********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                                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