Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66951

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Georgia, is amended

by adding Blairsville, Channel 234A.

Federal Communications Commission,

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–28688 Filed 11–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

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

jboley@fcc.gov, and to Edward C.

Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room

10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to

edward.springer@omb.eop.gov.

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

jboley@fcc.gov.

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 forprofit.

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.

66952 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 programlength 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

66954 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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

66956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 indepth 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 sponsorrelated 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 VChip 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

66958 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 ecfs@fcc.gov, 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 permitbut-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 jboley@fcc.gov; and

to Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer,

10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to

edward.springer@omb.eop.gov.

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,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 programlength 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.

66960 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 99128355–0305–03; I.D.

101200F]

RIN 0648–AM50

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Proposed 2001 Fishing Quotas

for Atlantic Surf Clams, Ocean

Quahogs, and Maine Mahogany Ocean

Quahogs

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed 2001 fishing quotas

for Atlantic surf clams, ocean quahogs,

and Maine mahogany ocean quahogs;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues proposed quotas

for the Atlantic surf clam, ocean quahog,

and Maine mahogany ocean quahog

fisheries for 2001. Regulations

governing these fisheries require NMFS

to propose for public comment

specifications for the 2001 fishing year.

The intent of this action is to propose

allowable harvest levels of Atlantic surf

clams and ocean quahogs from the

exclusive economic zone and an

allowable harvest level of Maine

mahogany ocean quahogs from the

waters north of 43°50′N. lat. in 2001.

DATES: Comments must be received no

later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time,

on December 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting

documents, including the

Environmental Assessment, Regulatory

Impact Review, Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), and

the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment,

are available from Patricia A. Kurkul,

Regional Administrator, Northeast

Region, National Marine Fisheries

Service, One Blackburn Drive,

Gloucester, MA 01930–2298. The EA/

RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet

at http://www.nero.gov/ro/doc/nr.htm.

Written comments on the proposed

specifications should be sent to the

Regional Administrator. Mark on the

outside of the envelope, ‘‘Comments—

2001 Clam and Quahog Specifications.’’

Comments may also be sent via

facsimile (fax) to (978)281–9371.

Comments will not be accepted if

submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

Send comments on any ambiguity or

unnecessary complexity arising from the

language used in this proposed rule to

Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional

Administrator.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer L. Anderson, Fishery

Management Specialist, 978–281–9226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the

Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog

Fisheries directs NMFS, in consultation

with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council (Council), to

specify quotas for surf clams and ocean

quahogs on an annual basis from a range

that represents the optimum yield (OY)

for each fishery. It is the policy of the

Council that the levels selected allow

fishing to continue at that level for at

least 10 years for surf clams and for 30

years for ocean quahogs. While staying

within this constraint, the Council

policy is to also consider the economic

benefits of the quotas. Regulations

implementing Amendment 10 to the

FMP (63 FR 27481, May 19, 1998) added

Maine mahogany ocean quahogs to the

management unit and provide that a

small artisanal fishery for ocean

quahogs in the waters north of 43°50’ N.

lat. will have an annual quota with an

initial amount of 100,000 Maine bushels

(bu) (35,240 hectoliters (hL)) within a

range of 17,000 to 100,000 Maine bu

(5,991 hL to 35,240 hL). As specified in

Amendment 10, the Maine mahogany

ocean quahog quota is in addition to the

quota specified for the ocean quahog

fishery.

The fishing quotas must be in

compliance with overfishing definitions

for each species. The overfishing

definition for ocean quahogs is based on

a control rule, which requires a biomass

target of c virgin biomass or 2 billion lb

(907,200 mt) of meats (200 million bu);

a fishing mortality rate (F) target of F0.1

= 0.02; a biomass threshold of c biomass

target, or 1 billion lb (453,600 mt) of

meats (100 million bu); and a fishing

mortality threshold of F25% = 0.042.

The current biomass is estimated to be

around 3.3 billion lb (1.6 million mt) of

meats (330 million bu), or about 80

percent of the virgin biomass, and

current F is estimated to be 0.02. NMFS

approved the overfishing definition for

ocean quahogs contained in

Amendment 12 to the FMP, but

disapproved the proposed overfishing

definition for surf clams because it was

based only on surf clams from the

Northern New Jersey area and did not

take into account the entire range of the

resource. The December 1999 Stock

Assessment Review Committee (SARC)

proposed an overfishing definition for

surf clams, which the Council reviewed

and approved at its March 2000

meeting. The Council-approved

definition has a biomass target of c of

current biomass as a proxy for FMSY

(1.4 billion lb, or 640 thousand mt, or

82.4 million bu); a biomass threshold of

c of the proxy for BMSY (700 thousand

lb or 320 thousand mt); a fishing

mortality threshold of FMSY, where the

current best proxy for FMSY is the

natural mortality rate (M) (0.15), and

requires that the F target will always be

set less than the F threshold and that it

will be the F associated with the

Council-selected quota (approximately

0.03 for 2001). This new overfishing

definition for surf clams will be

submitted to the Secretary for approval

in Amendment 13, which the Council

anticipates will be completed in early

2001.

In proposing these quotas, the Council

considered the available stock

assessments, data reported by harvesters

and processors, and other relevant

information concerning exploitable

biomass and spawning biomass, fishing

mortality rates, stock recruitment,

projected effort and catches, and areas

closed to fishing. This information was

presented in a written report prepared

by the Council staff. The proposed

quotas for the 2001 Atlantic surf clam,

ocean quahog, and Maine mahogany

ocean quahog fisheries are shown in the

following table. The status quo levels for

2000 for both the regular ocean quahog

and the Maine mahogany ocean quahog

will be maintained, but the surf clam

quota will be increased by 11 percent,

from 2.565 million bu to 2.85 million bu

(1.366 million hL to 1.518 million hL).

PROPOSED 2001 SURF CLAM/OCEAN

QUAHOG QUOTAS

Fishery 2001 final

quotas (bu)

2001 final

quotas (hL)

1Surf clam 2,850,000 1,518,000

1Ocean

quahog 4,500,000 2,396,000 2Maine

mahogany quahog 100,000 35,240

11 bushel = 1.88 cubic ft. = 53.24 liters

2 1 bushel = 1.2445 cubic ft. = 35.24 liters

Surf Clams

The Council recommended a 2001

quota of 2.850 million bu (1.518 million