[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3070-3075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1394]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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