[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8521-8530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2754]



[[Page 8521]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 79

[MM Docket No. 99-339; FCC 01-7]


Video Description

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document concerns rules and policies designed to make 
television programming more accessible to the many Americans who have 
visual disabilities by bringing video description to the commercial 
video marketplace. The intended effect of this action is to clarify and 
resolve issues raised in petitions for reconsideration pertaining to 
the application of the Commission's video description rules.

DATES: Effective April 1, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 
Washington DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cyndi Thomas or Eric Bash, Policy and 
Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau, at (202) 418-2120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Memorandum Opinion 
and Order on Reconsideration (``MO&O'') in MM Docket No. 99-339, FCC 
01-7, adopted on January 4, 2001, and released on January 18, 2001. The 
full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying 
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 Twelfth 
Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington DC, and also may be purchased from 
the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 
(202) 857-3800, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington DC. 
The complete text is also available under the file name fcc01007.doc on 
the Commission's Internet site at www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration

    1. On August 7, 2000, the Commission adopted rules requiring 
broadcasters and other video programming distributors to provide video 
description and to make emergency information more accessible to 
visually impaired viewers. In this Order, the Commission grants in part 
and denies in part eight petitions seeking reconsideration of the 
Report and Order (``R&O'') (65 FR 54805, September 11, 2000). The 
Commission also provides clarification on certain issues related to the 
video description rules.
    2. The rules adopted in the R&O require affiliates of ABC, CBS, 
Fox, and NBC in the top 25 Designated Market Areas (DMAs) to provide 50 
hours per calendar quarter of prime time or children's programming with 
video description. Multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) 
with 50,000 or more subscribers must provide 50 hours of video 
described programming each quarter on each of the top five national 
nonbroadcast networks they carry. All broadcast stations and MVPDs that 
have the technical capability to do so, regardless of market size or 
number of subscribers, must ``pass through'' any video description 
received from a programming provider. The R&O also adopted ``undue 
burden'' exemption procedures as well as enforcement procedures under 
which complaints alleging violations would be filed with the 
Commission. The video description rules become effective April 1, 2002. 
In addition, under new rules that become effective upon approval from 
the Office of Management and Budget broadcast stations and MVPDs that 
provide local emergency information must make the critical details of 
that information accessible to persons with visual disabilities through 
aural presentation or accompany a ``crawl'' or ``scroll'' with an aural 
tone to alert persons with disabilities to an emergency situation.
    3. The Commission amends its rules to define the top five 
nonbroadcast networks as those that are ranked in the top five as 
defined by national audience share and that also reach 50 percent or 
more of MVPD households. The Commission amends the rules to allow 
broadcast stations and MVPDs to count previously aired programming one 
time toward quarterly requirements. The Commission clarifies that once 
a broadcast station or MVPD that is required under the rules to provide 
video description has aired a particular program with video 
description, all subsequent airings of that program by that broadcast 
station or MVPD on the same network or channel must contain the video 
description. The Commission further clarifies that broadcast stations 
and MVPDs may use the SAP channel to provide services other than video 
description when subsequently airing a video described program, as long 
as those services, such as foreign language translations, are program-
related. Similarly, the Commission establishes an exception to the 
pass-through requirements, allowing broadcast stations and MVPDs to use 
the SAP channel to provide program-related services other than video 
description when airing a program that contains video description. The 
Commission amends its rules to allow programming providers, in addition 
to programming distributors, to file waivers for exemptions. The 
Commission will allow consumers to bring informal complaints to the 
Commission at any time. The Commission amends its rules, however, to 
require consumers to certify in any formal complaint to the Commission, 
and distributors to certify in their answers, that they have attempted 
to resolve the dispute prior to filing the complaint with the 
Commission. The Commission adopts a definition of ``prime time'' and 
clarifies the definition of ``technical error'' for purposes of 
determining compliance with the rules. The Commission believes that 
these modifications promote its goal of not imposing an undue burden on 
programming producers or distributors, while enhancing the availability 
of video description to the visually impaired segment of our society.

A. Entities To Provide Programming With Video Description

1. Distributors and Programmers
    4. In the R&O, the Commission adopted a rule that requires 
broadcast stations in the top 25 DMAs affiliated with the top four 
commercial broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC, as well as 
``larger'' MVPDs, MVPDs that serve 50,000 or more subscribers, to 
provide programming with video description. The Commission further 
explained that implicit in the rules is the decision to hold 
programming distributors, rather than programming producers, 
responsible for compliance with the rules.
    5. One petitioner contends that the Commission's rules hold ``the 
wrong party'' responsible for providing video described programming, 
arguing that the Commission should hold programmers responsible for 
compliance with the video description rules because distributors have 
no ability to do so. If a programmer violates the rules, the petitioner 
asserts that MVPDs will be subject to costly litigation seeking 
indemnification for any liability incurred. As the Commission 
acknowledged and explained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(``NPRM'') (64 FR 67236, December 1, 1999), while its expects that 
programming networks, and not broadcast stations or MVPDs, will 
describe the programming, the Commission should hold distributors 
responsible for compliance for ease of enforcement and monitoring of 
compliance with the rules. The

[[Page 8522]]

petitioner presents no new arguments or evidence that would lead the 
Commission to change its conclusion. Consistent with its findings in 
adopting closed captioning rules, while the Commission is placing the 
ultimate responsibility on program distributors, it expects that 
distributors will incorporate video description requirements into their 
contracts with program producers and owners, and that parties will 
negotiate for an efficient allocation of video description 
responsibilities. The Commission therefore denies the request to hold 
programming producers, rather than programming distributors, 
responsible for compliance with its rules.
2. DBS Operators
    6. The video description rules require MVPDs that serve 50,000 or 
more subscribers to provide video description during prime time or on 
children's programming. The Commission recognized in the R&O that this 
standard would include within the scope of the rules two DBS systems 
that together reach 12 million subscribers: DIRECTV, Inc. (DIRECTV) and 
EchoStar Satellite Corporation (EchoStar). The Commission determined 
that while DIRECTV indicated that modifying its network to support 
three audio channels would cost ``tens of millions of dollars,'' those 
costs appeared to be more than offset by revenues. Specifically, the 
Commission found that DIRECTV had more than 8.5 million customers as of 
May 2000, and based on the DBS average programming price of $30 per 
month, it expects that DIRECTV subscriber revenues would be over $3 
billion per year. Similarly, based on EchoStar's more than 4 million 
subscribers as of May 2000, the Commission expects that EchoStar's 
subscriber revenues would appear to be nearly $1.5 billion per year.
    7. DIRECTV and EchoStar argue in their petitions that the 
Commission failed to adequately address the costs that the video 
description rules impose on DBS operators. DIRECTV asserts that the 
Commission based its decision ``on a fictitious revenue figure'' and 
that ``gross revenues are an inappropriate measure'' of its ability to 
bear the expenses associated with the new rules. Both petitioners claim 
that neither company is currently profitable. DIRECTV explains that, in 
addition to the costs needed to upgrade its system, the rules create 
staffing costs and missed opportunity costs, and impose costs for video 
describing programs ``estimated at $4,000 per hour.'' EchoStar asserts 
that ``[a] requirement supporting SAP feeds for all the hundreds of 
broadcast stations retransmitted by EchoStar would constitute a 
significant additional expenditure of bandwidth * * * approximately 
6.25% of a channel of incremental bandwidth * * * comparable to, or 
even greater than, the 4% set-aside for public interest programming.'' 
Neither petitioner, however, explains how this information would lead 
the Commission to change its finding that MVPDs serving 50,000 or more 
subscribers should provide programming with video description. The 
Commission recognizes that the video description rules impose costs on 
DIRECTV and EchoStar, as they do on other MVPDs, as well as broadcast 
stations. DIRECTV and EchoStar have not provided information to 
convince the Commission, however, that direct broadcast satellite (DBS) 
providers should be categorically exempt from the rules. Neither 
petitioner explains how the rules impose an undue financial burden or 
an undue burden on available bandwidth sufficient for the Commission to 
determine that either should be exempt from the video description 
rules. While the Commission finds no reason at this time to change its 
standard for MVPDs, DIRECTV and EchoStar have the option of seeking 
individual exemptions by providing sufficiently detailed information 
under the rules demonstrating that compliance would result in an undue 
burden.
3. Premium Networks
    8. MVPDs that fall within the scope of the video description rules 
must provide 50 hours of described programming quarterly on each of any 
of the top five nonbroadcast networks they carry, as defined by prime 
time national audience share. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to 
require larger MVPDs to provide programming with video description on 
nonbroadcast networks that reach 50 percent or more of MVPD households. 
Noting, however, that, as one commenter pointed out, more than 40 cable 
networks serve 50 percent or more of MVPD households and that it might 
be burdensome for cable systems to retransmit video described 
programming on so many nonbroadcast networks, the Commission decided to 
limit the number of nonbroadcast networks to the top five. In the R&O, 
the Commission also stated that it believed its decision to require 50 
hours per quarter would avoid any conflicts between competing uses of 
the SAP channel. In particular, the Commission noted that it did not 
expect certain premium networks, including the Home Box Office (HBO), 
to be among the top five nonbroadcast networks subject to the rules. 
The rule, as currently written, however, would require HBO to provide 
video description.
    9. HBO asserts that the Commission never intended to include 
networks like HBO within the scope of the video description rules. In 
its petition, HBO contends that by modifying the standard from MVPDs 
that reach 50 percent of the MVPD households to the top five 
nonbroadcast networks, the Commission did not intend to expand the 
scope of the rule to include networks that would not have been subject 
to the rules originally proposed in the NPRM. HBO suggests several 
options to remedy this issue: change the definition of nonbroadcast 
networks covered by the rule to be either the top five national non-
premium nonbroadcast networks, based on Nielsen Media Research, Inc. 
(Nielsen) national prime time audience share, or those national 
nonbroadcast networks that reach 50 percent or more of MVPD households 
and are ranked in the top five, based on Nielsen national prime time 
audience share; or exempting from the rules those networks that 
currently transmit a high percentage (such as 65 percent or more) of 
their prime time schedules with Spanish language audio using the SAP 
channel.
    10. All parties that filed pleadings in response to its petition 
support HBO's request. Two parties urge the Commission to adopt one of 
HBO's options because they believe networks, like HBO, that provide 
substantial amounts of Spanish language programming should not be 
forced to eliminate or disrupt that programming. Other parties do not 
object to a rule modification based on an audience reach criterion, but 
urge the Commission to reject HBO's argument that the Commission could 
create an exemption based on use of the SAP channel for Spanish 
programming. They assert that Spanish language translations and video 
descriptions can be offered on alternate feeds to provide multiple 
broadcasts or cablecasts of the same programs.
    11. The Commission did not intend, in adopting the video 
description rules, to include networks within the scope of those rules 
that would not have fallen within the scope of its proposal in the 
NPRM. Accordingly, the Commission amends Sec. 79.3(b)(3) to clarify 
that the 50-hour requirement applies to the top five national 
nonbroadcast networks, based on Nielsen national prime time audience 
share, that reach 50 percent or more of MVPD households. This result is 
consistent with the Commission's

[[Page 8523]]

goal of enhancing the widespread availability of video description. The 
programming of each of the several nonbroadcast, non-premium networks 
with the highest ratings is available to more than 75 million 
subscribers. By contrast, while HBO is among the nonbroadcast networks 
with the highest ratings during prime time, only 27 million subscribers 
subscribe to its service. The Commission thus believes that limiting 
the top nonbroadcast networks to those that are ranked in the top five 
as defined by national audience share and that reach 50 percent or more 
of MVPD households best fulfills its goal of ensuring the widest 
availability of video description. The Commission also believes that 
this result reconciles its proposal in the NPRM and its intent to limit 
the number of nonbroadcast networks required to provide video described 
programming for the reasons set forth in the R&O.
4. ``Pass-Through'' of Video Description
    12. In the R&O, the Commission adopted pass-through requirements 
for programming that contains video description. Broadcast stations, 
including NCE stations, that have the technical capability to do so, 
must pass through any second audio program containing video description 
that they receive from their affiliated networks. Similarly, MVPDs that 
have the technical capability to do so must pass through any second 
audio program containing video description that they receive from a 
broadcast station or nonbroadcast network.
    13. One petitioner asks the Commission not to apply the pass-
through requirement where a top 25 market broadcast station has already 
met its 50-hour quarterly requirement, if the station wants to provide 
Spanish language or any other SAP service for that particular program. 
Similarly, the petitioner asks the Commission not to apply the rule to 
a small market station not subject to any quarterly minimum, if the 
station wants to provide any other SAP service for that particular 
program. One party opposes the request, arguing that there is no reason 
to deprive the visually impaired community of described programming 
where the station already has the equipment in place and is receiving 
the programming in described format. Another party agrees that stations 
should be able to serve their non-English speaking viewers, but both 
parties express concern that allowing local stations to use their SAP 
channel to provide any other services would allow a local broadcaster 
to use its SAP channel for information or services that are not related 
to any programming, including radio feeds or farm reports.
    14. The Commission agrees that it should provide some additional 
flexibility under the rule. Because the SAP channel cannot be used to 
provide two services simultaneously, broadcast stations and MVPDs 
should be able to provide another service on a SAP channel when airing 
a program that contains video description, as long as that service is 
related to the program. Accordingly, the Commission amends 
Secs. 79.3(b)(2) and (4) to require broadcast stations and MVPDs that 
have the technical capability to do so to pass through video 
description, unless a program-related use of the SAP channel would 
cause a conflict with the video description. This holds true even if an 
entity subject to the video description rules has met the 50-hour 
requirement. The Commission believes this approach affords broadcast 
stations and MVPDs reasonable flexibility to meet the needs of visually 
impaired viewers and other viewers that might benefit from program-
related use of the SAP channel.
5. Analog and Digital Television
    15. In the R&O, the Commission stated that the newly adopted video 
description rules do not apply to digital broadcasts, but that it 
expects ultimately to require digital television broadcasts to contain 
video description. One petitioner argues that the Commission should not 
mandate video description in an analog environment because the costs 
for providing video description represent ``orphan'' investments in 
analog systems that are scheduled to be abandoned. Other parties, on 
the other hand, argue that video description rules should apply to both 
analog and digital broadcasts. The Commission rejects the argument that 
because it did not ``impose expenditures'' on the cable industry for 
new analog equipment in the navigation devices proceeding, the 
Commission should similarly not require broadcasters to provide video 
description with analog broadcasts. The purpose of the navigation 
devices proceeding was to make equipment, including cable television 
set-top boxes or direct broadcast satellite receivers previously 
available only from MVPDs, available for commercial retail purchase. 
The statutory authority underlying the proceeding is premised on the 
belief that consumers would benefit from competition in the 
manufacturing and sale of this equipment. The Commission determined, 
however, that there would not be a market demand for analog-only 
services, that analog devices would ``soon be obsolete,'' and that 
requiring the development of analog equipment would interfere with the 
development of competition in the digital marketplace.
    16. The Commission found that these reasons are inapplicable here. 
One of the ways in which video description may be transmitted with 
digital broadcasts is by using an additional audio channel like the SAP 
channel. The petitioner simply presents no evidence supporting its 
contention that technical upgrades made to analog systems cannot be 
used after the transition to digital television (DTV). The Commission 
thus has no reason to believe that requiring video description with 
analog broadcasts will result in significant orphaned investments. As 
the Commission has previously stated and as several parties argue, the 
need for video description exists now and given that broadcasters will 
likely continue transmitting in analog format until at least December 
2006, the Commission does not wish to wait for the transition to be 
complete before adopting video description requirements.
    17. Certain parties argue that ``the Commission should make clear 
now that its mandate will extend to transmission and reception of video 
description in digital television.'' Both parties argue the Commission 
should implement rules that require manufacturers of digital consumer 
reception equipment to support the ancillary audio channel that video 
description can use in DTV, and provide a schedule for implementing 
video description on digital programming. One party warns that ``unless 
the Commission signals now that description will need to be supported 
in DTV, expensive retrofitting or substantial delays will occur down 
the road.'' As the Commission has stated throughout this proceeding, it 
expects ultimately to require DTV broadcasts to contain video 
description, but the Commission believes that the decision on how and 
when to develop those requirements should come after there has been 
further experience with both digital broadcasting and video 
description. The Commission fully intends to address the issues raised 
in a future periodic DTV review proceeding. Given its intent to require 
video description of digital programming at a later time, however, the 
Commission urges equipment manufacturers to design their products with 
video description in mind.

[[Page 8524]]

B. Programming to Contain Video Description

1. Amount of Programming
    a. Counting Repeats of Video Described Programming. 18. In the R&O, 
the Commission clarified that, once the rules go into effect, broadcast 
stations and MVPDs may not count toward their 50-hour quarterly 
requirement programming that they have previously aired with video 
description. The Commission further explained in the R&O that broadcast 
stations and MVPDs may, however, count any programming they air in 
excess of their quarterly requirements, if and when they repeat the 
programming later. In addition, a broadcast station or MVPD may count 
any video described programming that they air before the effective date 
of the rule, if they repeat it after the effective date of the rule.
    19. All parties that filed petitions or responses to petitions on 
this issue support flexibility in counting programming previously aired 
with video description toward the 50-hour quarterly requirement. Three 
petitioners argue that broadcast stations and MVPDs do not have enough 
programming each quarter to meet the 50-hour requirement and not 
counting repeats of video described programming will force broadcast 
stations and MVPDs to change regularly scheduled programming or 
describe programming, such as sports programming, to meet the 
requirement. Two petitioners also contend that the restriction will 
force cable program networks to pay to video describe licensed 
programming, programming that they do not own. Petitioners argue that 
there is no reason for counting repeat showings of captioned 
programming toward quarterly closed captioning requirements, but not 
repeats of video described programming toward video description 
requirements.
    20. One party agrees with the petitioners that broadcast stations 
and MVPDs should be allowed to count previously described programming 
toward their quarterly requirement, whether the programming is 
distributed on the same channel for which it was originally described 
or on another channel. That party states that the blind and visually 
impaired audience is not interested in the description of programming 
such as sports. Similarly, two other parties believe some flexibility 
is warranted. One suggests that a maximum number of repeats in any one 
quarter could be established or broadcasters and MVPDs could be 
credited with the first repeat of a described program. Both parties, 
however, disagree with the petitioners that repeats for closed 
captioning can be compared with video description because the majority 
of television programs are now captioned, but the rules only require a 
few hours of video described programming per quarter. Certain parties 
believe that program distributors and producers can provide for 
description as part of licensing arrangements and, therefore, oppose 
any recommendation to exempt programming that is licensed, but not 
owned, from the rules.
    21. The Commission agrees that some flexibility is warranted and 
will allow broadcast stations and MVPDs to count a repeat of a 
described program once toward their 50-hour requirement. Broadcast 
stations and MVPDs can count a repeat of a previously aired program in 
the same quarter or in a later quarter, but only once altogether. Based 
on the information provided in the petitions, the Commission recognizes 
that some entities may not have enough new programming each quarter 
that is appropriate for video description. For example, one petitioner 
explains that the four major networks do not produce new prime time 
programming during the summer rerun season and another asserts that 
program networks already have little flexibility because the rules are 
limited to children's and prime time programming. While the Commission 
is unwilling to allow broadcast stations and MVPDs to count all 
previously aired programming that contains video description toward 
quarterly requirements, it believes that allowing a limited number of 
repeats will provide broadcast stations and MVPDs reasonable 
flexibility to make programming more accessible to the blind or 
visually impaired without intruding unnecessarily into program 
production and distribution.
    22. The Commission rejects the implicit argument that cable program 
networks should not have to pay to video describe licensed programming. 
The Commission agrees with several parties that programming 
distributors and producers can provide for video description as part of 
a licensing agreement. MVPDs may file waiver requests if the cost of 
providing video description for licensed programming creates an undue 
burden.
    23. As noted, some parties argue that they do not have enough 
programming each quarter to enable them to meet the 50-hour requirement 
without counting repeats, unless they change their regularly scheduled 
programming to describe programming, such as sports programming, to 
meet the requirement. In the R&O, the Commission declined to exempt 
categories of programming, including sports programming, from the video 
description requirement. The Commission believed it was unnecessary to 
create these types of exemptions because of the limited nature of its 
initial requirement. That is, the Commission believed that the top 
networks subject to its rules would be able to select 50 hours per 
quarter without having to describe programming such as sports 
programming. If any entities subject to the Commission's rules find 
that they do not have enough prime time or children's programming to 
enable them to meet their requirement without describing sports 
programming or repeats, they may seek an undue burden exemption on that 
basis.
    b. Subsequent Airings. 24. In addition to outlining rules on how to 
count repeats of video described programming, the Commission adopted 
rules in the R&O pertaining to when a station must provide the video 
description contained in a previously aired program. Specifically, the 
Commission stated that ``once a broadcast station or MVPD has aired a 
particular program with video description, all of that broadcast 
station's or MVPD's subsequent airings of that program should contain 
video description, unless another use is being made of the SAP 
channel.'' The Commission further explained that this requirement 
should not impose any burden because the cost of both describing 
programming and upgrading equipment and infrastructure to distribute it 
should be a one-time fixed cost.
    25. A petitioner asks the Commission to modify this ``subsequent 
airing'' requirement as it applies to MVPDs. According to the 
petitioner, the assumption that the cost of both describing 
programming, and upgrading equipment and infrastructure should be a 
one-time fixed cost ``does not hold true if this obligation applies to 
cable operators.'' The petitioner argues that if, for example, ``a 
broadcast station carried by a cable operator airs a video-described 
program, and a cable program network later airs that same program, that 
cable network would have to create the entire infrastructure necessary 
to provide that one program with video description--even if that 
network would not be otherwise subject to the video description 
rules.'' One party agrees that the rule should be clarified and asserts 
that the Commission's rule on subsequent airing of video described 
programming refers to the particular programming network, not the MVPD.

[[Page 8525]]

    26. The Commission clarifies that once an MVPD that must provide 
video description under the rules has aired a particular program with 
video description on a particular network, every subsequent time that 
MVPD transmits that program on the same network, it must include the 
video description, unless another program-related use is being made of 
the SAP channel. Applying this requirement only to the network that 
initially aired the video-described program is consistent with the 
finding in the R&O that the cost of describing programming and 
upgrading facilities should be a one-time cost. In addition, consistent 
with its earlier decision regarding the obligation to pass through 
video described programming, the Commission amends Sec. 79.3(c)(3) to 
clarify that a broadcast station or MVPD may elect not to provide video 
description in subsequent airings of a program if the network is using 
the SAP channel to provide another program-related service.
    27. The Commission does not agree, however, that this ``subsequent 
airing'' rule should apply to networks that are not subject to the 
quarterly requirement, but have the technical capability to provide 
video description. The Commission believes that imposing a ``subsequent 
airing'' requirement on networks not otherwise required to provide any 
video description might discourage those networks from voluntarily 
providing video description in the first place.
2. Clarification of the Definition of ``Prime-Time'' Programming
    28. Broadcast stations and MVPDs must provide described programming 
either during prime time or in children's programming. The Commission 
explained in the R&O that prime time programming is the most watched 
programming, and so programming provided during this time will reach 
more people than programming provided at any other time.
    29. While none of the petitioners challenged the requirement that 
video programming be described during prime time, one petitioner asked 
that the Commission clarify the definition of prime time. The 
petitioner notes that ``the predominant definition of `prime time' in 
the industry is 8:00-11:00 p.m. local time in the Eastern and Pacific 
time zones Monday-Saturday, and 7:00-11:00 p.m. on Sunday. Under this 
definition, prime time in the Central time zone coincides with the 
Eastern time zone (an hour earlier local time) and prime time in the 
Mountain zone is divided between prime time in the Pacific time zone 
and prime time in the Central time zone.'' Other parties agree that 
clarification is needed and support the definition that the petitioner 
provides. The petitioner also asks the Commission to clarify that for 
TBS Superstation, a single-transponder nonbroadcast network, ``prime 
time'' nationwide will be considered prime time in the Eastern time 
zone. The other parties stated that they had no objection to this 
request.
    30. The Commission adopts the industry definition of ``prime time'' 
for purposes of video description. Accordingly, the Commission amends 
Sec. 79.3(a)(6) to define ``prime time'' as the period from 8 to 11:00 
p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 7 to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday local time, 
except that in the central time zone the relevant period shall be 
between the hours of 7 and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 6 
and 10:00 p.m. on Sunday, and in the mountain time zone each station 
shall elect whether the period shall be 8 to 11:00 p.m. Monday through 
Saturday, and 7 to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday, or 7 to 10:00 p.m. Monday 
through Saturday, and 6 to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday. While part 76 of its 
rules provides a five-hour time period to define prime time, the 
Commission notes that the repealed prime-time access rules limited 
presentations of programs from national networks to a three-hour period 
during prime time. The Commission also notes that Nielsen uses a three-
hour time period from Monday through Saturday, and the four-hour time 
period on Sunday to collect audience prime time viewing data. The 
Commission finds that using Nielsen's time periods is consistent with 
its decision to define the top five nonbroadcast networks based on the 
audience share during prime time as determined by Nielsen. The 
Commission notes that the parties are in agreement on this definition. 
The Commission also agrees that prime time for TBS Superstation, a 
single-transponder system, should be defined as prime time in the 
Eastern time zone. Again, as the petitioner points out, this definition 
coincides with Nielsen's standard practice and none of the parties 
object to this definition.
3. Text Information
    31. In the R&O, the Commission recognized that making text 
information accessible to the blind and visually impaired is important, 
but that it believed a secondary audio program may not be the 
appropriate vehicle to provide text-based information. The Commission 
therefore encouraged programming producers with text information to 
provide that information aurally, by announcing, for example, the names 
of speakers. The Commission also adopted rules for providing emergency 
information to visually impaired viewers. All broadcast stations and 
MVPDs that provide emergency information intended to further life, 
health, safety, and property through regularly scheduled newscasts and 
newscasts that are sufficiently urgent to interrupt regular 
programming, must make the critical details of that information 
accessible to persons with visual disabilities through aural 
presentation. A broadcast station or MVPD that provides emergency 
information using a ``crawl'' or ``scroll'' must accompany the message 
with an aural tone to alert persons with visual disabilities to turn on 
a radio, the SAP channel, or a designated digital channel.
    32. One petitioner contends that the Commission's final video 
description rules are fundamentally flawed because they give priority 
to describing programming over making printed information on the screen 
accessible. The petitioner argues that the Commission should rescind 
the final rules and begin an entirely new proceeding because ``[b]y the 
time anyone gets around to thinking about accessible information * * * 
the available resources will already be committed elsewhere.'' Several 
parties support the petitioner's concerns about providing described 
text information, but oppose its request, in effect, to ``start all 
over again.'' Instead, the parties encourage the Commission to initiate 
a separate proceeding to address the issue of video descriptions for 
text information. They also explain that while the technology and 
production outlets for delivering video description for television 
programs has been in place for years, the technology for described 
information is still being developed. Another petitioner likewise 
encourages programming producers with text information to provide that 
information aurally, but argues that the petitioner does not explain 
``how any broader requirement to verbalize textual information could be 
accomplished without unduly disrupting the viewing experiences of many 
customers.''
    33. The Commission emphasizes that it fully recognizes the 
importance of described text information. As certain parties explain, 
the industry has begun to examine the use of ``synthetic voice'' and 
the Commission encourages further development of this or any other 
technology that would address the issue of described information. The 
Commission agrees, however, that video description of programming 
should not

[[Page 8526]]

be delayed until the issues of describing text information are 
addressed. The petitioner has not presented any new arguments that 
would lead the Commission to change its finding that video described 
programming and video described text information are not mutually 
exclusive services. The Commission therefore denies the request to 
rescind the video description rules while recognizing the importance of 
addressing the issue of described information in a separate proceeding.

C. Use of SAP Channels

    34. In the R&O, the Commission stated that it believed its decision 
to require 50 hours per quarter, or roughly 4 hours per week, of 
programming with video description would avoid any conflicts between 
competing uses of the SAP channel. One petitioner argues that mandatory 
requirements to use the SAP channel for video description will confuse 
customers and that consumer education will not alleviate the problem. 
The petitioner contends that it will be required to dedicate staff and 
resources to address these consumer issues on a permanent basis because 
``one-time consumer education measures will not alleviate the 
problem.'' In response, another party states that ``both Spanish 
speaking and blind people can figure out program schedules and learn to 
adjust their viewing habits accordingly.''
    35. The Commission recognized in the R&O that no technical solution 
to allow two uses of the SAP channel simultaneously is currently 
available, but that most networks that use the SAP channel to provide 
Spanish language audio do so on a limited basis. The Commission 
concluded that in the majority of cases its rules would not create 
conflicts between Spanish language audio and video description for use 
of the SAP channel and that any confusion could be corrected through 
viewer education. The petitioner presents no new arguments or evidence 
in its petition for reconsideration that would lead the Commission to 
change that conclusion. Any change in programming, whether voluntary or 
mandatory, requires some measure of consumer education and associated 
costs to provide that education. The petitioner fails to present any 
information that the cost of providing that education would outweigh 
the benefits of the rules. The Commission also believes that the 
minimal amount of programming required under its rules does not overly 
burden use of the SAP channel. Rather, the roughly 4-hour per week 
requirement reasonably accommodates competing uses of the SAP channel, 
such as providing programming that is accessible to Spanish-speaking 
viewers.

D. Waivers and Exemptions

    36. In the R&O, the Commission adopted the ``undue burden'' 
exemption procedures and standards that it uses in the closed 
captioning context. The Commission will exempt any affected broadcast 
station or MVPD that can demonstrate through sufficient evidence that 
compliance would result in an ``undue burden,'' which means significant 
difficulty or expense. The Commission declined, however, to exempt any 
particular category of programming or class of programming providers, 
given the limited nature of the initial video description rules. The 
Commission stated that it would consider these issues when it considers 
expanding the scope of entities that must provide video described 
programming, and the amount of video description those entities must 
provide.
    37. Several parties urge the Commission to amend the video 
description rules to permit program networks and producers, in addition 
to distributors, to file requests for waivers for undue burden as they 
are permitted to do under the closed captioning rules. Noting that 
cable program networks and program owners are not included within the 
definition of ``video programming distributor'' under part 79 of the 
Commission's rules, one petitioner asserts that these entities, rather 
than the cable operator, would be the appropriate entities to file for 
undue burden waivers in most cases. Another petitioner argues that 
while the rules place substantial burdens on networks, those networks 
have no opportunity to petition for an exemption from the requirements 
of the rules, leaving them no recourse. One party agrees, noting that 
program networks and producers must be involved and supportive partners 
with MVPDs to achieve successful provision of described programming. 
That party asserts that both networks and producers should have rights 
similar to distributors to request undue burden exemptions.
    38. The Commission agrees that video programming providers should 
be allowed to file waivers for exemptions under the undue burden 
standard, as they are allowed under the Commission's closed captioning 
rules. Accordingly, the Commission amends Sec. 79.3(d) to permit video 
programming providers, as defined under part 79 of its rules, to 
petition the Commission for a full or partial exemption from the video 
description requirements. As it similarly stated in the closed 
captioning proceeding, the undue burden exemption is intended to be 
``sufficiently flexible to accommodate a wide variety of 
circumstances'' for which compliance with the video description 
requirements would pose a significant financial or technical burden. As 
the Commission has previously recognized, video description is most 
likely to be added to programming at the production stage prior to 
distribution, where it is most economically and technically efficient. 
To the extent a broadcast station's or MVPD's inability to comply with 
its rules stems from problems at, for example, the programming producer 
end, the Commission believes it should allow the programming producer 
to plead its hardship directly to the Commission. Otherwise, the 
programming producer would have to submit information to its local 
distribution outlets around the country, which would then file numerous 
separate waiver requests with the Commission. To avoid this 
inefficiency, therefore, the Commission will allow programming 
providers to seek exemptions under the undue burden standard. The 
Commission emphasizes, however, that while it will allow other 
programming providers to seek exemptions from its rules, it holds 
programming distributors responsible for compliance.

E. Enforcement

1. Initial Complaints
    39. In the R&O, the Commission adopted procedures to enforce its 
initial video description rules. Under these procedures, complaints are 
not required to be submitted to a programming distributor before being 
filed with the Commission. A complainant may allege a violation of the 
video description rules by sending a complaint to the Consumer 
Information Bureau (CIB) at the Commission by any reasonable means, 
such as a letter, facsimile transmission, telephone (voice/TRS/TTY), 
Internet 
e-mail, audio-cassette, Braille, or some other method that would best 
accommodate a complainant's disability. CIB will forward formal 
complaints to the Commission's Enforcement Bureau.
    40. Petitioners note that the Commission has established 
enforcement procedures for its video description rules that differ from 
the enforcement procedures for the Commission's closed captioning 
rules. They contend that complaints should be submitted to a 
programming distributor before being filed with the Commission. 
According to one petitioner, ``requiring

[[Page 8527]]

the complainant to go to the video programming distributor first will 
allow the parties to more quickly and satisfactorily resolve the 
dispute.'' Another petitioner argues that there is no basis on which to 
adopt a different complaint procedure for the enforcement of video 
description rules than for closed captioning because ``the record does 
not indicate that the existing closed captioning rules have been 
ineffective or inadequate.'' Certain parties oppose the petitioners' 
request, arguing that obtaining information to contact programming 
distributors is too difficult for blind and visually impaired viewers. 
One party contends that ``[i]t would be simpler and far more efficient 
for visually impaired viewers to have a single point of contact.''
    41. The Commission believes that viewers should try to resolve 
disputes with video programming distributors prior to filing a formal 
complaint with the Commission. The Commission therefore amends its 
rules to require complainants to certify in formal complaints to the 
Commission, and distributors to certify in their answers, that they 
have attempted in good faith to settle disputes prior to filing formal 
complaints and answers with the Commission. The Commission notes that 
this result is consistent with its recently revised rules for filing 
formal complaints against common carriers. The Commission also followed 
these rules when it adopted rules to implement section 255 of the Act, 
which requires manufacturers of telecommunications equipment, and 
providers of telecommunications services, to make such equipment and 
provide such services in a manner that is accessible to persons with 
disabilities. Prior to or instead of filing a formal complaint, 
however, viewers may contact CIB either to attempt to resolve disputes 
by filing an informal complaint, or to obtain information about how to 
contact the programming distributor. The Commission believes that these 
procedures will provide parties the opportunity to resolve disputes 
quickly and efficiently.
2. Clarification of ``Technical Errors''
    42. The video description rules provide that, in evaluating whether 
a video programming distributor has complied with the requirement to 
provide video programming with video description, the Commission will 
consider a showing that any lack of video description was de minimis 
and reasonable under the circumstances. One petitioner asks the 
Commission to clarify that technical errors beyond an individual 
station's control will fall under the ``reasonable circumstances'' 
provision. The petitioner explains, for example, that ``if a station is 
ready and able to pass through to viewers described programming 
received from its network, but, due to technical difficulties beyond 
the station's control, the described programming is not properly 
received, then that `lack of video description' should be deemed 
`reasonable under the circumstances.''' Stating that the Commission 
rarely faults a broadcaster or cablecaster for a temporary rule 
violation, one party argues that a technical error should not be 
construed to include the lack of equipment to provide video 
descriptions, but that a technical error is ``a temporary difficulty'' 
that is ``a short-term failure of equipment.''
    43. The Commission clarifies that to be classified as a technical 
error, the problem must be beyond a station's control. In addition, the 
problem must be de minimis and reasonable under the circumstances. The 
Commission will examine carefully, however, any showings ascribed to 
technical error to ensure that those instances are only a temporary 
difficulty, such as that caused by short-term failure of equipment, and 
not by a station unreasonably failing to pass-through the described 
programming supplied by its network.

F. Jurisdiction

    44. In the R&O, the Commission held that it has the authority to 
adopt video description rules. The Commission explained that Sections 
1, 2(a), 4(i), and 303(r) of the Act, taken together, direct and 
empower the Commission to make available to all Americans a radio and 
wire communication service, and to make regulations to carry out this 
mandate, that are consistent with the public interest and not 
inconsistent with other provisions of the Act or other law. In reaching 
this decision, the Commission considered but rejected the arguments of 
commenters that video description rules would be inconsistent with 
other law, namely Sections 624(f) and 713(f) of the Act, as well as the 
First Amendment, and might also interfere with the rights of copyright 
holders.
    45. Petitioners raise the same arguments raised before in this 
proceeding. For example, petitioners suggest that analysis of the issue 
of the Commission's authority to adopt video description rules begins 
and ends with Section 713(f) of the Act, which instructed the 
Commission to ``commence an inquiry * * * and report to Congress'' on 
video description, but not to make rules. Against the backdrop of 
Section 713, petitioners contend that the Commission cannot rely on 
other provisions of the Act to make rules. Petitioners also suggest 
that the rules are content-based, violating the First Amendment and, as 
applied to cable operators, Section 624(f) of the Act, which does not 
permit the government to ``impose requirements regarding the provision 
or content of cable services, except as expressly provided in [Title VI 
of the Act.]'' Petitioners further suggest that the rules interfere 
with the rights of copyright holders.
    46. The Commission addressed most of the statutory arguments 
petitioners raised at the R&O stage, and they have offered no reason 
for the Commission to reconsider its conclusion. As discussed in detail 
in the R&O, Sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), and 303(r) make clear that the 
Commission's fundamental purpose is to make available so far as 
possible to all Americans a radio and wire communication service, and 
it has the power to make rules to carry out this mandate that are 
consistent with the public interest, and not inconsistent with other 
law. The video description rules further the public interest because 
they are designed to enhance the accessibility of video programming to 
persons with visual disabilities, but at the same time not impose an 
undue burden on the video programming production and distribution 
industries. The video description rules are not inconsistent with 
Sections 624(f) and 713(f) of the Act, the First Amendment, or 
copyright law. The rules are not inconsistent with Section 713(f), 
because that section neither authorizes nor prohibits a rulemaking on 
video description. The rules are not inconsistent with Section 624(f), 
because they do not require cable operators to carry any particular 
programming. The rules are not inconsistent with the First Amendment, 
because they are content-neutral regulations, and satisfy the 
applicable test of serving an important government interest without 
burdening substantially more speech than necessary. The rules are not 
inconsistent with copyright law because they do not violate any 
copyright holder's rights.
    47. The Commission also rejects one petitioner's new argument that 
the rules are inconsistent with Section 255 of the Act. Section 255 
requires manufacturers of telecommunications equipment, and providers 
of telecommunications services, to make such equipment and services 
accessible to persons with disabilities, but only ``if readily 
achievable.'' The petitioner suggests that the video description rules 
do not have a similar contingency. The petitioner also argues that the 
discrepancy

[[Page 8528]]

between the ``readily achievable'' standard and the video description 
rules further suggests that the Commission does not have authority to 
adopt such rules--Congress did not qualify the provision of video 
description because there was no access obligation to qualify in the 
first place. The petitioner overlooks, however, the fact that the video 
description rules contain procedures for waiver if compliance would 
create an undue burden. In sum, as the Commission explained in greater 
detail in the R&O, the Commission believes that the video description 
rules further the very purpose for which the Commission was created--
``to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the 
United States * * * a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide 
wire and radio communication service''--and are within its power to 
adopt because they are ``not inconsistent with [the] Act'' and serve 
the ``public convenience, interest, and necessity'' and are ``not 
inconsistent with law.''

Procedural Matters

    48. Authority for issuance of this MO&O is contained in sections 
4(i), 303(r), 403, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), 403, and 405.
    49. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required 
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared a 
Supplemental Final Certification of the possible impact on small 
entities of the rules adopted in this MO&O. The Supplemental Final 
Certification is set forth in the MO&O.

Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Certification

    50. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment 
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule 
will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' The NPRM in this proceeding 
proposed rules to provide video description on video programming to 
ensure the accessibility of video programming to persons with visual 
impairments. The R&O adopted rules requiring broadcasters and other 
video programming distributors to provide video description and to make 
emergency information more accessible to visually impaired viewers.
    51. In an abundance of caution, the Commission published an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the NPRM, even though the 
Commission was reasonably confident that the proposed rules would not 
have the requisite ``significant economic impact'' on a ``substantial 
number of small entities.'' The IRFA sought written public comment on 
the proposed rules. No written comments were received on the IRFA, nor 
were any general comments received that raised concerns about the 
impact of the proposed rules on small entities. Because the Commission 
believed the rules adopted in the R&O would have a negligible effect on 
small businesses, the Commission published a Final Certification that 
the rules adopted in that order would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    52. The MO&O amends certain rules adopted in the R&O. The 
Commission amends its rules to define the top five nonbroadcast 
networks as those that are ranked in the top five as defined by 
national audience share and that also reach 50 percent or more of MVPD 
households. The amended rules allow broadcast stations and MVPDs to 
count previously aired programming one time toward quarterly 
requirements. Once a broadcast station or MVPD subject to the video 
description rules has aired a particular program with video 
description, only subsequent airings of that program by that broadcast 
station or MVPD on the same network or channel must contain the video 
description. Under both this ``subsequent airing'' rule and the ``pass-
through'' rule, broadcast stations and MVPDs may now use the SAP 
channel to provide services other than video description, as long as 
those services, such as foreign language translations, are program-
related. The rule amendments allow programming providers, in addition 
to programming distributors, to file waivers for exemptions. The rule 
amendments adopt a definition of ``prime time'' and clarify the 
definition of ``technical error'' for purposes of determining 
compliance with the rules. These amendments only affect large entities 
as discussed in the Final Certification included in the R&O. No small 
entities will experience an economic impact as a result of these 
amendments.
    53. Under the rule amendments, consumers may bring informal 
complaints to the Commission at any time, but must include in a formal 
complaint to the Commission a certification that they have tried to 
resolve a dispute with the distributor prior to filing the complaint. 
In addition, distributors are required to make similar certifications 
in their answers. These amendments to the rules are created to attempt 
to resolve issues prior to filing a formal complaint. The Commission 
believes that requiring these certifications is necessary to assure a 
smooth process to address outstanding issues in a timely and efficient 
manner. The burden imposed by the inclusion of these certifications is 
nominal for both consumers and distributors because it will require no 
more than a single statement to be added to the initial formal 
complaint and its answer. These amendments will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    54. The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that 
the rule amendments adopted in the present MO&O will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Commission will send a copy of the MO&O, including a copy of this 
Supplemental Final Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. In addition, 
the Commission will send a copy of the MO&O, including a copy of this 
Supplemental Final Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration. In addition, a copy of the MO&O and 
this Supplemental Final Certification will be published in the Federal 
Register.

Ordering Clauses

    55. The petitions for reconsideration or clarification are granted 
to the extent provided herein and otherwise are denied pursuant to 
sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 303(r), 307, 309, 310, 403, 405, and 713 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 
303(r), 307, 309, 310, 403, 405, 613, and Sec. 1.429(i) of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429(i).
    56. Pursuant to sections 4(i) & (j), 303(r), 307, 308 and 309 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) & (j), 
303(r), 307, 308, 309, part 79 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Part 
79, is amended as set forth in the MO&O.
    57. The rule amendments set forth in the MO&O that revise Sec. 79.3 
of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 79.3, shall become effective on April 
1, 2002.
    58. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of this MO&O in MM Docket No. 99-
339, including the Supplemental Final Certification, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    59. This proceeding is hereby terminated.

[[Page 8529]]

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 79

    Cable television, Closed captioning and video description of video 
programming.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 79 of Chapter 1 of 
Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 79--CLOSED CAPTIONING AND VIDEO DESCRIPTION OF VIDEO 
PROGRAMMING

    1. The authority citation for part 79 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, 310, 
613

    2. Section 79.3 is amended by
    (a) adding paragraph (a)(6);
    (b) revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(ii);
    (c) revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3);
    (d) redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as paragraph (c)(5);
    (e) adding new paragraph (c)(4);
    (f) revising paragraph (d)(1);
    (g) revising paragraphs (e)(1)(iv) and (e)(1)(v);
    (h) adding paragraph (e)(1)(vi); and
    (i) revising paragraph (e)(2).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 79.3  Video description of video programming.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (6) Prime time. The period from 8 to 11:00 p.m. Monday through 
Saturday, and 7 to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday local time, except that in the 
central time zone the relevant period shall be between the hours of 7 
and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 6 and 10:00 p.m. on Sunday, 
and in the mountain time zone each station shall elect whether the 
period shall be 8 to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 7 to 11:00 
p.m. on Sunday, or 7 to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 6 to 
10:00 p.m. on Sunday.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Television broadcast stations that are affiliated or otherwise 
associated with any television network, must pass through video 
description when the network provides video description and the 
broadcast station has the technical capability necessary to pass 
through the video description, unless using the technology for 
providing video description in connection with the program for another 
purpose that is related to the programming would conflict with 
providing the video description;
    (3) Multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) that serve 
50,000 or more subscribers, as of September 30, 2000, must provide 50 
hours of video description per calendar quarter during prime time or on 
children's programming, on each channel on which they carry one of the 
top five national nonbroadcast networks, as defined by an average of 
the national audience share during prime time of nonbroadcast networks, 
as determined by Nielsen Media Research, Inc., for the time period 
October 1999-September 2000, that reach 50 percent or more of MVPD 
households; and
    (4) * * *
    (i) must pass through video description on each broadcast station 
they carry, when the broadcast station provides video description, and 
the channel on which the MVPD distributes the programming of the 
broadcast station has the technical capability necessary to pass 
through the video description, unless using the technology for 
providing video description in connection with the program for another 
purpose that is related to the programming would conflict with 
providing the video description; and
    (ii) must pass through video description on each nonbroadcast 
network they carry, when the network provides video description, and 
the channel on which the MVPD distributes the programming of the 
network has the technical capability necessary to pass through the 
video description, unless using the technology for providing video 
description in connection with the program for another purpose that is 
related to the programming would conflict with providing the video 
description.
    (c) * * *
    (2) Programming with video description that has been previously 
counted by a broadcaster or MVPD toward its minimum requirement for any 
quarter may be counted one additional time toward that broadcaster's or 
MVPD's minimum requirement for the same or any one subsequent quarter.
    (3) Once a commercial television broadcast station as defined under 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section has aired a particular program with 
video description, it is required to include video description with all 
subsequent airings of that program on that same broadcast station, 
unless using the technology for providing video description in 
connection with the program for another purpose that is related to the 
programming would conflict with providing the video description.
    (4) Once an MVPD as defined under paragraph (b)(3) of this section:
    (i) has aired a particular program with video description on a 
broadcast station they carry, it is required to include video 
description with all subsequent airings of that program on that same 
broadcast station, unless using the technology for providing video 
description in connection with the program for another purpose that is 
related to the programming would conflict with providing the video 
description; or
    (ii) has aired a particular program with video description on a 
nonbroadcast station they carry, it is required to include video 
description with all subsequent airings of that program on that same 
nonbroadcast station, unless using the technology for providing video 
description in connection with the program for another purpose that is 
related to the programming would conflict with providing the video 
description.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) A video programming provider may petition the Commission for a 
full or partial exemption from the video description requirements of 
this section, which the Commission may grant upon a finding that the 
requirements will result in an undue burden.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) the specific relief or satisfaction sought by the complainant;
    (v) the complainant's preferred format or method of response to the 
complaint (such as letter, facsimile transmission, telephone (voice/
TRS/TTY), Internet e-mail, or some other method that would best 
accommodate the complaint's disability); and
    (vi) a certification that the complainant attempted in good faith 
to resolve the dispute with the broadcast station or MVPD against whom 
the complaint is alleged.
    (2) The Commission will promptly forward complaints satisfying the 
above requirements to the video programming distributor involved. The 
video programming distributor must respond to the complaint within a 
specified time, generally within 30 days. The Commission may authorize 
Commission staff either to shorten or lengthen the time required for 
responding to complaints in particular cases. The

[[Page 8530]]

answer to a complaint must include a certification that the video 
programming distributor attempted in good faith to resolve the dispute 
with the complainant.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01-2754 Filed 1-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P