August 21, 2006

Via Electronic Filing

Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th St., S.W.
Washington, DC  20554


Re: Notice of Ex Parte Presentation in CG Docket No. 00-167,
          Children's Television Obligations of Digital Television
          Broadcasters

Dear Ms. Dortch:

On August 18, 2006, on behalf of the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, Charles Maresca,
Director of Interagency Affairs, Eric Menge, Assistant Chief
Counsel for Telecommunications, and Jamie Belcore, Mercatus
Center Fellow, met with the following officials of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC): Holly Saurer, Kim Matthews, Mary
Beth Murphy, all of the Media Bureau Policy Division, and Eric
Malinen, FCC liaison to the SBA from the Office of Communications
Business Opportunities.

Advocacy discussed the FCC's initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) for its recent proposed rulemaking on Children's
Television Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters
(Proposed Rule). Advocacy made the following recommendations to
help the FCC comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA):

Publish the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  in the
Federal Register

Section 607 of the RFA instructs agencies to publish the IRFA, or
a summary thereof, in the Federal Register.  The FCC did not
publish its IRFA for the Proposed Rule in the Federal Register,
and Advocacy is concerned that small entities that could be
affected by the Proposed Rule have not been afforded proper
notice and opportunity to comment on the potential burdens the
proposed rulemaking imposes on small entities.  The FCC can cure
this defect by promptly publishing the IRFA in the Federal
Register and leaving it open for an abbreviated comment period.
     
Discuss less burdensome alternatives to the Proposed Rule

  Section 603(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that
an agency consider any significant alternatives to a proposed
rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable
statutes and which minimize any significant economic impacts of
the proposed rule on small entities.  In its IRFA, the FCC
welcomed comment on modifications to the Proposed Rule that could
alleviate differential impact of the regulations on small
business.
  
  During its meeting with the FCC, Advocacy noted that the
following alternatives, among others, have been suggested to the
FCC by various members of industry, several of which could offer
significant cost savings to smaller broadcasters while
potentially serving the FCC's goals:

  ú    The Local Broadcasters Alliance (LBA) recommends that the
     FCC limit the applicability of the new core programming
     requirements to multicast streams that do not already offer
     educational, informational, and/or public affairs programming.
     Providing an exemption for small broadcasters who are already
     providing public affairs content, and who do not yet have the
     technical capabilities to insert children's programming on their
     multicast channels, could serve the FCC's goals and provide a
     reasonable amount of flexibility for small businesses.
  
  ú    The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and others
     recommend that the FCC allow broadcasters to rely on
     certifications from programming providers that website addresses
     displayed during core programming meet the FCC requirements,
     instead of requiring stations to continuously monitor and edit
     programming containing website addresses.  Adopting this
     alternative could offer significant cost savings to small
     broadcasters.

  ú    The Proposed Rule would require that at least 50 percent of
     the core programming counted toward meeting the additional core
     programming requirements not consist of program episodes that
     have already aired within the previous seven days.  The NAB
     recommends that the FCC amend Form 398 to allow broadcasters to
     certify compliance with the limitation.  Again, adopting this
     alternative could provide significant compliance cost savings to
     both small and large broadcasters.
  
  Because the FCC is required to discuss alternatives to the
proposed rulemaking in its final regulatory flexibility analysis,
the FCC may want to consider the alternatives discussed above. In
doing so, the FCC should include a brief statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted by the final rule, and why each one of the other
significant alternatives to the rule that could affect the impact
on small entities was rejected. Please contact Eric Menge at
(202) 205-6949 or eric.menge@sba.gov if you have any questions
regarding this filing.

Sincerely,

/s/

Thomas M. Sullivan
Chief Counsel of Advocacy

/s/
Jamie L. Belcore
Mercatus Center Fellow to Advocacy


cc:

FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin
FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate
FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps
FCC Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein
FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell
Steven D. Aitken, Acting Administrator, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs