[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 8, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66951-66960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28610]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 00-167; FCC 00-344]


Children's Television; Obligations of Digital Television 
Broadcasters

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document seeks comment on a range of issues related to 
application of our existing children's programming rules to digital 
broadcasting. This document focuses primarily on two areas: the 
obligation of commercial television broadcast licensees to provide 
educational and informational programming for children and the 
requirement that television broadcast licensees limit the amount of 
advertising in children's programs.
    In addition, this document seeks comment on how to address the 
issue of the airing in programs viewed by children promotions that may 
be inappropriate for children to watch. Although this document seeks 
comment largely on challenges unique to the digital area, it also 
discusses several issues that apply equally to analog and digital 
broadcasting.

DATES: Comments are due on or before December 18, 2000; reply comments 
are due on or before January 17, 2001. Written comments by the public 
on the proposed information collections are due December 18, 2000. 
Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collection(s) on or before 
January 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this proposed rule to the 
Commission's Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with 
the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections 
contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal 
Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to 
Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Matthews, Policy and Rules 
Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2130. For additional information 
concerning the information collection(s) contained in this document, 
contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214, or via the Internet at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (``NPRM''), MM 00-167; FCC 00-344 adopted September 14, 
2000; released October 5, 2000. The full text of the Commission's NPRM 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Dockets Branch (Room TW-A306), 445 12 St. SW., Washington, DC. 
The complete text of this NPRM may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services 
(202) 857-3800, 1231 20th St., NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This NPRM contains a proposed new or modified information 
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection(s) 
contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same 
time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days from 
date of publication of this NPRM in the Federal Register.
    Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.
    Title: NPRM--Children's Television Obligations of Digital 
Television Broadcasters.
    Form No: FCC Form 398.
    Type of Review: Revision of Existing Collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents for FCC 398: 1,250.
    Number of Respondents for Section 73.673: 1,225.
    Estimated Time Per Response for FCC 398: 6 hours.
    Estimated Time Per Response for Section 73.673: 1 minute per 
program and 6 minutes per program to publishers of program guides.
    Total Annual Burden: 68,219 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: $489,600.
    The estimated time, burden and costs are based upon the existing 
burdens for the FCC 398 (3060-0754) and Section 73.673 (3060-0750). 
This burden in those collections could increase depending on what 
requirements are ultimately adopted.
    Needs and Uses: This NPRM invites comments on how the existing 
children's educational television programming obligations and 
limitations should be interpreted and adapted to apply to digital 
broadcasters in light of the new capabilities made possible by that 
technology. This NPRM also seeks comments on what steps the FCC might 
take to increase public awareness of the availability of core 
programming and how to locate it. The current obligations consist of 
the FCC 398 which is required to be filed by commercial television 
broadcast stations each quarter.
    This form is used to provide information on the efforts of 
commercial television stations to provide children's educational and 
informational programs aired to meet its obligation under the 
Children's Television Act of 1990 (CTA). The FCC 398 assists in efforts 
by the public and the Commission to monitor station compliance with the 
CTA.
    In addition, Section 73.673 requires commercial TV broadcasters to 
identify programs specifically designed to educate and inform children 
at the beginning of the program and to provide information identifying 
such programs and the age groups for which they are intended to 
publishers of program guides. Depending on what requirements are 
ultimately adopted, there may be an increase in the burden for these 
collections.

[[Page 66952]]

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

    1. We issue this NPRM to seek comment on a range of issues related 
to the obligation of digital television (``DTV'') broadcasters to serve 
children. We focus in this proceeding primarily on two areas: the 
obligation of television broadcast licensees to provide educational and 
informational programming for children and the requirement that 
television broadcast licensees limit the amount of advertising in 
children's programs. Although we seek comment largely on challenges 
unique to the digital area, we also explore several issues that 
children's advocates have raised about children's educational and 
informational programming more generally.

II. Background

    2. American children spend a considerable amount of time watching 
television. Recent data show that children in this country spend, on 
average, almost three hours a day watching television. In view of the 
significant role that television plays in the lives of children, this 
medium has great potential to contribute to children's development. As 
Congress has stated, ``[i]t is difficult to think of an interest more 
substantial than the promotion of the welfare of children who watch so 
much television and rely upon it for so much of the information they 
receive.''
    3. For over 30 years, the Commission has recognized that, as part 
of their obligation as trustees of the public's airwaves, broadcasters 
must provide programming that serves the special needs of children. The 
Commission's efforts to promote programming for children began in 1960 
with the statement that children were one of the several groups whose 
programming needs television licensees must meet to fulfill their 
community public interest responsibilities. In 1974, the Commission 
instituted a wide ranging inquiry into children's programming and 
advertising practices, which led to publication of the Children's 
Television Report and Policy Statement (``1974 Policy Statement'').
    The Commission concluded that broadcasters have ``a special 
obligation'' to serve children and stated its expectation that 
licensees would increase the number of programs aimed at children in 
specific age groups. The Commission also concluded that children are 
more ``trusting and vulnerable to commercial `pitches' than adults'' 
and that children ``cannot distinguish conceptually between programming 
and advertising.'' The Commission stated its expectation that the 
industry would eliminate ``host selling'' and product ``tie-ins,'' use 
separation between programs and commercials during children's 
programming, and honor the industry's voluntary advertising guidelines 
for children's programs.
    4. Later in the 1970s, the Commission undertook further study of 
the availability of educational programming for children. Finding that 
the industry had failed to respond to its earlier call for 
improvements, the Commission considered formal regulation. In 1984, 
however, the Commission decided not to establish quantitative program 
requirements for broadcasters, relying instead on market forces to 
ensure a sufficient supply of educational programming for children.
    Following this decision, the amount of children's educational 
programming aired by commercial television stations decreased markedly. 
Also in 1984, the Commission repealed the commercial guidelines for 
children's programming, leading to an increase in the amount of 
commercial matter broadcast during children's programming.
    5. In 1990, Congress enacted the Children's Television Act of 1990 
(``CTA''). The CTA imposes two principal requirements. First, 
commercial television broadcast licensees and cable operators must 
limit the amount of commercial matter that may be aired during 
children's programs to not more than 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends 
and not more than 12 minutes per hour on weekdays.
    Second, the CTA requires that, in its review of television 
broadcast renewal applications, the Commission must consider whether 
commercial television licensees have complied with the 
commercialization limits, and whether all television broadcast 
licensees have served ``the educational and informational needs of 
children through the licensee's overall programming, including 
programming specifically designed to serve such needs.'' In enacting 
the CTA, Congress found that, while television can benefit society by 
helping to educate and inform children, there are significant market 
disincentives for commercial broadcasters to air children's educational 
and informational programming. The objective of Congress in enacting 
the CTA was to increase the amount of educational and informational 
programming on television.
    6. The Commission first promulgated rules implementing the CTA in 
1991. The Commission determined that the statutory children's 
programming commercial limits would apply to programs originally 
produced and broadcast for an audience of children 12 years old and 
under. Commercial matter was defined as ``air time sold for purposes of 
selling a product.'' In other words, the advertiser must give some 
valuable consideration either directly or indirectly to the broadcaster 
as an inducement for airing the material.
    The Commission also reaffirmed and clarified its long-standing 
policy that a program associated with a product, in which commercials 
for that product are aired, would cause the entire program to be 
counted as commercial time (a ``program-length commercial''). 
Television licensees are required to certify their compliance with the 
commercial limits as part of their license renewal application, and 
must maintain records sufficient to permit substantiation of the 
certification.
    7. In August 1996, the Commission adopted its current educational 
programming rules enforcing the CTA. (See Policies and Rules Concerning 
Children's Television Programming, 61 FR 43981, August 27, 1996). The 
Commission's rules include several measures to improve public access to 
information about the availability of programming ``specifically 
designed'' to serve children's educational and informational needs 
(otherwise known as ``core'' programming).
    These measures include a requirement that licensees identify core 
programming at the time it is aired and in information provided to 
publishers of television programming guides. Licensees are required to 
designate a children's liaison at the station responsible for 
collecting comments on the station's compliance with the CTA. Licensees 
must also prepare and place in their public inspection files a 
quarterly Children's Television Programming Report identifying their 
core programming and other efforts to comply with their educational 
programming obligations.
    8. In addition, our rules establish a definition of ``core'' 
programming. ``Core'' programming is defined as regularly scheduled, 
weekly programming of at least 30 minutes, aired between 7:00 a.m. and 
10:00 p.m., that has serving the educational and informational needs of 
children ages 16 and under as a significant purpose. The program must 
be identified as core programming when it is aired and in information 
provided to program guide publishers.

[[Page 66953]]

    9. Finally, to provide certainty to broadcasters about how to 
comply with the CTA and to facilitate fair and efficient processing of 
the CTA portion of broadcasters' renewal applications, the Commission 
also adopted a processing guideline. Under this guideline, a 
broadcaster can receive staff-level approval of the CTA portion of its 
renewal application by airing at least three hours per week of 
programming that meets the definition of ``core'' educational 
programming.
    Alternatively, a broadcaster can receive staff-level renewal by 
showing that it has aired a package of different types of educational 
and informational programming that, while containing somewhat less than 
three hours per week of core programming, demonstrates a level of 
commitment to educating and informing children that is at least 
equivalent to airing three hours per week of core programming. 
Licensees not meeting these criteria will have their license renewal 
applications referred to the Commission.
    10. We seek comment today on how these existing children's 
television obligations, developed with analog technology in mind, 
should be adapted to apply to digital television broadcasting. Digital 
television is a new technology for transmitting and receiving broadcast 
television signals that delivers better pictures and sound, uses the 
broadcast spectrum more efficiently, and offers a range of possible 
applications. DTV broadcasters will have the technical capability and 
regulatory flexibility to: Air high definition TV (HDTV); 
``multicast,'' that is, to send as many as 4-6 digital ``standard-
definition television'' (SDTV) signals; or provide ``ancillary or 
supplementary services,'' including video and data services that are 
potentially revenue-producing, such as subscription television, 
computer software distribution, data transmissions, teletext, 
interactive services, and ``time-shifted'' video programming. 
Broadcasters could choose to shift back and forth among these different 
DTV modes--HDTV, SDTV, and new video/information services--during a 
single programming day. To facilitate the transition from analog to 
digital television, Congress directed the Commission to grant a second 
channel for each full-service television licensee in the country to be 
used for digital broadcasting during the period of conversion to an 
all-digital broadcast service.
    11. In December 1999, we released a Notice of Inquiry (``NOI''), 65 
FR 4211, January 26, 2000, to commence collecting views on how the 
public interest obligations of television broadcasters should change in 
the digital era. As we observed in the NOI, both Congress and the 
Commission have recognized that digital television broadcasters have an 
obligation to serve the public interest. Congress stated in section 336 
of the Communications Act that ``[n]othing in this section shall be 
construed as relieving a television broadcasting station from its 
obligation to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.''
    In implementing section 336, the Commission required that 
broadcasters air a ``free digital video programming service the 
resolution of which is comparable to or better than that of today's 
service, and aired during the same time period that their analog 
channel is broadcasting.'' The Commission also reaffirmed that 
``digital broadcasters remain public trustees with a responsibility to 
serve the public interest,'' and stated that ``existing public interest 
requirements continue to apply to all broadcast licensees.''
    12. We recognize that the CTA is written broadly to apply to 
television broadcast licensees and that there is nothing in the CTA 
itself, nor the legislative history, to suggest that the statutory 
requirement, or the regulations promulgated thereunder, should be 
limited to analog broadcasters. Indeed, the objectives of the CTA--
e.g., to increase the amount of educational and information broadcast 
television programming available to children and to protect children 
from overcommercialization of programming--would apply equally to the 
digital broadcasting context.
    Given this, and in light of explicit congressional intent expressed 
in section 336 to continue to require digital broadcasters to serve the 
public interest, we conclude that digital broadcasters are subject to 
all of the CTA's commercial limits and educational and informational 
programming requirements. Digital broadcasters must also continue to 
comply with our policies regarding program-commercial separation, host 
selling, and program-length commercials. The purpose of this proceeding 
is to determine how these requirements should be interpreted and 
adapted with respect to digital broadcasting in light of the new 
capabilities made possible by that technology.
    13. We request comment herein on a variety of issues related to 
application of our existing children's programming rules to digital 
broadcasting. We also invite comment on a number of specific proposals 
offered by commenters responding to the NOI, and on some of the views 
expressed by the President's Advisory Committee on the Public Interest 
Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters (``Advisory 
Committee'').
    As we indicated in the NOI, the Advisory Committee, representing a 
broad cross-section of interests from industry, academia, and public 
interest organizations, submitted a report in 1998 containing 
recommendations on the public interest obligations digital television 
broadcasters should assume. Although the Advisory Committee focused on 
many issues beyond the scope of this proceeding, we will discuss some 
of the recommendations of the committee and of individual participants 
that relate to children's television.

III. Issues and Request for Comment

A. Educational and Informational Programming
    14. Background. One of the questions we posed in the NOI is how 
public interest obligations generally, including the obligation to 
provide children's educational and informational programming, apply to 
a DTV broadcaster that chooses to multicast. We also asked how we 
should take into account the fact that DTV broadcasters have the 
flexibility to vary the amount and quality of broadcast programming 
they offer throughout the day. For example, a broadcaster could air 4 
SDTV channels from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., switch to two higher definition 
channels from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m., and finish with one HDTV channel for 
prime-time and late-night programming.
    Different broadcasters are likely to provide a different overall 
combination of broadcast hours and quality. We also note that DTV 
broadcasters may choose to devote a portion of their spectrum to either 
non-video services, such as datacasting, or to subscription broadcast 
services available only to viewers who pay a fee, consistent with the 
requirement that they provide at least one free, over-the-air video 
program service to viewers.
    15. Discussion. Our current three-hour children's core educational 
programming processing guideline applies to DTV broadcasters. We invite 
comment, however, on how the guideline should be applied in light of 
the myriad of possible ways that broadcasters may choose to use their 
DTV spectrum.
    Should the processing guideline apply to only one digital 
broadcasting program stream, to more than one program stream, or to all 
program streams the broadcaster chooses to

[[Page 66954]]

provide? Should the guideline apply only to free broadcast services, or 
also to services offered for a fee? In this regard, we note that the 
CTA requires that television broadcast licensees serve the educational 
and informational needs of children ``through the licensee's overall 
programming, including programming specifically designed to serve such 
needs.'' How should we interpret this phrase in terms of digital 
broadcasters' requirement to provide educational programming?
    16. We also ask how the existing three-hour guideline would be best 
applied in the digital context. Commenters responding to questions 
posed in the NOI offer a number of suggestions as to how the processing 
guideline could be adapted to apply in a multicast environment. We 
welcome comment on these specific proposals, outlined, as well as other 
suggestions for ways our guideline should be interpreted and adapted 
with respect to digital broadcasting. We also seek comment on when any 
new requirements that relate to digital broadcasting should become 
effective.
    17. Proportional Hours. One approach, suggested by Children Now and 
People for Better TV, is that each digital television broadcaster be 
required to provide an amount of weekly core programming that is 
proportional to the three hour per week quantitative guideline. 
Specifically, these commenters propose that DTV broadcasters be 
required to devote three percent of their programmable broadcast hours 
per week to core educational programming.
    This three percent figure is derived by dividing the current 3 hour 
guideline by 105, or the total number of hours/week available for core 
programming during the 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. broadcast window (15 hours/day 
times 7 days/week equals 105 hours/week). Under this approach, to 
derive their quantitative core programming obligation, broadcasters 
would calculate their total digital broadcast hours per week, multiply 
that total by 3 percent, and round up to the closest five-tenths as 
half-hour segments are the smallest unit for programming under the 
definition of core programming. Broadcasters would be required to 
report this calculation in their quarterly Children's Television 
Programming Reports, which would determine the broadcaster's core 
programming obligation for the following quarter.
    18. In light of the range of possible technical qualities available 
with DTV technology, from SDTV to HDTV with different datacasting and 
interactive capabilities included, we also invite comment on whether we 
should require broadcasters to provide core educational programming in 
a certain technical format. One approach would be to require 
broadcasters to use for core programming a technical format that is 
consistent with the overall quality of the broadcaster's other 
programming. Our concern in this regard is to ensure that broadcasters 
not segregate core programming consistently to the lowest possible 
audio/visual quality offered by the broadcaster.
    19. The Children Now proportional hours proposal raises a number of 
questions. If we were to impose a 3 percent core programming 
obligation, what kind of programming should be included for purposes of 
calculating the overall number of hours of core programming a DTV 
broadcaster would be required to provide? Should the percent 
requirement apply only to free video programming (e.g., 3 percent of 
all free video programming must be core), or should the percent also 
apply to datacasting (e.g., 3 percent of all free video programming and 
datacasting must be core)? Should subscription programming be included 
in the calculation? Should the 3 percent figure apply to a DTV 
broadcasters' total amount of programming, or to each programming 
stream?
    In addition, how should we address how core programming should be 
distributed on the broadcaster's channels? Should we require 
broadcasters to air their core programming on their ``primary'' 
channel, or allow them the flexibility to decide how that programming 
should be distributed over their various program streams? We invite 
comment on the proportional hours proposal and on these related issues.
    20. Pay or Play. Children Now also suggests that, as a corollary to 
their proportional hours proposal, the Commission could adopt a ``Pay 
or Play'' model to allow digital broadcasters maximum flexibility in 
meeting their core programming obligation. Under this approach, once 
the core programming obligation is quantified, broadcasters would have 
the choice of meeting these obligations either through their own 
programming or by paying other networks or channels to air these hours 
for them, or a combination of both. Children Now points out that this 
model could promote partnerships among commercial broadcasters or among 
commercial and non-commercial broadcasters in a given market, and could 
provide much needed support to public broadcasters who have a strong 
commitment to core programming.
    Children Now also notes, however, that, under such a model, 
children's programming could be limited to public broadcasting or to 
less popular commercial stations, resulting in less exposure to such 
programming for children. Another concern is that commercial 
broadcasters may not pay public broadcasters or less successful 
commercial broadcasters enough to fund high quality children's 
programming which could, in the end, result in an overall reduction in 
the quality of core programs. We note that the Commission's rules 
currently allow broadcasters, under certain conditions, to meet their 
CTA obligation by sponsoring core programs aired on another station in 
the same market. We invite comment on the ``Pay or Play'' approach and 
the advantages and disadvantages of adopting such a model for 
educational programming.
    21. Menu Approach. The Center for Media Education, filing jointly 
with nine other individuals and public interest organizations 
(collectively referred to herein as ``CME et al.''), urges the 
Commission to adopt children's guidelines that impose additional 
obligations on broadcasters, but provide them with flexibility in 
meeting these obligations. CME et al. argues that the current amount of 
three hours-per-week of core programming is insufficient in light of 
the added capacity multicasting offers.
    Specifically, CME et al. proposes that digital broadcasters have 
the option of satisfying their children's programming obligation by 
providing, at their option, some combination of the following: (1) 
Additional ``core'' educational and informational programming; (2) 
broadband or datacasting services to local schools, libraries, or 
community centers that serve children; or (3) support for the 
production of children's educational programming by local public 
stations or other noncommercial program producers, such as the National 
Endowment for Children's Programming. CME et al. points out that public 
television stations could use additional funding to create new 
children's educational programs that take advantage of DTV's enhanced 
capabilities. CME et al. would not require that DTV broadcasters air 
core programs on each of their program streams, but instead would 
permit the creation of specialized channels where core programming 
could be more easily located by children and parents.
    22. We invite comment on the CME et al. proposal and, more 
generally, on the concept of offering broadcasters a choice of ways 
they can meet their obligation under the CTA. If we were to adopt a

[[Page 66955]]

menu approach, are there other types of obligations, apart from those 
suggested by CME et al., that we should allow broadcasters to choose 
from? One option would be to allow broadcasters to undertake additional 
outreach efforts to make parents and others aware of the availability 
of core programs and how to identify and locate them. If we were to 
include this as an option in a menu approach, what kind of outreach 
efforts should we require?
    23. Daily Core Programming Obligation. The Advisory Committee 
Report describes another approach regarding the obligation of digital 
broadcasters to air children's programming that would require digital 
broadcasters to air no less than 1 hour of children's educational 
programming each day on the broadcaster's main channel. We invite 
comment generally on this proposal.
    24. Other Digital Improvements. Finally, we ask commenters to 
address whether the advanced capabilities of digital broadcasting can 
be used in other ways to help implement the CTA. One approach would be 
to require broadcasters to use datacasting to make available during a 
core program information explaining why the program is considered to 
qualify as ``core.''
    Another option would be to require broadcasters to provide 
additional content ratings information on core programs from 
independent sources, such as public interest groups that rate 
educational children's programming. Such information could be provided 
through a direct link to the internet where the content ratings 
information could be accessed. We seek comment on these proposals, as 
well as other suggestions for how digital capacity could be used to 
help improve our existing children's programming requirements.
B. Preemption
    25. Background. Related to the issue of how the children's 
educational and informational programming obligation will apply in the 
digital age is the issue of how we will treat preemptions of core 
programs by DTV broadcasters. To qualify as ``core programming'' for 
purposes of the three-hour-per-week processing guideline, the 
Commission requires that a children's program be ``regularly 
scheduled,'' that is, a core children's program must ``be scheduled to 
air at least once a week'' and ``must air on a regular basis.''
    In adopting its current educational programming rules, the 
Commission stated that television series typically air in the same time 
slot for 13 consecutive weeks, although some episodes may be preempted 
for programs such as breaking news or live sports events. The 
Commission noted that programming that is aired on a regular basis is 
more easily anticipated and located by viewers, and can build loyalty 
that will improve its chance for commercial success. The Commission 
stated that it would leave to the staff to determine, with guidance 
from the full Commission as necessary, what constitutes regularly 
scheduled programming and what level of preemption is allowable.
    26. Since the adoption of the Children's Programming Report and 
Order (``R&O''), 61 FR 43981, August 27, 1996, the ABC, CBS, and NBC 
networks have requested flexibility to reschedule episodes of core 
programs that are preempted by live network sports events without 
adversely affecting the program's status as ``regularly scheduled.'' 
Separate requests have been made in connection with each of the 1997-
98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000 television seasons. For two of these 
seasons, the Mass Media Bureau has allowed the networks limited 
flexibility in preempting core children's programming.
    Specifically, within certain limitations, the Bureau advised that 
preempted core programs could count toward a station's core programming 
obligation if the program were rescheduled. The Bureau also indicated 
that it would revisit this limited flexibility regarding preempted core 
programming based on the level of preempted programs, the rescheduling 
and broadcast of the preempted programs, the impact of promotions and 
other steps taken by the stations to make children's educational 
programming a success.
    27. The Commission requires licensees, in their quarterly 
Children's Television Programming Reports, to identify for each core 
program the number of times the program was preempted and rescheduled. 
In another R&O adopted today, the Commission revised its quarterly 
Children's Television Programming Report to make the preemption 
information in that report clearer and to collect information on the 
reason for each preemption as well as the licensee's efforts to promote 
the rescheduled program. The purpose of these changes is to collect 
more complete data regarding the level of preemption of core programs 
and station practices in rescheduling these programs. This data will in 
turn allow the FCC and others to better monitor the impact of 
preemptions on the availability of core programs.
    28. Discussion. As noted, the Commission required that programming 
must be ``regularly scheduled'' to qualify under the three-hour 
guideline. This requirement was based on the fact that programming that 
is aired on a regular basis is more easily anticipated and located by 
viewers, and therefore more likely to be seen by its intended audience. 
Although acknowledging that preemption might occur, the Commission 
expected that preemption of core programming would be rare. The Mass 
Media Bureau staff has recently reviewed a random sample of the 
Children's Television Programming Reports, and determined that the 
average preemption rate by stations affiliated with the largest 
networks during the past two years is nearly 10%, and has been as high 
as 25% during a quarter when a network had a large number of sports 
programming commitments.
    Given this level of preemption, we believe we should consider 
whether we should adopt another approach to preemptions in the digital 
context to ensure that our preemption policy does not thwart the goals 
of the CTA. DTV broadcasters will have the option of airing multiple 
streams of programming simultaneously, thus increasing their 
flexibility to either avoid preempting core programs or to reschedule 
such programs to a regular ``second home.'' Given this capability, are 
there ways in which the Commission could revise its preemption policies 
to simplify or eliminate the need for networks to seek approval of 
their planned preemption and rescheduling practices for each television 
season, and to streamline licensees' recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements?
    One approach would be to fashion a rule that would provide clear 
guidance to digital broadcasters on the meaning of the requirement that 
a ``core'' program be ``regularly scheduled.'' Such a rule could cover 
the number of times a core program could be preempted and still count 
toward the three-hour-per-week processing guideline, and/or the efforts 
that must be made to reschedule and promote preempted programs in order 
for these programs to contribute toward the core programming guideline. 
If we were to adopt such a rule, should we continue to exempt from the 
requirement that core programs be rescheduled core programs preempted 
for breaking news?
    We request comment generally on all of these issues, and on how we 
could refine and clarify our definition of ``regularly scheduled'' to 
address the issue of preempted core programs in the digital age. We 
also ask commenters to

[[Page 66956]]

address specifically the kind of rescheduling practices and promotion 
of rescheduled programs that we could require from digital broadcasters 
consistent with our goal of ensuring that viewers can anticipate and 
locate the rescheduled program.
    For example, should a station be allowed to shift a preempted core 
program to another digital program stream? If so, should we require 
that the substitute program stream be of the same technical quality as 
the stream on which the program is regularly scheduled? Should we 
permit a preempted program to be shifted from a free to a pay program 
stream?
C. Commercial Limits
    29. Background. Another issue posed by the transition from analog 
to digital broadcasting is how the Commission's children's programming 
advertising limits and policies will apply to DTV broadcasters. By 
converging internet capabilities with broadcasting, digital television 
permits a new level of interactivity between broadcasters, advertisers, 
and viewers. This capability offers great potential for enhancing the 
educational value of children's programs by, for example, permitting 
children to click on icons that appear on the screen during the program 
which take them to websites with more in-depth information about the 
topics covered in the program.
    However, the interactive capabilities of DTV also allow for the 
direct sale of goods and services over the television. This capability 
presents marketers with new opportunities to reach children, which 
raises concerns in light of the difficulty young children have in 
distinguishing commercials from programming and the particular 
vulnerability of children to advertising.
    30. Discussion: Application of Existing Commercial Limits Rules and 
Policies to DTV. We seek comment both on how the limits on the amount 
of commercial matter in children's programming should apply in this 
digital environment and how we should interpret with respect to DTV 
broadcasters the policies set forth in the 1974 Policy Statement on 
children's programming. One question that arises is whether children's 
advertising limits and policies should apply only to free over-the-air 
channels, or to all digital channels both free and pay? We raised this 
issue in our NOI, where we asked whether a licensee's public interest 
obligations apply to its ancillary and supplementary services, and 
asked commenters to address the relevance of section 336 in this 
regard.
    31. CME et al. expresses the view that the existing advertising 
restrictions, including the separations, host-selling, and program-
length commercial policies, should apply to all digital programs 
directed to children ages 12 and under, regardless of the program 
stream on which they are offered. Thus, CME et al. argues that these 
policies should apply when children are watching video programs, 
regardless of whether the channel is free or pay. We request comment on 
this view.
    32. In addition, CME et al. proposes that the Commission prohibit 
all direct links to commercial websites during children's programming. 
We invite comment on this proposal. Should the Commission prohibit the 
use of digital television interactivity capability in children's 
programs to sell products? Is such a prohibition appropriate in light 
of the unique ability of children to be influenced by commercial matter 
and their difficulty distinguishing commercials from other programming? 
If commercial links are freely available in programs not subject to our 
commercial limits (e.g., programs directed at adults and children over 
the age of 12), would prohibiting them or restricting them in 
programming directed to children ages 12 and under make this 
programming less desirable and thus less likely to be selected by 
children?
    Should we make a distinction between websites that carry only 
commercial products, and websites that also offer educational 
information related to the program? If we permit certain kinds of 
direct commercial links during children's programs, should such links 
be permitted to appear during the program itself, or be limited to 
appearing during commercials adequately separated from program material 
as required by our separations policy? In addition, if we were to allow 
the use of direct commercial links, should we limit the duration of 
time they appear on the screen? How should the appearance of a 
commercial link be counted in calculating the number of commercial 
minutes for purposes of our commercial limits?
    Finally, if we allow certain kinds of direct commercial links, 
should we prohibit links to websites that sell products associated with 
the program in which the links appear under our program-length 
commercial policy, or links to websites where the program host is used 
to sell products? We invite commenters to address all of these issues, 
as well as any other issues related to the use of direct website links 
during children's programming.
    33. Definition of Commercial Matter. We also invite commenters to 
address a broader question related to our restriction on the duration 
of advertising during children's programming. This is an issue that 
arises with respect to both analog and digital broadcasting. Under our 
current policy, the limitation of 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends and 
12 minutes per hour on weekdays applies to ``commercial matter.'' 
``Commercial matter'' is defined to exclude certain types of program 
interruptions from counting toward the commercial limits, including 
promotions of upcoming programs that do not contain sponsor-related 
mentions, public service messages promoting not-for-profit activities, 
and air-time sold for purposes of presenting educational and 
informational material.
    We have observed that there is a significant amount of time devoted 
to these types of announcements in children's programming. As a result, 
the amount of time devoted to actual program material is often far less 
than the limitation on the duration of commercial matter alone might 
suggest. For example, in an hour-long weekend program, only 10.5 
minutes may be devoted to commercial matter, leaving 49.5 minutes for 
actual program material. In fact, however, many programs contain far 
less than this amount of actual program time as a result of numerous 
other interruptions that do not count toward the commercial limit 
restriction.
    34. We invite comment on whether the Commission should revise its 
definition of ``commercial matter'' to include some or all of these 
types of program interruptions that do not currently contribute toward 
the commercial limits. We note that some of the types of program 
interruptions currently excluded from the commercial limits may contain 
information valuable to children, such as promotion of upcoming 
educational programs or certain types of public service messages. 
Should we require that the time devoted to these announcements 
nonetheless count toward the commercial limits to maximize the amount 
of time devoted to program material and reduce the time taken by 
interruptions? This might prove especially beneficial for educational 
and informational programs, where it would increase the amount of time 
available for delivering educational messages. The issue of the total 
time taken by program interruptions in children's programs arises in 
both the analog and digital world. If we were to revise our definition, 
is there any reason to apply

[[Page 66957]]

the new definition only to digital broadcasting?
    Finally, we ask commenters to address whether our ability to revise 
this definition is restricted by the CTA and its legislative history. 
The CTA itself does not define the phrases ``commercial matter'' or 
``advertising.'' Both the House and Senate Reports state that ``[t]he 
Committee intends that the definition of `commercial matter' . . . be 
consistent with the definition used by the Commission in its Former FCC 
Form 303.'' We seek comment on whether we must apply the definition of 
``commercial matter'' in the way defined on former FCC Form 303 for 
purposes of administering the CTA.
D. Promotions
    35. Background. Another issue we raised in the NOI relates to the 
airing, in programs viewed by children, of promotions for other 
upcoming programs that may be unsuitable for children to watch because 
either the promotions themselves or the programs they refer to contain 
sexual or violent content or inappropriate language. This is another 
issue that arises with respect to both analog and digital broadcasting. 
The Commission staff has received many informal complaints from members 
of the public and children's advocates about inappropriate promotions 
in programs viewed by children.
    We asked in the NOI whether the ratings of programs promoted by 
broadcasters should be consistent with the ratings of the program 
during which the promotions run. We note that the broadcast, cable, and 
motion picture industries have voluntarily agreed to rate video 
programming that contains sexual, violent, or other indecent material 
and to broadcast signals containing these ratings so that these 
programs can be screened by ``V-Chip'' technology available in 
television sets. The ratings identify the age group for which a 
particular program is appropriate and when the program contains 
violence, sexual content, or suggestive or coarse language.
    36. Discussion. We again invite commenters to address this issue. 
Are there steps the FCC can take to ensure that programs designed for 
children or families do not contain promotions for broadcast, cable or 
theater movies or other age-inappropriate product promotions that are 
unsuitable for children to watch?
    One option would be to require that promotions themselves be rated 
and encoded so they can be screened by V-Chip technology. Yet another 
option would be to require that promotions be rated and that programs 
with a significant child audience contain only promotions consistent 
with the rating of the program in which they appear. We invite comment 
on these and other approaches that might be used to address this issue.
    37. We recognize that the current ratings system was adopted by the 
broadcast, cable, and motion picture industries voluntarily, and was 
found acceptable by the Commission. Would it be preferable to urge the 
industry itself to make a voluntarily commitment to take steps to 
protect against the airing of inappropriate promotions in children's 
programs?
    As we noted, the issue of inappropriate promotions in children's 
programming arises with respect to both analog and digital programming. 
If we were to take steps to address this issue, should these steps be 
limited to digital broadcasting or should they apply to analog 
broadcasting as well? Does DTV technology offer any additional 
capability that could be used to address this issue in digital 
broadcasting?
E. Other Steps To Improve Educational Programming
    38. We seek further information on children's television viewing 
habits, and in particular empirical evidence concerning the extent to 
which they watch designated educational and informational programming. 
We note that the Annenberg Public Policy Center has annually evaluated 
the educational and informational programming provided by networks and 
certain individual stations. We seek further information including the 
audience share of such programs and, in particular, the audience share 
of educational and informational programming contrasted with that of 
other programming for children.
    We additionally seek information on stations' and networks' efforts 
to promote educational and informational programming to children and 
parents. Are stations promoting this programming? How and where? Is the 
programming being promoted during network prime time programming? 
During children's programming? Is the promotion effective?
    Studies of the effectiveness of the three-hour-per-week processing 
guideline show that parents continue to be unaware of the availability 
of educational programming and continue to fail to identify core 
programs. We invite commenters to address what steps the FCC might take 
to increase public awareness of the availability of core programming 
and how to locate it. Should the FCC require that broadcasters promote 
core programs? If so, what kind of requirement should we impose? Should 
we require promotion during prime time or other specific day parts? 
Should we require stations to air PSAs about the value of educational 
programming and the meaning of the E/I icon? Are there other steps we 
could take apart from establishing a rule for promotions and PSAs?
    Should the FCC itself undertake promotional efforts to highlight 
and publicize core educational programming? Apart from the issue of 
public awareness, are there other steps the FCC could take to improve 
the quality of educational programming? We invite comment on all of 
these questions and welcome other suggestions for ways to improve both 
the quality and public awareness of educational and informational 
children's programming.

IV. Conclusion

    39. We institute this proceeding to examine how our existing 
children's educational programming rules and our preemption policies 
should be adapted to apply to digital broadcasters. Our goal is to 
ensure that, as we transition from analog to digital television, 
children and parents continue to have access, as Congress intended, to 
an ample supply of educational and informational programming 
specifically designed for children. We also seek comment on how the 
current limitations on advertising in children's programming should be 
applied to DTV broadcasters in light of the new capabilities offered by 
digital technology. Our objective in this effort is to ensure that 
children continue to be protected from overcommercialization on 
television.
    Finally, we raise a number of issues related to the definition of 
``commercial matter'' for purposes of the commercial limits for 
children's programs, promotions of programs for more mature audiences 
aired during children's programs, and other steps the Commission could 
take to help improve the availability of educational and informational 
programming. These latter issues arise in both the analog and digital 
worlds. We seek comment on all of the issues we have raised herein, and 
welcome other ideas commenters may have to achieve our objectives.

V. Administrative Matters

    40. Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 
parties may file comments on or before December 18, 2000 and reply 
comments on or before January 17, 2001. Comments may be

[[Page 66958]]

filed using the Commission's Electronic Filing System (ECFS) or by 
filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    41. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic 
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. 
Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If 
multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this 
proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of 
the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the 
caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should 
include their full name, postal service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an 
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for 
e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and 
should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get 
form, your e-mail address.>'' A sample form and directions will be sent 
in reply.
    42. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and 
four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking 
number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit 
two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. 
All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman 
Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 
Twelfth Street, SW.; TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.
    43. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their 
comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to: Wanda 
Hardy, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.; 2-C221, Washington, DC 20554. Such a 
submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM 
compatible format using WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows or compatible 
software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and 
should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette should be 
clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the 
docket number (MM Docket No. 00-167), type of pleading (comment or 
reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file 
on the diskette.
    The label should also include the following phrase ``Disk Copy--Not 
an Original.'' Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, 
preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, commenters must 
send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., 445 Twelfth Street, SW.; CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554.
    44. Ex Parte Rules. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and 
comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted 
except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed 
as provided in the Commission's Rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 
1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
    45. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. With respect to this 
NPRM, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') is 
contained in Appendix B. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
see 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared an IRFA of the possible 
economic impact on small entities of the proposals contained in this 
NPRM. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments on 
the IRFA must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as 
comments on the NPRM, and should have a distinct heading designating 
them as responses to the IRFA.
    46. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This NPRM may contain 
either proposed or modified information collections. As part of our 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general 
public to take this opportunity to comment on the information 
collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1996. Public and agency Comments are due at the same 
time as other comments on the NPRM.
    Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information collected; and (c) ways to minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.
    In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any 
comments on the information collections contained herein should be 
submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth 
Street, SW., Room C-1804, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to 
[email protected]; and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
[email protected].

VI. Ordering Clauses

    47. This NPRM is issued pursuant to the authority contained in 
Sections 4(i), 303, 307, and 336(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 307, and 336(d), and in the 
Children's Television Act of 1990.
    48. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of this NPRM, including the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

VII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    49. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603 
(``RFA''), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') of the expected impact on small 
entities of the proposals contained in this NPRM. Written public 
comments are requested with respect to the IRFA. These comments must be 
filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the 
rest of the NPRM, but they must have a separate and distinct heading, 
designating the comments as responses to the IRFA. The Commission shall 
send a copy of this NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with the 
RFA, 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
A. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules
    Our goal in commencing this proceeding is to seek comment on how 
the existing children's educational television programming obligations 
and limitations on advertising in children's programs should be 
interpreted and adapted to apply to digital television broadcasting in 
light of the new capabilities made possible by that technology. In 
seeking comment on what steps the FCC might take to address the issue 
of the airing of promotions inappropriate for children in programs 
viewed by children, our goal is to protect children from programming 
with inappropriate sexual or violent content or suggestive or coarse 
language. We also invite comment on a number of specific proposals 
offered by commenters responding to the NOI in MM Docket No. 99-360.
    50. We invite comment on how the children's core educational 
programming processing guideline should be applied to DTV broadcasters 
that choose to multicast. For example,

[[Page 66959]]

we ask whether the guideline should apply to only one digital 
broadcasting program stream, to more than one program stream, or to all 
program streams the broadcaster chooses to provide.
    We also ask whether the guideline should apply only to free 
broadcast services or also to pay services, and whether a three-hour 
guideline is sufficient in light of the additional program capacity 
made available by digital technology. We also seek comment on whether 
the Commission's policies regarding preemption of core programs should 
be revised in view of the greater programming capacity available to DTV 
broadcasters.
    51. With respect to the children's programming advertising limits 
and policies, we ask whether these rules and policies should apply to 
both free and pay program streams. We also seek comment on how these 
rules and policies should be interpreted in light of the interactive 
capabilities made possible by digital technology. For example, we ask 
whether we should permit the use of direct commercial website links in 
children's programs and, if so, whether we should limit the duration of 
time they appear on the screen. We also ask how such links should be 
treated under our program-length commercial and host-selling policies.
    52. We also invite comment on a broader question related to the 
advertising limits that arises with respect to both analog and digital 
broadcasting. Specifically, we ask whether the Commission should revise 
its definition of ``commercial matter'' to include types of program 
interruptions that do not currently contribute toward the commercial 
limits, such as certain program promotions.
    53. In addition, we invite comment on how to address the issue of 
the airing in programs viewed by children of promotions for other 
upcoming programs that may be unsuitable for children to watch because 
either the promotions themselves or the programs they refer to contain 
sexual or violent content. This is an issue that arises with respect to 
both analog and digital broadcasting.
    54. Finally, we invite commenters to address what steps the FCC 
might take to increase public awareness of the availability of core 
programming and how to locate it. We also ask whether there are other 
steps the FCC could take, apart from the issue of public awareness, to 
improve the quality of educational programming by, for example, seeking 
legislation to establish a mechanism to fund the production of high-
quality educational and informational programming.
B. Legal Basis
    Authority for the actions proposed in the NPRM may be found in 
Sections 4(i) and 303, 307, and 336(d) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 307, and 336(d), and in the 
Children's Television Act of 1990.
C. Recording, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
    The NPRM invites comment on how the existing children's educational 
television programming requirements and children's commercial limits 
should apply to digital broadcasters. The NPRM also invites comment on 
whether the Commission should revise its definition of ``commercial 
matter'' to include types of program interruptions in children programs 
that do not currently contribute toward the commercial limits. We also 
ask what steps the FCC might take to address the issue of the airing in 
programs viewed by children of promotions for other upcoming programs 
that may be unsuitable for children to watch because either the 
promotions themselves or the programs they refer to contain sexual or 
violent content or suggestive or coarse language.
D. Federal Rules That Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict With the Proposed 
Rules
    The rules under consideration in this proceeding do not overlap, 
duplicate, or conflict with any other rules.
F. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Would Apply
    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. Under the RFA, small 
entities may include small organizations, small businesses, and small 
governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601(3), 
generally defines the term ``small business'' as having the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
    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 Small Business 
Administration (``SBA''). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory 
definition of a small business applies ``unless an agency after 
consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the SBA and after 
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of 
such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and 
publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.
    55. Small TV Broadcast Stations. The SBA defines small television 
broadcasting stations as television broadcasting stations with $10.5 
million or less in annual receipts.
    56. The children's educational and informational programming 
requirements apply to commercial and noncommercial television stations. 
There are approximately 1,243 existing commercial television stations 
and 373 existing noncommercial television stations of all sizes that 
may be affected by the proposals contained in this NPRM related to our 
educational and informational programming requirements. The children's 
commercial limits apply to commercial television broadcasters and cable 
operators. Thus, in addition, there are approximately 10,500 cable 
systems of all sizes that could be affected by the proposals in the 
NPRM related to the children's commercial limits.
G. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities 
and Consistent With the Stated Objectives
    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
    57. This NPRM invites comment generally on a number of issues 
related to application of the existing children's television 
programming requirements to digital broadcasters, and asks commenters 
to address various proposals advanced by commenters responding to the 
NOI in this proceeding. We seek comment on whether there is any 
significant impact on small entities that might result from any of 
these proposals. Any significant alternatives presented in the comments 
will be considered.

[[Page 66960]]

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28610 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U