# Closed Captioning of Video Programming

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-1394

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** January 21, 1998
- **Citation:** 63 FR 3070

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-1394. Public record. Not legal advice.