FCC 98-3

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )

)

Closed Captioning and Video )

Description )

of Video Programming ) MM Docket No. 95-176

)

Implementation of Section 305 of the )

Telecommunications Act of 1996 )

)

Video Programming Accessibility )

FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

Adopted: January 9, 1998 Released: January 14, 1998

By the Commission:

Comment Date: February 25, 1998

Reply Comment Date: March 27, 1998

Table of Contents

Paragraph

I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . 1

II\. ACCESSIBILITY OF EMERGENCY INFORMATION . 2

III\. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS . 17

I. INTRODUCTION

1\. In our 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\"), we adopted rules and timetables for the captioning of video
programming, in order to

implement Section 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
Generally, the

Closed Captioning Order requires video program providers to phase in
captioning of most video

programs over eight or ten years, depending upon the date the program
was first published or exhibited,

and specifically exempts certain types of programming from the
captioning requirements. This Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (\"Further Notice\") seeks information and
comment regarding appropriate

rules and policies to promote and to ensure the accessibility of
televised emergency information to persons

with hearing disabilities.

II\. ACCESSIBILITY OF EMERGENCY INFORMATION

2\. 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. New

programming is defined as programs first published or exhibited after
January 1, 1998. 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. 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.

3\. 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.

4\. We did not adopt specific closed captioning rules for emergency
information programs

in our Closed Captioning Order. Due to limited comments on the issue of
captioning of emergency

information, the Commission determined that further comment was
necessary to address captioning rules

for such programming. However, we stated our expectation that video
program providers will use other

methods, such as open visual scrawls, open captioning, slides, or other
methods to ensure that all of the

details of emergency information programs are fully accessible to
viewers with hearing disabilities.

5\. A few commenters in the closed captioning proceeding addressed
issues related to the

provision of closed captioning for emergency information. For example,
one commenter who has a

hearing disability noted that, without captions, viewers with hearing
disabilities often must guess at the

significance of storm alerts and instructions from emergency management
personnel. Another

commenter observed that a visually displayed message might direct the
viewer to watch a later news

report for details, but if the news is captioned using the ENR method
and the portion of the news

describing the later news report is unscripted, viewers with hearing
disabilities will not have access to

this information. Other commenters cited the importance of weather and
emergency programming for

safety and well-being, while captioning companies urged the Commission
to require real-time captioning

for late-breaking emergency news reports and emergency announcements.
They contend that ENR

captioning leaves substantial portions of the news uncaptioned and thus
inaccessible, and that the absence

of real-time captions leaves viewers with hearing disabilities with only
the most basic, brief warnings in

emergency situations.

6\. Similarly, a letter from the NorCal Center on Deafness (\"NorCal\")
raises concerns about

the inequities in accessibility of emergency information depending upon
where viewers with hearing

disabilities live. NorCal cites the failure of local television
broadcasters in the Sacramento and Stockton

areas to offer closed captioning of live field reports concerning recent
local emergencies. NorCal claims

that although the studio portions of local news reports are captioned
using ENR, most live portions of

local television reports on the 1996-97 flooding in Northern California,
a tornado alarm in the San

Joaquin Valley, and a bomb scare in the Roseville area were preceded by
a statement that \"This portion

of the news will not be closed captioned. Closed captioning will resume
later.\" NorCal notes that

viewers in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County have had
real-time closed captioning of

news programs for several years now, and that one station in San
Francisco has even provided deaf

viewers with captioned transcripts of live speeches made on the Capitol
steps in Sacramento, while local

Sacramento stations have not done so.

7\. 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.

8\. 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. 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.

9\. 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.

10\. 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?

11\. 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 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?

12\. 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.

13\. 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. 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. 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.

14\. 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.

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.

15\. 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 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.

16\. 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.

III\. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking

17\. Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(\"RFA\"), 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 FNPRM, but they must have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the

IRFA. The Secretary shall cause a copy of this FNPRM to be sent to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy

of the Small Business Administration (\"SBA\") in accordance with
Section 603(a) of the RFA.

18\. 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 FNPRM,
we seek comment on appropriate

requirements for promoting and ensuring the accessibility of emergency
programming to viewers with

hearing disabilities.

19\. Legal Basis: This FNPRM is adopted pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j)
and 713 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j),
613.

20\. 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. 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.

21\. 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. 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.

22\. 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. 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 FNPRM.

23\. 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.\" 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. 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.

24\. 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.

This definition of a small entity in the context of MMDS auctions has
been approved by the SBA.

25\. 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.

26\. 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.

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.

27\. 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.

28\. 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.

29\. 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 an average, it is likely that some program
packagers may be substantially

smaller. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.

30\. 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 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.

31\. 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.

32\. 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. However, for
the purposes of this FNPRM,

we include only an estimate of LMDS video service providers.

33\. LMDS is a service that is 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 the Third
NPRM, 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.

34\. 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 Notice.
We tentatively conclude that

a majority of the potential LMDS licensees will be small entities, as
that term is defined by the SBA.

35\. Small Broadcast Stations: The SBA defines small television
broadcasting stations as

television broadcasting stations with \$10.5 million or less in annual
receipts.

36\. 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.

37\. 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.

38\. 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.

39\. 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
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.

40\. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Compliance Requirements: The FNPRM
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.

41\. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With the
Commission\'s Proposal:

None.

42\. 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.

B. Procedural Provisions

43\. Ex Parte Rules - Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding. This is a
permit-but-disclose notice

and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted,
except during the Sunshine

Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the
Commission\'s rules.

44\. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 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. To file formally in this
proceeding, you must file an original

plus six copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting
comments. If you would like each

Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments and reply
comments, you must file an

original plus 11 copies. We also encourage commenters to include a
computer disk copy of their

comments with their official filings whenever possible, as this will
allow the comments to be easily

transferred to the Commission\'s Internet site. You should send comments
and reply comments to the

Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M
Street, N.W. Washington, D.C.

20554\. Comments and reply comments will be available for public
inspection during regular business

hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room 239, Federal Communications
Commission, 1919 M Street

N.W., Washington D.C. 20554.

D. Ordering Clauses

45\. 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.

46\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary 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. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et
seq. (1981).

47\. For further information, contact Alexis Johns, Policy and Rules
Division, Cable Services

Bureau, at (202) 418-7200, TTY (202) 418-7172.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary