11334 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(8) The following requirements are 

contained in Ventura County Air Pollution 

Control District Requirements Applicable to 

OCS Sources: 

Rule 2 Definitions (Adopted 04/13/04) 

Rule 5 Effective Date (Adopted 04/13/04) 

Rule 6 Severability (Adopted 11/21/78) 

Rule 7 Zone Boundaries (Adopted 06/14/ 

77) 

Rule 10 Permits Required (Adopted 04/13/ 

04) 

Rule 11 Definition for Regulation II 

(Adopted 03/14/06) 

Rule 12 Applications for Permits (Adopted 

06/13/95) 

Rule 13 Action on Applications for an 

Authority to Construct (Adopted 06/13/95) 

Rule 14 Action on Applications for a Permit 

to Operate (Adopted 06/13/95) 

Rule 15.1 Sampling and Testing Facilities 

(Adopted 10/12/93) 

Rule 16 BACT Certification (Adopted 06/ 

13/95) 

Rule 19 Posting of Permits (Adopted 05/23/ 

72) 

Rule 20 Transfer of Permit (Adopted 05/23/ 

72) 

Rule 23 Exemptions from Permits (Adopted 

04/08/08) 

Rule 24 Source Recordkeeping, Reporting, 

and Emission Statements (Adopted 09/15/ 

92) 

Rule 26 New Source Review—General 

(Adopted 03/14/06) 

Rule 26.1 New Source Review—Definitions 

(Adopted 11/14/06) 

Rule 26.2 New Source Review— 

Requirements (Adopted 05/14/02) 

Rule 26.3 New Source Review—Exemptions 

(Adopted 03/14/06) 

Rule 26.6 New Source Review— 

Calculations (Adopted 03/14/06) 

Rule 26.8 New Source Review—Permit To 

Operate (Adopted 10/22/91) 

Rule 26.10 New Source Review—PSD 

(Adopted 01/13/98) 

Rule 26.11 New Source Review—ERC 

Evaluation At Time of Use (Adopted 05/ 

14/02) 

Rule 26.12 Federal Major Modifications 

(Adopted 06/27/06) 

Rule 28 Revocation of Permits (Adopted 07/ 

18/72) 

Rule 29 Conditions on Permits (Adopted 

03/14/06) 

Rule 30 Permit Renewal (Adopted 04/13/ 

04) 

Rule 32 Breakdown Conditions: Emergency 

Variances, A., B.1., and D. only (Adopted 

02/20/79) 

Rule 33 Part 70 Permits—General (Adopted 

09/12/06) 

Rule 33.1 Part 70 Permits—Definitions 

(Adopted 09/12/06) 

Rule 33.2 Part 70 Permits—Application 

Contents (Adopted 04/10/01) 

Rule 33.3 Part 70 Permits—Permit Content 

(Adopted 09/12/06) 

Rule 33.4 Part 70 Permits—Operational 

Flexibility (Adopted 04/10/01) 

Rule 33.5 Part 70 Permits—Time frames for 

Applications, Review and Issuance 

(Adopted 10/12/93) 

Rule 33.6 Part 70 Permits—Permit Term 

and Permit Reissuance (Adopted 10/12/93) 

Rule 33.7 Part 70 Permits—Notification 

(Adopted 04/10/01) 

Rule 33.8 Part 70 Permits—Reopening of 

Permits (Adopted 10/12/93) 

Rule 33.9 Part 70 Permits—Compliance 

Provisions (Adopted 04/10/01) 

Rule 33.10 Part 70 Permits—General Part 70 

Permits (Adopted 10/12/93) 

Rule 34 Acid Deposition Control (Adopted 

03/14/95) 

Rule 35 Elective Emission Limits (Adopted 

11/12/96) 

Rule 36 New Source Review—Hazardous 

Air Pollutants (Adopted 10/06/98) 

Rule 42 Permit Fees (Adopted 04/08/08) 

Rule 44 Exemption Evaluation Fee 

(Adopted 04/08/08) 

Rule 45 Plan Fees (Adopted 06/19/90) 

Rule 45.2 Asbestos Removal Fees (Adopted 

08/04/92) 

Rule 47 Source Test, Emission Monitor, and 

Call-Back Fees (Adopted 06/22/99) 

Rule 50 Opacity (Adopted 04/13/04) 

Rule 52 Particulate Matter-Concentration 

(Grain Loading) (Adopted 04/13/04) 

Rule 53 Particulate Matter-Process Weight 

(Adopted 04/13/04) 

Rule 54 Sulfur Compounds (Adopted 06/ 

14/94) 

Rule 56 Open Burning (Adopted 11/11/03) 

Rule 57 Incinerators (Adopted 01/11/05) 

Rule 57.1 Particulate Matter Emissions from 

Fuel Burning Equipment (Adopted 01/11/ 

05) 

Rule 62.7 Asbestos—Demolition and 

Renovation (Adopted 09/01/92) 

Rule 63 Separation and Combination of 

Emissions (Adopted 11/21/78) 

Rule 64 Sulfur Content of Fuels (Adopted 

04/13/99) 

Rule 67 Vacuum Producing Devices 

(Adopted 07/05/83) 

Rule 68 Carbon Monoxide (Adopted 04/13/ 

04) 

Rule 71 Crude Oil and Reactive Organic 

Compound Liquids (Adopted 12/13/94) 

Rule 71.1 Crude Oil Production and 

Separation (Adopted 06/16/92) 

Rule 71.2 Storage of Reactive Organic 

Compound Liquids (Adopted 09/26/89) 

Rule 71.3 Transfer of Reactive Organic 

Compound Liquids (Adopted 06/16/92) 

Rule 71.4 Petroleum Sumps, Pits, Ponds, 

and Well Cellars (Adopted 06/08/93) 

Rule 71.5 Glycol Dehydrators (Adopted 12/ 

13/94) 

Rule 72 New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) (Adopted 09/09/08) 

Rule 73 National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) 

(Adopted 09/9/08) 

Rule 74 Specific Source Standards 

(Adopted 07/06/76) 

Rule 74.1 Abrasive Blasting (Adopted 11/ 

12/91) 

Rule 74.2 Architectural Coatings (Adopted 

11/13/01) 

Rule 74.6 Surface Cleaning and Degreasing 

(Adopted 11/11/03—effective 07/01/04) 

Rule 74.6.1 Batch Loaded Vapor Degreasers 

(Adopted 11/11/03—effective 07/01/04) 

Rule 74.7 Fugitive Emissions of Reactive 

Organic Compounds at Petroleum 

Refineries and Chemical Plants (Adopted 

10/10/95) 

Rule 74.8 Refinery Vacuum Producing 

Systems, Waste-Water Separators and 

Process Turnarounds (Adopted 07/05/83) 

Rule 74.9 Stationary Internal Combustion 

Engines (Adopted 11/08/05) 

Rule 74.10 Components at Crude Oil 

Production Facilities and Natural Gas 

Production and Processing Facilities 

(Adopted 03/10/98) 

Rule 74.11 Natural Gas-Fired Residential 

Water Heaters-Control of NOX (Adopted 

04/09/85) 

Rule 74.11.1 Large Water Heaters and Small 

Boilers (Adopted 09/14/99) 

Rule 74.12 Surface Coating of Metal Parts 

and Products (Adopted 04/08/08) 

Rule 74.15 Boilers, Steam Generators and 

Process Heaters (Adopted 11/08/94) 

Rule 74.15.1 Boilers, Steam Generators and 

Process Heaters (Adopted 06/13/00) 

Rule 74.16 Oil Field Drilling Operations 

(Adopted 01/08/91) 

Rule 74.20 Adhesives and Sealants 

(Adopted 01/11/05) 

Rule 74.23 Stationary Gas Turbines 

(Adopted 1/08/02) 

Rule 74.24 Marine Coating Operations 

(Adopted 11/11/03) 

Rule 74.24.1 Pleasure Craft Coating and 

Commercial Boatyard Operations (Adopted 

01/08/02) 

Rule 74.26 Crude Oil Storage Tank 

Degassing Operations (Adopted 11/08/94) 

Rule 74.27 Gasoline and ROC Liquid 

Storage Tank Degassing Operations 

(Adopted 11/08/94) 

Rule 74.28 Asphalt Roofing Operations 

(Adopted 05/10/94) 

Rule 74.30 Wood Products Coatings 

(Adopted 06/27/06) 

Rule 75 Circumvention (Adopted 11/27/78) 

Rule 101 Sampling and Testing Facilities 

(Adopted 05/23/72) 

Rule 102 Source Tests (Adopted 04/13/04) 

Rule 103 Continuous Monitoring Systems 

(Adopted 02/09/99) 

Rule 154 Stage 1 Episode Actions (Adopted 

09/17/91) 

Rule 155 Stage 2 Episode Actions (Adopted 

09/17/91) 

Rule 156 Stage 3 Episode Actions (Adopted 

09/17/91) 

Rule 158 Source Abatement Plans (Adopted 

09/17/91) 

Rule 159 Traffic Abatement Procedures 

(Adopted 09/17/91) 

Rule 220 General Conformity (Adopted 05/ 

09/95) 

Rule 230 Notice to Comply (Adopted 9/9/ 

08) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–5728 Filed 3–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 09–26; FCC 09–14] 

Implementation of the Child Safe 

Viewing Act; Examination of Parental 

Control Technologies for Video or 

Audio Programming 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 11335 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document implements 

the Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007, S. 

602, 110th Cong., adopted December 2, 

2008, which directs the Commission to 

initiate a proceeding to examine ‘‘the 

existence and availability of advanced 

blocking technologies that are 

compatible with various 

communications devices or platforms’’ 

and can be used by parents to shield 

their children from objectionable video 

or audio programming. Although the 

development of new media technologies 

and platforms offers learning 

opportunities for children, it also poses 

new dangers. This Notice of Inquiry will 

examine tools currently available to 

parents and under development to help 

them supervise how their children use 

the media and, as directed by the Child 

Safe Viewing Act, the Commission will 

submit a report to Congress detailing its 

findings. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

April 16, 2009; reply comments are due 

on or before May 18, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 09–26, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

Web site for submitting comments. In 

completing the transmittal screen, filers 

should include their full name, U.S. 

Postal Service mailing address, and the 

applicable docket or rulemaking 

number. 

• E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

• Mail: Filings can be sent by 

commercial overnight courier or by firstclass or overnight U.S. Postal Service 

mail. 

• For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Kim Matthews of 

the Media Bureau, Policy Division at 

(202) 418–2154 or at 

Kim.Matthews@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Inquiry (NOI), FCC 09–14, adopted on 

March 2, 2009, and released on March 

2, 2009. The full text of this document 

is available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., CY–A257, Washington, DC 

20554. These documents will also be 

available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text 

may be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Summary of the Notice of Inquiry 

Introduction 

1. This Notice of Inquiry (NOI) 

implements the Child Safe Viewing Act 

of 2007, adopted December 2, 2008, 

which directs the Commission to 

initiate a proceeding within 90 days 

after the date of enactment to examine 

‘‘the existence and availability of 

advanced blocking technologies that are 

compatible with various 

communications devices or platforms.’’ 

Congress defined ‘‘advanced blocking 

technologies’’ as ‘‘technologies that can 

improve or enhance the ability of a 

parent to protect his or her child from 

any indecent or objectionable video or 

audio programming, as determined by 

such parent, that is transmitted through 

the use of wire, wireless, or radio 

communications.’’ Congress’s intent in 

adopting the Act was to spur the 

development of the ‘‘next generation of 

parental control technology.’’ In 

conducting this proceeding, we will 

examine blocking technologies that may 

be appropriate across a wide variety of 

distribution platforms and devices, can 

filter language based upon information 

in closed captioning, can operate 

independently of pre-assigned ratings, 

and may be effective in enhancing a 

parent’s ability to protect his or her 

child from indecent or objectionable 

programming, as determined by the 

parent. The Act directs the Commission 

to issue a report to Congress no later 

than August 29, 2009 detailing our 

findings in this proceeding. 

Background and Scope of Inquiry 

2. The media environment that 

children encounter is becoming 

increasingly complex. In the majority of 

homes with children, there are at least 

three television sets, some of which 

receive signals over the air and others 

that are linked to cable or satellite 

services. The average TV household in 

the United States receives 17 broadcast 

TV stations and more than 118 

television channels. In addition, many 

homes have DVD players, computers 

with Internet access, and a variety of 

mobile devices, such as iPods or other 

MP3 devices and wireless devices such 

as cell phones and smart phones, that 

are capable of playing both audio and 

video. Each of these media outlets has 

its own type of password and/or 

program blocking system, which poses a 

significant challenge for parents trying 

to direct or supervise their children’s 

exposure to video and audio 

programming. 

3. Together with the growth in the 

kinds of media devices available to 

children there has been an increase in 

the amount of time children are exposed 

to media content. Children six years and 

younger average almost 21⁄2 hours of 

daily exposure to media content, while 

children 8 to 18 use media—including 

television, video players, audio media, 

video games, and computers—close to 

five hours each day and often use two 

or more media simultaneously. As a 

result of the transition to digital 

technology and the continuing 

technological convergence of media, 

children today can access the same 

source of content from a variety of 

media platforms, some of which are 

portable. Teens can watch on a 

computer a program that aired on 

television days earlier and can use a cell 

phone or other wireless device as a 

multimedia platform, to surf the Internet 

and download video and audio 

programming. The ubiquity of media in 

the lives of children and the portability 

of many media devices makes direct 

adult supervision of the content of the 

media to which children are exposed 

increasingly difficult. The goal of this 

proceeding is to examine current and 

new technologies that can assist parents, 

as well as other caregivers, to shield 

children from inappropriate content in 

this rapidly changing media 

environment. 

4. Section 2(a) of the Child Safe 

Viewing Act directs the Commission to 

initiate a notice of inquiry to examine: 

(1) The existence and availability of 

advanced blocking technologies that are 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
11336 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

compatible with various 

communications devices or platforms; 

(2) Methods of encouraging the 

development, deployment, and use of 

such technology by parents that do not 

affect the packaging or pricing of a 

content provider’s offering; and 

(3) The existence, availability, and use 

of parental empowerment tools and 

initiatives already in the market. 

5. Thus, the Act requires that we 

examine ‘‘advanced blocking 

technologies’’ currently available across 

a wide range of media platforms. 

Section 2(d) of the Act defines the term 

‘‘advanced blocking technologies’’ as 

‘‘technologies that can improve or 

enhance the ability of a parent to protect 

his or her child from any indecent or 

objectionable video or audio 

programming, as determined by such 

parent, that is transmitted through the 

use of wire, wireless, or radio 

communication.’’ We invite comment 

on advanced blocking technologies that 

may be appropriate across various 

distribution platforms, including wired, 

wireless, and Internet platforms. We 

also invite comment on the statutory 

definition of ‘‘advanced blocking 

technologies.’’ Whereas the Commission 

has defined the term ‘‘indecent’’ in 

other contexts, the Act appears to leave 

determination of what is ‘‘indecent’’ or 

‘‘objectionable’’ entirely to the 

individual discretion of parents. We 

invite comment on this interpretation 

and on any other issues regarding the 

statutory definition of advanced 

blocking technologies. 

6. Section 2(b) of the Act states that 

the Commission shall consider 

advanced blocking technologies that: 

(1) May be appropriate across a wide 

variety of distribution platforms, 

including wired, wireless, and Internet 

platforms; 

(2) May be appropriate across a wide 

variety of devices capable of 

transmitting or receiving video or audio 

programming, including television sets, 

DVD players, VCRs, cable set top boxes, 

satellite receivers, and wireless devices; 

(3) Can filter language based upon 

information in closed captioning; 

(4) Operate independently of ratings 

pre-assigned by the creator of such 

video or audio programming; and 

(5) May be effective in enhancing the 

ability of a parent to protect his or her 

child from indecent or objectionable 

programming, as determined by such 

parent. 

7. This language makes it clear that 

we are to consider blocking technologies 

appropriate for use on a variety of 

devices that transmit audio and video 

programming. The devices specifically 

identified in section 2(b)(2), such as 

television sets, DVD players, VCRs, and 

wireless devices, are capable of 

transmitting both audio and video 

programming. We seek comment on 

whether Congress intended that we 

examine blocking technologies for 

content that is audio only (e.g., music), 

or technologies appropriate for content 

that combines audio and video (e.g., 

television programs), or both. The Act 

does not define the terms ‘‘audio’’ or 

‘‘video.’’ The legislative history 

indicates that Congress was focused 

primarily on television content. The 

Senate Report indicates that the Act 

stems from Congress’s concern with the 

efficacy of the V-chip, given its limited 

use by parents, as well as a desire to 

ensure that blocking capability 

continues to be available to consumers 

as technology advances. The Senate 

Report cites section 551(e) of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 and 

notes that that provision requires the 

Commission to ‘‘ ‘take such action as the 

Commission determines appropriate’ to 

assess alternative program blocking 

technologies and to expand the V-chip 

requirement, if necessary, to facilitate 

the use of alternative technologies that 

may not rely on common ratings.’’ The 

Senate Report also explains that the Act 

requires the Commission to consider 

technologies that may be appropriate 

across a variety of content distribution 

platforms ‘‘[i]n recognition of the fact 

that television content is currently being 

made available over the Internet and 

over mobile devices.’’(emphasis added) 

This language suggests that Congress 

intended that we focus on television 

content and the variety of platforms 

over which such content can be 

displayed and consider technologies 

capable of blocking inappropriate audio 

or video content transmitted as part of 

such programming. We invite comment 

on this view. We also note that, 

although section 2(b)(2) refers to 

‘‘devices capable of transmitting or 

receiving video or audio programming,’’ 

it does not list radios as one of the 

specific devices for which blocking 

technology should be considered. 

Although the list is illustrative and not 

exhaustive, it appears significant that no 

audio-only devices are listed. Moreover, 

the Senate Report discusses television 

primarily and does not refer to radios, 

and radios were not discussed during 

the Senate hearing on the Act. In light 

of the language of the Act and the 

legislative history, we invite comment 

on whether we should examine blocking 

technology designed for audio content 

alone in this proceeding, or focus on 

technology capable of blocking 

objectionable audio conveyed together 

with video programming. 

8. We also invite comment on how we 

should interpret the term ‘‘video 

programming’’ for purposes of this 

proceeding. Section 602(20) of the 

Communications Act states that: ‘‘the 

term ‘video programming’ means 

programming provided by, or generally 

considered comparable to programming 

provided by, a television broadcast 

station.’’ Is this the appropriate 

definition to use for purposes of the 

Child Safe Viewing Act? It seems clear 

that ‘‘video programming’’ as that term 

is used in the Child Safe Viewing Act 

includes, for example, an episode of a 

television program, whether that 

program is provided on a television set 

over the air or via cable or satellite, or 

provided over the Internet on a 

computer or wireless device, or 

provided directly by a wireless carrier. 

We invite comment, however, on 

whether the term ‘‘video programming’’ 

includes such content as videos 

provided on Internet video hosting sites, 

such as YouTube, and vodcasts of 

nontraditional video content. In 

addition, we seek comment on how the 

use of the term ‘‘video programming’’ in 

the Act limits the scope of this 

proceeding. 

9. As directed by section 2(a)(2) of the 

Act, we invite comment on ‘‘methods of 

encouraging the development, 

deployment, and use’’ of advanced 

blocking technologies. What strategies 

should be used in this regard and what 

role should industry, trade 

organizations, consumer groups, 

Government and others play in this 

effort? Section 2(a)(2) also states that the 

Commission should examine methods 

of encouraging the development, 

deployment, and use of advanced 

blocking technologies ‘‘that do not affect 

the packaging or pricing of a content 

provider’s offering.’’ We invite comment 

on how we should interpret this 

language. How does the language in 

section 2(a)(2) regarding packaging and 

pricing of a content provider’s offering 

relate to our mandate under the Act? 

10. In addition, section 2(a)(3) of the 

Act directs us to examine ‘‘the 

existence, availability, and use of 

parental empowerment tools and 

initiatives already in the market.’’ 

Although the Act’s focus is advanced 

blocking technologies and facilitating 

the next generation of parental control 

technology, the Senate Report makes 

clear that Congress was concerned about 

the V-chip, which is a parental 

empowerment tool already in the 

market, and about the low-level of Vchip use. Accordingly, we invite 

comment specifically on efforts to 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 11337 

improve or expand V-chip technology 

and to encourage increased use of the Vchip by parents. We also seek comment 

on any other parental empowerment 

tools that are currently available to 

consumers, as well as any initiatives to 

encourage their availability and/or use. 

11. Finally, we invite comment on 

whether we should examine blocking 

technology for video game players and/ 

or video games. Video game players are 

not included among the devices 

specifically identified in section 2(b)(2), 

and video games are not mentioned in 

the Senate Report and were not 

discussed in the Senate hearing on the 

Act. However, in light of the popularity 

of video games among children and 

concerns expressed regarding their 

content, we seek comment on whether 

we should examine methods of 

controlling access to video games in this 

proceeding. 

Discussion and Request for Comment 

A. Television 

12. The Commission has long 

recognized that television plays a 

significant role in the lives of American 

children. Children ages 8 to 18 watch on 

average more than three hours of 

television each day, and more than two 

thirds of children in this age range have 

a television in their bedroom. Children 

younger than 8 watch on average 2 

hours of television daily and more than 

one third have a television in their 

bedroom. Because many children watch 

television while they engage in other 

activities, the total amount of time that 

children are exposed to television 

content is even greater than statistics 

regarding their daily television use 

suggest. Moreover, in spite of the 

increase in the number of other types of 

media to which children are exposed, 

television remains the media of choice 

among children. Children ages 8 to 18 

devote about 50 percent of their total 

media time to television, while younger 

children devote about two-thirds of 

their media time to television viewing. 

Thus, television remains a primary 

medium of concern in terms of 

children’s exposure to potentially 

objectionable content. 

13. In 1996, Congress amended Title 

III of the Communications Act, 47 

U.S.C. section 303(x), to require the 

incorporation of blocking technology 

into television sets. Section 551 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, also 

known as the Parental Choice in 

Television Programming Act, directed 

the Commission to adopt rules that 

require certain televisions or devices 

capable of receiving television signals to 

‘‘be equipped with a feature designed to 

enable viewers to block display of all 

programs with a common rating.’’ Id. 

(added by section 551 of the 1996 Act). 

In 1998, the Commission adopted rules 

requiring that, starting in 2000, 

television sets with screens 13 inches or 

larger must be equipped with a V-chip. 

Section 551 of the 1996 Act also 

directed that, if the industry did not 

adopt voluntary rules for rating video 

programming within a year, the 

Commission should prescribe 

guidelines and recommended 

procedures for program ratings. 47 

U.S.C. section 303(w). Following the 

adoption of this provision, the 

broadcast, cable, and movie industries 

jointly created a voluntary system for 

rating television content, known as the 

TV Parental Guidelines, which the 

Commission subsequently recognized as 

meeting the requirements of the 1996 

Act. 

14. The Parental Guidelines contain 

both age- and content-based ratings. The 

age-based ratings are: TV–Y (All 

Children); TV–Y7 (Directed to Older 

Children—age 7 or older); TV–G 

(General Audience); TV–PG (Parental 

Guidance Suggested); TV–14 (Parents 

Strongly Cautioned—may be unsuitable 

for children under 14); and TV–MA 

(Mature Audience Only—may be 

unsuitable for children under 17). The 

content-based descriptors are: V 

(violence); FV (fantasy violence in older 

children’s programming); S (sexual 

content); D (suggestive dialogue); and L 

(strong language in programming). The 

guidelines apply to most television 

programming, except for news and 

sports programming and 

advertisements. 

15. As Congress noted in adopting the 

Child Safe Viewing Act, studies 

conducted since the V-chip 

requirements and TV Parental 

Guidelines were adopted show that the 

V-chip is not widely used and many 

parents remain unaware of it. A study 

conducted from 1999–2001 by the 

Annenberg Public Policy Center found 

that only 8 percent of the families 

studied had the V-chip programmed and 

were using it. The study showed that 

many parents are not aware that they 

have a V-chip and others find that 

‘‘programming the V-chip is a multi-step 

and often confusing process.’’ In two 

more-recent studies conducted by the 

Kaiser Family Foundation in 2004 and 

2007, the first showed that only 15 

percent of parents have used the V-chip, 

and the second showed that 16 percent 

of parents used the V-chip. The 2007 

Kaiser Family Foundation study showed 

that more than half of parents who had 

purchased a television set since 2000, 

when the requirement that sets over 13 

inches be equipped with a V-chip went 

into effect, were not even aware that 

they have a V-chip. 

16. We invite comment on these 

studies and any improvements that 

could be made to the V-chip and the 

existing TV ratings system to increase 

their use and effectiveness. Are there 

ways in which the V-chip could be 

made easier to use and program? What 

steps could be taken to increase parental 

awareness of the V-chip? The V-chip 

has been referred to as an ‘‘orphaned 

technology,’’ meaning that no entity has 

a financial incentive to promote its use. 

What role should industry or the 

government play in promoting the Vchip? What kinds of promotions would 

be most effective and who should bear 

the cost? We note that the broadcast 

networks have previously joined with 

the Advertising Council to air some 

public service campaigns promoting the 

V-chip. Was this campaign successful? 

17. We also invite comment on the 

current ratings system. The 2007 Kaiser 

Family Foundation study also showed 

that, although more than 80 percent of 

parents have heard of the TV ratings, 

most do not understand what they 

mean. Only 30 percent of parents with 

children between 2 and 6 could name 

any of the ratings used for children’s 

programs (TV–Y, TV–7, or TV–G). Only 

11 percent of parents with children in 

this age range knew that the content 

rating FV had anything to do with 

violence, and 9 percent thought it meant 

‘‘family viewing.’’ More than half of 

parents of older children that had heard 

of the TV ratings understood the 

meaning of the TV–14 and TV–MA agebased ratings and the ‘‘V’’ content 

descriptor, but only 36 percent of these 

parents understood that ‘‘S’’ designates 

a show with sexual content and only 2 

percent knew that ‘‘D’’ indicates 

suggestive dialogue. We invite comment 

on these studies and on ways in which 

awareness of the current ratings system 

could be improved. 

18. We also seek comment on the 

extent to which programming is rated, 

using both the age-based ratings as well 

as the content descriptors, and on 

whether the ratings are applied 

accurately. Some have criticized the 

application of the TV Parental 

Guidelines. In a 2007 report, the Parents 

Television Council (PTC) examined all 

prime time entertainment programming 

on the six broadcast networks during 

the November 2006 and February 2007 

sweeps period. In its report, PTC states 

that 99 percent of the programs they 

examined were rated either TV–PG or 

TV–14, meaning they were deemed 

suitable for children as young as 14, 

despite the fact that some programs 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
11338 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

contained mature subject matter. 

According to PTC, none of the programs 

examined received the TV–MA rating 

for mature audiences, and forty percent 

or more of the programs lacked one or 

more of the appropriate content 

descriptors for suggestive dialogue 

(‘‘D’’), sexual (‘‘S’’) or violent content 

(‘‘V’’), or strong language (‘‘L’’). PTC 

argues that the problems in applying the 

TV Parental Guidelines stem from the 

fact that there are no guidelines 

dictating how the ratings should be 

applied and that each network rates its 

own programs. Other studies have also 

indicated that the ratings may not be 

correctly applied and that parents do 

not believe that programs are rated 

accurately. We seek comment on these 

views. Are broadcasters and other 

programming distributors transmitting 

the ratings information, as they agreed 

to do in 1997? 

19. As noted above, commercials are 

currently not rated using the TV 

Parental Guidelines. The Commission 

and others have raised concerns about 

the airing of inappropriate or adultoriented commercials during 

programming directed to or widely 

viewed by children. We invite comment 

on the extent to which inappropriate 

commercials are aired in programming 

viewed by children and on possible 

solutions to this problem. Could 

commercials be rated so that the V-chip 

or other technology could be used to 

filter out commercials with 

inappropriate content? What role should 

the Government, industry, or thirdparties play in this effort? 

20. We invite comment on blocking 

technology that operates based on 

ratings established by an entity other 

than the creator of the programming. 

Section 2(b) of the Act directs us to 

examine advanced blocking 

technologies that ‘‘operate 

independently of ratings pre-assigned 

by the creator of such video or audio 

programming’’ and that enhance the 

ability of a parent to protect his or her 

child from indecent or objectionable 

programming ‘‘as determined by such 

parent.’’ Are there technologies 

currently available or in development 

that give parents a greater role in 

determining how programs should be 

rated? How could the Commission 

encourage the development, 

deployment, and use of such 

technology? 

21. Other parties have also called for 

improvements in the V-chip and the TV 

ratings. In a November 2008 letter, the 

Benton Foundation, Common Sense 

Media, and the Coalition for 

Independent Ratings (CFIRS, et al.) 

urged the Commission to take steps to 

ensure that digital televisions can 

respond to ‘‘improved content ratings 

that could help parents better select 

what content enters their homes.’’ 

CFIRS, et al. noted that the current 

ratings system does not allow parents to 

block programs that ‘‘glamorize 

smoking, alcohol abuse or illegal drug 

use’’ and does not allow ratings in 

languages other than English. CFIRS, et 

al. also noted that several new TV 

ratings systems have been developed 

since the present guidelines that would 

give viewers a choice of which 

guidelines to use. CFIRS, et al. argued 

that V-chip requirements should ensure 

that there is ample space for future 

generations to extend the current ratings 

and develop new ones. The concept of 

a V-chip that can accommodate ratings 

other than the existing TV Parental 

Guidelines is generally referred to as the 

‘‘open V-chip.’’ The Commission has 

generally endorsed this concept by 

recognizing that the ability to modify 

the current rating system is beneficial 

and by requiring that television sets 

have the capacity to respond to changes 

in the TV ratings. In their November 

2008 letter, CFIRS, et al. urged the 

Commission to take action on an issue 

pending in the Commission’s Second 

DTV Periodic Review proceeding. 

Ratings systems are carried in Rating 

Region Tables (RRTs). The Advanced 

Television Systems Committee (ATSC), 

which maintains the list of rating region 

assignments, originally assigned 0x01 

(RRT 1) to the United States. RRT 1 

carries the current U.S. rating system 

(the TV Parental Guidelines and MPAA 

ratings). Prior to the Second DTV 

Periodic Report and Order, 69 FR 59500, 

October 4, 2004, television sets were 

designed to convey only the ratings 

information contained in RRT 1. In the 

Second DTV Periodic Report and Order, 

the Commission stated that ‘‘[w]e 

generally believe that the ability to 

modify the current content advisory 

system is beneficial’’ and that ‘‘to ensure 

the ability to modify the content 

advisory system, receivers must be able 

to process newer RRT version numbers 

or use new rating region codes as 

suggested by ATSC.’’ The Commission 

also revised 47 CFR 15.120(d)(2) to, 

among other things, state that ‘‘[d]igital 

television receivers shall be able to 

respond to changes in the content 

advisory system.’’ 47 CFR 15.120(d)(2). 

Subsequent to the adoption of the 

Second DTV Periodic Report and Order, 

the ATSC reserved rating region code 

0x05 (RRT 5) for an unspecified 

alternative U.S. rating system or 

systems. The Consumer Electronics 

Association (CEA) filed a petition for 

reconsideration of the Second DTV 

Periodic Report and Order arguing that 

receivers should be required to respond 

to only one additional RRT—RRT 5—in 

addition to RRT 1. See Petition for 

Reconsideration and/or Clarification of 

CEA, filed Nov. 3, 2004, in MB Docket 

No. 03–15. CFIRS and other parties have 

filed oppositions to the CEA Petition, 

arguing that television sets should not 

be limited to only one additional RRT 

and that more capacity is needed to 

accommodate additional and improved 

ratings systems. The CEA Petition 

remains pending. The specific issue 

raised in the CEA Petition regarding 

RRTs will be resolved in the Second 

DTV Periodic Review proceeding. If the 

V-chip could accommodate multiple 

program ratings created, for example, by 

different ratings services, how would 

this system be implemented? How 

would multiple ratings be incorporated 

into programming? How would parents 

select a rating system for use on their 

television set and how could a V-chip 

offering this degree of choice be made 

easy for parents to use? Could parents 

decide to use more than one rating 

system on the same television set and, 

if so, how would parents move from one 

system to another? 

22. We invite comment on whether 

there are intellectual property concerns 

that could affect efforts to improve the 

V-chip and the current ratings system, 

as well as efforts to develop an ‘‘open 

V-chip’’ and other next-generation 

parental control technologies. There is a 

patent on the technology that may be 

necessary to enable television 

manufacturers to implement an open Vchip regime whereby television 

receivers must respond to multiple 

Ratings Region Tables (RRTs) capable of 

containing expanded ratings systems 

and/or multiple ratings systems. 

Licenses for this technology are being 

offered through Tri-Vision International 

Limited (‘‘Tri-Vision’’), a Canadian 

company. Would the Tri-Vision patent 

apply in a situation in which a 

television set could respond to multiple 

RRTs, therefore providing capacity for 

the set’s V-chip to process additional 

and/or more-detailed ratings systems? 

Are the licensing terms that Tri-Vision 

offers reasonable? What steps should be 

taken to ensure that patent issues do not 

discourage manufacturers from 

including blocking technology in 

consumer equipment? We also invite 

comment on what, if any, alternative 

ratings systems for use in conjunction 

with the V-chip are available or are in 

the process of being developed. 

23. Apart from the V-chip, we invite 

comment on any other advanced 

blocking technologies for television 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 11339 

either currently in existence or under 

development. We note that TiVo’s 

KidZone permits parents to both block 

and select and/or record programming 

for their children based on a list of 

recommended programs developed by a 

number of independent organizations, 

including Common Sense Media, 

Discovery Kids, and the Parents 

Television Council. How does TiVo 

compare to the V-chip in terms of ease 

of use and effectiveness? Are there any 

data regarding actual use of KidZone by 

parents? Are other entities offering 

similar devices? TiVo technology 

permits parents not only to screen-out 

content parents find inappropriate, but 

also to select specific content based on 

recommendations from a number of 

different entities. Does any other 

technology offer the ability to select 

desired programming as well as screenout objectionable programming? 

24. Pursuant to section 2(b)(3) of the 

Act, we also seek comment on advanced 

blocking technologies that ‘‘can filter 

language based upon information in 

closed captioning.’’ This language seems 

to focus on technology that uses closed 

captions to identify inappropriate 

content in television programs. One 

technology being offered now is 

TVGuardian, which operates by 

scanning closed captioning, muting the 

audio part of the program when 

offensive phrases appear, and 

displaying a profanity-free version of 

the phrase at the bottom of the TV 

screen. We invite comment on this 

technology and any others that use 

closed captioning as the basis for 

screening programming. We note that 

closed captions are not always 

synchronized perfectly with the audio, 

and thus the captions may appear 

slightly before or after the time words 

are spoken as part of the on-screen 

program. We invite comment on 

whether and how this lack of 

synchronization affects the use of 

captions to block inappropriate content. 

25. Finally, what methods would be 

most effective in encouraging the 

development and use of advanced 

blocking technology for television? 

What role should the industry, trade 

associations, consumer organizations, 

and Government play in this regard? Do 

private entities have sufficient incentive 

to develop advanced blocking 

technologies for commercial use? What 

other parental empowerment tools and 

initiatives are available to help parents 

protect their children from 

programming that they consider 

objectionable or indecent? 

B. Cable and Satellite 

26. We invite comment on the 

additional parental control options 

available to cable and satellite 

subscribers. What tools are available to 

parents, how easy are these tools to use, 

and how widely are they employed by 

parents to control what their children 

watch? Like the V-chip, cable set top 

boxes and satellite receivers permit 

parents to block programs that contain 

certain ratings under the TV Parental 

Guidelines. Are these boxes easier to 

use than the V-chip? In addition, digital 

cable set-top boxes and satellite 

receivers offer the option of blocking 

entire channels or blocking individual 

programs. We are interested in any 

research that compares cable and 

satellite blocking devices to the V-chip, 

particularly in terms of ease of use and 

popularity with parents. We also invite 

comment on blocking technology for 

digital video recorders (DVRs). 

Although these devices are not 

specifically mentioned in section 2(b)(2) 

of the Act, DVRs are generally 

incorporated into or connected to a 

cable or satellite set top box and are an 

increasingly popular alternative to 

VCRs, which are specifically mentioned 

in section 2(b)(2). We note that TiVo, 

which is one brand of DVR, provides 

equipment that can be used in 

conjunction with cable and satellite 

service, thereby providing parents with 

access to the KidZone product described 

above. How do the options provided by 

TiVo and any other third-party DVR 

compare to the parental controls 

available in cable set top boxes and 

satellite receivers? In addition to 

technology currently available, are there 

any new technologies under 

development or on the horizon for 

satellite or cable? We also invite 

comment on how we could encourage 

the development of new technologies 

for these services, as well as their use by 

parents. 

C. Wireless Devices 

27. Providing parents and caregivers 

with tools to protect children from 

content they deem inappropriate may 

present additional challenges on 

wireless devices, which are typically 

operated by children away from the 

purview of their parents. Further, the 

devices themselves may be limited in 

the type of software or applications that 

can be added directly by the consumer. 

We note that the type of content 

available over wireless devices differs 

from that available over broadcast 

television, cable, or satellite in that 

consumers can view both carrierprovided content through packaged 

offerings (similar to broadcast, cable, 

and satellite TV) and outside, thirdparty content (similar to wireline 

broadband Internet service). Therefore, 

parents may need to have access to 

multiple types of advanced blocking 

technologies or ensure that the 

advanced blocking technologies can 

filter out objectionable content from 

multiple sources. 

28. Video programming and other 

content available on wireless devices 

includes both content offered by the 

wireless provider itself, such as 

streamed versions of certain cable TV 

channels, music videos, sports, news 

clips, TV programs, and short TV 

episodes made exclusively for mobile 

phones (mobisodes), as well as thirdparty content obtained via the Internet. 

We seek comment on any blocking 

technology currently available for 

content, particularly video 

programming, on wireless devices, as 

well as ways of encouraging the 

development, deployment, and use of 

such technology. We also invite 

comment on the availability of any other 

parental empowerment tools related to 

wireless devices. 

29. The wireless industry has 

developed child protection measures 

both for content offered by wireless 

providers as well as content available 

over the Internet on wireless devices. 

CTIA and participating wireless carriers 

have voluntarily adopted Carrier 

Content Classification and Internet 

Access Control Guidelines, which 

provide for voluntary classification 

standards for ‘‘Carrier Content’’ (those 

materials that reside with a carrier’s 

managed content portal or third party 

content whose charges are included on 

a carrier’s bill). Under the Guidelines, 

Accessible Carrier Content is available 

to consumers of all ages while 

Restricted Carrier Content is available to 

those 18 or older or to younger 

consumers with specific parental 

authorization. Each carrier is 

responsible for its implementation of 

access controls, including ageverification mechanisms, and those 

carriers agreeing to these voluntary 

guidelines have pledged not to offer any 

Restricted Carrier Content until they 

have provided controls to allow parents 

to restrict access to this type of content. 

Restricted Carrier Content includes 

intense profanity, intense violence, 

graphic depiction of sexual activity or 

sexual behaviors, nudity, hate speech, 

graphic depiction of illegal drug use, 

and any activities that are restricted by 

law to those 18 years of age and older, 

such as gambling and lotteries. Several 

larger carriers have already announced 

the institution of guidelines to block 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
11340 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

inappropriate content through parental 

control services. For example, Verizon 

Wireless allows parents to filter content 

by certain age categories (7+ years old, 

13+ years old, 17+ years old), which 

includes content on its Mobile Web 

service. 

30. The wireless industry is also 

developing ‘‘Internet Content Access 

Control’’ technologies to enable account 

holders to filter and block access to 

specific Web sites. According to CTIA, 

all major carriers currently provide 

consumers with the ability to block all 

Internet access on their devices. In 

addition, wireless companies are 

researching solutions to provide 

controls with the ability to limit specific 

Internet content or sites on consumers’ 

devices, which would be implemented 

on a carrier-by-carrier basis. 

31. We invite comment on these 

methods for controlling access to 

content available over wireless devices. 

Are these controls effective and easy to 

understand and activate by parents? To 

what extent are these parental control 

technologies used? Both the Carrier 

Content guidelines and the Internet 

Content Access Control guidelines filter 

content using age-based categories as 

defined by the industry rather than by 

consumers. How effective or accurate 

are these content ratings? How do these 

guidelines utilize existing standards, 

such as the TV Parental Guidelines or 

the MPAA rating system? Are there any 

technologies for wireless devices either 

currently in existence or in 

development that operate with a ratings 

system developed by an entity not 

associated with the content creator or 

the industry? 

32. In addition to the blocking 

technologies discussed above, we also 

seek information on any other types of 

blocking or filtering technologies 

currently available to consumers or 

other technologies currently in 

development for use on wireless 

devices. We note that technology is 

available on some wireless devices that 

permits parents to view the information 

children receive over these devices. 

How useful and widely used is this 

technology? We also invite comment on 

any other parental empowerment tools 

currently available for wireless 

technology. How do the features that 

make mobile, wireless devices unique 

(e.g., the size of the device/screen, the 

speed of broadband service on a mobile 

device, system requirements) affect how 

advanced blocking technologies operate 

for these devices? What are the pros and 

cons of using blocking technologies 

through the network versus via the 

handset? How does the type of filter 

(network-or handset-based) affect the 

user experience (e.g., ease of use, ability 

to personalize or change the settings on 

the filter, etc.)? Further, as wireless 

carriers move toward open platforms, 

how will blocking and filtering be 

affected? For instance, do parties expect 

there to be additional blocking 

applications available that are being 

created and marketed by third parties? 

Do third-party application providers 

need open platforms in place in order to 

provide these advanced blocking 

technologies to consumers, or do 

application providers generally provide 

their products to the carriers themselves 

rather than directly to end users? Do 

consumers using licensed wireless 

service have to purchasing or request 

free blocking or filtering from their 

wireless providers, or can they purchase 

or otherwise obtain freely these 

technologies themselves and load 

applications onto their wireless devices? 

33. We also seek comment on how to 

encourage the development, 

deployment, and use of blocking and 

filtering technologies on wireless 

devices by parents. To the extent 

wireless providers already have tools 

available to help parents protect 

children from inappropriate content, 

how are these providers educating 

consumers and publicizing the 

availability and convenience of such 

tools? How could trade organizations or 

consumer organizations publicize the 

development, deployment, and use of 

filtering technologies? In addition, what 

role should the Government play in 

ensuring that blocking and filtering 

tools are made available to parents so 

that children can be shielded from 

inappropriate content? 

D. Non-Networked Devices 

34. Section 2(b)(2) of the Act directs 

the Commission to examine advanced 

blocking technologies that ‘‘may be 

appropriate across a wide variety of 

devices capable of transmitting or 

receiving video or audio programming, 

including * * * DVD players [and] 

VCRs.’’ As directed by this section of 

the Act, we inquire as to the existence 

and availability of blocking technologies 

for non-networked devices capable of 

receiving video or audio programming, 

particularly DVD players and VCRs. We 

note that most DVD players do not 

contain a tuner and therefore are not 

themselves capable of transmitting or 

receiving video or audio programming. 

Nonetheless, as these devices are 

specifically identified in the Act, we 

seek comment on blocking technologies 

for these devices. 

35. DVD players and VCRs play a 

major role in the lives of many 

American families—DVD players are 

now owned by about 84% of American 

households and VCRs, while in decline, 

are still owned by the great majority of 

American households. However, unlike 

wired, wireless, or Internet platforms, 

which directly distribute video or audio 

content to consumers, DVD players and 

VCRs are dependent on video discs or 

videotapes to distribute content. This 

situation gives parents greater control 

over DVD players and VCRs than they 

have over other distribution platforms. 

Specifically, parents have the ability to 

purchase or rent for their children ageappropriate content for DVD players and 

VCRs and accumulate libraries of such 

content to be used at either their, or 

their children’s, discretion. Nonetheless, 

there may remain a legitimate concern— 

particularly for older children—to the 

extent that children make their own 

content purchases for DVD players and 

VCRs or are given inappropriate 

videotapes or video discs by other 

children or adults. Thus, there may be 

a role for blocking technologies for these 

devices. We invite comment on whether 

blocking technologies exist or are under 

development for DVD players and VCRs 

and, if so, how these technologies 

compare to blocking technologies 

available for other distribution 

platforms and networked devices. We 

also seek comment on whether blocking 

technologies exist for similar nonnetworked devices, such as digital audio 

players (MP3 players) and portable 

media players. If blocking technologies 

exist for non-networked devices, to 

what extent are they used by parents? 

What methods would be effective in 

encouraging the development and use of 

such technology? Movies on DVDs and 

video tapes are generally rated using the 

MPAA rating system. Is this rating 

system effective? 

E. Content Available Over the Internet 

36. Section 2(b)(1) of the Act directs 

us to consider advanced blocking 

technologies that ‘‘may be appropriate 

across a wide variety of distribution 

platforms, including * * * Internet 

platforms.’’ Video and audio 

programming is increasingly available 

on the Internet. Many sources of video 

and audio programs traditionally seen 

on television are making their content 

available over the Internet, and third 

party online services such as Hulu 

permit individuals to watch television 

programs and movies that are streamed 

to computer screens. Other sites such as 

iTunes provide a download-on-demand 

service, permitting individuals to 

download TV shows and movies to their 

computers or from a computer to 

devices such as an iPod or iPhone. 

Some programs are also available as 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 11341 

podcasts and vodcasts which can be 

subscribed to, downloaded on demand, 

and played on computers, wireless 

devices, and MP3 (audio) or MP4 

(video) players. Some video hosting 

services, such as YouTube, permit 

anyone to upload videos that can be 

streamed to viewers, thereby permitting 

Internet content to be created by 

individuals not associated with 

traditional television content. In 

addition, peer-to-peer applications have 

likewise facilitated the distribution of 

content over the Internet. As discussed 

in paragraph 8, supra, we invite 

comment on what video found on the 

Internet should properly be considered 

‘‘video programming’’ for purposes of 

this proceeding. 

37. The safety of children online has 

been a primary concern of families and 

Congress since the Internet was first 

opened to public use. Congress has 

passed several laws seeking to protect 

children from Internet content, and has 

requested several reports on child 

online safety. There have also been a 

number of non-U.S. Government studies 

that have examined child online safety. 

Most recently, in addition to this 

inquiry mandated by the Child Safe 

Viewing Act, Congress directed the 

NTIA to establish the Online Safety and 

Technology Working Group (‘‘OSTWG’’) 

‘‘to review and evaluate the status of 

industry efforts to promote online safety 

through educational efforts, parental 

control technology, blocking and 

filtering software, age-appropriate labels 

for content or other technologies or 

initiatives designed to promote a safe 

online environment for children.’’ The 

OSTWG has one year from the date it is 

first convened to submit a report to 

Congress. We invite comment on how 

our inquiry in this proceeding should 

differ from the effort of the OSTWG. We 

also invite comment on what 

information learned in previous studies 

of the Internet, online safety, and 

parental control technologies could be 

applied to our mandate under the Child 

Safe Viewing Act to examine advanced 

blocking technologies for Internet video 

and audio programming? What have we 

learned since previous reports and how 

has the Internet evolved, including in 

ways perhaps not anticipated by those 

studies? 

38. We invite comment generally on 

advanced blocking technologies and 

parental empowerment tools that assist 

parents in controlling their children’s 

access to audio and video programming 

on the Internet. Blocking technology 

allows an individual to receive all 

content except content that is blocked 

because it is on a blacklist. The list of 

what is blocked may be generated 

through an automated analysis, human 

review, or by user options. Individuals 

can select different blocking services 

which may block based on different 

criteria, permitting parents to select a 

service that more closely matches their 

concerns. The list of blocked content 

may be updated regularly from the 

filtering service or from a third party 

service that reviews Internet content. 

Generally blocking technology gives the 

owner the ability to use a password to 

turn off the filters when desired. 

39. In addition to blocking, there are 

a number of other kinds of parental 

empowerment tools currently available 

for the Internet. For example, many 

services give content creators, viewers, 

and third-parties the ability to label or 

tag content. Creators can label their own 

content and individuals watching a 

video, viewing a photo, or reading a 

blog can tag that content as worthy of 

reading, offensive, or perhaps a 

violation of community standards. 

Reviews and ratings of content can also 

be provided by third-party Web sites. 

We invite comment on whether tagging 

or labeling content is an effective 

solution to protect children from 

inappropriate content. Is offensive 

content appropriately flagged, and has 

the industry been responsive in acting 

on flagged content? Is tagging, labeling, 

or flagging content by the Internet 

community itself more effective than 

filtering by the industry or a third-party 

based on ratings developed by the 

industry or a third-party? 

40. Another strategy currently used on 

the Internet to block indecent or 

offensive content is the creation of child 

safe zones that ‘‘white list’’ safe content 

and block out unwanted content. 

Examples of child safe zones include 

.Kids.US and Teen Second Life. Has the 

child safe zone strategy been effective, 

and do parents know about this option? 

Do children, particularly teenagers, 

simply bypass the restrictions of these 

safe zones, for example by going straight 

to the adult space instead of staying in 

the designated child safe space? Other 

parental control solutions currently 

available on the Internet include 

monitoring and recording devices that 

provide parents with information about 

their children’s Internet use, takedown 

and acceptable use policies adopted by 

certain Web sites that identify and 

remove objectionable content, services 

offered by some Web sites that restrict 

access by children to parts of the site, 

and age verification. We invite comment 

on these and any other technologies 

available or under development to 

control children’s access to Internet 

content, as well as any other parental 

empowerment tools currently available. 

Is there technology that would permit 

parents to select programming for their 

children similar to TiVo KidZone? 

41. We also invite comment on how 

we can encourage the development and 

use of advanced blocking technologies 

and other parental control solutions for 

video and audio programming available 

over the Internet. We note that parental 

control solutions can be implemented in 

a variety of ways in a variety of 

locations in the network, which offers 

the opportunity for multiple approaches 

to providing parental control. For 

example, blocking technology can reside 

in a specific application that an 

individual is using (a Web browser that 

blocks pop-up ads or an e-mail 

application that blocks spam); in an 

individual’s computer (a firewall that 

blocks malicious traffic); in an 

individual’s local network (a network 

gateway that restricts access to the 

network); in an individual’s Internet 

access service (ISP blocking ports that 

are used in worm and virus attacks); 

within Internet networks (networks 

blocking malicious man-in-the-middle 

phishing attacks); at the hosting site of 

the content or applications (hosting site 

takes down content which does not 

comply with the host’s acceptable use 

policy); or at a third party site which is 

monitoring for unwanted content (an 

organization that reviews Web sites and 

publishes a list of Web sites that do not 

meet that organization’s criteria). Which 

of these approaches shows promise for 

providing parents with ability to control 

children’s access to objectionable 

content? Are end-user device based 

mechanisms preferable in terms of 

providing for parental control? What 

types of advanced blocking mechanisms 

could be built into consumer-level 

routers? Are any blocking technologies 

currently in use effective in giving 

parents the ability to restrict their 

children’s access to objectionable 

content from sources other than Web 

sites? 

42. Finally, to what extent are 

children able to circumvent the blocking 

technologies adopted by parents? We 

note that encryption of content may 

circumvent advanced blocking 

mechanisms. We also note that children 

may obtain access to content deemed 

objectionable via Internet access not 

controlled by a child’s parents, such as 

Wi-Fi hot spots, a neighbor’s wireless 

LAN, or Internet access that is publicly 

available, such as in schools and 

libraries and Internet cafes. Children 

may also circumvent parental controls 

in the home through the use of portable 

storage devices, such as a flash drive or 

an iPod or recordable DVDs. Is there 

technology available to parents that 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
11342 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

would prevent a child from obtaining 

objectionable content from outside the 

home and later viewing or listening to 

it on equipment in the home? In light of 

the ways in which blocking technology 

might be circumvented, what role 

should education play in protecting 

children from objectionable content? 

How can the value of the Internet as an 

educational and informational tool for 

children be balanced against efforts to 

ensure children’s online safety? 

F. Blocking Technologies Compatible 

With Multiple Platforms 

43. Finally, we seek general comment 

on whether there are blocking 

technologies currently available or in 

development that are capable of 

operating across multiple platforms. 

Because children today have access to 

multiple media platforms, content that 

parents may have blocked on one 

medium could potentially be accessed 

by children on another medium. For 

example, while parents may have 

activated the V-chip to block TV–14 

content on the family television set, a 

child may be able to access the same 

content over the Internet on the family 

computer or on the child’s own laptop 

or wireless device. To what extent could 

blocking technologies compatible with 

multiple platforms provide a solution to 

parents in this situation? For example, 

are there technologies that could operate 

on a wireless network or wireless device 

as well as another platform (such as 

cable or wireline service)? Are Internet 

filters able to filter Internet content to 

all devices, including wireless devices, 

or are they limited to computers (which 

would include wireless modem cards 

used on laptops or other portable 

devices, but not wireless smartphones)? 

To the extent that blocking technologies 

are able to filter Internet content to both 

wireline and wireless devices, are there 

any technical limitations for filters 

operating on laptops using wireless 

laptop cards, due to the potentially 

slower speed of a wireless broadband 

service? Are there other issues that need 

to be resolved in order to ensure that 

blocking technologies can operate 

seamlessly across platforms? 

Administrative Matters 

44. Ex Parte Rules. Pursuant to 

§ 1.1204(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.1204(b)(1), this is an exempt 

proceeding. Ex parte presentations are 

permitted, and need not be disclosed. 

45. Comments and Reply Comments. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on the Notice of Inquiry, MB 

Docket No. 09–26, on or before the dates 

indicated on the first page of this 

document. Comments may be filed 

using: (1) The Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the 

Federal Government’s eRulemaking 

Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, 

May 1, 1998. 

46. Electronic Filers: Comments may 

be filed electronically using the Internet 

by accessing the ECFS: http:// 

www.Commission.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

Web site for submitting comments. 

For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or 

rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of 

this proceeding, filers must transmit one 

electronic copy of the comments for each 

docket or rulemaking number referenced in 

the caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full name, 

U.S. 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, filers should send an e-mail to 

ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following 

words in the body of the message, ‘‘get form.’’ 

A sample form and directions will be sent in 

response. 

47. Paper Filers: 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 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

48. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). All filings must be addressed to 

the Commission’s Secretary, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• In addition, parties must serve the 

following with either an electronic copy 

via e-mail or a paper copy of each 

pleading: (1) the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554, telephone 1–800–378–3160, or 

via e-mail at http://www.bcpiweb.com; 

and (2) Kim Matthews, Media Bureau, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room 4–A813, 

Kim.Matthews@fcc.gov. 

49. People with Disabilities: Contact 

the Commission to request materials in 

accessible formats (Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format, etc.) by email at 

Commission504@Commission.gov or 

call the Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 

202–418–0432 (TTY). 

50. Additional Information. For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Kim Matthews, 

Media Bureau, at (202) 418–2154, or at 

kim.matthews@fcc.gov. 

Ordering Clause 

51. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 4(i), 303(g), and 403 of the 

Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 

303(g), and 403, and pursuant to the 

Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007, this 

Notice of Inquiry is adopted. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–5635 Filed 3–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R1–ES–2008–0096; MO 922105083– 

B2] 

RIN 1018–AW34 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing the Plant Lepidium 

papilliferum (Slickspot Peppergrass) 

as Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period and notice of 

document availability. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of new information relevant 

to our consideration of the status of 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS