Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Anglers for Christ Ministries, Inc. New Beginning Ministries Petitioners Identified in Appendix A Interpretation of Economically Burdensome Standard; Amendment of Section 79.1(f) of the Commission’s Rules; Video Programming Accessibility ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CGB-CC-0005 CGB-CC-0007 CG Docket No. 06-181 CG Docket No. 11-175 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, ORDER, AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: October 20, 2011 Released: October 20, 2011 Comment Date: [30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] Reply Comment Date: [45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 2 A. Closed Captioning Exemptions........................................................................................................ 2 B. Anglers Order .................................................................................................................................. 7 C. Application for Review.................................................................................................................. 12 III. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ...................................................................................... 16 A. Reversal of the Exemptions Granted to Anglers and New Beginning........................................... 17 B. Reversal of Exemptions that Relied Upon the Anglers Order ................................................. 25 C. Future Treatment of the Petitions Reversed in this MO&O ..................................................... 28 IV. ORDER................................................................................................................................................. 29 V. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ........................................................................................ 38 VI. INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION........................................................... 40 VII.PROCEDURAL ISSUES ..................................................................................................................... 42 A. Materials in Accessible Formats .................................................................................................... 42 B. Regulatory Flexibility .................................................................................................................... 43 C. Paperwork Reduction Act .............................................................................................................. 44 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 2 D. Ex Parte Presentations.................................................................................................................... 45 E. Comment Filing Procedures........................................................................................................... 46 F. Congressional Review Act............................................................................................................. 49 VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES ................................................................................................................ 50 APPENDIX A – List of Petitioners APPENDIX B – Proposed Rules I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) has before it an Application for Review1 of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau’s (“CGB” or “Bureau”) Order (“Anglers Order”) granting closed captioning exemptions to Anglers for Christ Ministries, Inc. (“Anglers”) and New Beginning Ministries (“New Beginning”).2 The Application for Review also challenges 296 additional closed captioning exemptions granted by the Bureau, each of which relied on the reasoning contained in the Anglers Order. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (“MO&O”), we grant the Application for Review and reverse the two exemptions granted in the Anglers Order and the 296 exemptions subsequently granted in reliance on the Anglers Order.3 Any petitioner whose petition is subject to dismissal4 that wishes to continue receiving an individual exemption from the closed captioning rules must file a new petition, within 90 days from the release date of this MO&O, with updated information to support a claim that providing closed captions would be economically burdensome, in accordance with the guidance provided in the instant order5 and the definition of this standard in the 1 See Application for Review of the Bureau Order, CG Docket No. 06-181, CGB-CC-0005 and CGB-CC-0007, filed by Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (“TDI”), the National Association of the Deaf (“NAD”), Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network (“DHHCAN”), Hearing Loss Association of America (“HLAA”), the Association of Late Deafened Adults, the American Association of People with Disabilities, and the California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (collectively “Consumer Organizations”), filed Oct. 12, 2006 (“Application for Review”). Consumer Organizations also filed a Petition for Emergency Stay, requesting that the Commission stay the Anglers Order and the related closed captioning exemptions, pending review of the Application for Review. Petition for Emergency Stay, CG Docket No. 06-181, filed Oct. 12, 2006 (“Petition for Stay”). Because we now reverse actions granting the exemptions to Anglers, New Beginning, and the petitioners listed in Appendix A, we now dismiss the Petition for Stay as moot. 2 Anglers for Christ Ministries, Inc., New Beginning Ministries, Video Programming Accessibility, Petitions for Exemption from Closed Captioning Requirements, CGB-CC-0005 and CGB-CC-0007, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 10094 (Anglers Order) (CGB 2006). 3 Although the Application for Review lists 298 grants in total, Commission records show that a total of 303 exemptions were granted – two in the Anglers Order and 301 by subsequent orders. The reason that this MO&O reverses 298 (and not 303) exemptions is that there were five exemptions that the Consumer Organizations did not challenge, which became final. These petitions were: (1) CGB-CC-0334, filed Jan. 10, 2006 by Video Inspirations; (2) CGB-CC-0348, filed Dec. 21, 2005 by Holy Trinity House of God; (3) CGB-CC-0349, filed Jan. 9, 2006 by Christ is the Rock, Inc; (4) CGB-CC-0366, filed Dec. 30, 2005 by Frazer Memorial Methodist Church; and (5) CGB-CC-0435, filed Feb. 16, 2006 by Media Group International “Robby Mitchell Ministries.” We do not address these five exemptions in the context of this proceeding. All petitioners whose exemptions are reversed by this MO&O are identified in Appendix A, attached hereto. 4 All such petitions are listed in Appendix A. 5 See ¶¶ 16-29, infra. Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 3 accompanying Interim Standard Order.6 In the accompanying Interim Standard Order, the Commission interprets on a provisional basis the term “economically burdensome,” as used in section 202 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (“CVAA”), to be synonymous with the term “undue burden” formerly used in section 713(e) of the Communications Act.7 In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission seeks comment on proposed amendments of the Commission’s rules to make permanent the provisional interpretation of “economically burdensome,” in ruling on individual closed captioning exemption requests in order to conform the Commission’s rules to section 202 of the CVAA. II. BACKGROUND A. Closed Captioning Exemptions 2. In 1996, Congress added section 713 to the Act, setting forth requirements for closed captioning of video programming to ensure access by persons with hearing disabilities to television programming,8 and directing the Commission to prescribe rules to carry out this mandate.9 In 1997, the Commission adopted such rules, establishing implementation schedules for closed captioning that became effective on January 1, 1998.10 The Commission’s closed captioning rules currently require video programming distributors (“VPDs”)11 to caption 100% of all new, non-exempt English and Spanish language programming.12 6 See Section III.C., infra, which addresses the future treatment of the petitions reversed in this MO&O, and Section IV, the Interim Standard Order, which addresses the new economically burdensome standard. 7 CVAA, Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010) (as codified in various sections of 47 U.S.C.). See also Amendment to CVAA, Pub. L. 111-265, 124 Stat. 2795 (2010), which makes technical corrections to the CVAA. Both the CVAA and its technical amendments were enacted on October 8, 2010. 8 Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 613) (“1996 Amendments”). 9 47 U.S.C. §§ 613(b), (c). 10 47 C.F.R. § 79.1; see Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, MM Docket No. 95-176, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 3272 (1997) (“Closed Captioning Report and Order”), Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, MM Docket No. 95-176, Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 19973 (1998) (“Closed Captioning Reconsideration Order”). 11 A “video programming distributor” is defined as (1) any television broadcast station licensed by the Commission; (2) any multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) as defined in Section 76.1000(e); and (3) any other distributor of video programming for residential reception that delivers such programming directly to the home and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(a)(2). An “MVPD” is “an entity engaged in the business of making available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming. Such entities include, but are not limited to, a cable operator, a BRS/EBS [Broadband Radio Service, formerly known as the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS)/Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) and Educational Broadband Service, formally known as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)] provider, a direct broadcast satellite service, a television receive-only satellite program distributor, and a satellite master antenna television system operator, as well as buying groups or agents of all such entities.” 47 C.F.R. § 76.1000(e). See also 47 U.S.C. § 522(13). 12 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(b). The effective date of the requirement for all nonexempt, new programming to be captioned was January 1, 2006 for English language programming, and January 1, 2010 for Spanish language programming. (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 4 3. Section 713 of the Act allows the Commission to grant two types of exemptions from its captioning mandates: categorical exemptions and individual exemptions. The exemptions at issue in this MO&O are individual exemptions, which are considered on a case-by-case basis upon submission of a petition to the Commission.13 Section 713(d)(3), as originally enacted, permitted the Commission to grant such individual closed captioning exemptions to a provider,14 owner, or producer of video programming that petitioned the Commission upon a showing that the closed caption requirements would “result in an undue burden.”15 Section 713(e) of the Act defines “undue burden” to mean “significant difficulty or expense,”16 and directs the Commission to consider the following factors in making an undue burden determination: (1) the nature and cost of the closed captions for the programming; (2) the impact on the operation of the provider or program owner; (3) the financial resources of the provider or program owner; and (4) the type of operations of the provider or program owner.17 The petitioner also may present for the Commission’s consideration “any other factors the petitioner deems relevant to the Commission’s final determination,” including alternatives that might constitute a reasonable substitute for closed captioning.18 4. Commission rules require the Commission to place any petition seeking an individual exemption from the closed captioning requirements under section 713(d)(3) of the Act on public notice, after which parties are given an opportunity to provide comments and petitioners are given an opportunity (Continued from previous page) Id. at §§ 79.1(b)(1)(iv), (b)(3)(iv). For pre-rule language programming (programming that first aired prior to the effective date of the Commission’s closed captioning regulations adopted in 1998), the benchmarks require 75% of all nonexempt English programming to be captioned, and 30% of nonexempt Spanish language programming to be captioned, with the latter to increase to 75% on January 1, 2012. See 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(b)(2); Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3301-02, ¶¶ 61-63; 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(b)(4)(ii). 13 47 U.S.C. § 613(d). The other type of exemptions, categorical exemptions, are permitted under Section 613(d)(1) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) (allowing the Commission to “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”). Pursuant to this authority, in 1997, the Commission created thirteen categorical exemptions. 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(d). The Anglers Order referred to these as “self-implementing” exemptions. Anglers Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 10095, ¶ 3. 14 A “video programming provider” is defined as “[a]ny video programming distributor and any other entity that provides video programming that is intended for distribution to residential households including, but not limited to broadcast or nonbroadcast television network and the owners of such programming.” 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(a)(3). The House Conference Report to the 1996 Amendments further explained that the term “provider” refers to the “specific television station, cable operator, cable network or other service that provides programming to the public.” H. Rep. No. 104-204, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995) at 183. 15 47 U.S.C. § 613(d)(3); 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(1). Any entity in the programming distribution chain, including the producer or owner of the programming, may petition the Commission for an individual exemption under section 79.1(f) of the Commission’s rules. A petitioner may seek an exemption for “a channel of video programming, a category or type of video programming, an individual video service, a specific video program or a video programming provider.” . 16 47 U.S.C. § 613(e); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 79.1(f)(1), (2). 17 47 U.S.C. § 613(e). The Commission’s rules mirror these statutory criteria for making undue burden determinations. 47 C.F.R. §79.1(f)(2)(i) – (iv). 18 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(3). Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 5 to reply to those comments. 19 During the pendency of the petition, the programming that is the subject of the petition is exempt from the closed captioning rules.20 5. From 1997, when the Commission first adopted its closed captioning rules, until mid- 2005, the Commission received fewer than 75 petitions for undue burden exemptions.21 From October 2005 through August 2006, the Commission received approximately 600 such petitions.22 CGB granted two of these petitions in the Anglers Order, and during the two weeks that followed, granted an additional 301 petitions in reliance on the reasoning of that Order.23 6. Since issuance of the Anglers Order and the grants of exemption that followed, Congress amended section 713(d)(3) to require petitioners for individual closed captioning exemptions to make a supported showing that providing captions would be “economically burdensome.”24 B. Anglers Order 7. On October 12, 2005, Anglers filed a petition for an undue burden exemption from the closed captioning rules for its program, The Christian Angler Outdoors Television Show.25 Anglers asserted that it was a non-profit organization, and that it began airing this program in January 2005, operating solely on contributions, but without a base of continued contributions.26 According to Anglers, its program was produced in-house by a volunteer staff of Anglers, and was aired without compensation to Anglers. Anglers claimed that requiring closed captioning for its show would create an undue burden because this obligation would “possibly cause [it] to stop production.”27 However, Anglers also stated that it hoped to obtain closed captioning sponsorship, and to be able to provide closed captioning by 2007 for its production.28 CGB placed the Anglers Petition on public notice on February 3, 2006.29 No comments or oppositions were filed in response. 19 47 C.F.R. §§ 79.1(f)(5); (6). 20 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(11). Section 202(c) of the CVAA amends Section 713(d)(3) of the Act include this automatic exemption for programming that is the subject of an individual petition. Pub. L. No. 111-260 §202(c). 21 During this period, the Commission’s Media Bureau handled all closed captioning exemption requests that came to the Commission. 22 The increase in filings during this period was a result of the January 1, 2006 effective date for captioning all new non-exempt English language programming. In the four and a half years since Anglers was decided, the Commission has received more than 500 additional undue burden exemption petitions, and at least 15 new petitions are filed each month. 23 CGB assumed the responsibility for deciding closed captioning exemption petitions late in 2005. 24 47 U.S.C. § 613(d)(3), as amended by CVAA, Pub. L. No. 111-260 § 202(c). 25 Anglers for Christ Ministries, Inc. Request for Exemption from Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, Case No. CGB-CC-0005, filed Oct. 12, 2005 (“Anglers Petition”). 26 Id. at 1. See also Letter from Tony Sellars, CEO, Anglers for Christ Ministries, Inc., to Amelia Brown, FCC, Case No. CGB-CC-0005 (Jan. 20, 2006) (“Anglers Supplement”) (describing its show as “a faith-based outdoor show consisting of outdoor segments, along with a segment hosted by kids called Reel Kids in the Outdoors”). 27 Anglers Supplement at 1. 28 Id. at 1. 29 Request for Exemption from Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, CGB-CC-0005, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 1124 (CGB 2006). Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 6 8. On November 1, 2005, New Beginning filed its undue burden petition with the Commission for a 30-minute television program titled In His Image, which aired once per week. 30 New Beginning alleged that captioning of this show would impose an undue burden at this time because its program would have to be sent to an outside source for captioning, and the added production cost would make production unaffordable, resulting in a negative impact on its ability to meet air-date deadlines.31 New Beginning also asserted that it was a donor supported, non-profit organization, and that it would have been forced to discontinue its program and cease broadcast operations if it was required to provide closed captions.32 In addition to requesting an undue burden exemption, New Beginning claimed that In His Image was a locally produced and distributed non-news program with no repeat value, and thus merited a categorical exemption pursuant to section 79.1(d)(8) of the Commission’s rules.33 9. CGB placed the New Beginning Petition on public notice on December 20, 2005.34 On January 19, 2006, TDI, NAD, DHHCAN and HLAA (collectively referred to as “TDI”) filed a Consolidated Opposition to the New Beginning Petition, challenging the petitioner’s failure to provide sufficient information to merit an undue burden exemption.35 TDI also stated that New Beginning had failed to establish that In His Image qualified for a categorical exemption under section 79.1(d)(8), because it had not proven that its program was “truly local” in nature, as required for this categorical exemption.36 In support, TDI pointed to New Beginning’s statement that In His Image is shown nationwide on a weekly basis over the Sky Angel network, as well as on CTN in Eastern and Western Florida.37 10. On September 11, 2006, CGB issued the Anglers Order, granting permanent exemptions to Anglers and New Beginning.38 The Anglers Order stated that both petitioners had demonstrated that an obligation to closed caption their programming would cause “significant hardship,” and that there was a “significant risk that mandated closed captioning could cause both organizations to terminate their 30 New Beginning Ministries Request for Exemption from Commission’s Closed Captioning, Case No. CGB-CC- 0007 (Nov. 1, 2005) (“New Beginning Petition”). 31 Id. at 1 (emphasis added). 32 Id. See also id., Attachment, Affidavit of Costs (reporting that the substantial majority of its annual expenses consisted of payments to the Christian Television Network (CTN), i.e., $750 per week to CTN to air its show, and alleging that it would cost $300 per episode to provide captioning). 33 New Beginning Petition at 1. 34 Request for Exemption from Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, CGB-CC-0007, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 20126 (CGB 2005). 35 Consolidated Opposition of TDI, NAD, DHHCAN, and HLAA to the Petition for Exemption from Closed Captioning Requirements Filed by New Beginning, Case No. CGB-CC-0007, filed Jan. 19, 2006 (“TDI Opposition”). Specifically, TDI asserted that New Beginning (1) failed to provide documentation to support its assertion that adding closed captioning would increase the per-episode production costs by $300, or to verify its claims regarding total income and production costs; (2) failed to provide a financial analysis to support its assertion that having to send the program to an outside source for captioning would “make production unaffordable” and require petitioner to “cease broadcast operations”; and (3) failed to provide information about revenue derived from the nationwide satellite and regional cable distribution of In His Image. Id. at 6-9. 36 Id. at 10. 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(d)(8) exempts “programming that is locally produced by the video programming distributor, has no repeat value, is of local public interest, is not news programming, and for which the “electronic news room” technique of captioning is unavailable.” 37 Id. at 8-10. 38 Anglers Order, n.1, supra. Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 7 programming.”39 It went on to state that neither Anglers nor New Beginning was producing its programming primarily for a commercial purpose. The exemptions granted in the Anglers Order also relied on the non-profit status of each of the petitioners, as well as the fact that the subject programming was “‘not remunerative in itself,’ insofar as the programming owners either [were] offering it free to providers, or paying for its exhibition.”40 The Order concluded that, in the future, when considering an exemption petition filed by a non-profit organization that does not receive compensation from video programming distributors from the airing of its programming, and that, in the absence of an exemption, may terminate or substantially curtail its programming, or curtail other activities important to its mission, we will be inclined favorably to grant such a petition because, as the petitions of Anglers and New Beginning demonstrate, this confluence of factors strongly suggests that mandated closed captioning would pose an undue burden on such a petitioner.41 11. Based on the reasoning of the Anglers Order, CGB subsequently granted 301 additional individual exemption requests from the closed captioning rules.42 Of the 301 requests, 238 were not placed on public notice prior to being granted.43 Petitioners were notified of their exemptions by letters sent by postal mail (“Bureau Letter Orders”), none of which were noticed to the public. The content of each of these Bureau Letter Orders was virtually identical, and each relied on the analysis set forth in the Anglers Order.44 None of the Bureau Letter Orders addressed the extent to which each individual petitioner demonstrated that captioning would result in an undue burden.45 Additionally, although each Bureau Letter Order spelled out the procedures contained in the Commission’s rules governing consideration of undue burden closed captioning petitions, including the requirements for petitions to be placed on public notice and contain detailed facts supported by affidavit, each Order concluded, without further explanation concerning the specific circumstances of each petitioner’s request, that “waiving these requirements in the instant case is consistent with the public interest.”46 C. Application for Review 12. On October 12, 2006, the Consumer Organizations filed an Application for Review requesting the Commission to rescind the Anglers Order and the hundreds of exemptions that were based on that Order. They assert that the Anglers Order unilaterally and without the notice and comment 39 Anglers Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 10097, ¶ 9. 40 Anglers Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 10097, ¶ 10 (inside quotations in original), quoting language from the Commission’s discussion of the need for an exemption for locally produced, non-news programming in the Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3347, ¶158. 41 Anglers Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 10097, ¶ 11. 42 Letters from Thomas E. Chandler, Chief, Disability Rights Office, FCC (dated Sept. 11 through Sept. 22, 2006) (“Bureau Letter Orders”). 43 See Application for Review at 12. According to the Application for Review, only 59 of the petitions granted during this period had been placed on public notice prior to being granted. Application for Review at Appendix A1. 44 See, e.g., Letter from Thomas E. Chandler, Disability Rights Office, FCC to First Apostolic Church, CGB-CC- 0294 (dated Sept. 11, 2006); Letter from Thomas E. Chandler, Disability Rights Office, FCC to Bull Street Baptist Church, CGB-CC-0257 (dated Sept. 12, 2006); Letter from Thomas E. Chandler, Disability Rights Office, FCC to Fort Worth Bible Students, CGB-CC-0248 (dated Sept. 12, 2006). 45 Id. 46 See Bureau Letter Orders, n. 42, supra and examples listed at n. 44, supra. Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 8 required by the Administrative Procedure Act, established a new category of exempt programming for “non-profit organizations that do not receive compensation from video programming distributors for airing . . . programming and [who] represent that they may terminate or substantially curtail their programming or curtail other activities important to their mission if they are required to caption.”47 According to the Consumer Organizations, this standard is “unclear and unworkable” and creates an exempted class of programmers that is “impermissibly broad” in that it covers programmers who might in the future be able to provide captioning.48 They also claim that it is “unclear how the Commission [will] determine what activities are ‘important’ to a petitioner’s mission.”49 Finally, the Consumer Organizations argue that the Anglers and New Beginning petitions should not have been granted on a permanent basis, because each had requested time-limited waivers.50 13. With respect to the hundreds of exemptions that relied on the Anglers Order, the Consumer Organizations assert that failure to place most of the petitions on public notice deprived interested persons of an opportunity to comment on or oppose the petitions.51 They further allege that the individual merits of each petition should have been considered,52 and that in many cases, petitioners had failed to produce evidence to support their claims of undue burden.53 They argue against the permanent exemptions granted, instead maintaining that temporary waivers “might have been more appropriate to the scenarios presented.”54 Finally, the Consumer Organizations argue that the failure of the Anglers Order to follow Commission precedent directing programmers to seek assistance from their distributors was arbitrary and capricious.55 47 Application for Review at 2-3, 9-10 (alleging a violation of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553). The Consumer Organizations also allege a violation of section 713(d)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1), which requires the Commission to adopt categorical exemptions by regulation. Application for Review at 2-3, 10. 48 Application for Review at 3, 19. For this reason, Consumer Organizations suggest that the new standard “threatens to allow a huge and totally unwarranted number of exemptions.” Id. at 5. See also Reply to Opposition of Application for Review of Bureau Order, CG 06-181, filed Nov. 9, 2006 at 3, in which the Consumer Organizations also express concern that non-profit organizations that already caption might now be inclined to request exemptions, under the newly adopted theory that continuing to caption would “curtail other activities important to their mission.” NRB filed a “Response to Reply of Opposition of Application for Review of Bureau Order, or, in the Alternative, Request for Permission to File a Late Document” on November 21, 2006, which only addressed the contention of the Consumer Organizations that the NRB Opposition had not been timely filed. 49 Id. at 18-19. In this regard, the Consumer Organizations also state that the Commission failed to advise programmers on the evidence that would be needed to meet the new criteria when filing future exemption requests. 50 Id. at 10. 51 Id. at 3, 11-14, citing 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(5),(6). 52 Id. at 14. 53 Id. at 4, 14. 54 Id. at 19. 55 Id. at 4, citing a footnote in the Anglers Order in which the Bureau departed from the ruling in The Wild Outdoors, Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, Case No. CSR 5949, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 11873, 11874, n. 25 (MB 2005) (Wild Outdoors 2005). The Consumer Organizations also contend that the Bureau’s action, while neutral on its face, was intended to create a blanket exemption for religious programming from the captioning mandates in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. See Application for Review at 19, n.58. This MO&O does not reach these constitutional issues because, as discussed below, we grant the Application for Review on other grounds. Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 9 14. In an Opposition to the Application for Review, the National Religious Broadcasters (“NRB”) argues that, rather than create a new class of exempt programming, the Anglers Order clarified “the meaning of ‘undue burden’ in a manner that is consistent with the expressed intent of Congress that non-profit organizations be considered for exemption, and that the detrimental impact of closed captioning costs be weighed in terms of [the] resultant potential for decrease in programming or diminution of mission-important activities.”56 15. In November 2006, CGB placed 494 petitions for individual captioning exemptions on public notice.57 At the same time, CGB held all of the exemptions at issue in the Application for Review in abeyance until the comment cycle on these petitions had ended.58 On March 26, 2007, the Consumer Organizations submitted oppositions to nearly all of these posted petitions. III. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 16. We grant the relief sought in the Application for Review to the extent discussed below, and reverse exemptions granted to Anglers and New Beginning in the Anglers Order. We conclude that the reasoning used in that Order for evaluating requests for exemption from the closed captioning rules on the basis of undue burden under section 713(d)(3) is not supported by the Act, its legislative history, or the Commission’s implementing regulations and Orders. Accordingly, the Commission rejects the undue burden criteria used in Anglers, and affirms instead the undue burden analyses previously applied to decisions that predate the Anglers Order. In addition, we reverse the 296 exemptions that were based on the rationale in the Anglers Order.59 Each of the petitioners affected by this MO&O shall be provided with a copy of this MO&O and notified, by letter sent certified mail, return receipt requested, that it may file a new petition for a closed captioning exemption, consistent with the requirements of the Commission’s rules and the instant order.60 56 National Religious Broadcasters Opposition to Application for Review, filed Oct. 30, 2006, at 3 (“NRB Opposition”). See also id. at 8. 57 See Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Action Request For Exemption From Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, CG Docket No. 06-181, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 13142 (CGB 2006) (November 7, 2006 PN). This number included the 296 petitions at issue in the Application for Review as well as all other petitions for an undue burden exemption pending before the Commission at that time. See also Extension of Comment Period on Petitions for Exemption From Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, CG Docket No. 06-181, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 13487 (CGB 2006) (“November 21, 2006 PN”) (extending the deadline for filing comments regarding the Petitions noticed in the November 7, 2006 PN). 58 November 21, 2006 PN. 59 The undue burden exemptions that are the subject of this MO&O were granted to individual video programming providers that contracted with a VPD for carriage of a particular program, usually for a fee. See, e.g., St. Mark Baptist Church, CGB-CC-0041 (requesting an exemption for its program “Light of the World”); Calvary Chapel, Bangor, ME, CGB-CC-0031 (requesting an exemption for its program “Godsword”); Outland Sports, Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, Case No. CSR 5443, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 13605, 13609, ¶ 12 (MB 2001). To the extent that the subject exemption was for specific programs, the exemption applied to all episodes of those programs exhibited by the petitioner. In those cases where petitions did not identify specific programming, the subject exemption was granted for any and all programming provided by that petitioner. This MO&O reverses each exemption with respect to any programming for which it was granted. 60 As discussed below, ¶¶ 28-29 infra, entities that receive a letter will not automatically continue to be exempt from the Commission's rules without filing a new exemption request and supplementing the record with current and supported information about their inability to provide closed captioning. See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 79.1 (f)(2);(3). Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 10 A. Reversal of the Exemptions Granted to Anglers and New Beginning 17. For the following reasons, we reverse the exemptions granted to Anglers and New Beginning. First, we conclude that it was not appropriate to grant exemptions in reliance on the non- commercial nature and lack of remunerative value of Angler’s and New Beginning’s programming. Rather, in conducting the undue burden analysis, all of the petitioners’ available resources should have been taken into consideration, not just the resources allocated for the programs for which exemptions were sought. Section 713(e)(3) of the Act provides that one of the factors to be considered in an undue burden exemption determination is the “financial resources of the provider or program owner.”61 In the Closed Captioning Report and Order, the Commission rejected suggestions by some commenters to consider only the resources available for a specific program in making undue burden exemption determinations, finding that “this approach could unnecessarily limit the availability of captioning and would thus also frustrate Congressional intent,” and noting the need to “examine the overall budget and revenues of the individual outlet and not simply the resources it chooses to devote to a particular program.”62 Accordingly, consideration of the petitioners’ exemption claims should have taken into account the overall financial resources of the provider or program owner.63 18. Second, the Anglers Order should not have placed substantial reliance on Anglers’ and New Beginning’s non-profit status. While a petitioner’s financial resources is one of several factors for determining whether it should be excused from the captioning obligations,64 in the Closed Captioning Report and Order, the Commission specifically rejected requests by commenters to adopt a categorical exemption for all non-profit entities based solely on their non-profit status.65 The Commission chose instead to adopt revenue-based exemption standards that would focus on the economic strength of each 61 47 U.S.C. § 613(e)(3) (emphasis added). 62 Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3365-66, ¶ 204 (emphasis added). See also Outland Sports, 16 FCC Rcd 13605, 13607, ¶ 6 applying ¶ 204 of the Closed Captioning Report and Order (citing “the overall budget and revenues of the individual outlet, and not simply the resources [a petitioner] chooses to devote to a particular program” as relevant to deciding an undue burden petition). 63 In addition, the Anglers Order identified three characteristics – the non-remunerative nature of the programming, the failure to produce programming primarily for a commercial purpose, and the non-profit status of the petitioners – as common to programmers who qualify for categorical captioning exemptions for locally produced and distributed non-news programming with no repeat value under section 79.1(d)(8) of the Commission’s rules and ITFS licensees under section 79.1(d)(7) of these rules. Id. at ¶¶ 10-11. Presumably, this was in part a response to New Beginning’s request for an exemption under 47 C.F.R. §79.1(d)(8). We note, however, that neither the Anglers nor New Beginning programs would qualify for a section 79.1(d)(8) exemption because, among other reasons, this categorical exemption specifically requires that such “locally produced and distributed non-news programming” be produced by the video programming distributor, not programmers like these petitioners. Moreover, it is not clear that the programming produced by New Beginning was distributed only locally. Although New Beginning reported in its Petition that In His Image was broadcast on CTN, New Beginning Petition at 1, in their Opposition Comments, Consumer Organizations noted that their research indicated that In His Image aired nationwide on a weekly basis over the Sky Angel satellite network, and on a weekly basis to a large geographic area within the state of Florida via CTN. See ¶ 9, supra. 64 See 47 U.S.C. § 613(e)(3). 65 See Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3349, ¶ 162 (“[P]rofit and nonprofit entities may significantly overlap in the functions they perform, [and] specific programs may individually garner limited audiences or economic support but may be important loss leaders or brand identifiers.”); cf. id. at 3317-3318, ¶ 95, noting the request of some commenters to exempt all nonprofit program networks from the captioning requirements. Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 11 provider,66 and noted that this test would require all entities (including those that are non-profit) “to do some captioning; that is, they will be required to caption to the extent that such a requirement is not economically burdensome.”67 Such a result, the Commission concluded, would be more equitable, in that it would not favor one type of network or service provider over another.68 The decision in the Anglers Order to grant Anglers and New Beginning favorable exemption treatment because of their non-profit status was inconsistent with this Commission precedent. 19. Third, we reverse the Anglers Order because it created a presumption that future exemptions would be granted to non-profit entities for whom the provision of closed captions would “curtail other activities important to [their] mission.”69 Establishing a presumption that would apply to future petitions was contrary to Commission precedent, as established in the Closed Captioning Report and Order, wherein the Commission rejected suggestions to rely on specific presumptions when evaluating undue burden exemption petitions.70 The Commission explained that such presumptions “might well prevent [the Commission] from examining the effect our closed captioning requirements would have on a specific video programming provider or even a class of programmers.” 71 Unlike the categorical exemptions that are adopted by rulemaking and are of general applicability, the process for determining closed captioning exemptions on the basis of purported undue burden is designed to consider the unique, individual circumstances of each petitioner on a case-by-case basis.72 20. We also reject the Anglers Order’s conclusion that the extent to which the provision of captioning would “curtail other activities important to [a petitioner’s] mission” is an appropriate factor in making an undue burden determination. In making determinations under sections 713(d)(3) and (e) of the Act, the Commission’s job is to “balance the need for closed captioned programming against the potential for hindering the production and distribution of programming.”73 While the Commission may consider additional factors besides those specifically set forth in section 713(e) of the Act when making a 66 Under these standards, no video programming provider is required to spend more than 2 percent of the annual gross revenues received from the channel during the prior calendar year, and no video programming provider with annual gross revenues of less than $3,000,000 during the prior calendar year is required to spend any money to caption its programming channel (other than complying with requirements to pass through programming already captioned when received). Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3350, ¶ 164; see 47 C.F.R. §§ 79.1(c), (d) (11)-(12). See also Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3349, ¶ 163 (these tests would eliminate the need to become engaged in “difficult accounting issues that might . . . be associated with a profitability analysis,” and would “operate[] in a flexible fashion so that as revenues increase the amount of captioning increases.”). 67 Id. at ¶ 163. 68 Id. 69 See Anglers Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 10097, ¶ 11. 70 For example, the Commission specifically rejected rebuttable presumptions for this purpose proposed by the Weather Channel, the Game Show Network, and the Association of Public Television Stations. Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3364-65, ¶ 202; cf. id. at ¶198. 71 Id., 13 FCC Rcd at 3364-65, ¶ 202. 72 See id., 13 FCC Rcd at 3314-15 ¶ 90 (“Section 713(d)(3) provides for the Commission to establish a procedure to consider exemptions from our closed captioning rules on a case-by-case basis and to tailor a remedy to fit those circumstances.”). In the Closed Captioning Report and Order, the Commission made clear its intention to allow petitioners seeking an exemption under section 713(d)(3) of the Act “sufficient discretion to demonstrate burdens that are unanticipated in the generally applicable rules and [categorical] exemptions.” Id., 13 FCC Rcd at 3364-65, ¶ 202. 73 H. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458 at 183; H. Rep. No. 104-204, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995) at 115. Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 12 determination for an individual closed captioning exemption,74 legislative guidance and Commission policy make clear that any such additional factors must focus on the impact that captioning will have on the petitioner’s programming activities – for example, the extent to which programming might not be shown if program owners or providers are required to provide captions – not other activities or missions that are unrelated to that programming.75 Accordingly, the Anglers Order erred in directing consideration of the extent to which the provision of captioning would have impacted the petitioners’ non-programming activities. 21. Moreover, we agree with the Application for Review that consideration of whether the provision of captioning would “curtail other activities important to [a petitioner’s] mission” creates an unworkable standard.76 Specifically, it is not clear how the Commission can be expected to determine an organization’s “mission,” define which non-programming related activities would be important to that mission, or assess the extent to which the importance of ensuring television access through the provision of captioning should be balanced against that mission. For these reasons, this factor is impermissibly vague and inappropriate for closed captioning exemption determinations. In effect, applying such a factor would enable regulated parties to decide whether it is more important to comply with captioning requirements or to use their resources for other non-programming-related purposes. 22. Fourth, we find that neither Anglers nor New Beginning should have received permanent exemptions. In the Closed Captioning Report and Order, the Commission emphasized the need to consider the length of an exemption on a case-by-case basis. In this regard, the Commission recognized that “changes in technology, the economics of captioning, or the financial resources of a video programming provider may affect the justification of an undue burden exemption” over time, and concluded that “it is better to maintain the flexibility to limit the duration of an undue burden exemption if the facts before us indicate that the particular circumstances of the petition warrant a limited exemption.”77 Similarly, in the Closed Captioning Reconsideration Order, the Commission stated its intention to “consider time limits . . . when evaluating requests for undue burden exemptions on the basis of the information regarding individual circumstances.”78 23. Consistent with this approach, prior to the Anglers Order, no petitioner had ever received a permanent exemption from the captioning rules. For example, of the approximately 75 undue burden petitions received by the Commission between 1997 and 2005, only three were granted, one for a period 74 See 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(3). 75 See 47 U.S.C. § 613(e)(1) (a factor to consider is the “nature and cost of the closed captions for the programming”) (emphasis added); Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3363-64, ¶ 199 (reiterating that “[t]he legislative history of section 713(d)(3) instructs the Commission to consider the potential for hindering the production and distribution of video programming,” and directing program producers, owners and distributors to abide by this standard in making requests for exemptions) (emphasis added); Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, MM Docket No. 95-176, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 1044, 1082-83, ¶ 90 (1997) (“Closed Captioning NPRM”) (“According to the legislative history [underlying section 713(d)(3) of the Act], Congress intended to permit the Commission to balance the need for closed captioned programming against the possibility of inhibiting the production and distribution of programming and thereby restricting the diversity of programming available to the public.”) (emphasis added). 76 Application for Review at 17. 77 Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3366, ¶ 205. 78 Closed Captioning Reconsideration Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20022, ¶ 112 (“prescribing specific durations for such petitions [by rulemaking] partially defeats the purpose for the exemption. While a specific time limit may be appropriate for some cases, a longer or shorter period may be appropriate in others.”) Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 13 of three years, and two for a period of one year each.79 Determinations of these exemption petitions held fast to the principle that an exemption from the closed captioning obligations “is not designed to perpetually relieve a petitioner of its captioning obligation.”80 In the instant case, both of the Anglers Order petitioners signaled their intent to revisit their ability to provide captioning at a future point, neither requested a permanent exemption, and neither demonstrated the need for an exemption in perpetuity.81 Accordingly, we affirm the prior practice of granting exemptions for limited periods of time, and find that here, justification was lacking to grant the petitioners exemptions on a permanent basis. 24. Finally, the Anglers Order failed to consider whether petitioners solicited captioning assistance from their video programming distributors.82 Although programmers were encouraged to solicit captioning assistance from distributors, the Order concluded that they were under no obligation to conduct such a solicitation as a precondition for receiving an undue burden exemption.83 The Commission believes that the solicitation policy is appropriate to an undue burden determination because responsibility for captioning ultimately rests with VPDs.84 As noted in the Anglers Order, “unsuccessful solicitations may constitute evidence in support of an undue burden petition.”85 Accordingly, we affirm earlier Media Bureau precedent that soliciting funds from these responsible entities is necessary to meeting one’s captioning obligations, and that evidence of such solicitation is required before a petitioner may qualify for a captioning exemption.86 79 See Outland Sports, 16 FCC Rcd 13605,13609, ¶ 12 (rather than grant the full exemption requested, the Media Bureau granted a one year exemption and explained, “we believe a partial exemption is appropriate to allow Petitioner relief from the captioning requirements for a limited period during which, if they so choose, they may request a broader exemption on a more complete record.”); The Wild Outdoors 2001, 16 FCC Rcd 13611 (1 year); WDLP Broadcasting Co, LLC, Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, Case No. CSR 6296, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13531 (MB 2005) (WDLP Broadcasting) (3 years). 80 See, e.g., The Wild Outdoors 2005, 20 FCC Rcd 11873 at 11874, ¶ 3; See also, Jim Hanley’s Northeast Outdoors, Inc., Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, Case No. CSR 5861, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 10021, 10022, ¶ 3 (MB 2005); Adventure Bound Outdoors, Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, Case No. CSR 5832, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 10029, 10030, ¶ 3 (MB 2005); Awakening Ministries, Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, Case No. CSR 6287, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 10740, 10741, ¶ 4 (MB 2005). 81 As noted above, ¶ 7, supra, Anglers’ petition stated that it “hope[d] to obtain closed caption sponsorship within the next fiscal year, which [would] enable [it] to provide this service beginning January 2007.” Anglers Petition at 1. Similarly, New Beginning stated that “the added cost [of captioning] would be an undue burden on the ministry at this time.” New Beginning Petition at 1 (emphasis added). 82 See Media Bureau Orders discussed at n. 102 and n.103, infra. See also Anglers, 21 FCC Rcd at 10097, n. 25 citing The Wild Outdoors 2005, 20 FCC Rcd at 11873-74, ¶ 4 (implicit in a showing of a petitioner’s financial resources under section 79.1(f) of the Commission’s rules, is “the extent to which the distributors of [its] programming can be called upon to contribute towards the captioning expense”); Engel’s Outdoor Experience, 19 FCC Rcd 6867, 6868, ¶ 3 (relying on The Wild Outdoors 2005); Commonwealth Productions, Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, Case No. CSR 5992, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 5381, 5382, ¶ 3 (MB 2005). 83 Anglers Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 10097, ¶ 9 n.25. 84 See 47 C.F.R. §79.1(b)(1). 85 Anglers Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 10097, ¶ 9 n.25. 86 See ¶ 28, infra. Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 14 B. Reversal of Exemptions that Relied Upon the Anglers Order 25. As a substantive matter, each of the exemptions granted in the Bureau Letter Orders and challenged by the Application for Review cannot stand because each relied entirely on the Anglers Order’s rationale for granting the exemption.87 Accordingly, all of these exemptions are reversed because we reverse the Anglers and New Beginning exemptions. 26. In addition, we reverse the Bureau Letter Orders because none of the orders analyzed the individual circumstances of the petitioners under the “undue burden” criteria, as required under the Act and the Commission’s rules.88 Rather, hundreds of exemptions were granted en masse without any indication that such reviews took place. Indeed, a subsequent review of the original petitions show that many did not provide any documented information about the petitioner’s financial resources, or provide any substantiation that the petitioners would be forced to terminate or curtail programming if required to provide closed captions.89 In fact, some petitioners appear to have had substantial resources that could have provided sufficient financing to support compliance with the captioning rules.90 It would have been appropriate and consistent with prior practice to have dismissed or denied such petitions because of these deficiencies.91 87 In this regard, each Order relied on the confluence of factors stated in paragraph 11 of the Anglers Order, See ¶ 11, supra; Anglers Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 10097, ¶ 11. See also, n.44, supra, for examples of Bureau letter Orders. 88 47 U.S.C. §613(e); 47 C.F.R. §§79.1(f)(2),(petition must be “supported by sufficient evidence to demonstrate that compliance with the requirements to closed caption video programming would cause an undue burden”). See also Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3364; ¶ 200 (same). For example, failure to conduct the required individualized assessments resulted in granting exemptions to at least three petitioners that had previously been notified that their petitions were dismissed, and at least one exemption granted to a for-profit entity, even though a principal justification for granting the exemptions was the non-profit status of the petitioners. See United Methodist Hour of MS, CGB-CC-0042 (dismissed June 14, 2006, via PN; received Bureau Letter Order granting exemption Sept. 22, 2006); Request for Exemption from Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules Dismissed CGB- CC-0042, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 6587, (CGB 2006); Second Baptist Church, CGB-CC-0165 (dismissed April 5, 2006 via letter; received Bureau Letter Order granting exemption Sept. 12, 2006); Temple Baptist Church, CGB- CC-0173 (dismissed May 4, 2006 via letter; received Bureau Letter Order granting exemption Sept. 12, 2006); Letter from Thomas E. Chandler, Disability Rights Office, FCC to Lush Productions, LLC, CGB-CC-0426 (dated Sept. 11, 2006) (for-profit entity). 89 Prior to Anglers, petitions lacking such supporting documentation were rejected. See e.g., Divine Faith Ministries, CGB-CC-0206 (rejecting an exemption because petitioner failed to offer any information that compliance with the captioning rules would result in its programs being sent to an outside agency for captioning, which would in turn “add significant production costs, thus, making production unaffordable as well as impact [the petitioner’s] ability to meet air-date deadlines”). See also n.91, infra. 90 See, e.g., Diocese of Lake Charles, Louisiana Request for Exemption from the Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, CGB-CC-0275 (total assets for 2004 were $14,475,542, total support and revenue for 2004 was $7,034,612, and its estimated costs of captioning per program were $120-$780); Geyer Springs First Baptist Church, CGB-CC 0060 (2006 budget was over $3.4 million). 91 Past practice was to routinely deny petitions that were deficient in providing information about their ability, financial or otherwise, to provide captions. See e.g., Engel’s Outdoor Experience, 19 FCC Rcd at 6868, ¶ 3 (noting that it was “impossible for the Commission to determine whether Outdoor Experience has sufficient justification supporting an exemption” because the petitioner had failed “to disclose detailed information regarding its finances and assets.” See also Outland Sports, 16 FCC Rcd 13605 at 13607, ¶ 7 (“Petitioner . . .does not provide details regarding its financial resources. . . Without additional information on the financial resources of Petitioner, or other possible means of gaining captioning, the impact of implementing closed captioning is difficult to determine.”); New Life Team, 20 FCC Rcd 3679 at 3680-81, ¶ 4 (“[A]lthough New Life Team indicates it is ‘not funded or granted in any way by outside sources’ and it ‘depends on support from individual donors from New Life Church’ (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 15 27. The Bureau Letter Orders also were procedurally flawed because they waived, without justification, the Commission’s public notice requirements for undue burden exemption petitions.92 As discussed above,93 the process for determining closed captioning exemptions on the basis of purported undue burden requires notice to the public in order to afford the public an opportunity to comment on whether grant of these petitions was in the public interest.94 C. Future Treatment of the Petitions Reversed in this MO&O 28. We recognize that because several years have passed since these petitions were first filed, it is likely that many of the petitioners’ circumstances have changed and they may no longer need an exemption from the closed captioning requirements.95 However, to the extent a petitioner listed in Appendix A wishes to continue receiving an individual captioning exemption under the new economically burdensome standard, it must file a new petition within 90 days of the release date of this MO&O with updated evidence, supported by affidavit, demonstrating its inability to provide closed captioning.96 Specifically, each petition should contain current documentation in accordance with the original factors outlined in section 713(e) of the Act and 79.1(f) of Commission’s rules,97 to support a claim that providing closed captions would be economically burdensome (would result in a “significant difficulty or expense”) as defined by the following criteria: (1) the nature and cost of the closed captions for the programming; (2) the impact on the operation of the provider or program owner; (3) the financial resources of the provider or program owner; and (4) the type of operations of the provider or program (Continued from previous page) without documentation, it is impossible for the Commission to determine whether New Life Team has sufficient justification supporting an exemption from the closed captioning requirements for its television program.”); Vision for Souls Family Worship Center, CGB-CC-0568 (rejecting petitioner’s exemption because petitioner had failed to provide documentary support or affidavit for its claim that it was unable to provide captions because it received less then $3 million per year in donations, and that it had received quotes of $300 per half hour of captioning). 92 Generally, the Commission’s rules may be waived only for good cause shown. 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. The Commission may exercise its discretion to waive a rule where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Northeast Cellular); see also WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969). None of the Bureau Letter Orders analyzed the individual circumstances of the petitioners to determine whether a public interest waiver of the public notice requirement was warranted. 93 See ¶ 4, supra. 94 47 C.F.R. §79.1(f)(5). Although, as noted above, ¶ 15, supra, in November 2006, after the Application for Review was submitted, the Bureau subsequently placed all of the petitions on public notice, its failure to do so prior to granting these exemptions violated the Commission’s procedures for handling exemption requests. 95 As noted above, see ¶ 4, supra, programming that is the subject of an exemption petition remains exempt from the captioning rules while the petition is pending. 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(11). 96 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(9). See e.g., The Wild Outdoors, Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, Case No. CSR 5444, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 13611 at 13614, ¶ 12 (MB 2001) (“[W]e advise Petitioners that our rules require a detailed showing for each prong of the undue burden exemption supported by record evidence.”). We note that the programming subject to this MO&O has remained exempt from the closed captioning requirements since the subject petitions were first filed in 2005 and 2006. In this regard, these petitioners have benefited from their exemptions for a significant period of time. CGB may grant an extension of the 90-day filing deadline to individual petitioners upon a showing of good cause for such extension. 97 47 U.S.C. §613(e); 47 C.F.R. §79.1(f). Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 16 owner.98 In addition, each petitioner may describe other factors that it deems relevant to an exemption determination, as well as any alternatives that could be a reasonable substitute for the closed captioning requirement.99 In order to make such a showing, each petitioner must provide documentation of its financial status to demonstrate its inability to afford closed captioning.100 In addition, petitioners seeking an exemption should verify in their requests that they have obtained information about the costs they would incur to caption their programming,101 and that they have sought closed captioning assistance from their video programming distributors, as well as note the extent to which such assistance has been provided or rejected. 102 Finally, each petitioner must indicate whether it has sought additional sponsorship sources or other sources of revenue for captioning103 and show that it does not have the means to provide captioning for its programming.104 Failure to support an exemption request with adequate explanation and evidence to make these showings will result in dismissal of the request.105 98 47 U.S.C. § 613(e). In addition to updating the record, given that many of the original petitions may have lacked the information needed by the Commission to make an exemption determination under these criteria, this updated information will facilitate the Commission’s task of determining whether an exemption is appropriate for each of the petitioners. 99 47 C.F.R. §79.1(f)(3). 100 See e.g., Survivors of Assault Recovery (SOAR), Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, Case No. CSR 6358, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 10031 at 10032, ¶ 3 (MB 2005) (discussing the need for the petitioner to provide “detailed information regarding finances and assets, gross or net proceeds, or sponsorships solicited for assisting in captioning,” and concluding that without such documentation from which the petitioner’s financial condition could be assessed, it was impossible for the Commission to determine whether an exemption was justified); New Life Team, Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, Case No. CSR 6294, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 3679 at 3680, ¶ 4 (MB 2005) (New Life Team) (“[W]ithout documentation, it is impossible for the Commission to determine whether New Life Team has sufficient justification supporting an exemption . . .”). 101 See, e.g., Outland Sports, 16 FCC Rcd 13605 at 13607, ¶ 7 (noting the importance of demonstrating efforts “to seek information from various sources on the cost of captioning.”); The Wild Outdoors 2001, 16 FCC Rcd 13611 at 13614, ¶ 7 (“Without additional information on the financial resources of Petitioners, their efforts to find companies that provide captioning at a reasonable cost, a listing of various prices quoted, or information concerning other possible means of gaining captioning, the impact of implementing closed captioning is difficult to determine.”). 102 See, e.g., Engel’s Outdoor Experience, Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, Case No. CSR 5882, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6867at 6868, ¶ 3 (MB 2004) (Engel’s Outdoor Experience) (noting that implicit in the requirement to show a petitioner’s financial resources is a showing of the extent to which the distributors of the subject programming “can be called upon to contribute towards the captioning expense.”); The Wild Outdoors 2005, 20 FCC Rcd 11873 at 11874, ¶ 4 (noting the same principle). On the other hand, a showing of unsuccessful solicitations may constitute evidence in support of an undue burden exemption petition. 103 See e.g., Yellow House Entertainment, Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, Case No. CSR 5957, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 11254 at 11255, ¶ 3 (MB 2004) (noting that the petitioner had failed to indicate whether it had “sought out additional sponsorship sources or whether it was indeed able to secure additional sources of revenue for the continued operation of its program.”); Outland Sports, 16 FCC Rcd 13605 at 13607, ¶ 7 (denying petitioner’s exemption request because it did “not address whether [petitioner] has sought any means to recoup the cost of closed captioning such as through grants of sponsorships, or through arrangements with The Outdoor Channel or program distributors (e.g. cable systems”). 104 See e.g., Lewis Memorial Baptist Church, Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, Case No. CSR 6283, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 12434 at 12436, ¶ 4 (MB 2005) (Lewis Memorial Baptist) (While the ultimate responsibility to provide captioning is assigned to program (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 17 29. Each new petition that provides sufficient information will be placed on public notice. The Bureau will conduct an individual review of each petition to determine the extent to which providing captioning would be economically burdensome for the petitioner, based on information provided in the petition and any comments received. All parties whose petitions were previously granted under Anglers or the Anglers’ reasoning that do not file a new petition within 90-days must come into full compliance with the Commission’s closed captioning rules on the 91st day after release of this MO&O.106 In the event that a petitioner (whether listed in Appendix A or any future petitioner) files an exemption petition and such petition is denied, we direct that such petitioner be given a reasonable time period to come into compliance. In the past, petitioners whose exemption requests were denied were directed to come into compliance within 90 days.107 We anticipate following this precedent, where appropriate. In order to ensure that all petitioners subject to this MO&O (listed in Appendix A) are aware of this MO&O, we will send a copy by certified mail, return receipt requested to each petitioner at its last known address. IV. ORDER 30. In this Order (“Interim Standard Order”), we provide guidance on how the Commission will construe, on an interim basis, the term “economically burdensome” for purposes of evaluating requests for individual exemptions under section 713(d)(3) of the Act, as amended by the CVAA. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Congress, when it enacted the CVAA, intended for the Commission to continue using the undue burden factors contained in 713(e), as interpreted by the Commission and reflected in Commission rules and precedent, for individual exemption petitions, rather than to make a substantive change to this standard. 31. As originally enacted, section 713(d)(3) of the Act authorized the Commission to grant an individual exemption upon a showing that providing closed captioning “would result in an undue burden.”108 Congress provided guidance to the Commission on how it should evaluate these captioning exemptions by setting forth, in section 713(e) of the Act, the following “four factors to be considered” in determining whether providing closed captioning “would result in an undue economic burden”: (1) the nature and cost of the closed captions for the programming; (2) the impact on the operation of the (Continued from previous page) distributors, it is expected that “distributors would likely incorporate closed captioning requirements into their contracts with producers and owners to negotiate for an efficient allocation of captioning responsibilities.”). 105 See e.g., The Wild Outdoors 2001, 16 FCC Rcd 13611 at 13614, ¶ 12 (“Failure to support a future exemption request with adequate evidence will result in the dismissal of their petition.”). Alternatively, CGB has the discretion to seek further information and documentation from a petitioner if the Bureau deems it appropriate and necessary. 106 We also address here the unusual circumstances associated with the petition filed by Second Baptist Church, CGB-CC-0165 (filed Dec. 30, 2005). On September 12, 2006, Second Baptist Church received a Bureau Letter Order that contained two errors. First, the letter contained Second Baptist Church’s file number, CGB-CC-0165, but was addressed to Macon Road Baptist Church, CGB-CC-0099, and specifically responded to Macon Road’s exemption petition. Second, CGB previously had dismissed Second Baptist Church’s exemption petition on April 4, 2006, upon this petitioner’s request. Although the Application for Review lists CGB-CC-0165 as having received a captioning exemption, the prior dismissal of this petitioner’s exemption request means that this petitioner never received an exemption grant. However, given the confusion associated with this petition, we will treat it like all other petitioners subject to this MO&O. Specifically, if Second Baptist Church wishes to continue receiving an exemption from the closed captioning mandates, it may file a new petition with the requisite supporting documentation, see ¶ 34, infra, within 90 days. If it does not file a new petition by that time, it must begin providing closed captioning of its programming beginning on the 91st day after release of this MO&O. 107 See, e.g., Wild Outdoors 2005, 20 FCC Rcd 11873; New Life Team, 20 FCC Rcd 3679. 108 47 U.S.C. § 613(d)(3). Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 18 provider or program owner; (3) the financial resources of the provider or program owner; and (4) the type of operations of the provider or program owner.109 32. In the CVAA, Congress amended section 713(d)(3) of the Act by replacing the term “undue burden” with the term “economically burdensome.”110 Amended section 713(d)(3) provides as follows: A 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 would be economically burdensome. Congress described the above change as a “conforming amendment,” without offering specific guidance on what it meant by this term.111 However, it is noteworthy that the CVAA did not also amend section 713(e), which sets forth the definition of the term “undue burden” and lists the factors to be considered in an “undue economic burden” analysis;112 nor did it define the term “economically burdensome” in the statute. In addition, the legislative history of the CVAA does not suggest that Congress intended the nomenclature change to “economically burdensome” to require application of different criteria than the Commission applied under the prior “undue burden” standard. To the contrary, the legislative report of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on the CVAA states that “[t]he Committee encourages the Commission, in its determination of ‘economically burdensome’ to use the [undue burden] factors listed in section 713(e).”113 33. We recognize that the term “economically burdensome” is applied differently for the purpose of deciding, by rulemaking, which categories of programs are to be exempt from the captioning rules under section 713(d)(1) of the Act.114 But Congress’s handling of the two types of captioning exemptions in 1996, together with its recent actions under the CVAA, indicate that, notwithstanding the switch to the “economically burdensome” nomenclature for evaluating individual exemptions, Congress did not intend for the Commission to make a substantive change in the way that it assesses these case-by- case exemption requests under section 713(d)(3). 34. Congress’s directives to the Commission in 1996 – when the closed captioning obligations first became law – and the Commission’s past practice in reviewing and deciding individual exemption petitions are instructive in this regard. Specifically, in the legislative history of the 1996 Amendments to the Act, Congress drew a clear distinction between how it expected the Commission to determine categorical exemptions adopted by regulation under section 713(d)(1) of the Act, and how it 109 47 U.S.C. § 613(e); 47 C.F.R. §79.1(f)(2)(i) – (iv). 110 The CVAA made two additional changes to section 713(d). First, supra, the new law codifies the Commission’s policy that during the pendency of an exemption petition, a provider or owner shall be exempt from having to provide closed captioning. Second, Congress directed the Commission to act upon exemption petitions filed under section 713(d) within six months after receiving these petitions, unless the Commission finds that an extension of this period is necessary to determine whether the captioning requirements are economically burdensome. Pub. L. No. 111-260 § 202(b), amending 47 U.S.C. § 613(d)(3). 111 Pub. L. No. 111-260 § 202(c). 112 47 U.S.C. § 613(e). 113 S. Rep. No. 111-386, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2010) at 14. 114 Under section 713(d)(1), the Commission is permitted to exempt by regulation programs, classes of programs, or services when the provision of closed captioning would be “economically burdensome” to the provider or owner of such programming. 47 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1). See also ¶ 4, supra. Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 19 expected the Commission to assess individual exemptions submitted under section 713(d)(3). For the former, Congress directed the Commission to consider several factors, including “(1) the nature and cost of providing closed captions; (2) the impact on the operations of the program provider, distributor, or owner; (3) the financial resources of the program provider, distributor, or owner and the financial impact on the program; (4) the cost of the captioning, considering the relative size of the market served or the audience share; (5) the cost of the captioning, considering whether the program is locally or regionally produced and distributed; (6) the non-profit status of the provider; and (7) the existence of alternative means of providing access to the hearing disabled, such as signing.”115 While some of the undue burden factors under section 713(d)(3), namely the nature and cost of providing closed captions, the impact on the operation of the provider or program owner, and the financial resources of the provider or program owner,116 are the same as factors applied under section 713(d)(1), the other factors used for deciding categorical exemptions go beyond the undue burden factors used in evaluating individual exemption requests, focusing on considerations other than the provider’s costs and resources.117 35. In accordance with the above legislative directive, the Commission has always treated consideration of the two types of captioning exemptions – categorical and individual – differently. For example, when first seeking comment in 1996 on how best to adopt general exemption rules under the economically burdensome standard of section 713(d)(1), the Commission asked commenters to consider factors such as “market size, degree of distribution, audience ratings or share, programming budgets or revenue base, lack of repeat value, or a combination of such factors.”118 The Commission’s 1997 Closed Captioning Report and Order explained the relevance of such information to carving out exemptions of general applicability: “[t]he video programming marketplace has evolved to the point where there are now a large number of service providers providing programming for a very specific limited local audience or directing their programming to very limited segments of a national or regional audience.”119 By contrast, the Commission has never relied on factors pertaining to an entity’s audience or market share, its geographic or non-profit status 120 or the existence of alternative means of providing access in making its individual undue burden determinations under section 713(d)(3). Similarly, the Media Bureau decisions on individual exemption petitions predating the Anglers Order decisions never considered the extra factors applicable to the economically burdensome standard of section 713(d)(1).121 115 See H. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458 (Jan. 31, 1996) at 183. 116 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 613(e)(1), (2) and (3). 117 See Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3342, ¶ 143. 118 Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3342, ¶144; Closed Captioning NPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 1075-76, ¶ 71. 119 Id., 13 FCC Rcd at 3343, ¶ 145. 120 While consideration of an entity’s non-profit status may be an indication of an entity’s inability to provide captions, by itself, it is not enough to conclude that an exemption is merited. As noted above, the Commission has rejected this as a threshold criteria for determining individual exemption requests. See ¶ 18, supra. 121 See, e.g., Outland Sports, 16 FCC Rcd 13605 at 13606, ¶¶ 3-4 (“When determining if the closed captioning requirements will impose an undue burden, the statute requires the Commission to consider the following factors: (1) the nature and cost of the closed captions for the programming; (2) the impact on the operation of the provider or program owner; (3) the financial resources of the provider or program owner; and (4) the type of operation of the provider or program owner. . . . Petitions must include information that demonstrates how the statutory factors are met”); 16 FCC Rcd 13607-8, ¶¶ 7-10 (evaluation of the petition against each of the four factors). See also Wild Outdoors 2005, 20 FCC Rcd 11873-74, ¶ 2. Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 20 36. Congress was well aware of the existence of the additional categorical exemption criteria under section 713(d)(1) at the time that it enacted the CVAA, and that the Commission had never applied these factors in the context of individual exemption determinations. Had it intended for these additional factors to apply to individual captioning exemption determinations, it presumably would have directed the Commission to do so. Rather than provide such direction, however, Congress specifically suggested the opposite, i.e., that the Commission continue to utilize the original undue burden factors of section 713(e) when deciding individual captioning exemption petitions under section 713(d)(3), and said nothing about the 713(d)(1) factors at all.122 Based on the legislative history of sections 713(d)(1) and (d)(3) – both to the 1996 Amendments and more recently to the CVAA – it appears that Congress contemplated that the Commission would use different criteria in applying the “economically burdensome” standard to the different contexts of individual and categorical exemptions.123 Because we believe that Congress did not intend any substantive change to the criteria that the Commission consistently has used for individual closed captioning petitions, this is the approach that we provisionally adopt and propose to make permanent in Section 79.1 of the Commissions rules in the accompanying Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Accordingly, as an interim measure, we interpret the term “economically burdensome” in section 713(d)(3) of the Act, as amended by the CVAA, to be synonymous with the term “undue burden” as this section was originally drafted in the 1996 Amendments, and as it is defined by the original four undue burden factors contained in section 713(e). We note that this interpretation is consistent with the manner in which the Commission has interpreted the term “economically burdensome” in the Commission’s recently adopted video description rules, also required by the CVAA.124 122 Although our rules governing undue burden exemptions permit a petitioner to also “present for the Commission’s consideration ‘any other factors the petitioner deems relevant to the Commission’s final determination,’” 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(3), the additional factors used for determining categorical exemptions in the 1997 Closed Captioning Report and Order, such as audience and market share, are not relevant to individual exemption requests. Indeed, it is possible for a resource-rich entity to be able to produce and distribute individual programming with captioning regardless of its market or audience size. The same can be said about its geographical or non-profit status, or its ability to provide video programming access via signing or some other means. 123 Compare S. Rep. No. 111-386, 111th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2010) at 14 with H. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458 (Jan. 31, 1996) at 183. Although the term “economically burdensome” is used with regard to categorical exemptions in section 713(d)(1) of the Act, we cannot assume that Congress intended for this term to have the same meaning in both contexts. Federal courts have upheld agency decisions to assign the same term different meanings in different contexts when to do so would best effectuate Congressional intent. See, e.g., Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and Broadband Access and Services, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 14989, 14998-15001, ¶¶ 16-23 (2005) (interpreting “information services” in the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act differently from the interpretation of the similarly defined term in the Communications Act), aff’d sub nom. Am. Council on Educ. v. FCC, 451 F.3d 226, 232 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting that the Commission’s “interpretation of CALEA reasonably differs from its interpretation of the 1996 Act, given the differences between the two statutes”); see also Bright House Networks, LLC v. Verizon Cal. Inc., 23 FCC Rcd 10704, 10919-20, ¶ 41 (2008) (holding that two entities were “telecommunications carriers for purposes of section 222(b) of the Act” but leaving open the possibility that they are not telecommunications carriers “for purpose of all other provisions of the Act”), aff’d sub nom. Verizon Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 555 F.3d 270, 276 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (noting that agencies can interpret imprecise terms differently in separate sections of a statute that have different purposes); U S West Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 177 F.3d 1058, 1059-60 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (noting that the term “provide” used in different places in the Communications Act can be subject to different meanings, depending on context). For the reasons discussed above, we believe that Congress’s intent can best be effectuated by interpreting “economically burdensome” to have different, albeit closely related, meanings in sections 703(d)(1) and (d)(3). 124 Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, MB Docket No. 11-43, Report and Order, FCC 11-126, ¶ 44 (2011) (“[W]e intend to ‘use the same factors as applied to the undue burden standard’ . . to determine whether the rules are economically burdensome (i.e., whether (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 21 37. The CVAA also amended section 713(d)(3) to require the Commission to grant or deny a petition seeking an economically burdensome exemption within six months after it receives a petition, unless the Commission finds that an extension of the six-month period is necessary to determine whether such requirements are economically burdensome. Because time is of the essence in responding to petitions that continue to be submitted to the Commission, on an interim basis we direct CGB, with respect to all petitions filed or re-filed subsequent to October 8, 2010, the date on which the CVAA became law, to use the original factors set forth in section 713(e) of the Act, as codified in sections 79.1(f)(2) and (3) of the Commission’s rules, in accordance with the guidance provided in the instant order, when making determinations as to whether an individual petitioner has made a documented showing that requiring closed captioning would be “economically burdensome.”125 V. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 38. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose to continue utilizing the factors used for the “undue burden” exemption standard contained in section 713(e) of the Act and codified in section 79.1(f)(2) of our rules, when evaluating future petitions seeking individual exemptions under the new economically burdensome standard contained in the CVAA. For the reasons explained in the Interim Standard Order, which is incorporated by reference herein, we tentatively conclude that Congress intended no substantive change in these factors and that, notwithstanding the change from an “undue burden” to an “economically burdensome” standard, Congress intended for the Commission to continue using the undue burden factors.126 We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. We also seek comment on any other interpretations of the term “economically burdensome” that the Commission should consider in evaluating requests for individual exemptions from the closed captioning requirements. 39. At present, the Commission’s rules, at section 79.1(f), contain various references to the prior undue burden standard. For example, section 79.1(f)(1) provides that “[e]xemptions may be granted, in whole or in part, for a channel of video programming, a category or type of video programming or a video programming provider upon a finding that the closed captioning requirements will result in an undue burden.”127 Similarly, section 79.1(f)(2) states “[a] petition for an exemption must be supported by sufficient evidence to demonstrate that compliance with the requirements to closed caption video programming would cause an undue burden,” 128 and goes on to list the “[f]actors to be (Continued from previous page) they impose significant difficulty or expense.”) (citation omitted). In addition, the Commission recently proposed to apply this interpretation of the “economically burdensome” standard in its proposed rules implementing the CVAA’s requirements for closed captioning on certain video programming delivered using Internet protocol. See Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, MB Docket No. 11-154, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11-138 ¶ 30 (2011). 125 47 U.S.C. § 613(e), codified at 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(2) and (3). 126 See ¶¶ 30-37, supra. As noted above, in past rulings and in accordance with Congressional directives, the Commission has never applied certain factors considered under section 713(d)(1) for categorical exemptions – i.e., the nonprofit status of the provider, the size of a program’s market or audience share, whether a program is locally or regionally produced and distributed, and the existence of alternative means of providing access to programming to people with hearing loss – to its individual exemption determinations. Moreover, Congress did not change any of the factors in section 713(e) of the Act that currently apply to such petitions and the Senate Report to the CVAA encouraged the Commission to continue applying such factors to individual exemption determinations under section 713(d)(3). 127 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(1). 128 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(2). Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 22 considered when determining whether the requirements for closed captioning impose an undue burden . . .” Sections 79.1(f)(3), (4), (10), and (11) also reference the “undue burden” standard.129 We propose to replace all current references to “undue burden” in section 79.1(f) of the rules with the term “economically burdensome” to correspond with the new language reflected in the CVAA and to make clear that petitioners seeking individual exemptions from the captioning rules must now show that providing captions on their programming would be “economically burdensome.”130 We seek comment on this proposed action. VI. INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION 40. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposes to revise the references to “undue burden” contained in section 79.1(f) of the Commission’s rules – “Procedures for exemptions based on undue burden” - to “economically burdensome” as required by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. No substantive changes to the existing rule beyond this change in terminology are proposed. Since the change is only a change in terminology, there is no burden of compliance on regulated entities subject to these rules. No action is required that would impose any monetary costs or burdens of compliance on any regulated entity. We conclude there will be no economic impact by this rule change on small business entities or consumers. Therefore, since there will be no economic impact of any kind, we certify that the proposals in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, if adopted, will not have any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the question about impact to small entities is moot. 41. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including a copy of this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.131 This initial certification will also be published in the Federal Register.132 VII. PROCEDURAL ISSUES A. Materials in Accessible Formats 42. To request materials in accessible formats (such as Braille, large print, electronic files, or audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This MO&O can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Formats (PDF) at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/caption.html. B. Regulatory Flexibility 43. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification (“IRFC”) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this NPRM. The IRFC is set forth in paragraph 40. Written public comments are requested on the IRFC. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to the Notice and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFC. 129 47 C.F.R. §§ 79.1(f)(3), (4), (10), and (11). 130 See proposed rule changes in Appendix B. 131 5 U.S.C. § 605(b). 132 5 U.S.C. § 605(b). Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 23 C. Paperwork Reduction Act 44. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107- 198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). D. Ex Parte Presentations 45. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.133 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules. E. Comment Filing Procedures 46. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules,134 interested parties may file comments and reply comments regarding the NPRM on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).135 · Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. · Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. 133 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 et seq. 134 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419. 135 See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 24 Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. · All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW- A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. · Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. · U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554. 47. Documents in CG Docket No. 11-175 will be available for public inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, D.C. 20554. The documents may also be purchased from BCPI, telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, TTY (202) 488-5562, e-mail fcc@bcpiweb.com. 48. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). F. Congressional Review Act 49. The Commission will send a copy of this MO&O in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.136 VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES 50. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4, 5, 303, and 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 155, 303, and 613, and sections 1.115 and 1.411 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.115, 1.411, this MO&O, Order, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED. 51. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.115 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.115, the Consumer Organizations’ Application for Review of the Anglers Order and the Bureau Letter Orders listed in Appendix A, IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above. 52. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT The Petition for Emergency Stay, filed by the Consumer Organizations is dismissed as moot. 53. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the MO&O, Order, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon publication in the Federal Register. 54. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND copies of this MO&O, Order, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking via certified mail, return receipt requested to counsel for or the last known 136 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 25 address for each of the petitioners named in this matter within 10 business days of release of this MO&O, Order, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 55. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each of the petitions noted in Appendix A hereto that were the subject of the Application for Review shall be dismissed 90 days from the release date of this MO&O. Affected petitioners may file new petitions in accordance with the statute and Commission rules within 90 days after the release of this MO&O. Any such petitioner who does not file a new petition in accordance with the statute and Commission rules within this 90 day period must begin providing closed captioning of its programming beginning on the 91st day after release of this MO&O. 56. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 26 APPENDIX A List of Petitioners Case Identifier CGB-CC- Petitioner Program Name Mailing Address 0001 Curtis Baptist Church Curtis Baptist Church 1326 Broad St. Augusta, GA 30901 0004 Main Street Living Main Street Living 1400 So. Duluth Ave. Sioux Falls, SD 57105 0005 Anglers for Christ Ministries, Inc. “The Christian Angler Outdoors Television Show” Anglers for Christ Ministries, Inc. 2224 Fish Hatchery Rd. Morristown, TN 37813 0006 New Life Worship Center “Life in Christ New Life Worship Center 915 Douglas Pike Smithfield, Rl 02917 0007 New Beginning Ministries “In His Image” New Beginning Ministries 4004 Bonita Rd. Holiday, FL 34691 0008 Thy Kingdom Come, Inc. “Prophecy Watch” Thy Kingdom Come, Inc. 7301 E. 14th Street Tulsa, OK 74112 0009 Niagara Ministries “Digging In With Joanne Bunce” Niagara Ministries 2074 Lockport Rd. Niagara Falls, NY 14304 0010 Living Faith Apostolic Church “The Un- compromised Word” Living Faith Apostolic Church 2177 Mock Road Columbus, OH 43219 0015 University Park Baptist Church “Producing Kingdom Citizens” University Park Baptist Church 6029 Beatties Ford Road Charlotte, NC 28216 0018 Power in the Word Outreach Ministries “Power in the Word” Power in the Word Outreach Ministries 351 S. Craft Highway Chickasaw, AL 36611 0020 Catholic Diocese of Reno Catholic Diocese of Reno 290 S. Arlington Avenue, Suite 200 Reno, NV 89501-1713 0023 Christ Chapel, Inc. Christ Chapel, Inc. 3051 Cloverdale Road Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 27 Florence, AL 35633 0025 Christ Temple Church “Christ Temple Church Services” and “All About Business” Christ Temple Church 3400 Paseo Blvd. Kansas City, MO 64109 0028 Immanuel Baptist Church Immanuel Baptist Church 1415 S. Topeka Wichita, KS 67211 0030 Evangelistic Ministries “Motivated About Jesus Broadcast” Evangelistic Ministries 101 N. Elm Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 0031 Calvary Chapel of Bangor “Godsword” Calvary Chapel of Bangor 154 River Road Orrington, ME 04401 0033 Faith Christian Church “Word of Faith” Faith Christian Church 6472 Duhollow Rd. Warrenton, VA 20187 0034 Word of Life Church “The Bondage Breaker” Word of Life Church 11675 Pratt Ave. El Paso, TX 79936 0036 Greater Refuge Temple Greater Refuge Temple 1317 Rowe Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32208 0038 The Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington “TV Mass” Director of Communications The Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington 351 North Avenue P.O. Box 489 Burlington, VT 05402-0489 0039 First Baptist Lavaca First Baptist Lavaca 100 West Main St. P.O. Box 170 Lavaca,AR 72941 0041 St. Mark Baptist Church “Light of the World” St. Mark Baptist Church 5722 W. 12th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 0042 United Methodist Hour of MS, Inc. “Time That Makes the Difference” United Methodist Hour of MS, Inc. 1604 S. 28th Ave. P.O. Box 16657 Hattiesburg, MS 39404-6657 0045 Van Buren First Assembly of God Van Buren First Assembly of God 1014 Fayetteville Road Van Buren, AR 72956 0046 Dilworth Church of Christ “Seeking the Lost” Dilworth Church of Christ 1404 Drummond Cemetery Road Jasper, AL 35504 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 28 0051 First United Methodist Church “Sunday Celebration” First United Methodist Church 420 N. Nevada Ave. Colorado Springs, CO 80903 0052 Heartland Academy Community Church “Straight from the Heart” Heartland Academy Community Church 400 New Creation Road, North Newark, MO 63458 0055 First Assembly of God “Living With Power” First Assembly of God 130 West Carpenter St. Springfield, IL 62702 0057 St. John Missionary Baptist Church “The Voice of Triumph” St. John Missionary Baptist Church 1401 Brundage Lane Bakersfield, CA 93307 0058 Coastal Cathedral Church of God Coastal Cathedral Church of God 2208 E. DeRenne Ave. Savannah, GA 31406 0059 Whitesburg Baptist Church Whitesburg Baptist Church 600 Whitesburg Drive Huntsville, AL 35802 0060 Geyer Springs First Baptist Church / ACTS of Little Rock, Inc. Geyer Springs First Baptist Church 12400 Interstate 30 Little Rock, AR 72210 0063 McAlmont Church of Christ “Answering Voice Ministries” McAlmont Church of Christ 1824 East 46th P.O. Box 15838 GMF North Little Rock, AR 72231 0065 Mayfair Church of Christ “Abundant Living” Mayfair Church of Christ 1095 Carl T. Jones Drive Huntsville, AL 35802 0066 First United Methodist Church First United Methodist Church 400 N. Fredonia Street Longview, TX 75601-6426 0067 First Baptist Church First Baptist Church 212 Twelfth St. P.O. Box 828 Columbus, GA 31902-0828 0068 Unitarian Universalist Church “Fusion” Unitarian Universalist Church 4848 Turner St. Rockford, IL 61107 0069 Cornerstone Baptist Church “God’s Good Word” Cornerstone Baptist Church 16117 GA Hwy. 315 P.O. Box 215 Ellerslie, GA 31807-0215 0070 Mt. Bethel Mt. Bethel United Methodist Church Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 29 United Methodist Church 4385 Lower Roswell Road Marietta, GA 30068-4132 0072 First United Methodist Church First United Methodist Church 930 North Blvd. Baton Rouge, LA 70802-5728 0075 The Wellness Hour The Wellness Hour 73-712 Alessandro Avenue, B-3 Palm Desert, CA 92260 0076 David May Ministries, Inc. David May Ministries 457 Dayton Avenue P.O. Box 172 Xenia, OH 45385 0077 Alonzo A. Webb, Sr. Ministries Alonzo A. Webb, Sr. Ministries P.O. Box 457 Haughton, LA 71037 0078 Evangelical Faith Vision Ministries, Inc. Evangelical Faith Vision Ministries, Inc. P.O. Box 4460 Albany, GA 31706 0080 New Testament Church “Glory to Glory” New Testament Church 506 West Dominick St. Rome, NY 13440 0081 Elizabethton Church of Christ “Biblical Viewpoints” Elizabethton Church of Christ 137 East C Street Elizabethton, TN 37643 0082 Southcrest Baptist Church “Southcrest Baptist Church . . . Encounter the Truth” Southcrest Baptist Church 3801 South Loop #289 Lubbock, TX 79423 0083 Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska “The Catholic Mass” Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska P.O. Box 80329 Lincoln, NE 68501 0085 Living Word Fellowship Living Word Fellowship P.O. Box 3707 Hickory, NC 28603 0086 Believers Tabernacle “Believe TV” Believers Tabernacle 2000 S. Hillside Wichita, KS 67211 0089 World Changes Tabernacle World Changes Tabernacle P.O. Box 5264 Columbus, GA 31906 0092 Bethel Deliverance International Church “Climbing Higher” Bethel Deliverance International Church 2901 West Cheltenham Avenue Wyncote, PA 19095 0093 New Life New Life Christian Fellowship Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 30 Christian Fellowship 6755 South Washington Avenue Titusville, FL 32780 0094 First Baptist Rogers First Baptist Rogers 626 West Olive Street Rogers, AR 72756 0096 Israel, The Church of Jesus “Thy Kingdom Come Ministries” Israel, The Church of Jesus Thy Kingdom Come Ministries 3228 West 15th Avenue Gary, IN 46404 0097 Sheffield Family Life Center “Living Answers for Today” Sheffield Family Life Center 5700 Winner Road Kansas City, MO 64127 0098 Life Matters, Inc. Life Matters, Inc. P.O. Box 100 Tonopah, AZ 85354-0100 0099 Macon Road Baptist Church “Let’s Talk About Jesus” Macon Road Baptist Church 1082 Berclair Road Memphis, TN 38122 0100 First Baptist Church, Shreveport First Baptist Church, Shreveport 543 Ockley Drive Shreveport, LA 71106-1299 0103 Christian Fellowship Church “The Bridge” Christian Fellowship Church P.O. Box 530158 Harlingen, TX 78553 0104 Community Christian Church “Door of Faith” Community Christian Church 1104 North Memorial Dr. Greenville, NC 27834 0105 Kansas City Baptist Temple “Live the Great” Kansas City Baptist Temple 5460 Blue Ridge Cutoff Kansas City, MO 64133 0107 First United Methodist Church First United Methodist Church 1411 Broadway Lubbock, TX 79401 0108 Calvary Community Church “Grace Upon Grace” Calvary Community Church 12612 N. Black Canyon Hwy. Phoenix, AZ 85029 0111 Mountain of Praise Church “Mountain of Praise Church Television Broadcast” Mountain of Praise Church Television Broadcast 1255 W. North Street Lot 54 Kenton, OH 43326-1071 0112 Broadmoor Baptist Church Broadmoor Baptist Church 4110 Youree Drive Shreveport, LA 71105 0114 First Word First Word Ministries Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 31 Ministries 2810 East Texas Street Bossier City, LA 71111 0118 Mt. Carmel Baptist “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms” Mt. Carmel Baptist P.O. Box 929 Hattiesburg, MS 39403 0119 Bon Air Baptist Church “Northstar Community” Bon Air Baptist Church 2531 Buford Rd. Richmond, VA 23235 0121 Classic Southern Singing “Classic Southern Singing” Classic Southern Singing 2025 Indiana Avenue Joplin, MO 64804 0125 Main Street Baptist Church Main Street Baptist Church 111 Main Street Blvd. Hattiesburg, MS 39402 0126 First United Methodist Church First United Methodist Church 2416 West Cloverdale Park Montgomery, AL 36106-1908 0130 Goodnews Broadcast Ministries “Goodnews” Goodnews Broadcast Ministries 3400 Peachtree Road, NE Suite 1125 Atlanta, GA 30326 0131 Faith Builders International Ministries Faith Builders International Ministries 2170 Murphy Wood Road Beloit, WI 53511 0132 Kingdom Life Fellowship Ministries “Word of Truth” Kingdom Life Fellowship Ministries International, Inc. P.O. Box 657 2045 New Tennille Road Harrison, GA 31035 0133 Cornerstone Christian Church Tom W. Thomas, Sr. The Thomas Law Firm, P.C. P.O. Box 540 102 N. Hutchinson Ave. Adel, GA 31620 Re: Cornerstone Christian Church 0134 The Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids 660 Burton Street, S.E. Grand Rapids, MI 49507 0135 First United Methodist Church “Celebration of Worship” First United Methodist Church 201 Monroe Street Jefferson City, MO 65101-3293 0137 Abundant Faith Christian Center “Faith for Today” Abundant Faith Christian Center 2525 Taylor Avenue P.O. Box 121 Springfield, IL 62703 0138 Word of “Revelation Word of Faith Christian Center Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 32 Faith Christian Center Knowledge” 2111 Country Club Road Hattiesburg, MS 39401 0139 Global Christian Network Global Christian Network P.O. Box 464687 Atlanta, GA 30042 0140 Greenwood Acres Full Gospel Baptist Church “Know Your Bible” Greenwood Acres Full Gospel Baptist Church 7480 Greenwood Road Shreveport, LA 71119 0141 First Baptist Church of Abilene First Baptist Church of Abilene 1333 North Third Street Abilene, TX 79601 0142 Wildfire Global Church Wildfire Global Church 3032 Primrose Dr. Abilene, TX 79606 0143 First Lutheran Church “Peace and Power” First Lutheran Church 301 West Clark Albert Lea, MN 56007 0144 Dawson Memorial Baptist Church Dawson Memorial Baptist Church 1114 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, AL 35209 0146 Faith Clinic Christian Center Church Faith Clinic Christian Center Church P.O. Box 19927 Amarillo, TX 79114-1927 0147 Mount Zion AME Zion Church “Mt. Zion AME Zion Church” Mount Zion AME Zion Church 455 West Jeff Davis Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 0149 First United Methodist Church First United Methodist Church Head of Texas Street P.O. Drawer 1567 Shreveport, LA 71165-1567 0151 Upper Room Church “Outreach Ministry” Upper Room Church P.O. Box 6 Elkton, VA 22827 0153 Porterfield United Methodist Church Porterfield United Methodist Church 2200 Dawson Road Albany, GA 31707 0160 Christian Worship Hour Christian Worship Hour 1500 East Melgaard Road Aberdeen, SD 57401-7714 0163 First Baptist Church of Biloxi, MS First Baptist Church 1560 Popps Ferry Road Biloxi, MS 39532 0165 Second Second Baptist Church Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 33 Baptist Church 3111 E. Battlefield Springfield, MO 65804 0167 Grace Community United Methodist Church Grace Community United Methodist Church 9400 Ellerbe Road Shreveport, LA 71106 0168 Word of God Ministries “Ministering the Word” Word of God Ministries 5895 Bert Kouns Industrial Loop Shreveport, LA 71138 0169 Victory Life Baptist Church, Inc. “The Truth Be Told” Victory Life Baptist Church, Inc. c/o Billy Wolfe Wolfe & Associates P.O. Box 2742 Lubbock, TX 79408 0170 Straightway Ministries, Inc. “Church of the Living God” Straightway Ministries, Inc. P.O. Box 1542 Leland, NC 28451 0172 First Baptist Church “Spreading the Light” First Baptist Church 301 W. Ferguson Tyler, TX 75702 0173 Temple Baptist Church “The Temple Baptist Hour” Temple Baptist Church 2100 W. Woodrow Dr. Knoxville, TN 37918 0174 First Baptist Church “Living in the Light” First Baptist Church 411 North St. Nacogdoches, TX 75961 0176 Calvary Tucson “Practical Christian Living” Calvary Tucson 5170 S. Julian Drive Tucson, AZ 85706 0179 Nettleton Church of Christ “Speaking the Truth in Love” Nettleton Church of Christ 3521 E. Highland Drive P.O. Box 2216 Jonesboro, AR 72402-221 0180 Legacy Church “Life Solutions” Legacy Church 7201 Central Avenue, NW Albuquerque, NM 87121 0182 Broadway Baptist Church Broadway Baptist Church 710 East Third Sweetwater, TX 79556 0184 Antioch Missionary Baptist Church Antioch Missionary Baptist Church 530 West Mound Round Decatur, IL 62526 0185 Galena “In His Galena Assembly of God Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 34 Assembly of God Presence” 1500 East 7th Street Galena, KS 66739 0188 United Faith of Deliverance Ministries United Faith of Deliverance Ministries Sima N. Chowdhury, Esq. Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth 1300 North 17th Street, 11th Floor Arlington, VA 22209 0193 Everlasting Covenant Ministries “Seeking the Lost” Everlasting Covenant Ministries 2140 McGee Road, Suite D Snellville, GA 30078 0194 The Tzemach Institute for Biblical Studies The Tzemach Institute for Biblical Studies P.O. Box 181191 Casselberry, FL 32718 0195 Summer Grove Baptist Church “It Feels Like Home” Summer Grove Baptist Church 8924 Jewella Road Shreveport, LA 71148 0197 Unionville Missionary Baptist Church “The Church with a Mission . . . . . . A Minister with a Message” Unionville Missionary Baptist Church 3837 Houston Avenue Macon, GA 31206 0198 Calvary in Savannah “Calvary in Savannah, Pillars of Strength, Transforming Lives” Calvary in Savannah 4625 Waters Avenue Savannah, GA 31404 0201 Edgewood Baptist Church Edgewood Baptist Church 3564 Forrest Rd. Columbus, GA 31907 0203 First Baptist Church “Hope from Above” First Baptist Church P.O. Box 609 Fort Smith, AR 72902 0205 South Plains Church “The Winners Edge” and “Kingdom Connect” South Plains Church 1421 E. Cactus Drive Levelland, TX 79336 0206 Divine Faith Ministries “Soaring with Eagles” Divine Faith Ministries 4725 River Green Parkway Duluth, GA 30096 0208 Walking By Faith Walking By Faith 5120 Ivanrest Avenue, SW Grandville, MI 49418 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 35 0211 New Life Church International “Impacting Your Life” New Life Church International 1858 Midtown Drive Columbus, GA 31906 0212 The Covenant Church of Jesus Christ The Covenant Church of Jesus Christ 509 May Ave. P.O. Box 5033 Macon, GA 31204 0214 Dayspring Ministries of Gloster Street Church of Christ Dayspring Ministries of Gloster Street Church of Christ 307 North Gloster Street Tupelo, MS 38804 0215 Covenant World Outreach Church Covenant World Outreach Church 2623 South Chapel Road P.O. Box 402 Carthage, MO 64836 0216 Greater King David Baptist Church “The Movement of Christ” Greater King David Baptist Church 222 Blount Avenue Baton Rouge, LA 70807 0217 Anthony Strawder Ministries aka Epignosis Bible Church “Hear and Be Healed” Anthony Strawder Ministries P.O. Box 7515 Monroe, LA 71211 0218 Lima Baptist Temple Lima Baptist Temple T. Blain Brock II Huffman, Kelley, Becker & Brock, LLC 127 N. Pierce Street P.O. Box 546 Lima, OH 45802-0546 0219 First Centenary United Methodist Church First Centenary United Methodist Church P.O. Box 208 Chattanooga, TN 37401 0222 World Outreach Revival Deliverance Ministry, Inc. World Outreach Revival Deliverance Ministry, Inc. 301 Cross Creek Drive Summerville, SC 29485 0225 First Baptist Church First Baptist Church 305 South Perry Street Montgomery, AL 36104 0226 Walnut Street Baptist Church “Walnut Street Live” Walnut Street Baptist Church 1143 S. 3rd Street, Suite A Louisville, KY 40203 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 36 0227 Jesse Rich Ministries “Word of Faith” Jesse Rich Ministries P.O. Box 2250 Hartford, CT 06145 0228 Starkville Church of God “Voice of Hope” and “Oasis” Starkville Church of God 100 Locksley Way Starkville, MS 39759 0230 United Church of the Lord Jesus Christ “God’s Guide for Living Right” United Church of the Lord Jesus Christ Joseph M. DiScipio, Esq. Sima N. Chowdhury, Esq. Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C. 1300 North 17th Street – 11th Floor Arlington, VA 22209 0231 Zion Baptist Church Zion Baptist Church 3031 Hollywood Avenue Shreveport, LA 71108 0232 Cherokee Church of Christ “TV Sunday School” Cherokee Church of Christ 1421 Cherokee Road Johnson City, TN 37604-7268 0233 Corpus Christi Christian Fellowship Corpus Christi Christian Fellowship 6602 South Staples Corpus Christi, TX 78413 0235 Christian Video Ministries, Inc. Christian Video Ministries, Inc. P.O. Box 1466 San Antonio, TX 78295-1466 0238 Central Baptist Church Central Baptist Church P.O. Box 2024 Decatur, AL 35602 0239 First United Methodist “Eleven-o- clock Worship Service” First United Methodist Church 903 East 4th Street P.O. Box 248 Panama City, FL 32401 0242 Peaceful Zion Missionary Baptist Church Rev. Dr. C.P. Preston, Jr., Pastor Peaceful Zion Missionary Baptist Church 2400 N.W. 68th Street Miami, FL 33147 0243 Southland Christian Church “The Southland Hour” Southland Christian Church P.O. Box 23338 Lexington, KY 40523-3338 0244 First Presbyterian Church First Presbyterian Church P.O. Box 1094 Columbus, GA 31902-1094 0248 Forth Worth Bible Students “The Divine Plan Program” Forth Worth Bible Students P.O. Box 4085 Fort Worth, TX 76164 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 37 0249 First Baptist Church First Baptist Church P.O. Box 256 Carriere, MS 39426 0251 Redemption Church International “The Power of the Word” Redemption Church International 3550 Pleasant Ridge Road Knoxville, TN 37921 0253 True Church of God in Christ, Inc. True Church of God in Christ, Inc. 679 Glendale Rd. Scottdale, GA 30079 0255 True Church of God in Christ True Church of God in Christ. 236 Baker Street Savannah, GA 31415 0257 Bull Street Baptist Church Bull Street Baptist Church 17 East Anderson Street Savannah, GA 31401 0258 Christ for the Crisis Christ for the Crisis P.O. Box 6 Fulton, MS 38843 0259 First United Methodist Church First United Methodist Church 909 Tenth Street at Travis P.O. Box 2125 Wichita Falls, TX 76307 0260 Revival Tabernacle Church Revival Tabernacle Church P.O. Box 1533 Lexington, KY 40588 0261 KICKS Ministries “KICKS Club” and “KIDWISE” KICKS Ministries & Victory Harvest Church, Inc. 85 N. Columbus Street Sunbury, OH 43074 0264 First Assembly of God First Assembly of God P.O. Box 97100 Shreveport, LA 71149 0266 Terry Colwell Ministries “Keys to the Kingdom” Terry Colwell Ministries 304 Holt Hermitage, MO 65668 0267 Grace Street Church of Christ “Speaking The Truth In Love” Grace Street Church of Christ 120 Grace Street Augusta, GA 30904 0268 Canaan Baptist Church Canaan Baptist Church 2835 Branton Woods Drive Columbus, GA 31907 0270 Diocese of Gaylord Diocese of Gaylord 611 West North Street Gaylord, MI 49735-8349 0271 CrossTV “Word Pictures” CrossTV 370 W. Camino Gardens Blvd. Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33432 0272 New Covenant Fellowship “Life the Way it Ought to New Covenant Fellowship Ministries, Inc. Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 38 Ministries, Inc. d/b/a Life Church Be!” d/b/a Life Church 11735 Plantation Road Fort Myers, FL 33912 0273 Cathedral A.M.E. Zion Church “Say What the Lord Said” Cathedral A.M.E. Zion Church 428 West Northside Drive Jackson, MS 39206 0274 Christian Faith Fellowship “Principles For Successful Living” Christian Faith Fellowship 4250 State Highway K Cape Girardeau, MO 63701 0275 The Diocese of Lake Charles “Glad Tidings” The Diocese of Lake Charles 414 Iris St. Lake Charles, LA 70601 0278 Abundant Life Outreach Ministries, Inc. “Abundant Life Outreach Ministries Religious Program” Abundant Life Outreach Ministries, Inc. P.O. Box 210674 Columbia, SC 29221 0282 Ellwood Community Church “Circle of Love Outreach” Ellwood Community Church 1705 Selma Avenue Selma, AL 36701 0283 East Main Church of Christ “Give Me the Bible” East Main Church of Christ P. O. Box 1761 Tupelo, MS 38802 0284 Word of Faith Christian Center “Sword of the Spirit” Word of Faith Christian Center P. O. Box 116 St. Matthews, SC 29135 0286 Christ Chapel Christ Chapel 170 Starcadia Circle Macon, GA 31210 0289 The Beulahland Bible Church Beulahland Bible Church 1010 Newberg Avenue Macon, GA 31206 0290 Odessa Christian Faith Center “Voice of Faith” Odessa Christian Faith Center 8860 Andrews Highway P. O. Box 13330 Odessa, TX 79768 0291 God and Country Revival God and Country Revival 1331 12th Avenue, Suite 102 Altoona, PA 16601 0292 Ebenezer Baptist Church Ebenezer Baptist Church 652 Raleigh Road Rocky Mount, NC 27803 0294 First Apostolic Church “The Voice of Pentecost” First Apostolic Church 5020 Pleasant Ridge Road Knoxville, TN 37912 0295 Greg Crowe Ministries “Backstage” Greg Crowe P. O. Box 3182 Tuscaloosa, AL 35403-3182 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 39 0297 Church of Christ on Lewis Street Church of Christ on Lewis Street 2716 South Lewis Street Little Rock, AR 72204 0300 America Come Back To God Evangelistic Church, Inc. America Come Back To God Evangelistic Church, Inc. 550 Rockaway Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11212 0301 First Baptist North Mobile “The Great Adventure Outdoor Show” First Baptist North Mobile 1251 Industrial Parkway Saraland, AL 36571 0302 Voice for Jesus Church “Voice for Jesus” Voice for Jesus Church 5325 NW 159 Street Miami, FL 33014 0303 First Baptist Church First Baptist Church 701 South Main Street Jonesboro, AR 72401 0304 Erie First Assembly of God “Fully Alive” Erie First Assembly of God 8150 Oliver Road Erie, PA 16509 0306 Power of Deliverance T.V. Ministries Power of Deliverance T.V. Ministries Believers of the Word International Outreach Ministries, Inc. 7341 Naples Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35206 0307 Christian Assembly Christian Assembly 6241 Tuscarawas Road Industry, PA 15052 0311 Sevier Heights Baptist Church “Upon this Rock” Sevier Heights Baptist Church 3232 Alcoa Highway Knoxville, TX 37920 0312 Clinton McFarland Ministries “The Wonderful Day” Clinton McFarland Ministries P.O. Box 2835 Columbus, MS 39704 0313 Citychurch Outreach Ministries Citychurch Outreach Ministries 205 S. Polk Amarillo, TX 79101 0314 First Assembly of God “The Gospel of Jesus Christ” First Assembly of God P.O. Box 19187 1404 Stone Street Jonesboro, AR 72403 0315 Apostolic Fellowship Holiness Church Apostolic Fellowship Holiness Church 610 Clanton Street Opelika, AL 36801 0316 Catholic Diocese of Lafayette “Tell The People” Office of Radio and Television Ministries Catholic Diocese of Lafayette Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 40 1408 Carmel Avenue Lafayette, LA 70501-5298 0318 First United Methodist Church – Lufkin First United Methodist Church – Lufkin 805 E. Denman Avenue Lufkin, TX 75901 0319 God’s House of Prayer God’s House of Prayer 301 Highland Avenue Opelika, AL 36801 0321 The Lower Lighthouse “The Lower Lighthouse” The Lower Lighthouse P.O. Box 219 Greeneville, TN 37744 0322 True Deliverance Holiness Church True Deliverance Holiness Church P.O. Box 57 Auburn, AL 36830 0324 Lovelife Ministries Lovelife Ministries 800 Hwy 431 Phenix City, AL 36869 0327 Cathedral of the Palms Cathedral of the Palms 3401 S. Alameda Corpus Christi, TX 78411 0333 Christian Love Fellowship Ministries “Welcome Home” Christian Love Fellowship Ministries 747 South Federal Highway Deerfield Beach, FL 33441 0337 Abundant Life Fellowship Abundant Life Fellowship P.O. Box 770 Lake Charles, LA 70606 0339 First United Methodist Church First United Methodist Church 1126 E. Silver Springs Blvd. Ocala, FL 34470 0341 Huntington Park Church of Christ Video Inspirations “Search for Direction” Huntington Park Church of Christ 6161 W. 70 Shreveport, LA 71129 0342 Peachtree Presbyterian Church Peachtree Presbyterian Church 3434 Roswell Road, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30305 0350 Willette Duvall “Gospel Experience with Willette Duvall” Willette Duvall Ministries P.O. Box 43816 Los Angeles, CA 90043 0352 Embassies of Christ Kingdom Ministries “You Have a Destiny” Embassies of Christ Kingdom Ministries 900 W. Ridge Road P.O. Box 1830 Gary, IN 46409 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 41 0353 Word of God Tabernacle TV Ministry Word of God Tabernacle Church P. O. Box 811 Roberta, GA 31078 0355 First Assembly of God First Assembly of God P.O. Box 734 Dothan, AL 36302 0369 Television Center of the Archdiocese of Miami “Sunday Mass” Television Center of the Archdiocese of Miami c/o Robert Lewis Thompson 5028 Wisconsin Avenue., NW #301 Washington, DC 20016. 0371 Westside Church Media Ministry “God’s Guide for Living Right” Westside Church Media Ministry c/o Sima N. Chowdhury Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth 1300 North 17th Street, 11th Floor Arlington, VA 22209 0373 Robert C. Blakes, Sr. Ministries Broadcast/Ne w Home Ministries “The Taking The Kingdom Broadcast” Robert C. Blakes, Sr. Ministries Broadcast/New Home Ministries 3000 Tecumseh Street Baton Rouge, LA 70805-7981 0375 Faith and Deliverance Outreach Mission Ministries “Walking by Faith” Faith and Deliverance Outreach Mission Ministries P.O. Box 93 Powder Springs, GA 30127 0376 New St. Paul Tabernacle Church of God in Christ “March of Faith” New St. Paul Tabernacle Church of God in Christ 15340 Southfield Road Detroit, MI 48223 0377 Bible Enrichment Fellowship International Church “Turn It Around” Bible Enrichment Fellowship International Church 400 East Kelso Street Inglewood, CA 90301 0379 The Sound of Light The Sound of Light P.O. Box 2212 Spartanburg, SC 29304 0382 Hoffmantow n Baptist Church, Inc. Hoffmantown Baptist Church, Inc. 8888 Harper NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 0386 Emmanuel Christian Center Emmanuel Christian Center 7777 University Avenue NE Minneapolis, MN 55432 0387 Time of Refreshing “Touch and Agree” Time of Refreshing Christian Worship Center Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 42 Christian Worship Center 7919 Magnolia Homes Road Orlando, FL 32810 0388 Lutheran Church of the Redeemer “Music and Message” Lutheran Church of the Redeemer 731 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30308-1281 0389 Christ Church of Oak Brook “The Pulpit of Christ Church” Christ Church of Oak Brook Thirty-First and York Road Oak Brook, IL 60523 0394 Christ Love Ministries International Christ Love Ministries International P.O. Box 72800 Providence, RI 02907 0397 South Tulsa Adventist Fellowship South Tulsa Adventist Fellowship 15303 East 21st Street Tulsa, OK 74134 0399 Todds Road Grace Church “Free Grace Broadcast” Todds Road Grace Church 4137 Todds Road Lexington, KY 40509 0400 Dr. Tab Smith “The Bible Says” Pan American Broadcasting 2021 The Almeda – Suite 240 San Jose, CA 95126-1145 0401 Oak Ridge Baptist Church “Good Sunday Mornin” Oak Ridge Baptist Church Route 4, Box 3700 Stigler, OK 74462 0404 Taylor Road Baptist Church Taylor Road Baptist Church 1685 Taylor Road Montgomery, AL 36117 0406 Victory Temple “The World We Live In” Victory Temple 2630 South 11th Street Beaumont, TX 77701 0408 Abundant Life Church “Sharing His Life” Abundant Life Church 6440 Rock Springs Road Lithonia, GA 30038 0410 All Faith Self Help Center All Faith Self Help Center 4440 East Indian School Road Phoenix, AZ 85018 0415 Gloryland Harvest Gloryland Harvest 757 South Woodland Drive Radcliff, KY 40160 0417 The Archdiocese of San Francisco “The Mass” Director of Communications The Archdiocese of San Francisco One Peter Yorke Way San Francisco, CA 94109-6602 0421 Cornerstone Church (Assemblies of God), Inc “In Focus” Cornerstone Church (Assemblies of God), Inc Sima N. Chowdhury, Esq. Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C. 1300 North 17th Street - 11th Floor Arlington, VA 22209 0423 World “World Harvest World Harvest Church International Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 43 Harvest Church International Today” P.O. Box 750 Ball Ground, GA 30107 0426 Lush Productions, LLC “This Week in Real Estate” Lush Productions, LLC c/o J. Dominic Monahan Luvaas Cobb P.O. Box 10747 Eugene, OR 97440-2747 0427 First United Methodist Church First United Methodist Church 901 North Kings Highway P.O. Box 1367 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578-1367 0432 First Baptist Church – Albany First Baptist Church – Albany P.O. Box 67 Albany, GA 31702 0436 University Family Fellowship University Family Fellowship 1125 Stanford Way Sparks, NV 69431 0437 Victory Chapel Victory Chapel 32 W. Bellisle Drive Akron, OH 44319 0441 First United Methodist Church, Albany First United Methodist Church 307 Flint Avenue Post Office Box 448 Albany, GA 31702-0448 0442 Saint Paul AME Church Saint Paul AME Church 989 Walter E. Davis Sr. Drive Macon, GA 31217 0444 Hartford Highway Church of Christ “Let the Bible Speak” Hartford Highway Church of Christ 4186 Hartford Highway P.O. Box 762 Dothan, AL 36302 0446 Trenholm Road United Methodist Church Trenholm Road United Methodist Church 3401 Trenholm Road Columbia, SC 29204 0449 J.U.M.P. Ministries International Church “Joyously Unveiling the Master’s Plan” J.U.M.P. Ministries International Church P.O. Box 703392 New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170 0450 Village of Faith Ministries “Celebrate Life Broadcast” Village of Faith Ministries P. O. Box 38301 Richmond, VA 23231 0453 Calvary Chapel of Salt Lake City Calvary Chapel of Salt Lake City 460 W. Century Drive Salt Lake City, UT 84123 0454 Thirteenth Street Baptist Church Thirteenth Street Baptist Church P.O. Box 1700 Ashland, KY 41105-1700 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 44 0456 Life in Christ Ministries, Inc. “Life in Christ” Life in Christ Ministries, Inc. 7201 Westfield Avenue Pennsauken, NJ 08110 0458 Family Praise Center “Getting Equipped with Family Praise Center” Family Praise Center 5820 NW Loop 410 San Antonio, TX 78238 0459 Transformati on Ministries First Baptist Church Transformation Ministries First Baptist Church 632 West Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 0461 Fellowship Baptist Church Fellowship Baptist Church 1101 Forty-Sixth Street P.O. Box 5099 Vienna, WV 26105 0462 Faith Christian Center Church “A Measure of Faith” Faith Christian Center Church P.O. Box 12428 Beaumont, TX 77726-2428 0463 Praise Temple Inc. “The Abiding Word” Praise Temple Inc. PO Box 76604 6103 West Capitol Drive Milwaukee, WI 53216 0465 Soul Food For The Soul “Now We’re Cooking” Soul Food For The Soul Chef Audrey’s Bistro & Bakery 115 A Margie Drive P.O. Box 8151 Warner Robbins, GA 31095 0467 A.D. Bums Ministries “Reaching the World Through Faith” A.D. Bums Ministries P.O. Box 05691 Milwaukee, WI 53205-0691 0469 Harmony Hill Baptist Church Harmony Hill Baptist Church 2708 S. Chestnut Lufkin, TX 75901 0470 The Proceeding Word Ministries International “The Proceeding Word” The Proceeding Word Ministries International Cumberland Christian Center Church 109 South Plymouth St. Fayetteville, NC 28312 0474 The Church That Christ Built “The Church that Christ Built” The Church That Christ Built P.O. Box 1188 Greenville, MS 38702-1188 0475 Trinity Lutheran Church “Living Hope” Trinity Lutheran Church 100 N Frederick Street Cape Girardeau, MO 63701 0476 Berean Bible Study Association “Grace Believer’s Bible Study” Berean Bible Study Association 204 Tower Drive Pensacola, FL 32534 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 45 0477 University City Church University City Church 7829 Old Concord Road Charlotte, NC 28213 0480 The Lord’s Sentinel Fellowship Church, Inc. The Lord’s Sentinel Fellowship Church, Inc. P.O. Box 44 Lake Placid, FL 33862 0481 Move of God Ministries “Unity” Move of God Ministries 8063 Veterans Parkways Columbus, GA 31909 0483 Full Gospel Word & Worship Center Full Gospel Word & Worship Center 6015 N. Main Street P.O. Box 2169 Columbia, SC 29202 0484 Fullers’ Deliverance Outreach Ministry Fullers’ Deliverance Outreach Ministry 4925-A Alpine Road Columbia, SC 29223 0487 Christian Fellowship Church “Faith In Action” Pastor Shane Philpott President Christian Fellowship Church 1151 – 15th Street, SW Mason City, IA 50401 0492 Heritage Christian University “Real World Ministries” Heritage Christian University P. O. Box HCU 3625 Helton Drive Florence, AL 35630 0493 River of Life Christian Center “Chosen Generation” River of Life Christian Center P. O. Box 608162 Orlando, FL 32860 0494 Mt. Calvary Church of Christ Written in Heaven “Hour of Assurance” Mt. Calvary Church of Christ Written in Heaven P. O. Box 406 1320 Highway #2 Graceville, FL 32440 0496 Crossfire World Outreach Ministries “Crossfire Television” Crossfire World Outreach 942 28th Street Springfield, OR 97477 0497 Family Worship Center “Revival Time” Family Worship Center 9558 Two Notch Road Columbia, SC 29223 0501 Living Faith Christian Center “Wordpower Broadcast” Living Faith Christian Center 6375 Winbourne Avenue Baton Rouge, LA 70805 0502 House of Prayer House of Prayer 855 Rutledge Avenue Charleston, SC 29403 0505 The “The The Lighthouse Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 46 Lighthouse Lighthouse Broadcast” 1790 Charnelton Street Eugene, OR 97401 0507 Women of Substance Ministries, Inc. “Women of Substance” Women of Substance Ministries, Inc. P.O. Box 117 Lindenhurst, NY 11757-0117 0510 Victory Tabernacle Bible Training Center Victory Tabernacle Bible Training Center c/o Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C. 11th Floor, 1300 North 17th Street Arlington, VA 22209 0512 Union Baptist Church “Sunday Service” Union Baptist Church c/o Howard A. Peters Esq. Scott & Scott, P.C. Attorneys at Law 611 East Monroe Street, Suite 200 Springfield, IL 62701 0513 Ralph Sexton Ministries “Restore the Landmarks” Ralph Sexton Ministries 566 Old County Home Road Asheville, NC 28806 0516 First Church on the Hill “Catch the Vision” First Church on the Hill P.O. Drawer G Rusk, TX 75785 0519 Christ Word of Truth Church “Word of Truth” Christ Word of Truth Church 1755 NW 78th Street Miami, FL 33147 0520 Riverbend Church Riverbend Church 4214 Capital of Texas Highway North Austin, TX 78746 0521 Victory Ministries International Victory Ministries International 807 E. 43rd Street Baltimore, MD 21212 0522 Heartbeat Ministries Heartbeat Ministries P.O. Box 550 Snow Camp, NC 27349 0524 First Assembly of God - Binghamton, NY First Assembly of God - Binghamton, NY 255 Washington Street Binghamton, NY 13901 0525 Hillcrest Baptist Church - El Paso, TX James L. Oyster 108 Oyster Lane Castleton, VA 22716·2839 Re: Hillcrest Baptist Church - El Paso, TX 0526 Channel of “Now is the Channel of Love Ministries Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 47 Love Ministries Time for Miracles” P.O. Box 3007 Redding, CA 96099 0527 The Gravediggers Ministries, Inc. “The Gravediggers Show” The Gravediggers Ministries, Inc. 4363 Yates Road College Park, GA 30337-4833 0529 Catholic Diocese of Youngstown County “The Mass for Shut-Ins” Catholic Television Network of the Diocese of Youngstown P.O. Box 430 9531 Akron-Canfield Road Canfield, OH 44406 0533 River of Life Church of Central Florida River of Life Church of Central Florida 281 N. Division Street Oviedo, FL 32765 0536 Divine Deliverance Christian Center “Today’s Living” Divine Deliverance Christian Center 1205 Mangrove Drive Chesapeake, VA 23323 0537 New Testament Church “New Testament” New Testament Church 403 Rapidan Street Portsmouth, VA 23701 0543 Family of Faith Christian Church “Works of Faith Broadcast” Family of Faith Christian Church 215 W. Bow Street P.O. Box 120046 Tyler, TX 75712 0545 North Highland Assembly of God “Bread of Life” North Highland Assembly of God 7300 Whittlesey Blvd. Columbus, GA 31909 0549 Messiah Outreach Christian Family Church Messiah Outreach Christian Family Church 1613 Sheffield Drive P.O. Box 8415 Columbus, GA 31908 0552 North Asheville Baptist Church “Eternal Truths” North Asheville Baptist Church 20 Reynolds Mountain Boulevard Asheville, NC 28804 0553 Unity Church of Christianity “Yes, You Can!” Unity Church of Christianity 4211 Maize Road Columbus, OH 43224 0555 Outpouring Worship Center aka Ravenna “Outpouring” and “Cutting Edge Video Outpouring Worship Center 11811 Hts. Ravenna Road Ravenna, MI 49451 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 48 Assembly of God 0557 By His Word Christian Center “Living By His Word” By His Word Christian Center P.O. Box 110608 Tacoma, WA 98411 0561 First Baptist Church of Leesburg “Meeting Needs, Sharing Christ” First Baptist Church of Leesburg 220 North 13th Street Leesburg, FL 34748 0562 Beloved St. John Evangelistic Church “Time of Decision” Beloved St. John Evangelistic Church 4541 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19140 0566 Stay Focused Ministries Stay Focused Ministries P.O. Box 5814 Bakersfield, CA 93388-5814 0567 Faith Temple of Lincolnton, Inc. “Possessing Your Promises” Faith Temple of Lincolnton, Inc. 1477 Leathersville Road Lincolnton, GA 30817 0571 Bay Shore Community Church Bay Shore Community Church 36759 Millsboro Highway Millsboro, DE 19966-9440 0572 The Justice Foundation “Faces of Abortion” General Counsel The Justice Foundation 8122 Datapoint Drive, Suite 812 San Antonio, TX 78229 0574 Siloam Church International Siloam Church International 3695 Roosevelt Highway College Park, GA 30349 0581 Living Waters Foursquare Gospel Church “Hands Reaching Out To You With Love” Living Waters Foursquare Gospel Church P.O . Box 17251 Smithfield, RI 02917 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 49 APPENDIX B Proposed Rules The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend Part 79 of Chapter I, Subchapter C, of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 1. Section 79.1(f) is amended to read as follows: (f) Procedures for exemptions based on economic burden. 2. Section 79.1(f)(1) is amended to read as follows: (1) A video programming provider, video programming producer or video programming owner may petition the Commission for a full or partial exemption from the closed captioning requirements. Exemptions may be granted, in whole or in part, for a channel of video programming, a category or type of video programming, an individual video service, a specific video program or a video programming provider upon a finding that the closed captioning requirements will be economically burdensome. 3. Section 79.1(f)(2) is amended to read as follows: (2) A petition for an exemption must be supported by sufficient evidence to demonstrate that compliance with the requirements to closed caption video programming would be economically burdensome. The term “economically burdensome” means significant difficulty or expense. Factors to be considered when determining whether the requirements for closed captioning are economically burdensome include: (i) The nature and cost of the closed captions for the programming; (ii) The impact on the operation of the provider or program owner; (iii) The financial resources of the provider or program owner; and (iv) The type of operations of the provider or program owner. 4. Section 79.1(f)(3) is amended to read as follows: (3) In addition to these factors, the petition shall describe any other factors the petitioner deems relevant to the Commission’s final determination and any available alternatives that might constitute a reasonable substitute for the closed captioning requirements including, but not limited to, text or graphic display of the content of the audio portion of the programming. The extent to which the provision of closed captions is economically burdensome shall be evaluated with regard to the individual outlet. 5. Section 79.1(f)(4) is amended to read as follows: (4) An original and two (2) copies of a petition requesting an exemption based on the economically burdensome standard, and all subsequent pleadings, shall be filed in accordance with § 0.401(a) of this chapter. 6. Section 79.1(f)(10) is amended to read as follows: (10) The Commission may deny or approve, in whole or in part, a petition for an economically burdensome exemption from the closed captioning requirements. 7. Section 79.1(f)(11) is amended to read as follows: Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-159 50 (11) During the pendency of an economically burdensome determination, the video programming subject to the request for exemption shall be considered exempt from the closed captioning requirements.