20586 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1Children’s Television Act of 1989, Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation, S. Rep. No. 227, 101st Cong., 1st

Sess. 1, 9 (1989) (‘‘Senate Report’’).

The other provisions of the CTA, those intended

to protect children from over commercialization of

programming, are not at issue in this proceeding. 2 47 C.F.R. 73.671 Note.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 93–48; FCC 95–143]

Broadcast Services; Children’s

Television

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule making.

SUMMARY: This Notice proposes a

number of changes to the Commission’s

rules regarding the broadcast of

television programming that serves the

educational and information needs of

children, in order to implement the

Children’s Television Act of 1990 (CTA)

more effectively. First, the Commission

proposes to require broadcasters to

identify, on the air and in materials

provided to publishers of broadcast

schedules, programming ‘‘specifically

designed’’ to educate and inform

children. The Commission also seeks

comment on ways to improve the

quality of, and public access to, the

information broadcasters make available

regarding their efforts in providing

children’s educational and

informational programming. Second, the

Commission proposes to clarify its

definition of ‘‘educational and

informational programming’’ by

adopting a definition of ‘‘core’’

programming. The Commission also

seeks comment on which of three

alternative options for further action

should be implemented:

Commission monitoring of the

amount of educational and

informational programming on the air

during a specified period following

adoption of measures to improve the

flow of programming information to the

public and a clarified definition;

adoption of a safe harbor processing

guideline specifying an amount of core

programming that would satisfy the

CTA; and adoption of a programming

standard requiring that every station be

responsible for the airing of a minimum

amount of core programming in its

market. The Commission also invites

comment on possible new license

renewal procedures and program

sponsorship rules allowing licensees the

option of meeting their programming

obligation under the CTA in part by

sponsoring core programming on other

stations in their market. This action is

taken to ensure that the educational and

informational needs of children are

satisfied and thus that broadcasters

comply with the CTA.

DATES: Comments are due by June 16,

1995, and reply comments are due by

July 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane Conley, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

776–1653.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in MM

Docket No. 93–48, FCC 95–143, adopted

April 5, 1995, and released April 7,

1995. The complete text of this NPRM

is available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and

also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, N.W.,

Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule

Making

1. Through this NPRM, the

Commission seeks comment on several

proposals aimed at providing licensees

with clear, simple, and fair guidance

regarding their children’s programming

obligation, to facilitate compliance with

the Children’s Television Act of 1990

(CTA or Act). The CTA was enacted to

‘‘increase the amount of educational and

informational broadcast television

programming for children.’’ 1 In

response to this mandate, the

Commission earlier adopted a Report

and Order in MM Dockets 90–570 and

83–670 (56 FR 19611, April 29, 1991)

and a Memorandum Opinion and Order

in the same proceeding (56 FR 42707,

August 29, 1991), establishing rules

which implemented the CTA.

2. The CTA imposes an affirmative

obligation on broadcast television

stations to serve the educational and

informational needs of children through

not only their ‘‘overall programming,’’

but also programming ‘‘specifically

designed’’ to serve children’s needs. The

Act requires the Commission, in

evaluating its licensees’ license renewal

applications, to determine whether

stations have met this obligation. The

CTA also authorizes the Commission, as

part of its license renewal review

process, to consider any special

nonbroadcast efforts by the licensee that

enhance the educational and

information value of programming to

children, and any special efforts by the

licensee to produce or support

programming specifically designed to

serve the educational and informational

needs of children that is broadcast by

another station in the licensee’s market.

Our current rules generally incorporate

the language of the statute and also

define educational and informational

programming as ‘‘programming that

furthers the positive development of

children 16 years of age and under in

any respect, including the child’s

intellectual/cognitive or social/

emotional needs.’’ 2 In addition, we

require broadcasters to air some amount

of standard-length educational and

informational programming specifically

designed for children 16 years of age

and under. The Commission has

adopted no other guidelines regarding

the types of programming that may

contribute to satisfying a station’s

renewal review requirement, and our

rules contain no requirement as to the

number of hours of educational and

informational programming that stations

must broadcast or the time of day during

which such programming may be aired.

3. After developing some experience

with the CTA, including the review of

more than 320 television license

renewals, the Commission issued a

Notice of Inquiry (NOI) initiating this

proceeding (58 FR 14367, March 17,

1993) to examine whether its children’s

television rules should be revised. After

careful consideration of the studies,

comments, and other information

regarding the availability of educational

broadcast programming provided in

response to the NOI and in connection

with the FCC’s en banc hearing on

children’s television held on June 28,

1994 (59 FR 22814, May 3, 1994), the

Commission finds that this evidence is

insufficient to support a conclusion as

to whether or not the educational and

informational needs of children are

being met, including whether the CTA

and our existing regulations have

precipitated a significant increase in the

amount of children’s educational and

informational programming carried by

commercial broadcasters. In particular,

none of the studies submitted enables us

to determine accurately what amount of

programming specifically designed to

educate and inform children is currently

being aired by commercial stations.

4. Even if the Commission accepts the

conclusion drawn by some parties that

the amount of educational programming

on the air has increased since

implementation of our rules, the degree

of that increase appears to be quite
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 20587

modest at best. Thus, the Commission is

not convinced that the current rules are

prompting an adequate response to the

CTA. Accordingly, the Commission

feels that it would be desirable to

precipitate a more substantial and

significant increase in the amount of

children’s educational and

informational programming—in

particular, programming specifically

designed to educate and inform

children—in the future.

5. In developing the rule revisions it

proposes, the Commission has followed

three principles. The first principle is

that judgments of the quality of a

licensee’s programming, educational or

otherwise, are best made by the

audience, not by the federal

government. It should not be necessary

for the Commission to make such

judgments if the public has sufficient

programming information to play an

active role in ensuring that the goals of

the CTA are met. The provision of better

programing information to the public

should give parents and others the

opportunity to influence broadcasters to

air more educational programming—by,

for example, encouraging children to

watch educational programming and

thereby increasing the ratings for such

programming—and should also

facilitate enforcement of the CTA.

6. To improve the flow of information

to the public, the Commission proposes

to require broadcasters to identify

programs as educational at the time they

are aired and in materials provided to

publishers of television schedules. Such

identifications need not take up large

amounts of air time or print and could

be as simple as an icon. Commenters are

asked not only to discuss this specific

proposal, but also to propose any

additional methods for informing the

public of upcoming children’s

programming. Comment is also sought

on how to improve the quality of, and

public access to, the information

provided by stations regarding their

efforts to provide programming

specifically designed to serve the

educational and informational needs of

children. The Commission seeks

comment on revising our existing rule

requiring broadcasters to place in their

public inspection files annual or

quarterly reports about the children’s

programming they air. One suggested

change is to require broadcasters to

include in these reports the name of and

method for contacting the person at the

station responsible for collecting

comments on the station’s compliance

with the CTA. The Commission further

seeks comment on ways of rendering the

required information in an easily

understandable yet comprehensive

form, and whether these reports should

be required annually or quarterly or

whether stations should continue to be

allowed to choose between the two

options.

7. The second principle the

Commission has followed is that our

rules and processes should be as clear,

simple, and fair as possible. To this end,

the Commission proposes to revise our

definition of ‘‘educational and

informational’’ programming. The

current definition—‘‘programming that

furthers the positive development of

children 16 years of age and under in

any respect, including the child’s

intellectual/cognitive or social/

emotional needs’’—is ambiguous and

fails to give licensees clear guidance.

Indeed, some licensees have interpreted

this definition to include general

audience news and game shows.

Moreover, the Commission has never

defined what constitutes programming

‘‘specifically designed’’ to serve

children’s educational and

informational needs, even though the

CTA expressly requires each licensee to

provide such programming. The

Commission is concerned that this lack

of clarity has led to less than optimal

compliance with the goals of the CTA

and that, unless greater specificity is

provided, noneducational programming

could drive educational programming

off the air. The Commission therefore

proposes to adopt a definition of

programming specifically designed to

serve children’s educational and

informational needs, i.e., ‘‘core’’

programming.

8. The Commission tentatively

concludes that we should define ‘‘core’’

educational programming as those

programs that meet the following

requirements: (1) The program is

specifically designed to meet the

educational and informational needs of

children ages 16 and under (i.e., has

education as a significant purpose); (2)

the educational objective of the program

and the target child audience are

specified in writing in the children’s

programming report described above; (3)

the program is aired between the hours

of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.; (4) the

program is regularly scheduled; (5) the

program is of a substantial length (e.g.,

15 or 30 minutes); and (6) the program

is identified as educational children’s

programming at the time it is aired, and

instructions for listing it as educational

programming are provided by the

licensee to program guides. The

Commission seeks comment on this

definition.

9. The Commission’s third principle

is that broadcasters should be guided by

market forces, to the greatest extent

possible, in determining whether they

meet their programming obligation by

airing shows themselves, or by

sponsoring programming aired on other

stations. The program sponsorship

concept, most relevant to the options

discussed below of adopting processing

guidelines or programming standards,

would permit a broadcaster to better

utilize other stations’ children’s

programming expertise, would allow

some stations to develop audience

identification and programming

schedules that build child audiences,

and could stimulate growth in the

production of educational and

informational programming, all while

reducing disincentives to airing such

programming.

10. While the Commission believes

that the proposals to ensure that the

public has greater access to information

and to clarify the definition of

educational and informational

programming are important steps

toward promoting the goals of the CTA

more effectively, the Commission is

concerned that these efforts may not

suffice to serve the educational and

informational needs of children, and to

bring about the kind of measurable

increase in such programming

contemplated by Congress. Accordingly,

the Commission also proposes to take

one of the following three types of

action.

11. The first option available to the

Commission would be to monitor the

amount of broadcasted programming

specifically designed to serve the

educational and informational needs of

children for a specified period of time

(e.g., three years) to determine whether

the Commission’s efforts to increase the

flow of information to the public and

clarify our rules have caused a

significant increase in such

programming. Stations would be

required to submit annual descriptions

of their educational and informational

programming. At the end of the

specified period, the Commission would

assess the need for further regulatory

action.

12. A second option would be to

establish a safe harbor quantitative

processing guideline. Such a guideline

would specify an amount of core

programming that would represent one

means of satisfying the CTA’s

programming obligation and permit staff

approval of the children’s programming

portion of a license renewal application.

Under this option, if a licensee aired the

prescribed amount of programming, its

license renewal application would not

be reviewed further for CTA

programming compliance. The only

challenges to a licensee’s children’s
20588 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules

3Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 852

F.2d 1332, 1343 n. 18 (D.C. Cir. 1988) and Supreme

Court Cases cited therein.

programming performance that would

be entertained would be those

questioning the bona fides of a

licensee’s claim to have met the

processing guideline. A licensee that

did not meet the processing guideline

would have its application referred to

the Commission for consideration and

would have the opportunity to

demonstrate that it had complied with

the CTA in other ways. The Commission

would then evaluate such a licensee’s

performance based on its overall efforts

and other circumstances. Failure to

meet the guideline would thus result in

greater review of the application, but

would not constitute a de facto violation

of the Commission’s rules.

13. Given the results of the studies

submitted in the record thus far, and

allowing for the possibility that these

studies may be somewhat flawed, the

Commission is currently inclined to

think that, if a processing guideline is

adopted, it should be set at 3 hours per

week of core programming, at least

initially. The Commission seeks

comment on this suggestion and on

whether, if a processing guideline is

adopted, it should be increased in stages

over time. If the Commission adopts a

phased-in processing guideline, what

should the ultimate level of the

guideline be, and over what period of

time should it be phased in? One

possibility would be to increase the

guideline by increments of the half hour

each year until reaching a level of 5

hours of core programming per week.

14. A third option would be to

establish a standard requiring that every

station be responsible for the airing of

a minimum amount of core

programming in its market. Stations

meeting this requirement would qualify

for staff approval of the children’s

programming portion of their license

renewal application. Those not meeting

the standard would have their

applications referred to the Commission

for determination of the appropriate

remedy. Notwithstanding failure to meet

the standard, the Commission could

hold that the licensee had in fact

complied with the CTA’s requirements.

However, a licensee failing to meet a

standard would have a much heavier

burden to show that it complied with

the CTA than would be the case if it did

not meet a processing guideline. Thus,

a licensee failing to meet a standard

would have to make a compelling

showing that the qualifying

programming it did air, along with any

of its other programming-related

activities in its market, served the

educational and informational needs of

children in that market as well as or

better than an additional amount of

programming specifically designed to

serve the educational and informational

needs of children. Again, the

Commission believes that, given the

current level of programming

documented by the data submitted, the

appropriate level of a programming

requirement would be 3 hours of core

programming per week, at least initially.

The Commission seeks comment on this

suggestion and, as with the option of a

processing guideline, interested parties

are invited to comment on whether it

would be appropriate to increase the

requirement by, for example, one half

hour each year until a requirement of 5

hours of core programming per week is

established. A programming standard,

or rule, may be easier to administer and

would give the Commission a broader

range of sanctions than a processing

guideline. The Commission solicits

comment on these and other factors

differentiating a processing guideline

from a standard.

15. There are a number of questions

on which the Commission seeks

comment that are raised by both the

option of a safe harbor processing

guideline and that of a programming

standard. First, comment is sought on

the Commission’s suggestion of a

weekly processing guideline or

programming standard averaged over a

specified period, and the Commission

asks for ideas as to the period of time

over which a guideline or standard

should be averaged. The Commission

also seeks comment on the extent to

which repeats during a weekly schedule

and later reruns of programs should be

counted toward fulfillment of any

processing guideline or programming

requirement that might be adopted.

Second, the Commission seeks comment

as to whether a processing guideline or

programming requirement should be the

same for all stations regardless of station

type or market size. Third, it has been

publicly suggested that to give stations

an incentive to air high-quality

programming, a programming

requirement should be based entirely on

a certain amount of rating points. The

Commission invites comment on this

suggestion and on whether it would be

appropriate for either a processing

guideline or a programming standard.

16. Finally, interested parties are

asked to provide the Commission with

further data and related information.

The Commission requests in particular

detailed information regarding any

potential opportunity costs (i.e., the

difference in profits from children’s

educational programming and from

other programming that might be aired

instead) for broadcasters that would be

created by the implementation of a

processing guideline or programming

requiring set at various levels. More

specifically, the Commission requests

that commenters provide us with one or

more studies that quantify any such

costs for stations in different sized

markets, as well as for the broadcasting

industry as a whole. The Commission

urges commenters to ensure that the

sample data used to develop estimates

of any opportunity costs that stations

might face are representative and that

the methodology used to develop the

estimates is clearly explained. The

Commission also reiterates to all

interested parties the importance of

providing information and studies, in

addition to those already on record,

documenting changes in the nature and

amount of children’s educational

programming on the air, especially

recently. In providing such studies,

commenters should bear in mind that

the utility of the material already

presented to us in this inquiry is

limited. For example, the results of

certain station surveys accept at face

value station claims as to the

educational consent of their

programming, and our experience with

such claims suggests that the figures

produced by these studies may be

inflated. The Commission notes that if

data were submitted that show that the

educational and informational needs of

children are being met consistent with

the goals of the CTA, we would reassess

the need for further action.

17. In weighing alternatives for

further Commission action, the

Commission must consider any

limitations imposed by the First

Amendment of the Constitution. Even

assuming that the Commission’s

proposals were found to be contentbased restrictions on speech, some

restrictions on content have been judged

permissible when applied to

broadcasting because of the scarcity of

frequencies and broadcasters’

concomitant duty to provide public

service. To be consistent with the First

Amendment, content-based restrictions

on speech in the broadcasting context

must be narrowly tailored to further a

substantial government interest. The

Commission tentatively concludes, and

the case law suggests, that the

government has a substantial interest in

furthering the education and welfare of

children through implementation of the

CTA. The courts have held that there is

a compelling government interest in

‘‘safeguarding the physical and

psychological well being of a minor.’’ 3
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 20589

4Senate Report at 17; see also House Report at 11.

The legislative history of the CTA states

that ‘‘[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.’’ 4 The Commission seeks

comment on whether each of the

proposed alternatives for improving

implementation of the CTA is narrowly

tailored to further the CTA’s interest in

furthering the education and welfare of

children and on its analysis of First

Amendment issues as discussed in

paragraphs 66 through 73 in the full text

of this NPRM.

18. The Commission also seeks

comment on possible revisions to our

license renewal procedures that might

encourage the public to take a more

active role in urging stations to comply

with the CTA and reduce the

government’s role in reviewing such

compliance. Thus, the Commission

seeks comment on whether it should

require any party filing a petition to

deny to show that he or she had first

attempted to resolve the alleged

problem with the station in question,

and whether, if we implement a safe

harbor processing guideline or a

programming standard licensees should

be permitted to certify whether they

have aired the prescribed amount of

core programming.

19. Finally, the Commission solicits

comment on a number of general and

specific issues regarding ‘‘program

sponsorship’’ rules. If the Commission

adopts either a safe harbor processing

guideline or a programming standard,

such rules would give licensees the

option of either themselves airing the

entire prescribed amount of children’s

educational programming, or airing a

portion of the prescribed amount

themselves and taking responsibility for

the remainder by providing financial or

other ‘‘in-kind’’ support for

programming aired on other stations in

their market. The station sponsoring

educational programs shown elsewhere

would take credit for these programs at

license renewal time. We conclude that

the CTA precludes allowing a licensee

to meet either a processing guideline or

programming standard entirely by

sponsoring programming on other

stations in the same market. The

Commission thus suggests that under

either option each station be required to

air at least 1 hour of core educational

and informational programming itself

and that each be allowed to fulfill the

remaining hours by sponsoring core

programming on other stations. The

Commission also seeks comment on the

tentative views expressed in the full text

of the NPRM regarding how a program

sponsorship system should work. The

CTA and the Commission’s rules

already permit stations to receive credit

at license renewal time for supporting

educational programming on another

station in their market, and the

Commission has held that if one station

produces or buys children’s programs

broadcast on another station, so as to

qualify under 47 U.S.C. 303b(b)(2), both

stations may rely on such programming

in their license renewal applications.

The Commission now seeks comment

on whether that holding was correct, or

whether it undermines the CTA by

permitting ‘‘double counting.’’ It

appears that, at least for the purpose of

meeting a processing guideline or

programming requirement, stations that

air sponsored programming (‘‘host’’

stations) should not be permitted to

claim credit for such programming.

20. It is also the Commission’s view

that a station should be allowed to

sponsor programs for the purpose of

meeting a processing guideline or

programming requirement only on host

stations that serve largely the same

potential viewers. On the other hand,

the Commission does not believe that

we should require sponsor and host

stations to serve exactly the same area

because such a requirement would

unduly limit the program sponsorship

options available in many markets.

Taking into account these competing

considerations, it would seem sensible

to require that, when any portion of a

station’s programming that is claimed to

satisfy a processing guideline or

programming requirement consists of

programming shown on another station,

the signal of the host station cover 80

percent of either the community of

license or the area encompassed within

the grade A or grade B contour of the

sponsor station. The Commission seeks

comment on these ideas and on other

issues relevant to program sponsorship.

For example, the Commission asks for

comment on what types of information

about sponsored programs should be

provided to the public, and whether

antitrust law would limit the extent to

which stations in a market may

cooperate through program sponsorship

efforts.

21. If the Commission adopts either a

processing guideline or a programming

standard, we would intend that the

resulting regulatory changes would be

made on a provisional or experimental

basis, rather than as permanent changes.

It is the Commission’s hope that any

such guideline or standard, together

with the other changes we propose, will

effectuate a significant improvement in

television broadcasters’ service to

children, and also will enable parents to

monitor the performance of stations in

their communities and ensure through

their actions that the CTA’s objectives

are met. In accordance with these

expectations, and to ensure periodic

review of the necessity and efficacy of

a guideline or standard, the Commission

invites comment on whether to sunset

any regulatory changes related to the

possible implementation of either of

these two options, absent additional

Commission action, on December 31,

2004, unless affirmatively extended by

the Commission. This date is one year

after the close of the renewal cycle for

the last group of stations to come up for

renewal after rules would be adopted in

this proceeding, and would allow the

Commission, prior to the sunset, the

opportunity to evaluate fully the effects

of any rules adopted here. Thus, it

would be our intention to undertake a

review prior to the sunset date.

22. In conclusion, with this

proceeding, the Commission intends to

enhance the public’s ability to monitor

station compliance with the CTA, to

clarify its rules and policies governing

educational programming for children

to provide licensees with greater

certainty as to the scope of their

children’s programming obligation, and

to ensure that the amount of educational

and informational programming

provided by television broadcasters

comports with the goals of the CTA. The

Commission believes that these

objectives can be achieved by increasing

the flow of information to the public

about the children’s programming that

stations are broadcasting, and by

adopting a definition of programming

‘‘specifically designed’’ to serve

children’s educational and

informational needs. In addition, we

intend to take further action—in the

form of instituting monitoring

procedures, processing guidelines or a

programming standard—in order to

ensure that all children have access, as

Congress intended, to an adequate

supply of educational and informational

programming specifically designed for

them. The Commission seeks comment

on all aspects of our proposals, and

welcomes other ideas commenters may

have to achieve the objectives outlined

herein.

V. Administrative Matters

23. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and

1.419, interested parties may file

comments on or before June 16, 1995,

and reply comments on or before July

17, 1995. To file formally in this
20590 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules

proceeding, you must file an original

plus four copies of all comments, reply

comments, and supporting comments. If

you want each Commissioner to receive

a personal copy of your comments, you

must file an original plus nine copies.

You should send comments and reply

comments to Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

24. This is a non-restricted 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 Rules. See

generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203 and

1.1206(a).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act

Statement

I. Reason for the Action

This proceeding was initiated to

explore ways to implement the

Children’s Television Act of 1990 more

effectively.

II. Objective of This Action

The actions proposed in this NPRM

are intended to give licensees clear,

simple, and fair guidance regarding

their children’s programming obligation;

to increase the flow of programming

information to the public to facilitate

enforcement of the Children’s

Television Act of 1990; and to allow the

marketplace to determine to the fullest

extent possible the means that licensees

use to meet their programming

obligation. Other objectives are to

increase the amount of available

television broadcast programming that

meets the educational and informational

needs of children and to promote

efficiency in the production and

distribution of such programming.

III. Legal Basis

Authority for the actions proposed in

this NPRM may be found in Sections 1

and 303 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 303;

and Section 103 of the Children’s

Television Act of 1990, 47 U.S.C. 303b.

IV. Number and Type of Small Entities

Affected by the Proposed Rules

Approximately 1,200 existing

commercial television broadcasters of

all sizes may be affected by the

proposals contained in this NPRM.

V. Reporting, Record-keeping, and Other

Compliance Requirements Inherent in

the Proposed Rule

The NPRM seeks comment on

modifying current record-keeping and

reporting requirements to include a

requirement that licensees demonstrate

compliance with proposed rule changes

in their children’s programming report,

and seeks comment on requiring

licensees to make programming

information more accessible to the

public. The NPRM seeks comment on

whether stations should be required to

separate their children’s programming

reports from other material in the public

inspection file and broadcast

announcements to alert the public of the

existence of such reports. It also seeks

comment on a certification requirement

that would replace the current

requirement for submission of detailed

documentation to the Commission for

those stations able to certify that they

have met a safe harbor processing

guideline or programming standard.

VI. Federal Rules Which Overlap,

Duplicate, or Conflict With the

Proposed Rule

None.

VII. Any Significant Alternatives

Minimizing the Impact on Small

Entities and Consistent With the Stated

Objectives of the Action

The proposals contained in this

NPRM are designed to encourage

television broadcast programming that

satisfies the requirements of the

Children’s Television Act of 1990, while

minimizing the impact on small entities.

25. As required by Section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Commission has prepared an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the expected impact on small entities

of the proposals suggested in this

document. Written public comments are

requested on the IRFA. These comments

must be filed in accordance with the

same filing deadlines as comments on

the rest of this NPRM, but they must

have a separate and distinct heading

designating them as responses to the

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

The Secretary shall send a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rule Making,

including the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration in accordance

with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. Public Law 96–354, 94

Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq

(1981).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–10176 Filed 4–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M