65052 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 242 / Monday, December 18, 1995 / Proposed Rules

The Commission is concerned that the

initial deadline for filing comments,

December 26, 1995, falls at an

inconvenient time, in the midst of the

holiday season. As a courtesy to those

planning to file comments on the draft

rules and in the interest of obtaining

comments based on a thorough review

of the draft rules, the Commission has

conferred this extension. It is Ordered:

1. Comments addressing the draft

rules published at 60 FR 54981–89 are

now due on January 8, 1996.

2. The Secretary shall publish this

Notice and Order in the Federal

Register.

Issued by the Commission on December 12,

1995.

Margaret P. Crenshaw,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30640 Filed 12–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95–141; RM–8642]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Frederiksted, VI and Culebra and

Carolina, PR

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.

SUMMARY: The Commission dismisses

the petition for rule making filed by Jose

J. Arzuaga, proposing the allotment of

Channel 298B1 at Frederiksted, Virgin

Islands, as its third local FM

transmission service (RM–8642). See 60

FR 46563, September 7, 1995. We also

dismiss petitioner’s counterproposal to

allotment Channel 293B in lieu of

Channel 298B1 at Frederiksted, Virgin

Islands, and to allot Channel 298B1 at

Culebra, Puerto Rico. The petitioner has

abandoned his interest in a Class B1

allotment at Frederiksted, Virgin

Islands, and there are no other timely

expressions of interest for the channel.

In addition, petitioner’s counterproposal

is not consistent with the Commission’s

technical requirements. With this

action, this proceeding is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 95–141,

adopted November 30, 1995, and

released December 11, 1995. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

M Street, NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractors, International

Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95–30615 Filed 12–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

47 CFR Parts 73 and 76

[MM Docket No. 95–176; FCC 95–484]

In the Matter of Closed Captioning and

Video Description of Video

Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

SUMMARY: This Notice of Inquiry solicits

comment on the current availability,

cost, and uses of closed captioning and

video description of television video

programming. This information will

provide the Commission a record on

these important services, which benefit

individuals with disabilities. It will also

enable the Commission to assess what

further actions may be appropriate to

promote these services.

DATES: Interested parties may file

comments on or before January 29,

1996, and reply comments on or before

February 14, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Logan, (202) 776–1653.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Inquiry in MM Docket No. 95–176, FCC

95–484, adopted December 1, 1995 and

released on December 4, 1995. The

complete text of this Notice is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and also

may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857–3800.

Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry

1. The Notice seeks information on

the current availability, cost, and uses of

closed captioning and video

description, and also asks comment on

what further Commission actions may

be appropriate to promote these

services. It also seeks comment on the

appropriate means of promoting their

wider use in programming delivered by

television broadcasters, cable operators,

and other video programming providers.

I. Background

2. Captioning is similar to subtitles in

that it displays the audio portion of a

television signal as printed words on the

television screen. To assist viewers who

are hearing disabled, captions also

identify speakers, sound effects, music,

and laughter. Video description

provides audio descriptions of a

program’s key visual elements that are

inserted during the natural pauses in the

program’s dialogue.

3. Both the Senate and the House of

Representatives have passed bills (H.R.

1555 and S. 652), which, if enacted,

would require the Commission to adopt

regulations to ensure that video

programming is accessible to persons

with hearing disabilities through the

provision of closed captioning,

including requiring ‘‘video

programming providers or owners’’ to

maximize the accessibility of previously

published or exhibited programs by

adding closed captioning. Both bills

would allow the Commission to exempt

programs from these requirements in

certain circumstances, including

circumstances where the closed

captioning would impose an

unreasonable financial burden. The

House bill would require the

Commission to conduct an inquiry into

the current extent of closed captioning

as well as other issues. In addition, both

bills would require the Commission to

study the use of video description. The

House bill further provides that the

Commission may adopt regulation it

deems necessary to promote the

accessibility of video programming to

persons with visual impairments.

II. The Public Interest Benefits of

Closed Captioning and Video

Description

4. The Notice asks parties to elaborate

on the importance and nature of the

public interest benefits of closed

captioning and video description. It asks

parties to submit information regarding

the number of individuals with hearing

and vision disabilities in this country

who can benefit from these innovations,

including the basis for such estimates.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 242 / Monday, December 18, 1995 / Proposed Rules 65053

Are the number of persons with hearing

and vision disabilities expected to grow

in the coming years, particularly due to

the aging of the population? What

proportion of the persons with such

disabilities require closed captioning or

video description to enjoy television

programming, and what proportion

currently utilize these technologies? In

addition, the Commission requests

comment on the number of children

with hearing and vision disabilities that

can benefit from either closed

captioning or video description, and the

nature of these benefits. The Notice also

seeks comments on other public interest

benefits of closed captioning and video

description, such as teaching literacy

skills to children and illiterate adults.

III. Availability of Closed Captioning

and Video Description

5. The Notice asks commenters to

provide data regarding the current

availability of closed captioning of

television video programming. Has the

amount of closed captioning been

increasing in recent years, or has it

reached a plateau? The Commission is

particularly interested in data on

availability and any discernible trends

regarding the following categories: (1)

Program Source. What is the current

availability of closed captioning

according to the source of the

programming—broadcast network, basic

cable and premium cable networks,

syndicated programming, locallyproduced programming, local and

nationally produced public television

programming? (2) Other Delivery

Systems. To what extent is programming

carried on wireless cable, satellite

master antenna systems, direct-to-home

satellite services (including direct

broadcast satellite), and local exchange

carriers/video dialtone services closed

captioned? (3) Program Type. To what

extent are each of the following types of

programs closed captioned (on the

media within the scope of FCC

jurisdiction): entertainment programs,

local and national news, documentaries,

public affairs programming, children’s

educational programming, other types of

children’s programming, sports, movies,

cable public access programming, and

live vs. pre-recorded programming? (4)

Previously Published Programming. The

Commission solicits comment on the

extent of closed captioning of

previously published or exhibited

programs, such as reruns and movies,

that will be shown to television

audiences again. (5) Market Size and

Other Factors. The Commission also

requests comment on the degree to

which closed captioning varies by the

size of the video programming provider

or producer, by market size, and by

whether an entity is affiliated with a

broadcast network or multiple cable

system operator.

6. The Commission also seeks

comment on the current availability of

video description, including its

availability within each of the categories

described in its discussion of the

availability of closed captioning. It also

requests comment on the estimated

number of U.S. households that have

stereo television receivers, a VCR, or

television adaptor capable of receiving

video descriptions via the Second

Audio Program channel.

7. The Commission asks parties to

comment on the impact that

implementation of Advanced Television

(‘‘ATV’’), and the use of digital

technology, may have on the provision

of closed captioning and video

description on video programming

carried by broadcasters and other

program providers.

IV. The Cost of Closed Captioning and

Video Description

8. The Notice requests information on

the current costs of providing closed

captioning and video description of new

as well as previously published or

exhibited television programming. What

is the cost of the computer hardware

and software, as well encoding and

other equipment, necessary for these

services? What are the current rates for

closed captioning and video description

services for both prerecorded and live,

‘‘real-time’’ programming? Are these

rates uniform throughout the country?

Do the rates vary by program type, the

type of delivery system, or other factors?

What is the overall cost of providing

closed captioning or video description

of different types of programs?

9. The Commission also requests

comment on the adequacy of the supply

of closed captioning and video

description services. In addition, it

seeks comment on the governmental

and nongovernmental funding sources

for these services.

V. Market Incentives for Closed

Captioning and Video Description

10. The Notice solicits comment on

the role free-market forces have played

and can play in promoting the provision

of closed captioning of video

programming. For example, are

advertisers actively seeking to market to

individuals with hearing impairments,

which could in turn encourage closed

captioning of television programming?

How does the audience size of a

particular program influence the

likelihood that the program will be

closed captioned? Are there presently a

sufficient number of decoder-equipped

television receivers in the market to

provide the hoped-for incentive for the

television industry to provide closed

captioning? The Commission also

requests comment on the role marketbased incentives can play in fostering

video description.

VI. Inquiry Regarding Mandatory

Captioning and Video Description

Requirements

11. As noted, there is legislation

pending in Congress that generally

would require closed captioning of

video programming and which would

require the Commission to examine the

means of promoting video description.

Before these mandatory requirements

become law, the legislation must pass

both Houses of Congress and be signed

by the President. Alternatively, the

Commission could assess the possibility

of adopting regulatory requirements in

this area under it existing statutory

authority. The Commission is not

presently proposing such action, but it

requests comment on the general form

any mandatory closed captioning or

video description requirements should

take if they are deemed necessary. It

particularly seeks comment on the

following matters: (1) The application of

mandatory requirements (i.e., which

entities (e.g., program producers, video

programming distributors) should be

subject to any mandatory requirements);

(2) Exemptions to any mandatory

requirements due to financial burden or

other factors; (3) Technical and quality

standards; (4) The appropriate

timetables for implementing any closed

captioning or video description

requirements that may be imposed; (5)

Strategies to improve competition and

innovation in the provision of these

services.

12. The pending Senate and House

bills, if enacted, would provide express

statutory authority for imposing

mandatory closed captioning

requirements. The House bill would

also permit the Commission to adopt

regulations to promote the accessibility

of video programming to persons with

visual disabilities after conducting an

inquiry into video description.

However, the Commission seeks

comment on the scope of its authority

under current law to adopt regulations

imposing either closed captioning or

video description requirements on

broadcast television licensees, cable

operators, wireless cable systems,

SMATV operators, direct-to-home

satellite services, and local exchange

carrier/video dialtone systems, as well

as on producers/owners and other

distributors of such programming.
65054 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 242 / Monday, December 18, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Commenters should address with

specificity the basis for their views

concerning the Commission’s authority,

and also address any other legal

constraints that they believe may apply

in this area.

Administrative Matters

13. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of

the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R.

§§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may

file comments on or before January 29,

1996, and reply comments on or before

February 14, 1996. All relevant and

timely comments will be considered by

the Commission before final action is

taken in this proceeding. To file

formally in this proceeding, parties

must file an original and four copies of

all comments, reply comments and

supporting comments. If parties want

each Commissioner to receive a

personal copy of their comments, an

original plus nine copies must be filed.

Comments and reply comments should

be sent to the Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20554. Comments and reply comments

will be available for public inspection

during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239) of the

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20554.

14. There are no ex parte or disclosure

requirements applicable to this

proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR

§ 1.1204(a)(4).

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.

47 CFR Part 76

Cable television.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30549 Filed 12–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATOIN

48 CFR Parts 8, 10, 15, 31, 32, 42, 45,

52 and 53

[FAR Case 90–017, 90–054, 91–039, 91–057,

91–093, 91–111, 91–114, 91–117, 92–033, &

92–044]

Federal Acquisition Regulation;

Withdrawal of Proposed Rules

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DOD),

General Services Administration (GSA),

and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Proposed rule withdrawals.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense,

General Services Administration, and

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration have decided to

withdraw ten proposed rules without

further action. The actual text of the

Federal Acquisition Regulation is

unaffected by this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Beverly Fayson, FAR Secretariat, Room

4037, GS Building, Washington, DC

20405 (202) 501–4755.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 21, 1995, the Councils agreed

to withdraw the following five proposed

rules because the Director of Defense

Procurement is conducting an initiative

to rewrite FAR Part 45, Government

Property, to make the Government

property regulations easier to

understand and less burdensome for

both Government and industry. The

issues addressed by these rules will be

considered under the Part 45 Rewrite

initiative.

FAR Case 91–057, Disposal of

Hazardous Government Property

Published at 59 FR 14464, March 28,

1994, to provide guidance relating to the

identification and appropriate

disposition of hazardous Government

property. [RIN 9000–AF62]

FAR Case 91–093, Special Tooling

Under Fixed-Price Contracts

Published at 59 FR 14462, March 28,

1994, to amend the Government’s policy

on managing and controlling special

tooling for which the Government has

the right to title. [RIN 9000–AF66]

FAR Case 91–111, Commercially

Available Government-Furnished

Material

Published at 59 FR 46557, September

2, 1994, to require contractors to

provide all material for performing

Government contracts, except when

Government-furnished material is

necessary to achieve significant

economy, standardization, or expedited

production, or when it is otherwise in

the Government’s interest. [RIN 9000–

AF95]

FAR Case 91–114, Use of Government

Facilities on a No-Charge Basis

Published at 59 FR 45657, September

2, 1994, to include two clauses to

provide controls on the use of

Government property by identifying the

items of property furnished under a

contract or used on a no-charge basis,

and by describing the obligation of both

parties with regard to the property. [RIN

9000–AF96]

FAR Case 91–117, Use and Charges

Clause

Published at 60 FR 22442, May 5,

1995, to clarify current language

pertaining to rental payments for

Government-owned real property and

equipment. [RIN 9000–AG23]

The councils agreed to withdraw the

following two proposed rules because

the Department of Defense decided to

retain the guidance in the Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation

supplement.

FAR Case 91–39, Voluntary Refunds

Published at 56 FR 40716, August 15,

1991, to establish guidance on

solicitation and acceptable of voluntary

refunds from contractors. [RIN 9000–

AE11]

FAR Case 90–54, Defective Pricing

Published at 55 FR 50534, December

6, 1990, to revise policies affecting

defective pricing reductions. [RIN 9000–

AE23]

The councils also agreed to withdraw

the following three proposed rules

because the issues addressed in these

rules have been superseded by other

regulations including regulations

implementing the Federal Acquisition

Streamlining Act of 1994.

FAR Case 90–017, Exemptions from

Cost or Pricing Data

Published at 55 FR 36774, September

6, 1990, to minimize administrative

impediments in the procedures for

claiming and granting exemptions from

the requirements for submission of

certified cost or pricing data, and the