Closed Captioning of Video Programming

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 79

[MM Docket No. 95-176; FCC 98-3]

Closed Captioning of Video Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Viewers with hearing disabilities may not always have access

to the same televised emergency information that is currently available

to other viewers. The Commission adopted this Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (``Further Notice'') seeking information and

comment regarding appropriate rules and policies to promote and to

ensure the accessibility of televised emergency information to persons

with hearing disabilities. Closed captioning rules for emergency

information programs were not adopted in the Report and Order in MM

Docket No. 95-176, In the Matter of Closed Captioning and Video

Description of Video Programming, Video Programming Accessibility

(``Closed Captioning Order'') due to the limited comments submitted in

that proceeding on the issue of captioning of such programs.

The Further Notice does not contain proposed or modified

information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA), Public Law 104-13.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 25, 1998 and reply

comments are due on or before March 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexis D. Johns, Cable Services

Bureau, (202) 418-7038, TTY (202) 418-7172.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket 95-176, adopted

January 9, 1998 and released January 14, 1998. The full text of this

Further Notice is available for inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street,

NW, Washington, D.C. 20554, and may be purchased from the Commission's

copy contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800,

1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036.

[[Page 3071]]

Synopsis of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

1. The rules we adopted in the Closed Captioning Order require

video program providers to increase gradually the amount of captioned

new programming offered over time. The rules require minimum captioning

benchmarks to be met at two year intervals, starting on January 1,

2000. Appendix B at Sec. 79.1(b)(1) (62 FR 48487, September 16, 1997).

New programming is defined as programs first published or exhibited

after January 1, 1998. Appendix B at Sec. 79.1(a)(5) (62 FR 48487,

September 16, 1997). The rules allow video program providers to

exercise discretion with respect to what types of programs to caption

first, and permit video program providers to caption news programming

using the electronic newsroom (``ENR'') method. Para. 47 and Appendix B

at Sec. 79.1(e)(3) (62 FR 48487, September 16, 1997). ENR captions are

created from the text in the station's news script computers. With ENR,

only text transmitted from the scripting computers onto teleprompters

is captioned; unscripted material, such as live reports from the field,

reports of breaking news, and weather and sports reporting, is not

captioned.

2. The emergency information which we address in this Further

Notice falls under the Closed Captioning Order's definition of new

programming. By ``emergency information,'' we generally mean state,

local and regional emergency announcements or reports, including

interruptions of regularly-scheduled programming and late-breaking

reports during live news programs. Pursuant to the rules adopted in the

Closed Captioning Order, emergency information would be subject to the

same closed captioning requirements as other new programming. Such

programming would not be required to be offered with closed captioning

before 2000 at the earliest, and each video program provider would have

the discretion to determine whether to give emergency information

priority for captioning relative to other new programming. In addition,

under the rules, a video program provider could caption its live news

programming using the ENR method, which could leave much emergency

information inaccessible to persons with hearing disabilities since it

is likely to be late-breaking news and unscripted.

3. Given the significant health and safety issues inherent in

emergency information, in the Closed Captioning Order we concluded that

closed captioning requirements for emergency information should be

considered further. In this Further Notice, we seek comment on how our

rules can best ensure that such programs are accessible to viewers with

hearing disabilities. We request comment on whether separate

transitional closed captioning requirements are needed for emergency

information or whether there are other methods of providing

accessibility for this type of programming.

4. As we stated in the Closed Captioning Order, providing all

viewers with accurate information regarding emergencies is of great

importance, and we are concerned that viewers with hearing disabilities

may not always have access to the same information that is available to

other viewers. As a threshold matter, we seek comment on the types of

information and programs that should be considered ``emergency

information'' for the purposes of our rules. We note that the

Commission currently requires broadcast licensees to make the emergency

information programming that they transmit accessible to persons who

are deaf or hard of hearing. See 47 CFR 73.1250(h). The types of

emergency information contemplated in the Further Notice are not those

which must be transmitted by the Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') under

our existing rules. See 47 CFR 11.1 et seq. Use of the EAS is required

only in the event of a national emergency, though state and local

authorities may use the EAS to provide early warnings to communities

about regional, state and local emergencies. The rules and policies

proposed in this Further Notice are not intended to conflict with or

supersede the EAS rules in any way. The broadcast rule enumerates the

following examples of emergency situations as being subject to the

rule: tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tidal waves, earthquakes, icing

conditions, heavy snows, widespread fires, discharge of toxic gases,

widespread power failures, industrial explosions, civil disorders, and

school closings and changes in school bus schedules resulting from such

conditions. We tentatively conclude that for this purpose, we should

broadly define emergency information to ensure that sufficient

information regarding situations that affect the safety of viewers is

available to persons with hearing disabilities with the same immediacy

as it is for other viewers. To the types of situations cited in the

existing broadcast rule, we believe that it would be appropriate to add

warnings and watches of impending changes in weather affecting the

safety of viewers, and seek comment on how to define such situations.

We also seek comment on whether defining emergency information more

broadly here than in the broadcast rule would cause any practical

problems or other complications for entities subject to emergency

closed captioning requirements.

5. We seek comment on whether it is feasible to require video

program providers to supply closed captions for emergency information

programs. By its nature, emergency information is not typically

programming that can be pre-recorded and captioned in advance of

airing. A requirement that such programs be captioned would therefore

oblige providers to obtain real-time captioning services for such

programs. As we described in the Closed Captioning Order, real-time

captioning resources are somewhat limited at this time. We declined to

require that all live news programming be captioned using real-time

captioners in part due to concerns about the limited real-time

resources in existence and the need to allow captioning companies

sufficient time to recruit and train more captioners to meet the

increased demands for their services that the rules will create.

6. We seek comment on the estimated costs, in both financial and

human resource terms, that a captioning requirement for emergency

information will impose on video providers. In particular, we seek

updated information on the number of real-time captioners currently

available as well as the number projected to be available in the near

future. In the event a real-time captioning requirement is instituted

for emergency information, we seek comment on the effect such a rule

will have on the availability of live captioning resources for other

types of live programming. Captioning companies and commenters who

regularly use real-time captioning services should submit detailed

information on the hourly costs charged for such services, and whether

and under what conditions those costs vary. Is it feasible for video

program providers to have real-time captioners ``on call'' for closed

captioning when emergencies arise, or would providers have to hire

full-time staff to produce live closed captions? What would it cost to

hire an ``on call'' real-time captioner?

7. We request information on the availability and feasibility of

providing live captions remotely in emergency situations. Where an

emergency affects a large geographic region, all video providers in

that region will need to access real-time captioning resources at the

same time. Given the limited number of real-time captioning

[[Page 3072]]

resources available at present, it may not be possible for each

provider to obtain the necessary captioning assistance within its

geographic region. For example, a major snowstorm such as that which

occurred on the East Coast in early 1996 could place a significant

strain on real-time resources throughout the northeast and mid-Atlantic

states. Could video program providers use real-time captioners located

in other areas (e.g., California) unaffected by the emergency to offer

remote captioning under such circumstances? Would remote real-time

captioning incur greater costs or be less costly than local live

captioning under such circumstances?

8. We specifically seek comment on whether emergency programming

should be given a higher priority for captioning than other types of

new programs. Specifically, should we require that emergency

information be provided with captions prior to the commencement of the

captioning requirement for other new programs? If so, when should video

program providers be required to begin captioning these programs? With

respect to the minimum benchmarks for captioning of new programs, we

ask whether video program providers should be required to supply closed

captions for emergency information programs during the transition

period, regardless of whether the provider has already met its

captioning benchmark for new programs. Would such a requirement be

feasible, or would it pose significant logistical problems or economic

burdens on video program providers? We tentatively conclude that any

textual presentation of emergency information programs should be

required to incorporate substantially the entire text of the audio

portion of the program. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

9. The closed captioning rules also include exemptions based on

video program providers' gross revenues. Under the revenue exemption,

video program providers with annual gross revenues of less than $3

million per channel are exempt from all captioning requirements, except

for the obligation to pass through captions where programs are received

from the program supplier with captions. Appendix B at Sec. 79.1(d)(12)

(62 FR 48487, September 16, 1997). Also, our rules provide that once a

video program provider has spent an amount equal to 2% of its gross

annual revenues on captioning, that provider need not spend any more

money on captioning. Appendix B at Sec. 79.1(d)(11) (62 FR 48487,

September 16, 1997). We seek comment as to whether these exemptions

should be suspended for the limited purpose of emergency information

programming closed captioning. Should all video program providers be

required to supply closed captions for emergency information, even

where the provider is otherwise eligible for one of our revenue-based

exemptions? How would such a rule affect small entities such as small

or low power television stations and small cable operators? Commenters

should submit proposals for reducing the burdens on small entities that

such a mandatory closed captioning rule might impose.

10. Alternatively, we ask whether other methods of visually

presenting emergency information would be acceptable in lieu of a

closed captioning requirement. As noted above, the Commission currently

requires broadcast licensees to make such programming accessible to

persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. To the extent broadcast

licensees transmit emergency information programming, they are required

by our rules to transmit such programs both aurally and visually or

only visually. The broadcast rules allow television stations to ``use

any method of visual presentation which results in a legible message

conveying the essential emergency information,'' including, but not

limited to, slides, electronic captioning, manual methods (e.g., hand

printing), or mechanical printing processes. 47 CFR 73.1250(h).

However, no equivalent obligation exists for emergency information

transmitted by cable television operators or other multichannel video

program distributors (``MVPDs''). We seek comment as to whether an

extension of the existing broadcast rules to cover emergency

information disseminated by MVPDs, in conjunction with our existing

captioning rules, would be appropriate or sufficient to address the

concerns raised in this Further Notice.

11. In addition, an emergency information program may consist of an

audio report that is not displayed visually, or the audio portion of

the report may be longer and offer more complete information than that

displayed visually, leaving viewers with hearing disabilities without

full details on the situation. We seek information on methods or

requirements that could be adopted to ensure that all pertinent details

are accessible. We also seek comment on a proposal submitted by Cal-TVA

for cases where local stations are unable to provide an instant visual

transcription of audio emergency messages. Cal-TVA recommends use of a

second text channel that a viewer may switch to within ten minutes of

the airing of an emergency message, to read a typed report of the audio

message and any actions the viewer is being instructed to take. We seek

comment regarding the feasibility of this proposal, and request

information regarding other possible methods of ensuring the

accessibility of this information to persons with hearing disabilities.

12. Finally, we seek comment on any other proposals to promote and

to ensure the accessibility of emergency programming and other special

reports that have not already been raised in this Further Notice or in

the closed captioning proceeding. In particular, we ask commenters to

address the legal, policy, and practical implications of any such

proposals.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

13. Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared the following

initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') of the expected

impact of these proposed policies and rules on small entities. Written

public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed

in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of

the Further Notice, but they must have a separate and distinct heading

designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Secretary shall cause a

copy of this Further Notice to be sent to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') in accordance

with section 603(a) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

14. Reason for Action and Objectives of the Proposed Rule: Section

713 of the 1996 Act required the Commission to adopt rules and

timetables for the captioning of video programming by August 8, 1997.

In the course of the closed captioning proceeding, a few commenters

addressed the particular need for captioning of emergency programming

and similar special reports, but the information submitted to the

Commission regarding this issue was insufficient to support the

adoption of specific captioning rules for emergency programming.

Instead, the Closed Captioning Order directed that a separate

proceeding be initiated to address this issue. In this Further Notice,

we seek comment on appropriate requirements for promoting and ensuring

the accessibility of emergency programming to viewers with hearing

disabilities.

15. Legal Basis: This Further Notice is adopted pursuant to

Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 713 of the Communications

[[Page 3073]]

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 613.

16. Description and Number of Small Entities Affected: The RFA

defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the

terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small business

concern'' under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A

small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)

satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 15 U.S.C.

632.

17. Small MVPDs: The SBA has developed a definition of small

entities for cable and other pay television services, which includes

all such companies generating $11 million or less in annual receipts.

13 CFR 121.201 (SIC 4841). This definition includes cable system

operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast

satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master

antenna systems and subscription television services. According to the

Bureau of the Census, there were 1,758 total cable and other pay

television services and 1,423 had less than $11 million in revenue. We

address below each service individually to provide a more precise

estimate of small entities. We seek comment on the tentative

conclusions below.

18. Cable Systems: The Commission has developed, with SBA's

approval, our own definition of a small cable system operator for the

purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small

cable company'' is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers

nationwide. 47 CFR 76.901(e). Based on our most recent information, we

estimate that there were 1,439 cable operators that qualified as small

cable companies at the end of 1995. Since then, some of those companies

may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have

been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with

other cable operators. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer

than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by

the decisions and rules proposed in this Futher Notice.

19. The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small

cable system operator, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or

through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1% of all

subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity

or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed

$250,000,000.'' 47 U.S.C. Sec. 543(m)(2). The Commission has determined

that there are 61,700,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore,

we found that an operator serving fewer than 617,000 subscribers shall

be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with

the total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed $250

million in the aggregate. 47 CFR 76.1403(b) (SIC 4833). Based on

available data, we find that the number of cable operators serving

617,000 subscribers or less totals 1,450. Although it seems certain

that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities

whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this

time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system

operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the

definition in the Communications Act.

20. Multipoint Multichannel Distribution Systems (``MMDS''): The

Commission refined the definition of ``small entity'' for the auction

of MMDS as an entity that together with its affiliates has average

gross annual revenues that are not more than $40 million for the

preceding three calendar years. 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1). This definition of

a small entity in the context of MMDS auctions has been approved by the

SBA.

21. The Commission completed its MMDS auction in March 1996 for

authorizations in 493 basic trading areas (``BTAs''). Of 67 winning

bidders, 61 qualified as small entities. Five bidders indicated that

they were minority-owned and four winners indicated that they were

women-owned businesses. MMDS is an especially competitive service, with

approximately 1,573 previously authorized and proposed MMDS facilities.

Information available to us indicates that no MMDS facility generates

revenue in excess of $11 million annually. We tentatively conclude

that, for purposes of this IRFA, there are approximately 1,634 small

MMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction

rules.

22. ITFS: There are presently 2,032 ITFS licensees. All but 100 of

these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational

institutions are included in the definition of a small business. 5

U.S.C. Sec. 601(5). However, we do not collect annual revenue data for

ITFS licensees, and are not able to ascertain how many of the 100 non-

educational licensees would be categorized as small under the SBA

definition. Thus, we tentatively conclude that at least 1,932 licensees

are small businesses.

23. Direct Broadcast Satellite (``DBS''): Because DBS provides

subscription services, DBS falls within the SBA definition of cable and

other pay television services (SIC 4841). As of December 1996, there

were eight DBS licensees. The Commission does not collect annual

revenue data for DBS, and is unable to determine with certainty the

number of small DBS licensees that could be affected by these proposed

rules. However, estimates of 1996 revenues for various DBS operators

are significantly greater than $11,000,000, and range from a low of

$31,132,000 for Alphastar to a high of $1,100,000,000 for Primestar.

Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that no DBS operator qualifies as

a small entity.

24. Home Satellite Dish (``HSD''): The market for HSD service is

difficult to quantify. Indeed, the service itself bears little

resemblance to other MVPDs. HSD owners have access to more than 265

channels of programming placed on C-band satellites by programmers for

receipt and distribution by MVPDs, of which 115 channels are scrambled

and approximately 150 are unscrambled. HSD owners can watch unscrambled

channels without paying a subscription fee. To receive scrambled

channels, however, an HSD owner must purchase an integrated receiver-

decoder from an equipment dealer and pay a subscription fee to an HSD

programming packager. Thus, HSD users include: (1) Viewers who

subscribe to a packaged programming service, which affords them access

to most of the same programming provided to subscribers of other MVPDs;

(2) viewers who receive only nonsubscription programming; and (3)

viewers who receive satellite programming services illegally without

subscribing.

25. According to the most recently available information, there are

approximately 30 program packagers nationwide offering packages of

scrambled programming to retail consumers. These program packagers

provide subscriptions to approximately 2,314,900 subscribers

nationwide. This is an average of about 77,163 subscribers per program

packager. This is substantially smaller than the 400,000 subscribers

used in the Commission's definition of a small multiple system operator

(``MSO''). Furthermore, because this is an average, it is likely that

some program packagers may be substantially smaller. We seek comment on

these tentative conclusions.

26. Open Video Systems (``OVS''): The Commission has certified nine

OVS operators. Of these nine, only two are providing service. On

October 17, 1996, Bell Atlantic received approval for its

[[Page 3074]]

certification to convert its Dover, New Jersey Video Dialtone (``VDT'')

system to OVS. Bell Atlantic subsequently purchased the division of

Futurevision which had been the only operating program package provider

on the Dover system, and has begun offering programming on this system

using these resources. Metropolitan Fiber Systems was granted

certifications on December 9, 1996, for the operation of OVS systems in

Boston and New York, both of which are being used to provide

programming. Bell Atlantic and Metropolitan Fiber Systems have

sufficient revenues to assure us that they do not qualify as small

business entities. On October 10, 1996, Digital Broadcasting Open Video

Systems received approval to offer OVS service in southern California.

Digital Broadcasting Open Video Systems is a general partnership just

beginning operations. Little financial information is available for the

other entities authorized to provide OVS that are not yet operational.

Given that other entities have been authorized to provide OVS service

but have not yet begun to generate revenues, we tentatively conclude

that at least some of the OVS operators qualify as small entities.

27. Satellite Master Antenna Television (``SMATVs''): Industry

sources estimate that approximately 5,200 SMATV operators were

providing service as of December 1995. Other estimates indicate that

SMATV operators served approximately 1.05 million residential

subscribers as of September 1996. The ten largest SMATV operators

together pass 815,740 units. If we assume that these SMATV operators

serve 50% of the units passed, the ten largest SMATV operators serve

approximately 40% of the total number of SMATV subscribers. Because

these operators are not rate regulated, they are not required to file

financial data with the Commission. Furthermore, we are not aware of

any privately published financial information regarding these

operators. Based on the estimated number of operators and the estimated

number of units served by the largest ten SMATVs, we tentatively

conclude that a substantial number of SMATV operators qualify as small

entities.

28. Local Multipoint Distribution System (``LMDS''): Unlike the

above pay television services, LMDS technology and spectrum allocation

will allow licensees to provide wireless telephony, data, and/or video

services. A LMDS provider is not limited in the number of potential

applications that will be available for this service. Therefore, the

definition of a small LMDS entity may be applicable to both cable and

other pay television (SIC 4841) and/or radiotelephone communications

companies (SIC 4812). The SBA definition for cable and other pay

services is defined in paragraph 16 supra. A small radiotelephone

entity is one with 1500 employees or less. 13 CFR 121.201. However, for

the purposes of this Further Notice, we include only an estimate of

LMDS video service providers.

29. LMDS is a service that was expected to be auctioned by the FCC

in 1997. The vast majority of LMDS entities providing video

distribution could be small businesses under the SBA's definition of

cable and pay television (SIC 4841). However, in In the Matter of

Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules to

Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5-

30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local

Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services and

Suite 12 Group Petition for Pioneer's Preference, CC Docket No. 92-297

(60 FR 43740 at para. 188, August 23, 1995), we proposed to define a

small LMDS provider as an entity that, together with affiliates and

attributable investors, has average gross revenues for the three

preceding calendar years of less than $40 million. We have not yet

received approval by the SBA for this definition.

30. There is only one company, CellularVision, that is currently

providing LMDS video services. Although the Commission does not collect

data on annual receipts, we assume that CellularVision is a small

business under both the SBA definition and our proposed auction rules.

No commenters addressed the tentative conclusions we reached in the

Further Notice. We tentatively conclude that a majority of the

potential LMDS licensees will be small entities, as that term is

defined by the SBA.

31. Small Broadcast Stations: The SBA defines small television

broadcasting stations as television broadcasting stations with $10.5

million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201.

32. Estimates Based on Census and BIA Data: According to the Bureau

of the Census, in 1992, 1,155 out of 1,478 operating television

stations reported revenues of less than $10 million for 1992. This

represents 78% of all television stations, including noncommercial

stations. The Bureau of the Census does not separate the revenue data

by commercial and noncommercial stations in this report. Neither does

it allow us to determine the number of stations with a maximum of $10.5

million in annual receipts. Census data also indicate that 81% of

operating firms (that owned at least one television station) had

revenues of less than $10 million.

33. We also have performed a separate study based on the data

contained in the BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Television

Analyzer Database, which lists a total of 1,141 full power commercial

television stations. It should be noted that, using the SBA definition

of small business concern, the percentage figures derived from the BIA

database may be underinclusive because the database does not list

revenue estimates for noncommercial educational stations, and these

therefore are excluded from our calculations based on the database. The

BIA data indicate that, based on 1995 revenue estimates, 440 full power

commercial television stations had an estimated revenue of $10.5

million or less. That represents 54% of full power commercial

television stations with revenue estimates listed in the BIA program.

The database does not list estimated revenues for 331 stations. Using a

worst case scenario, if those 331 stations for which no revenue is

listed are counted as small stations, there would be a total of 771

stations with an estimated revenue of $10.5 million or less,

representing approximately 68% of the 1,141 full power commercial

television stations listed in the BIA data base.

34. Alternatively, if we look at owners of commercial television

stations as listed in the BIA database, there are a total of 488

owners. The database lists estimated revenues for 60% of these owners,

or 295. Of these 295 owners, 156 or 53% had annual revenues of less

than $10.5 million. Using a worst case scenario, if the 193 owners for

which revenue is not listed are assumed to be small, then small

entities would constitute 72% of the total number of owners.

35. In summary, based on the foregoing worst case analysis using

Bureau of the Census data, we estimate that our proposed rules will

apply to as many as 1,150 commercial and noncommercial television

stations (78% of all stations) that could be classified as small

entities. Using a worst case analysis based on the data in the BIA data

base, we estimate that as many as 771 commercial television stations

(about 68% of all commercial television stations) could be classified

as small entities. As we noted above, these estimates are based on a

definition that we tentatively believe greatly overstates the number of

television broadcasters that are small businesses. Further, it

[[Page 3075]]

should be noted that, under the SBA's definitions, revenues of

affiliates that are not television stations should be aggregated with

the television station revenues in determining whether a concern is

small. The estimates overstate the number of small entities since the

revenue figures on which they are based do not include or aggregate

such revenues from nontelevision affiliated companies.

36. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Requirements: The

Further Notice seeks comment on whether we should require video

programming providers (including broadcast licensees and MVPDs) to

closed caption or otherwise visually display emergency programming and

similar special reports to ensure the accessibility of these types of

video programs to viewers with hearing disabilities. If this proposal

is adopted, video programming providers may choose to maintain records

of the closed captioned emergency programming carried in order to

resolve any disputes which may arise regarding compliance.

37. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With the

Commission's Proposal: None.

38. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small

Entities and Consistent With the Stated Objectives: The Closed

Captioning Order directs us to initiate proceedings to establish

captioning requirements for emergency programming. We seek comment on

proposals to promote and ensure the accessibility of emergency

programming and other special reports to persons with hearing

disabilities. We also seek comment on methods of visually displaying

emergency information to viewers other than closed captioning which may

be less costly or burdensome than captioning.

Ex Parte

39. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rule making

proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, provided they are

disclosed as provided in the Commission's Rules. See generally 47 CFR

1.1202, 1.1203 and 1.1206(a).

Comment Dates

40. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and

1.419 of the Commission's Rules, interested parties may file comments

on or before February 25, 1998 and reply comments on or before March

27, 1998. All relevant and timely comments will be considered before

final action is taken in this proceeeding. To file formally in this

proceeding, participants must file an original and four copies of all

comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If participants want

each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, an

original plus nine copies must be filed. Comments and reply comments

should be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be

available for public inspection during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239) of the Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

41. Accordingly, It is ordered that pursuant to the authority

contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 713 of the Communications Act

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 613, the Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.

42. It is further ordered that the Office of Public Affairs shall

send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with

paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96-354, 94

Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601 et seq. (1981).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 79

Closed Captioning of Video Programming.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98-1394 Filed 1-20-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P