@ ,-(-(ZZ%" Assistive Technology Partnership, Minnesota System of Technology to Achieve Results (STAR) Program, Missouri Assistive Technology Project, New Hampshire Technology Partnership Project, Oklahoma ABLE Tech, Oregon Technology Access Through Life Needs, Pennsylvania's Initiative on Assistive Technology, Rhode Island Assistive Technology Access Project, Texas Assistive Technology Partnership, WisTech (Wisconsin Assistive Technology Program)(#`  X_-34.xConsumer Action Network  XH-35.xFrank P. Corsica  X1-36.xCorporation for Public Broadcasting  X -37.xJeannette Costa  X -38.xCouncil of Organizational Representatives  X -39.xDeaf Counseling, Advocacy and Referral Agency  X -40.xDisability Law Center, Inc.  X -41.xSally Dodge  X -42.xGerald Dominick  X-43.xAnna Dresner  Xy-44.xKathy Dunn  Xb-45.xEEG Enterprises, Inc.  XK-46.xElectronic Industries Association, Consumer Electronics Manufacturing Association  X4-47.xDavid S. Evans  X-48.xF&V Channel, L.L.C.  X-49.xFairfax Cable Access Corporation  X-50.xMary Ann Foohey  X-51.xGallaudet University's Technology Assessment Program  X-52.xDan Glisson  X-53.xStuart and Marilyn Gopen  X-54.xGreat River Valley Chapter of the Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities in Illinois  X|-55.xMildred D. Helyer  Xe-56.xHome Box Office  XN-57.xLillian and Glenn E. Hoshauer  X7-58.xInclusive Technologies  X -59.xJerald M. Jordan  X -60.xLansing School District  X-61.xLeague for the Hard of Hearing  X-62.xWillis J. Mann, Telecommunications Access Program, Maryland Department of x` ` General Services  X!-63.xMassachusetts Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing  X"-64.xMCAHI  X#-65.xMedia Captioning Services  Xh$-66.xMetropolitan Washington Ear, Inc. (Comments and Additional Comments)  XQ%-67.xSandra Miller  X:&-68.xMotion Picture Association of America, Inc.  X#'-69.xJoAnn M. Myers"#'A ,-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ X-70.xNarrative Television Network  X-71.xNational Association of Broadcasters  X-72.xNational Association of the Deaf  X-73.xNational Broadcasting Company, Inc.  X-74.xNational Cable Television Association, Inc.  X-75.xNational Captioning Institute  Xv-76.xNational Congress of Jewish Deaf/Jewish Deaf Congress, Inc.  X_-77.xNational Federation of the Blind of Idaho  XH-78.xLucille E. Nestler  X1-79.xLee Nettles  X -80.xFrank L. Neuhauser  X -81.xNorth Carolina Association of the Deaf, Inc.  X -82.xNorth Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation XxX` ` Services(#`  X -83.xNorthern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons  X -84.xOhio Educational Telecommunications  X-85.xPennsylvania Society for the Advancement of the Deaf, Inc.  Xy-86.xRichard Pokrass  Xb-87.xPublic Broadcasting Service  XK-88.xBarbara H. Putney  X4-89.xRecording Industry Association of America  X-90.xRegional Audio Information Services Ent.  X-91.xRochester Recreation Club for the Deaf, Inc.  X-92.xSatellite Broadcasting and Communications Association  X-93.XxSchwartz, Woods & Miller on behalf of Ball State University, Connecticut Public(#  X- XxX` ` Broadcasters, Inc., Detroit Educational Television Foundation, Educational Television Association of Metropolitan Cleveland, Fifteen Telecommunications, Inc., Long Island Educational Television Council, Inc., Louisiana Educational Authority, Maryland Public Broadcasting Commission, Metropolitan Board of Public Education, Mississippi Authority for Educational Television, New Jersey Public Broadcasting Authority, Oregon Public Broadcasting, University of New Hampshire, Window to the World Communications, Inc., University of North Carolina Center for Public Television, WJCT, Inc.(#`  X -94.xSelf Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc.  X-95.xCelia Conlon Shepard  X-96.xD.A. She  X -97.xLouis M. Smith  X!-98.xSouth Carolina Association of the Deaf  X"-99.xBernard J. Sussman  X#-100.xTelecommunications for the Deaf, Incorporated  Xh$-101.xU S West, Inc.  XQ%-102.xVITAC  X:&-103.xWashington County Chapter, Pennsylvania Council of the Blind  X#'-104.xWeather Channel"#'B ,-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ X-105.xCharles C. Webster  X-106.xWGBH Educational Foundation  X-107.xWireless Cable Association International  X-Reply Comments  X_-1.xA&E Television Networks  XH-2.xAmerican Council of the Blind  X1-3.xAmerican Foundation for the Blind  X -4.xAssociation of Local Television Stations, Inc.  X -5.xDick Burkhalter  X -6.xCaption Colorado, Inc.  X -7.xDivision of Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing  X -8.xEncore Media Corporation  X -9.xHome Box Office  X-10.xIndependent Cable & Telecommunications Association  Xy-11.xInternational Cable Channel Partnership, Ltd.  Xb-12.xLiberty Sports, Inc.  XK-13.xMaryland Association of the Deaf  X4-14.xMetropolitan Washington Ear, Inc.  X-15.xMidHudson Valley Civic Association of the Deaf  X-16.xMotion Picture Association of America, Inc.  X-17.xNational Association of the Deaf  X-18.xNational Black Deaf Advocates  X-19.xNational Cable Television Association, Inc.  X-20.xOpTel, Inc.  X-21.xHerbert L. Pickell, Jr.  X|-22.xRhode Island Association of the Deaf, Inc.  Xe-23.xSonny Access Consulting  XN-24.xSunbelt South TeleCommunications, Ltd.  X7-25.xGary Tomlinson  X -26.xVirginia Association of the Deaf, Inc.  X -27.xVITAC  X-28.xWashington State Association of the Deaf  X-29.xDelbert A. Wheeler  X -30.xWilson Association of the Deaf  X!-31.xWireless Cable Association International, Inc.  X"-32.xWisconsin Association of the Deaf