Children's Television Programming Rules; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, 35158-35174 [2018-15819]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35158-35174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15819]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MB Docket Nos. 18-202, 17-105; FCC 18-93]


Children's Television Programming Rules; Modernization of Media 
Regulation Initiative

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes to revise the 
children's television programming rules to modify outdated requirements 
and give broadcasters greater flexibility in serving the educational 
and informational needs of children. The proposed revisions reflect the 
dramatic changes in the video programming marketplace since the 
children's television programming rules were first adopted more than 20 
years ago.

DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before September 24, 
2018; reply comments are due on or before October 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket Nos. 18-202 
and 17-105, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: 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 the Commission continues 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.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
    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, contact 
Kathy Berthot, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy 
Division, (202) 418-7454.

[[Page 35159]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 18-93, adopted on July 12, 2018 and 
released on July 13, 2018. 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. The full text of this 
document will also be available via ECFS (https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
). Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or 
Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats are available for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by 
sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer 
and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-
0432 (TTY).
    The NPRM may result in new or revised information collection 
requirements. If the Commission adopts any new or revised information 
collection requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in the 
Federal Register inviting the public to comment on such requirements, 
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the 
Commission will seek specific comment on how it might ``further reduce 
the information collection burden for small business concerns with 
fewer than 25 employees.''

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. In the NPRM, we propose to revise the children's television 
programming rules to modify outdated requirements and to give 
broadcasters greater flexibility in serving the educational and 
informational needs of children. In the more than two decades since the 
Commission adopted the children's programming rules, there have been 
dramatic changes in the way television viewers, including younger 
viewers, consume video programming. Appointment viewing--watching the 
same program on the same channel at the same time every week--has 
significantly declined, while time-shifted viewing has risen. At the 
same time, the amount of programming for children available via non-
broadcast platforms, including children's cable networks, over-the-top 
providers, and the internet, has proliferated. Moreover, with the 
transition to digital television, broadcasters are able to carry more 
than one programming stream on their 6 MHz spectrum blocks. Thus, if 
given more flexibility, broadcasters can now provide a host of 
alternative children's programming options outside of the primary 
stream, giving over-the-air (OTA) viewers access to additional free 
children's programming. In light of these changes, and based on 
comments we have received in response to the Commission's Modernization 
of Media Regulation Initiative proceeding, we think the time is ripe to 
modernize the children's programming rules to improve broadcasters' 
ability to serve the educational and informational needs of today's 
young viewers. Our proposals are guided by the directives of the 
Children's Television Act of 1990 (CTA), which requires the Commission 
to consider, in its review of television license renewals, the extent 
to which the licensee ``has served the educational and informational 
needs of children through the licensee's overall programming, including 
programming specifically designed to serve such needs.'' (47 U.S.C. 
303b(a)(2))
    2. Among other matters, we seek input on the Core Programming 
definition, the Commission's processing guidelines, and updated rules 
on multicasting stations. In addition to the specific issues and 
proposals discussed in this NPRM, we also seek comment on whether there 
are any other changes to the existing children's programming rules that 
we should consider.

II. Background

    3. The CTA requires that the Commission consider, in reviewing 
television license renewals, the extent to which the licensee ``has 
served the educational and informational needs of children through the 
licensee's overall programming, including programming specifically 
designed to serve such needs.'' The CTA provides that, in addition to 
considering the licensee's programming, the Commission may consider in 
its review of television license renewals (1) any special non-broadcast 
efforts by the licensee which enhance the educational and informational 
value of such programming to children; and (2) any special efforts by 
the licensee to produce or support programming broadcast by another 
station in the licensee's marketplace which is specifically designed to 
serve the educational and informational needs of children.
    4. Initial Children's Programming Rules. In 1991, the Commission 
adopted rules implementing the CTA. Specifically, the Commission 
defined ``educational and informational programming'' as ``any 
television programming which 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.'' The 
Commission declined at that time to adopt specific requirements as to 
the number of hours of educational and informational programming that 
commercial stations must broadcast or the time of day during which such 
programming must be aired. Instead, the Commission simply required that 
commercial stations air some amount of educational and informational 
programming specifically designed for children 16 years of age and 
under. The Commission also adopted recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for commercial stations. Specifically, it required 
commercial licensees to maintain records on their children's 
programming efforts, including a summary of the licensee's programming, 
non-broadcast efforts, and support for other stations' programming 
directed to the educational and informational needs of children, and to 
place these records in their public inspection files. In addition, it 
required commercial licensees to submit with their license renewal 
applications the summary of the programming and other efforts directed 
to the educational and informational needs of children.
    5. The Commission initially declined to impose any children's 
programming requirements on noncommercial stations. The Commission 
noted that the legislative history of the CTA ``portrays public 
broadcasting as a model for educational and informational programming 
which commercial broadcasters should emulate'' and concluded that 
application of the CTA's programming provisions to noncommercial 
stations is not required by the statute, its legislative history, or 
the public interest. On reconsideration, the Commission reversed 
course, concluding that the statutory obligation to meet children's 
educational and informational needs applies to all broadcasters, 
including noncommercial broadcasters. However, the Commission continued 
to exempt noncommercial stations from the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements applicable to commercial stations, finding such 
requirements unnecessary given the commitment that noncommercial 
stations had demonstrated to serving children. The Commission instead 
required noncommercial stations to maintain documentation sufficient to 
show compliance at renewal time with the CTA's programming obligations 
in

[[Page 35160]]

response to a challenge or to specific complaints.
    6. 1996 ``Core Programming'' Rules and Processing Guidelines. The 
Commission revised the children's programming rules in 1996, concluding 
that its initial regulations implementing the CTA ``have not been fully 
effective in prompting broadcasters `to increase the amount of 
educational and informational broadcast television programming 
available to children.' '' In order to provide broadcasters with clear 
guidance regarding their children's programming obligations, the 
Commission adopted a more particularized definition of programming 
``specifically designed'' to serve children's educational and 
informational needs. The Commission labeled such programming as ``Core 
Programming,'' which it defined as programming that, among other 
things, has serving the educational and informational needs of children 
ages 16 and under as a significant purpose, is at least 30 minutes in 
length, is aired between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and is 
a regularly scheduled weekly program. The Commission stated that 
although a program must be regularly scheduled on a weekly basis to 
qualify as Core, it would leave it to the staff to determine, with 
guidance from the full Commission as necessary, what constitutes 
regularly scheduled programming and what level of preemption is 
allowable.
    7. The Commission also adopted several public information 
initiatives designed to facilitate access to information about the 
shows broadcasters air to fulfill their obligation to air educational 
and informational programming under the CTA. The Commission reasoned 
that enhancing parents' knowledge of children's educational programming 
could result in larger audiences for such programs, which in turn could 
increase the incentives for broadcasters to air more educational 
programming. The Commission further concluded that access to 
programming information could facilitate viewer campaigns and other 
community-based efforts to influence stations to air more and better 
educational programming. These public information initiatives require 
licensees to provide publishers of program guides and listings 
information identifying core programs and the target age group for the 
programs; to submit children's programming reports on a quarterly basis 
on a standardized reporting form, the Children's Television Programming 
Report (FCC Form 398); to publicize the existence and location of their 
children's programming reports; to provide a brief explanation in their 
children's programming reports of how particular programs meet the 
definition of ``Core Programming''; and to designate a liaison for 
children's programming and to include the name and method of contacting 
that individual in the station's children's programming reports. The 
Commission also required licensees to provide on-air identification of 
core educational programs, in a manner and form at the sole discretion 
of the licensee, at the beginning of the program. The Commission 
continued to exempt noncommercial licensees from the reporting 
requirements and also exempted them from the other new public 
information initiatives.
    8. Additionally, the Commission adopted a three-hour per week safe 
harbor processing guideline for determining compliance with the 
children's programming rules. The Commission concluded that a 
processing guideline would provide broadcasters clarity about their 
programming obligations under the CTA and would minimize the inequities 
created by stations that air little Core Programming by subjecting all 
broadcasters to the same scrutiny for CTA compliance at renewal time. 
Under the processing guideline, the Media Bureau staff is authorized to 
approve the children's programming portion of a licensee's renewal 
application where the licensee has aired approximately three hours per 
week (as averaged over a six month period) of Core Programming. Renewal 
applications are divided into two categories for purposes of staff-
level CTA review. Under Category A, a licensee can demonstrate 
compliance with the processing guideline by checking a box on its 
renewal application and providing supporting information indicating 
that it has aired three hours per week of Core Programming. Under 
Category B, the Bureau staff will approve the children's programming 
portion of a licensee's renewal application where the licensee makes a 
showing that it has aired a package of different types of educational 
and informational programming that, while containing somewhat less than 
three hours per week of Core Programming, demonstrates a level of 
commitment to educating and informing children that is at least 
equivalent to airing three hours per week of Core Programming. 
Specials, public service announcements (PSAs), short-form programs, and 
regularly scheduled non-weekly programs with a significant purpose of 
educating and informing children can count toward the processing 
guideline under Category B. Licensees have rarely attempted to 
demonstrate compliance under Category B due to uncertainty as to how 
much Core Programming must be provided.
    9. The Commission stated that licensees whose showings do not fall 
within Category A or B of the processing guideline will have their 
renewal applications referred to the full Commission, where they will 
have the opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the CTA by relying 
in part on special non-broadcast efforts which enhance the value of 
children's educational and informational programming and/or special 
efforts by the licensee to produce or support programming broadcast by 
another station in the licensee's marketplace which is specifically 
designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children. 
The Commission explained that to receive credit for special non-
broadcast efforts, a licensee must show that it has engaged in 
substantial community activity and that there is a close relationship 
between its Core Programming and its non-broadcast efforts. To receive 
credit for special sponsorship efforts, a licensee must demonstrate 
that its production or support of Core Programming aired on another 
station in its market increased the amount of Core Programming on the 
station airing the sponsored Core Programming. The Commission stated 
that relying on special non-broadcast efforts or special sponsorship 
efforts does not relieve a licensee of the obligation to air Core 
Programming, noting that the CTA permits the Commission to consider 
such special efforts only ``in addition to consideration of the 
licensee's [educational] programming.'' The Commission declined to 
define the minimum amount of Core Programming that a station must air 
on its own station to receive credit for special efforts or to 
establish specific program sponsorship guidelines, concluding that 
these matters are best addressed on a case-by-case basis. Use of this 
option to demonstrate compliance with the CTA is even rarer than use of 
Category B because of the uncertainty as to how much Core Programming 
must be provided and how special non-broadcast efforts and special 
sponsorship efforts will be weighed.
    10. 2004 Digital Broadcasting, Preemption, and ``E/I'' Symbol 
Requirements. In 2004, the Commission revised the processing guideline 
to address how the children's programming requirements apply to digital 
broadcasters that multicast. Under the revised guideline, in addition

[[Page 35161]]

to the requirement that stations air an average of three hours of Core 
Programming on their main program stream, digital broadcasters that 
choose to provide supplemental streams of free video programming have 
an increased Core Programming benchmark that is proportional to the 
additional amount of free video programming they choose to provide via 
such multicast streams. Specifically, digital broadcasters must provide 
one-half hour per week of additional Core Programming for every 
increment of one to 28 hours of free video programming provided in 
addition to that provided on the main program stream. Broadcasters are 
permitted to air all of their additional digital Core Programming on 
either one free digital video channel or distribute it across multiple 
free digital video channels, at their discretion, as long as the stream 
on which the Core Programming is aired has comparable carriage on MVPDs 
as the stream triggering the additional Core Programming obligation. To 
ensure that digital broadcasters do not simply replay the same Core 
Programming to meet the revised processing guideline, the Commission 
required that at least 50 percent of Core Programming on multicast 
streams not be repeated during the same week to qualify as core. The 
Commission exempted from the additional Core Programming guideline any 
program stream that merely time shifts the entire programming line-up 
of another program stream.
    11. The Commission also revised its policies regarding when a 
station can count preempted Core Programming toward meeting the three-
hour per week safe harbor processing guideline. The Commission 
determined that a preempted core program must be rescheduled in order 
to be considered Core Programming. Additionally, the Commission stated 
that it would consider, in determining whether the rescheduled program 
counts as a core educational program, the reason for the preemption, 
the licensee's efforts to promote the rescheduled program, the time 
when the rescheduled program is broadcast, and the station's level of 
preemption of Core Programming. The Commission exempted core programs 
preempted for breaking news from the requirement that core programs be 
rescheduled. With respect to digital broadcasters that multicast, the 
Commission stated that it would not consider a core program moved to 
the same time slot on another of the station's digital program streams 
to be preempted as long as the alternate program stream receives MVPD 
carriage comparable to the stream from which the program is being moved 
and the station provides adequate on-screen information about the move, 
including when and where the program will air, on both the original and 
the alternate program stream. Further, the Commission limited the 
number of preemptions under the processing guideline to no more than 
ten percent of core programs in each calendar quarter, explaining that 
each preemption beyond the ten percent limit would cause that program 
not to count as core under the processing guideline, even if the 
program is rescheduled. The Commission exempted from this ten percent 
limit preemptions for breaking news.
    12. Moreover, the Commission amended its rules regarding on-air 
identification of Core Programming to require broadcasters to identify 
Core Programming with the symbol ``E/I'' and to display this symbol 
throughout the program in order for the program to qualify as Core. The 
Commission found that this amendment was warranted because studies of 
the effectiveness of the children's programming requirements showed a 
continued lack of awareness on the part of parents regarding the 
availability of Core Programming and the use of different identifiers 
by different broadcasters was confusing parents and impairing their 
ability to choose Core Programming for their children. The Commission 
applied the revised on-air identification requirement to both 
commercial and noncommercial licensees. Although the Commission 
previously had exempted noncommercial licensees from the on-air 
identification requirement, it found that requiring all licensees to 
use the E/I symbol throughout the program to identify Core Programming 
would help ``reinforce viewer awareness of the meaning of this 
symbol.'' The Commission also revised the definition of ``Core 
Programming'' to include this on-air identification requirement.
    13. 2006 Reconsideration Order and Joint Proposal. In 2006, the 
Commission modified the children's programming rules in response to 
petitions for reconsideration of the 2004 Report and Order and a Joint 
Proposal negotiated by a group of cable and broadcast industry 
representatives and children's television advocates to resolve their 
concerns with the rules adopted in 2004. The Commission clarified that 
at least 50 percent of the Core Programming counted toward meeting the 
revised programming guideline for multicasting stations cannot consist 
of program episodes that had already aired within the previous seven 
days on either the station's main program stream or on another of the 
station's free digital program streams. In addition, the Commission 
adopted the Joint Proposal recommendation to amend the Children's 
Television Programming Report, FCC Form 398, to collect the information 
necessary to enforce the limit on repeats under the revised guideline. 
Licensees are permitted to certify on Form 398 that they have complied 
with the repeat restriction and are not required to identify each 
repeated program episode on Form 398, but must retain records 
sufficient to document the accuracy of their certification, including 
records of actual program episodes aired, and to make such 
documentation available to the public upon request.
    14. The Commission also accepted the Joint Proposal recommendation 
to repeal the ten percent cap on preemptions adopted in the 2004 Report 
and Order and instead institute a procedure similar to that previously 
used by the Media Bureau, whereby broadcast networks sought informal 
approval of their preemption plans each year. Under this procedure, a 
program counts as preempted only if it was not aired in a fixed 
substitute time slot of the station's choice (known as a ``second 
home'') with an on-air notification of the schedule change occurring at 
the time of preemption during the previously scheduled time slot. The 
on-air notification must announce the alternate date and time when the 
preempted show will air. All networks requesting preemption flexibility 
must file a request with the Bureau by August 1 of each year stating 
the number of preemptions the network expects, when the program will be 
rescheduled, whether the rescheduled time is the program's second home, 
and the network's plan to notify viewers of the schedule change. Non-
network stations are presumed to be complying with the Core Programming 
guideline and do not need to request preemption relief.

III. Discussion

    15. As discussed above, the CTA requires the Commission to take 
into account the extent to which a broadcast television licensee ``has 
served the educational and informational needs of children through its 
overall programming, including programming specifically designed to 
serve such needs'' when evaluating its license renewal application. In 
addition to considering a licensee's programming, the Commission is 
also permitted under the CTA to consider any special non-broadcast 
efforts by the licensee which enhance the educational and

[[Page 35162]]

informational value of such programming to children and any special 
efforts by the licensee to sponsor educational and informational 
programming for children aired on another in-market station. While the 
CTA does not mandate a particular quantitative standard for children's 
programming, the statute makes clear that all television broadcast 
stations must air some amount of programming specifically designed to 
serve children's educational and informational needs.
    16. The video programming landscape has changed dramatically since 
the Commission first adopted rules implementing the CTA more than 20 
years ago. There has been a major shift in the way in which viewers, 
including children, consume video programming. Appointment viewing has 
declined sharply as viewers increasingly access video programming using 
time-shifting technology (e.g., DVRs and video on demand). Recent 
Nielsen data indicate that live TV viewing has been declining between 
2% and 6% each year for the last four years in the U.S. Moreover, there 
is a vast array of children's programming available on non-broadcast 
platforms today. As NAB observes, myriad full-time children's cable 
channels are flourishing, including Nickelodeon, Nick Jr., Teen Nick, 
Disney Channel, Disney Junior, and Disney XD, as are other channels, 
such as Discovery, Discovery Family, National Geographic, National 
Geographic Wild, Animal Planet, History Channel, and Smithsonian 
Channel, that provide educational and informational programming 
intended for viewers of all ages. In addition, over-the-top providers 
such as Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu offer a host of original and 
previously-aired children's programming. There are also numerous online 
sites which provide educational content for children for free or via 
subscription, including LeapFrog, National Geographic Kids, PBS Kids, 
Scholastic Kids, Smithsonian Kids, Time for Kids, Funbrain, Coolmath, 
YouTube, and Apple iTunes U. Further, as part of their educational 
mission, PBS member stations, which make up 89 percent of all 
noncommercial television stations, are required by the terms of their 
membership to air at least seven hours of educational children's 
programming each weekday, far in excess of what is required under our 
safe harbor processing guideline.
    17. Furthermore, with the transition of broadcast television from 
analog to digital, broadcasters are now able to offer multiple free, 
OTA digital streams or channels of programming simultaneously, using 
the same amount of spectrum previously required for one stream of 
analog programming. As of February 2016, broadcast television stations 
were offering more than 5,900 digital multicast channels. Multicasting 
allows broadcasters to offer additional programming choices to 
consumers, particularly consumers in smaller, rural markets, by 
expanding access to the four major broadcast networks (i.e., ABC, CBS, 
Fox, or NBC), other established networks (e.g., The CW, myNetworkTV, 
and Telemundo), and newer networks (e.g., MeTV, This-TV, and Grit). 
Programming content offered on multicast channels includes increased 
local news and public affairs coverage, sports and entertainment 
programming, foreign-language programming, religious programming, and 
children's programming. We also note that in January 2017, PBS launched 
a 24/7 educational children's multicast channel that reaches 95 percent 
of households and ``that is re-doubling the efforts of local stations 
to serve all children with curriculum-driven children's programing.'' 
And, Qubo, Ion Television's 24/7 broadcast network for kids on one of 
its multicast streams, allows Ion to provide over 500 percent more 
children's programming than what is required in our rules. The 
additional programming choices afforded by multicast channels today are 
particularly beneficial to households that rely exclusively on OTA 
programming.
    18. Given these developments, we believe that it is appropriate at 
this time to take a fresh look at the children's programming rules, 
with an eye toward updating our rules to reflect the current media 
landscape in a manner that will ensure that the objectives of the CTA 
continue to be fulfilled. Our proposals set forth below are intended to 
provide broadcasters more flexibility in fulfilling their obligations 
under the CTA, while at the same time recognizing that particularized 
guidance may provide them greater regulatory certainty.

A. ``Core Programming'' Definition and Requirements

    19. We seek comment on possible modifications to the definition of 
``Core Programming'' to remove outdated requirements and provide 
broadcasters more flexibility in fulfilling their children's 
programming obligations. As noted above, ``Core Programming'' is 
defined as programming that satisfies the following criteria: (1) It 
has serving the educational and informational needs of children ages 16 
and under as a significant purpose; (2) it is at least 30 minutes in 
length; (3) it is aired between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; 
(4) it is a regularly scheduled weekly program; (5) the program is 
identified as specifically designed to educate and inform children by 
the display on the television screen throughout the program of the 
symbol E/I; (6) instructions for listing the program as educational/
informational, including an indication of the intended age group, are 
provided to publishers of program guides; and (7) the educational and 
informational objective and the target child audience are specified in 
writing in the licensee's children's programming report. This 
definition has remained largely unchanged since its adoption in 1996. 
Given the evolution in the way Americans, including children, consume 
video now, we seek comment on potential changes to the Core Programming 
definition.
1. Requirement That Core Programming Be at Least 30 Minutes in Length
    20. We tentatively conclude that we should eliminate the 
requirement that educational and informational programming be at least 
30 minutes in length to be considered Core Programming. Elimination of 
this requirement would enable broadcasters to receive Core Programming 
credit for PSAs, interstitials (i.e., programming of brief duration 
that is used as a bridge between two longer programs), and other short 
segments. The Commission recognized that short segments can serve the 
educational and informational needs of children when it initially 
implemented the CTA in 1991 and again when it revised the children's 
programming rules in 1996. NAB asserts, however, that the Commission's 
decision to count only programs 30 minutes or longer as core has 
effectively driven popular short segment programming such as 
``Schoolhouse Rock'' and ``In the News'' from the air and that this 
reduction in the variety of children's educational programming does not 
promote the public interest. We agree with NAB that short segments can 
be used effectively to educate and inform children. We seek comment on 
our tentative decision to eliminate the requirement that educational 
and informational programming be of a minimum length to be considered 
Core Programming. Are there additional studies or other data showing 
the benefits to children of educational and informational short 
segments? Are there any recent studies that evaluate the utility of 
short form programming relative to long form programming?
    21. Furthermore, if we eliminate the requirement that educational 
and informational programming be at least 30 minutes in length to be 
counted as

[[Page 35163]]

Core Programming, can we address concerns that short segments may be 
difficult to locate by requiring broadcasters to promote such segments? 
Moreover, if we eliminate the requirement that educational and 
information programming be at least 30 minutes in length to be counted 
as Core Programming, we seek comment on whether we should count short 
segment programming on a minute-for-minute basis (e.g., 30 minutes of 
short segment programming would be equivalent to 30 minutes of Core 
Programming) or in some other manner.
2. Core Programming Hours
    22. We seek comment on whether the existing 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 
time frame should be expanded and if so, what the expanded Core 
Programming hours should be. NAB suggests that we should expand the 
Core Programming hours to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. We seek comment on 
this suggestion. Is there data showing that a substantial number of 
children ages 16 and under watch television programming or view video 
content earlier than 7:00 a.m. and/or later than 10:00 p.m.? Commenters 
that propose alternative expanded Core Programming hours should provide 
support or justification for their proposed hours. What are the costs 
of the Core Programming hours requirement and what savings or other 
benefits would viewers receive if we expanded the Core Programming 
hours? For example, to what extent does the current Core Programming 
hours requirement limit broadcasters' flexibility to air other desired 
programming, such as weekend local news and live sports programming?
    23. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether it is still necessary 
to define the time frame in which educational and informational 
programming for children must be aired to be considered Core 
Programming. The Commission adopted the current 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 
Core Programming time frame in 1996 because then data showed that there 
was a relatively small percentage of children in the audience prior to 
7:00 a.m. and that the number of children watching television dropped 
off considerably after 10:00 p.m. Commenters assert that the 7:00 a.m. 
to 10:00 p.m. Core Programming time frame has become unduly narrow 
given the decline in ``appointment viewing'' by viewers, especially 
young viewers, and the increased ability of viewers to access 
children's programming using time-shifting technology. We seek comment 
on this view. We ask commenters to present studies or other data 
indicating the extent of appointment viewing by children ages 16 and 
under. Is it reasonable to expect that the decline in appointment 
viewing by viewers over 18 extends to children 16 and under? Do these 
studies or other data demonstrate that appointment viewing by children 
ages 16 and under has declined to the extent that there is no longer 
any need or that there is a significantly reduced need to require that 
Core Programming air during a prescribed time period to be counted as 
Core Programming? We note that DVRs that record OTA television are now 
available at a relatively low cost. Have such devices led to a decrease 
in appointment viewing of children's programming for families that rely 
on OTA television?
3. Regularly Scheduled Weekly Programming Requirement
    24. We tentatively conclude that we should eliminate the 
requirement that educational and informational programming be 
``regularly scheduled weekly programming'' to be counted as Core 
Programming. The Commission adopted the regularly scheduled weekly 
programming requirement because it found that such programming ``is 
more likely to be anticipated by parents and children, to develop 
audience loyalty, and to build successfully upon and reinforce 
educational and informational messages, thereby better serving the 
educational and informational needs of children.'' We seek comment on 
whether, given the overall decline in appointment viewing noted above, 
the regularly scheduled weekly programming requirement is no longer 
needed to serve its intended purposes and whether it may in fact 
undermine broadcasters' incentives to air a wider variety of children's 
programming. If we eliminate this requirement, broadcasters could 
receive Core Programming credit for airing more types of children's 
programming, such as educational specials that are not regularly 
scheduled and non-weekly children's programming. We note, for example, 
that the ``ABC Afterschool Specials'' aired between 1972 and 1997 and 
the ``CBS Schoolbreak Specials'' aired between 1980 and 1996 were 
popular and highly acclaimed. We seek comment on our tentative 
conclusion that the regularly scheduled programming requirement should 
be eliminated. Would elimination of the regularly scheduled weekly 
programming requirement likely incentivize broadcasters to invest in 
high quality educational specials and non-weekly programming? Is it 
reasonable to expect that broadcasters would be motivated to promote 
educational specials and non-weekly children's programming to promote 
viewership? Do the costs of the regularly scheduled weekly programming 
requirement outweigh the benefits and, if so, how?
4. On-Air Notification Requirement
    25. We tentatively conclude that noncommercial stations should no 
longer be required to identify Core Programming with the E/I symbol at 
the beginning of the program or to display this symbol throughout the 
program. As discussed above, the Commission adopted this requirement 
for both commercial and noncommercial broadcasters in 2004 to address 
concerns that there was a continued lack of awareness on the part of 
parents regarding the availability of Core Programming, finding that 
use of the E/I symbol could greatly improve the public's ability to 
recognize and locate core programs at minimal cost to broadcasters. 
Although noncommercial stations previously had been exempted from the 
on-air identification requirement, the Commission concluded that 
requiring all stations to display the E/I symbol throughout the program 
would help ``reinforce viewer awareness of the meaning of this 
symbol.'' Public Broadcasting urges the Commission to eliminate this 
requirement for noncommercial stations, asserting that since the E/I 
symbol is intended to facilitate the children's programming 
requirements that apply only to commercial stations, it is not rational 
to continue to apply this mandate to noncommercial stations. We think 
that the E/I symbol is sufficiently familiar to parents today that 
there is little benefit to requiring noncommercial stations--which are 
not otherwise subject to the reporting requirements and other public 
information initiatives applicable to commercial stations--to display 
the E/I symbol. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion to 
eliminate this requirement for noncommercial stations. If we eliminate 
the requirement that noncommercial stations display the E/I symbol, how 
will parents distinguish programming aired on noncommercial stations 
that is specifically designed to educate and inform children from 
programming that may be educational or informative but is intended for 
general audiences?
    26. Public Broadcasting also asserts that displaying the E/I symbol 
``creates technical and viewability challenges for PBS as it works to 
innovate by streaming across a wide range of platforms'' and ``is 
particularly disruptive on smaller screens.'' In order

[[Page 35164]]

to more fully understand this concern as a basis for eliminating the E/
I symbol requirement, we request additional information on exactly what 
technical and viewability challenges are created for noncommercial 
stations when displaying the E/I symbol on children's programming. Is 
the symbol generally added to programming prior to delivery to the 
station, or is it added at the time of broadcast by the station? How 
does the answer impact a broadcaster's ability to remove the E/I 
symbol? Do stations send their signals to smaller devices, such as 
smartphones and tablets, through the same transmission that is used to 
send the signals to television set receivers or through a separate 
transmission? If separate transmissions are used, does that impact a 
broadcaster's ability to remove the E/I symbol? Do these challenges 
arise when the E/I symbol is displayed in programming transmitted OTA 
to devices with smaller screens or do the challenges arise only when 
programming containing the E/I symbol is streamed online? If we do not 
eliminate the requirement that noncommercial stations include the E/I 
symbol on Core Programming displayed on television sets, should we 
nonetheless eliminate the requirement when the programming is 
transmitted OTA to and received by smaller devices, such as smartphones 
and tablets?
    27. We also request comment on whether we should continue to 
require commercial stations to identify Core Programming with the E/I 
symbol and display this symbol throughout the program in order for the 
program to qualify as Core Programming. To what extent do parents today 
use the E/I symbol to locate and choose Core Programming on commercial 
stations for their children? Do the costs to commercial licensees of 
the requirement to display the E/I symbol outweigh the benefits to 
parents? Does the current E/I symbol requirement cause undue technical 
difficulties for commercial stations or limit their flexibility to air 
programming on a variety of devices, including those with small 
screens? We seek comment from commercial broadcasters on the technical 
issues raised in the previous paragraph. If we retain the on-air 
identification requirement for commercial stations, should we afford 
commercial licensees greater flexibility to address any such technical 
difficulties by not requiring them to display the E/I symbol when 
consumers are viewing Core Programming transmitted OTA to and received 
by devices with smaller screens?
5. Program Guides
    28. We seek comment on whether we should retain or eliminate the 
requirement that broadcasters provide information identifying 
programming specifically designed to educate and inform children, 
including an indication of the intended age group, to publishers of 
program guides. This requirement was intended to improve the 
information available to parents regarding programming specifically 
designed for children's educational and informational needs and to make 
broadcasters more accountable in classifying programming as 
specifically designed to educate and inform. We request comment on 
whether this requirement continues to serve its intended purposes. Do 
program guides publish the information provided by stations? If not, 
why not? If so, do parents use program guide information today to 
identify educational and information programming for their children? If 
not, how do parents identify such programming? Is program guide 
information used by interested parties to ensure that broadcasters are 
properly classifying programming as specifically designed to educate 
and inform? How is the information provided to publishers of program 
guides made available for use by OTA viewers? Is this information only 
available in print form, such as in the newspaper or TV Guide? Is the 
information also passed along to interactive guides available on 
internet connected television sets or other devices capable of 
receiving an OTA signal? Do stations include information on their 
websites to identify their Core Programming as educational and 
informational?
6. Reporting Requirements
    29. We seek comment on ways to streamline the children's television 
reporting requirements to eliminate unnecessary burdens and 
redundancies. Currently, commercial television broadcasters are 
required to file a Children's Television Programming Report on FCC Form 
398 on a quarterly basis reflecting efforts made during the preceding 
quarter, and efforts planned for the next quarter, to serve the 
educational and informational needs of children. The report requires 
licensees to provide the average weekly number of hours of Core 
Programming aired by the station on its main program stream and any 
multicast streams over the quarter and to provide detailed information 
on each core and non-core program that is specifically designed to 
serve the educational and informational needs of children. The report 
also requires licensees to certify that at least 50 percent of Core 
Programming aired on its multicast streams was not repeated during the 
same week, identify the program guide publishers to which information 
regarding the licensee's educational and informational programming was 
provided, as required by our rules, list each core program that was 
preempted during the preceding quarter, and provide information about 
whether each such program was rescheduled in accordance with the 
Commission's preemption policy. Licensees are required to place a copy 
of each quarterly report in the station's online public file and to 
publicize the existence and location of the reports.
    30. We tentatively conclude that the Children's Television 
Programming Report should be filed on an annual rather than quarterly 
basis, as proposed by NAB and other commenters. NAB asserts that the 
extraordinary detail required by the quarterly reports places undue 
burdens on television stations. NAB indicates that the reports of a 
single station that provides three program streams (one main and two 
multicast) generally range from 30-40 pages per quarter and that a 
station whose reports average 40 pages per quarter will file 160 pages 
of programming details every year and approximately 1,280 pages during 
the station's eight-year license term. NAB maintains that the quarterly 
reports are also redundant, as stations must identify every quarter the 
programs they expect to air in the next quarter and then in the 
following quarter must report on the programs actually aired. We seek 
comment on our tentative conclusion that these reports should be filed 
on an annual basis. We note that the quarterly reporting requirement 
was intended to ``provide[] more current information about station 
performance and encourage[] more consistent focus on educational 
programming efforts.'' It does not appear, however, that requiring 
broadcasters to file these reports on a quarterly basis serves any 
useful purpose today. Does broadcasters' educational and informational 
programming change significantly from quarter to quarter so as to 
justify the burden of quarterly reports? To what extent does the public 
use the quarterly reports to monitor station performance in complying 
with the CTA? Do the burdens to broadcasters of preparing these reports 
on a quarterly basis outweigh the benefits to the public of having this 
information on a quarterly basis? If we adopt an annual reporting 
requirement, we seek comment on when licensees should be required to 
file their

[[Page 35165]]

annual reports. Should they be required to file within 10 days of the 
end of the calendar year, or is a longer filing deadline, such as 
within 30 days of the end of the calendar year, more appropriate? We 
also seek comment on whether we should revise our rules to require 
broadcasters and cable operators to place in their public files on an 
annual basis, instead of on quarterly basis as is currently required, 
records demonstrating compliance with the limits on commercial matter 
in children's programming. Would such modification of the recordkeeping 
requirements result in any loss of accountability or transparency?
    31. Whether we adopt an annual reporting requirement or retain the 
quarterly reports, we tentatively conclude that the reports should only 
require broadcasters to provide information on the programs that they 
aired to meet their Core Programming requirement and not on the 
programs they plan to air in the future. There is no evidence that such 
duplicative reporting serves any useful purpose today. We seek comment 
on this tentative conclusion.
    32. In addition, we seek comment on whether the requirement that 
broadcasters specify the educational and informational purpose and the 
target age group of Core Programming in their Children's Television 
Programming Reports continues to serve the objectives underlying its 
adoption. The Commission previously found that requiring a statement of 
educational and informational purpose will ensure that licensees devote 
attention to the educational and informational goals of Core 
Programming and how those goals may be achieved, assist licensees in 
distinguishing programs specifically designed to serve children's 
educational and informational needs from programs whose primary purpose 
is to entertain children, and allow parents and other interested 
parties to participate more actively in monitoring licensee compliance 
with the CTA. Requiring licensees to specify the target age group of a 
core program was intended to encourage licensees to consider whether 
the content of the program is suited to the interests, knowledge, 
vocabulary, and other abilities of that age group, was specifically 
designed to meet the informational and educational needs for children 
under 16, and to provide information to parents regarding the 
appropriate age for core programs, thereby facilitating increased 
program audience and ratings. We request comment on whether the 
requirement that licensees specify the educational and informational 
purpose and target age group of Core Programming in their reports is 
still needed to serve these goals. Do parents rely on this information 
to plan their children's viewing or do they use program guides or some 
other source of information? Do parents and other interested parties 
use this information to monitor licensee compliance with the CTA? To 
what extent does the E/I symbol obviate the need for this requirement? 
Do the costs of providing this information outweigh the benefits?
    33. We also seek comment on whether to streamline the report and 
permit broadcasters to certify their compliance with the children's 
programming requirements, instead of providing detailed information 
documenting their compliance, as proposed by several commenters. For 
example, with regard to a station's Core Programming, the streamlined 
report could require a licensee to certify that it aired the required 
number of Core Programming hours and that the programming complied with 
all applicable Core Programming criteria. To the extent that a station 
does not fully comply, the report would require the licensee to provide 
details concerning its non-compliance. We request comment on whether 
the detailed program information required by the current report is 
still needed for any useful purpose or whether certifications of 
compliance with the various children's programming requirements would 
be sufficient. If we streamline the reports and eliminate the 
requirement to provide detailed program information, how would the 
Media Bureau staff and the public verify broadcasters' compliance with 
the children's programming rules? Similar to how the Commission 
addresses noncommercial stations, should we require commercial stations 
to maintain documentation sufficient to show compliance at renewal time 
in response to a challenge or to specific complaints? How has this 
process worked for noncommercial stations?
    34. What other certifications should be included in a streamlined 
children's programming report? What information should the reports 
continue to require in more detail? For example, if a station relies in 
part on special sponsorship efforts and/or special non-broadcast 
efforts, should the report continue to require the licensee to provide 
details on these efforts? While we expect that the rule changes we are 
proposing should largely eliminate the need for preemptions of Core 
Programming, to the extent that a station does preempt Core 
Programming, should the report continue to require the station to 
provide detailed information on preemptions and any necessary 
rescheduling, or should a station be permitted to certify compliance 
with any preemption policies?
    35. We tentatively conclude that we should eliminate the 
requirement that licensees publicize their Form 398s. We note that 
licensees currently are required to place their Form 398s in their 
public files and we are not proposing to change this requirement. The 
additional requirement that licensees publicize their Form 398s was 
originally intended to ``heighten awareness of the CTA and invite 
members of the public to take an active role in monitoring 
compliance.'' We tentatively conclude that it no longer serves this 
purpose. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion. Does the 
requirement that licensees publicize their Form 398s encourage members 
of the public to seek out stations' Form 398s or to take an active role 
in monitoring stations' compliance with the CTA?

B. Processing Guideline

    36. We seek comment on whether we should modify the three-hour per 
week safe harbor processing guideline for determining compliance with 
the children's programming rules. Under the Commission's children's 
programming processing guideline, Media Bureau staff is authorized to 
approve the children's programming portion of a broadcaster's license 
renewal application if the broadcaster has aired three hours per week 
(averaged over a six-month period) of Core Programming on its primary 
stream, and an additional three hours per week for each free 24-hour 
multicast stream. How has this requirement affected the delivery of 
broadcast content to consumers? What have been the costs and benefits 
of this requirement? What programming would broadcasters air if they 
were not constrained by our processing guideline? Commenters are 
encouraged to provide real world examples of the scheduling challenges 
associated with our current processing guideline.
    37. If we modify our requirement to carry children's programming on 
the primary stream, how does this equation change? For example, if 
broadcasters were able to meet our processing guideline by delivering 
educational and informational programming on one of their multicast 
streams, would the scheduling burdens associated with this quantitative 
requirement diminish? What benefits could arise from such an 
arrangement? Could this additional

[[Page 35166]]

flexibility incentivize broadcasters to air more children's 
programming?
    38. Alternatively, if we maintain the processing guideline on the 
broadcaster's primary stream, is more flexibility needed to address 
scheduling demands? For example, should the safe harbor processing 
guideline be based on the number of hours aired annually, instead of 
weekly? Under this modification, Media Bureau staff would be authorized 
to approve the children's programming portion of a broadcaster's 
license renewal application where the broadcaster has aired 156 hours 
per calendar year as opposed to three hours per week of Core 
Programming as averaged over six months.
    39. We seek comment on the merits of evaluating broadcasters' 
compliance based on programming aired over the course of a year. Would 
an annual processing guideline provide benefits to broadcasters over 
the weekly guideline? What impact, if any, would an annual processing 
guideline have on viewers? If we adopt an annual processing guideline, 
should we nevertheless require that broadcasters air some minimum 
number or percentage of their Core Programming hours throughout the 
year, to ensure that they do not attempt to ``stack'' Core Programming 
by airing it all within a single week, month, or quarter and that 
children have access to educational and informational programming year-
round? In addition, we seek comment on whether there are other 
adjustments to the current processing guideline we should consider and 
what the justification would be for any such changes.
    40. We also seek comment on the impact of our proposals in this 
NPRM on Category B of the processing guideline. Under Category B, a 
licensee can demonstrate compliance with the three-hour per week 
processing guideline by showing that it has aired a package of 
different types of educational and informational programming that, 
while containing somewhat less than three hours per week of Core 
Programming, demonstrates a level of commitment to educating and 
informing children that is at least equivalent to airing three hours 
per week of Core Programming. Specials, PSAs, short-form programs, and 
regularly scheduled non-weekly programs with a significant purpose of 
educating and informing children can count toward the processing 
guideline under Category B. For example, Media Bureau staff might 
approve the children's programming portion of a renewal application 
based upon a showing that, while a station fell two hours short of 
meeting its Core Processing Guideline during a six-month period (i.e. 
an average of 2.92 hours of Core Programming over the six-month 
period), it aired one hour of interstitial programming and an hour-long 
special. If we determine that the definition of ``Core Programming'' 
should be revised as proposed above to eliminate the requirements that 
Core Programming be at least 30 minutes in length and regularly 
scheduled (i.e., allow broadcasters to count specials, PSAs, short 
segments, and non-weekly programming towards their Core Programming 
hours), we seek comment on whether there is still a need for Category 
B. Are there other factors that should continue to be considered under 
Category B even if we eliminate the requirements that Core Programming 
be at least 30 minutes in length and regularly scheduled? For example, 
the Commission stated in 1996 that airing Core Programming or non-Core 
Programming during primetime and investing a substantial amount of 
money in developing Core Programming aired on the broadcaster's channel 
would be relevant factors under Category B. Should these Category B 
factors still be considered if a licensee does not air the required 
number of Core Programming hours? If so, how much weight should we give 
these factors?
    41. In the event we decide to retain Category B, we seek comment on 
how to clarify or revise Category B to increase its certainty and 
predictability, as requested by commenters. According to NAB, Category 
B's vague ``somewhat less than three hours per week'' requirement 
creates uncertainty as to how much Core Programming a licensee is 
expected to provide. For example, should we require that licensees 
utilizing the Category B option provide some minimum number of hours of 
Core Programming and if so, how many hours (under the existing three-
hours per week processing guideline, as well as under the annual 
guideline option discussed above)? Are there other clarifications or 
revisions that could be made to make the Category B option a more 
viable alternative for broadcasters? As noted above, it is our intent 
in this proceeding to provide broadcasters greater flexibility, while 
at the same time ensuring that they have sufficient guidance on how to 
comply with the children's programming rules.
    42. Additionally, we seek comment on whether there is still a need 
at all for a quantitative processing guideline for determining 
compliance of television licensees with the children's programming 
rules. As discussed above, the CTA does not require the Commission to 
prescribe specific requirements as to the number of hours of 
educational and informational programming that television stations must 
broadcast. Rather, it simply requires that the Commission consider, in 
its review of television license renewals, the extent to which the 
licensee ``has served the educational and informational needs of 
children through its overall programming, including programming 
specifically designed to serve such needs.'' The three-hour weekly 
processing guideline was intended to provide licensees clear and timely 
notice of what they can do to ensure they meet their obligations under 
the CTA. Nevertheless, given the abundance of children's programming 
available today from various sources, including PBS, cable networks, 
over-the-top video providers, internet sites, and video on demand, is a 
quantitative processing guideline for television stations still needed? 
We seek comment on the extent to which children's programming available 
on noncommercial broadcast stations, cable networks, and other non-
broadcast platforms is programming that is ``specifically designed to 
meet the educational and informational needs of children'' and thus an 
adequate substitute for commercial broadcasters' educational and 
informational programming. How has the availability of programming for 
children via non-broadcast platforms changed since the CTA was enacted 
in 1990? Considering that Congress prescribed only a very general 
children's programming requirement and gave the Commission the 
discretion in how to implement this requirement, is the amount of 
children's programming available today on noncommercial broadcast 
stations, cable networks, and other sources relevant to a determination 
as to whether a quantitative processing guideline is still needed? We 
also seek comment on how the increase in other sources of children's 
programming, changes in relevant viewing patterns, and other 
developments since the enactment of the CTA in 1990 may affect the 
First Amendment considerations applicable to the Commission's 
prescription of broadcast television programming requirements in this 
manner.
    43. We also seek comment on what effect the elimination of the 
quantitative processing guideline would have on the amount of 
educational and informational programming available to children. What 
percentage of parents rely on OTA commercial television to provide 
programming serving the educational and informational needs of their 
children? Does OTA commercial television continue to be an important

[[Page 35167]]

source of video programming, including educational and informational 
programming, for children of low income families? Are there current 
studies or data showing how much educational and informational 
programming children watch overall and on OTA commercial stations in 
particular? If we determine that there is no need for a quantitative 
processing guideline, how should the Commission evaluate a television 
licensee's compliance with the children's programming requirement under 
the CTA during the license renewal process?

C. Special Sponsorship Efforts and Special Non-Broadcast Efforts

    44. We seek comment on the creation of a framework under which 
broadcasters could satisfy their children's programming obligations by 
relying in part on special efforts to produce or support Core 
Programming aired on other stations in the market and/or special non-
broadcast efforts which enhance the value of children's educational and 
informational programming. The CTA permits the Commission to consider 
special sponsorship and special non-broadcast efforts, in addition to 
consideration of a licensee's programming, in evaluating whether a 
licensee has served the educational and informational needs of 
children. However, few, if any, broadcasters have taken advantage of 
this opportunity to date. Broadcasters explain that this is because of 
the additional regulatory hurdles and uncertainty built into our 
existing rules for broadcasters that choose this option. Specifically, 
broadcasters note that our rules require the full Commission to approve 
the children's programming portion of renewal applications relying on 
such special efforts and claim that there is insufficient guidance on 
how such special efforts will be counted. Thus, we seek to establish a 
framework that will make the use of special sponsorship efforts and 
special non-broadcast efforts a more viable option for broadcasters in 
fulfilling their children's programming obligations.
    45. The CTA states that special sponsorship and special non-
broadcast efforts may be considered only ``in addition to considering 
the licensee's [educational] programming.'' We seek comment on how much 
Core Programming a licensee should be required to air when it is 
relying in part on special sponsorship and/or special non-broadcast 
efforts. Should we require a minimum amount of Core Programming and if 
so, how much should we require? Alternatively, should we give 
broadcasters the flexibility to decide how much Core Programming to 
air, provided that their Core Programming hours when combined with 
their special sponsorship and/or special non-broadcast efforts are the 
equivalent of the required Core Programming hours? As we have 
previously stated, we wish to give broadcasters flexibility in 
fulfilling their children's programming obligations, but we also 
recognize that particularized guidance may provide them more regulatory 
certainty.
    46. In addition, we seek comment on how we should count a 
licensee's sponsorship of Core Programming on another in-market 
station. NAB proposes that we count the sponsorship of Core Programming 
on another in-market station on a straightforward ``minute-for-minute'' 
basis (i.e., count each minute of a sponsored program as the equivalent 
of a minute of Core Programming). We request comment on this proposal 
and encourage commenters to suggest alternative proposals for 
quantifying sponsorship efforts. Should the size of the sponsoring 
broadcast station be taken into account in our analysis? For example, 
should we require larger broadcast stations to undertake more 
substantial sponsorship efforts (e.g., by sponsoring a greater number 
of minutes of Core Programming) than small broadcast stations in order 
to receive sponsorship credit? If so, how much more? How should we 
define ``large broadcast station'' and ``small broadcast station'' for 
purposes of such a requirement--based on annual revenues, market size, 
or some other measure? The Commission previously has stated that to 
receive credit for a special sponsorship effort, a broadcaster must 
demonstrate that its production or support of Core Programming aired on 
another station in its market increased the amount of Core Programming 
on the station airing the sponsored Core Programming. We tentatively 
agree that a licensee should not receive credit where its sponsorship 
results in no net increase in the amount of Core Programming on the 
other in-market station; rather, the licensee should be required to 
demonstrate that its sponsorship resulted in the creation of new Core 
Programming or expanded the hours of an existing core program. We seek 
comment on this view.
    47. We also seek comment on how to define ``special non-broadcast 
efforts.'' Under the CTA, special non-broadcast efforts must ``enhance 
the educational and informational value'' of a licensee's programming 
to children. We request comment on the types of special non-broadcast 
efforts that should receive credit under this provision. We note that 
PBS stations currently engage in a variety of non-broadcast activities 
to supplement their educational and informational programming for 
children, such as hosting educational events for kids at libraries, 
bookstores, children's museums, science centers, theaters, and other 
locations in their local communities; partnering with local 
organizations, including schools, libraries, and summer camps, to keep 
kids reading and learning during the summer months; and providing free 
books and learning materials to children from low-income families in 
their communities. Are these the types of activities that should be 
credited as special non-broadcast efforts? Should a broadcaster receive 
credit for hosting or participating in an educational website for 
children that reinforces the themes or lessons in the broadcaster's 
Core Programming? Under non-broadcast efforts, should the Commission 
take into consideration the availability of children's programming that 
is aired on internet streaming platforms? For example, PBS has a 
dedicated website and app for its children's programming. Are there 
similar on-demand outlets for children's programming aired by 
commercial stations? Should it matter whether such content is 
accessible for free or on a paid or subscription basis? How should we 
count or weigh special non-broadcast efforts? For example, should we 
count each special non-broadcast effort in which the broadcaster 
participates as the equivalent of a specified number of required Core 
Programming hours? Should some special non-broadcast efforts be 
assigned greater weight than others?
    48. Finally, we propose to allow Media Bureau staff, rather than 
the full Commission, to approve the children's programming portion of 
renewal applications of licensees relying in part on special 
sponsorship and/or special non-broadcast efforts. The Bureau staff has 
substantial experience in evaluating the children's programming efforts 
of license renewal applicants. Further, we note NAB's comment that 
broadcasters would be unlikely to take advantage of this option if they 
are required to subject their license renewal to a non-routine review 
by the full Commission. We seek comment on this proposal.

D. Multicasting Stations

    49. We propose to allow broadcasters the flexibility to choose on 
which of their free OTA streams to air any Core Programming (or non-
Core Programming, to the extent that a

[[Page 35168]]

broadcaster relies on non-Core Programming to meet its children's 
programming obligation). Under this proposal, broadcasters would not be 
required to air their Core Programming on their main program stream or 
on a stream that has comparable MVPD carriage as the main program 
stream. This approach would provide broadcasters with more flexibility 
to air Core Programming during hours when children are most likely to 
be watching TV and alleviate the need for broadcasters to preempt Core 
Programming when it conflicts with content such as public affairs 
programming and live sports. We seek comment on this proposal. NAB 
asserts that under the current rules, ``[e]ven if a station devotes a 
significant portion or the entirety of another stream to children's 
educational programming, it must still air E/I programming on its main 
stream. Such a requirement appears overly burdensome and unnecessarily 
restrictive, if not irrational.'' Do our current rules disincentivize 
more broadcasters from airing additional children's programming on 
their multicast streams, outside of our requirements? How would 
increased flexibility enhance the scheduling and delivery of broadcast 
content to viewers, both adults and children?
    50. We tentatively conclude that neither section 336 or the CTA 
mandates that a station fulfill its obligation to serve the educational 
and informational needs of children through its primary programming 
stream. In establishing the statutory framework for the transition to 
DTV, Congress stated in section 336(d) that ``[n]othing in this section 
shall be construed as relieving a television broadcasting station from 
its obligation to serve the public interest, convenience, and 
necessity.'' We tentatively conclude that a station can continue to 
serve the public interest by providing children's educational and 
informational programming on a multicast channel. Indeed, this is 
consistent with the CTA, which requires that we consider at renewal 
whether a television licensee has served the educational and 
informational needs of children through its ``programming,'' but does 
not dictate that such programming must be provided on the primary 
stream. We believe that this meets the statutory obligation as outlined 
by Congress while continuing to serve OTA-only households and children 
that do not have access to alternative non-broadcast content. As 
Members of Congress recently stressed to the Commission, ```Kid Vid' 
rules remain important today, especially for the many underserved 
families who rely on free broadcast stations for educational content. 
Many families cannot access or afford the broadband speeds necessary 
for streaming online video and have trouble paying for monthly pay-TV 
subscription services. The `Kid Vid' rules (and especially the 
mandatory programming hours requirement) make sure that these children 
have access to quality content to help them learn and thrive in 
school.'' We believe that permitting broadcasters to air their Core 
Programming on a multicast stream would be the surest way to provide 
needed flexibility while at the same time allow broadcasters to 
continue serving this important segment of the population. We seek 
comment on this tentative conclusion.
    51. We also tentatively conclude that we should eliminate the 
additional Core Programming processing guideline applicable to digital 
stations that multicast. Under this guideline, broadcasters providing 
streams of free video programming in addition to their main program 
stream must air additional Core Programming based on the amount of 
programming that is aired on their multicast streams. Multicasting 
stations are permitted to air all of their additional Core Programming 
on one free video channel, or distribute it across multiple free video 
channels, at their discretion, as long as the stream on which the Core 
Programming is aired has comparable MVPD carriage as the stream whose 
programming generates the Core Programming obligation. Commenters note 
that when the Commission adopted this processing guideline in 2004, it 
stated that it intended to revisit the issues addressed in that 
proceeding within the next three years and consider whether its 
determinations should be changed in light of technological 
developments. In 2018, we finally revisit this issue.
    52. Given the changes in how consumers access video programming and 
the growth in the amount and sources of educational and information 
programming available for children since the rule's adoption in 2004, 
we tentatively conclude that the additional Core Programming processing 
guideline for multicasting stations is no longer needed. We also 
tentatively find that neither the CTA nor section 336 of the Act 
mandates that the Commission impose children's educational and 
informational programming requirements on multicast streams. The CTA 
requires that we consider at renewal whether a television licensee has 
served the educational and informational needs of children through its 
``programming,'' but does not dictate that such programming be assessed 
on a stream-by-stream basis. In addition, in establishing the statutory 
framework for the transition to DTV, Congress stated in section 
336(b)(5) that the Commission ``shall prescribe such other regulations 
as may be necessary for the protection of the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity.'' We tentatively conclude that children's 
educational and informational programming requirements for multicast 
streams are not necessary for the protection of the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity. We seek comment on our tentative 
conclusions and ask commenters to provide input on the relative costs 
and benefits of the current requirements for multicasting stations. To 
what extent do consumers benefit from the additional Core Programming 
hours that currently must be provided on multicast channels under the 
existing processing guideline? Is this programming well-known to or 
frequently watched by children? To what extent does the current 
processing guideline increase programming costs for stations or require 
them to forego other programming options?
    53. We also seek comment on how to ensure that the current 
viewership of children's programming is not reduced. Should the 
flexibility to choose on which free OTA stream to air required Core 
Programming hours come with additional public interest obligations? For 
example, if a broadcaster decides to air its Core Programming on a 
multicast stream rather than its primary stream, should it be required 
to air additional hours of children's programming or provide some other 
service to its community? What other, if any, additional safeguards 
should apply?
    54. To the extent that we adopt our proposal to allow broadcasters 
to choose on which of their free OTA streams to air any Core 
Programming, we seek comment on how to apply our children's programming 
rules to stations broadcasting in ATSC 3.0. In the recent order 
authorizing television broadcasters to use the Next Generation or ATSC 
3.0 broadcast television transmission standard on a voluntary, market-
driven basis, the Commission concluded that the ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 
signals of a Next Gen TV broadcaster will be two separately authorized 
companion channels under the broadcaster's single, unified license. It 
further required Next Gen TV broadcasters to simulcast the primary 
video programming stream of their ATSC 3.0 channels in an ATSC 1.0 
format, so that viewers will continue to

[[Page 35169]]

receive ATSC 1.0 service. The programming aired on the ATSC 1.0 
simulcast channel must be ``substantially similar'' to the programming 
aired on the 3.0 channel. This means that the programming must be the 
same, except for programming features that are based on the enhanced 
capabilities of ATSC 3.0, advertisements, and promotions for upcoming 
programs. Although the Commission ``encourage[d] those Next Gen TV 
broadcasters that elect to air multiple streams of ATSC 3.0 programming 
to also simulcast more than a single programming stream,'' it only 
required Next Gen TV broadcasters to simulcast their primary stream in 
ATSC 1.0 format. The Commission also concluded that each 1.0 and 3.0 
stream is subject to children's programming obligations. Accordingly, 
based on the rules adopted in the Next Gen TV Report and Order, if we 
adopt our proposal to allow broadcasters to choose on which of their 
free OTA streams to air any Core Programming, a Next Gen TV broadcaster 
that chooses to air its Core Programming on its primary 3.0 video 
stream would be required to simulcast ``substantially similar'' 
programming, including any Core Programming, in 1.0 format. If, 
however, a Next Gen TV broadcaster chooses to air its Core Programming 
on a multicast 3.0 stream, there is no current requirement that this 
programming be simulcast on a 1.0 stream--although the broadcaster 
would still have the obligation to air Core Programming in 1.0 format. 
Given this, we seek comment on whether the flexibility of our 
children's programming proposal requires us to modify our recent ATSC 
3.0 rules. For example, a Next Gen TV broadcaster may wish to air its 
Core Programming on its primary 3.0 video stream, but instead of 
simulcasting that Core Programming in 1.0 format, air unique Core 
programming on a 1.0 multicast stream. Should we permit such 
flexibility? How would this flexibility impact the children's 
programming available to 1.0 viewers? Similarly, how would it impact 
the other, non-children's programming offered to viewers via the 1.0 
stream? Should broadcasters be required to simulcast the Core 
Programming aired on the 3.0 multicast video stream on a 1.0 multicast 
video stream? Are there other issues related to compliance with the 
proposed revisions to our children's programming rules, as they relate 
to the ATSC 3.0 rules, that we should consider? We invite specific 
comment on what modifications to our ATSC 3.0 rules, if any, may be 
necessary in light of the contemplated changes to our children's 
programming rules.
    55. We acknowledge that MVPDs are not required to carry stations' 
multicast streams, so it is possible that the stream on which a station 
chooses to air its required Core Programming would not be available to 
those viewing broadcast stations only through MVPDs. Nevertheless, the 
stream would still be available over the air and therefore should be 
available to children in households that do not subscribe, and 
therefore do not have access to, the myriad of children's programming 
options available on cable or satellite. We note that the Commission 
has allowed multicasting stations to air all of their additional Core 
Programming (beyond the three-hour weekly baseline) on any free OTA 
stream only where the stream has MVPD carriage comparable to the stream 
whose programming generates the Core Programming obligation. We 
tentatively conclude that the comparable MVPD carriage requirement is 
no longer necessary. We believe that the MVPD comparable carriage 
requirement is less important today, given that viewers with MVPD 
service have access to cable children's networks and likely also have 
access to children's programming on over-the-top services and internet 
sites. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. If we allow 
broadcasters to move all of their Core Programming off of their main 
program stream to a stream that does not receive MVPD carriage, do 
broadcasters have business incentives to ensure that the programming 
attracts as many viewers as possible? How do such incentives operate in 
connection with the broadcast of children's educational and 
informational programming? Would the statutory purpose of 47 U.S.C. 
303b continue to be fulfilled if we were to permit Core Programming to 
be moved off of the stream that is carried by the MVPD?
    56. If we adopt this proposal and broadcasters choose to move their 
required Core Programming from their main program stream to another 
free OTA stream, would there be a need to ensure that parents are able 
to locate the Core Programming? We note that for OTA viewers the 
multicast stream is located next to the main stream in the channel 
lineup. Nevertheless, should we require broadcasters to provide on-air 
notifications to consumers that they intend to move the Core 
Programming from the main program stream to another channel? If we 
require them, how often and when should such notifications air? Should 
they be aired only on those days on which the Core Programming is 
broadcast or immediately before or during the broadcast of the Core 
Programming, to ensure that the notifications are seen by the 
programming's existing audience? Should we also require broadcasters to 
post information about the move on their websites or allow broadcasters 
to use websites to notify viewers in lieu of on-air notifications? 
Alternatively, are there more relevant ways to educate viewers today? 
Should we give broadcasters flexibility in determining the best way to 
inform their viewers? Even after initially moving Core Programming to a 
secondary stream, should stations be required to publicize the 
availability of children's programming on their secondary stream?

E. Preemption of Children's Programming

    57. We seek comment on whether we should revise our policies 
regarding the preemption of children's programming or whether the added 
flexibility afforded to broadcasters by the other rule changes proposed 
in this NPRM, if adopted, would largely eliminate the need for 
preemptions. Under our existing policies, if a station preempts an 
episode of a core program for any reason other than breaking news, the 
station generally must air the rescheduled program in a previously 
selected ``second home'' and provide an on-air notification of the 
schedule change in order for the rescheduled program to count toward 
compliance with the processing guideline. Commenters complain that the 
restrictive ``second home'' policy unnecessarily burdens local 
stations--especially those stations that air live network sports 
programming and network and local newscasts on weekend mornings--and 
impairs their ability to reschedule preempted programs. We seek comment 
on whether the potential rule changes discussed above would provide 
broadcasters sufficient flexibility to schedule their Core Programming 
so as to avoid the need for preemptions. To the extent that commenters 
believe that these other rule changes would not fully address their 
concerns with the preemption policies, or if we do not adopt all of 
those proposals, we request comment on how to provide broadcasters 
greater flexibility in rescheduling preempted Core Programming. NAB 
proposes that we eliminate the ``second home'' policy and instead 
permit stations to air preempted core programs on the day, time, and 
OTA stream of their choice, provided that the broadcaster gives 
adequate notice of the rescheduled time. We seek comment on this 
proposal and

[[Page 35170]]

invite commenters to suggest alternative proposals to address their 
concerns with preemption issues.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and 
rules proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on 
this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and 
must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page 
of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including 
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

B. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    2. The Children's Television Act of 1990 (CTA) requires that the 
Commission consider, in its review of television license renewals, the 
extent to which the licensee ``has served the educational and 
informational needs of children through its overall programming, 
including programming specifically designed to serve such needs.'' The 
CTA provides that, in addition to considering the licensee's 
programming, the Commission also may consider in its review of 
television license renewals (1) any special non-broadcast efforts by 
the licensee which enhance the educational and informational value of 
such programming to children; and (2) any special efforts by the 
licensee to produce or support programming broadcast by another station 
in the licensee's marketplace which is specifically designed to serve 
the educational and informational needs of children. The Commission 
adopted rules implementing the CTA in 1991, and revised these rules in 
1996, 2004, and 2006.
    3. The existing children's programming rules include a three-hour 
per week safe harbor processing guideline for determining a renewal 
applicant's compliance with the rules. Under the processing guideline, 
the Media Bureau staff is authorized to approve the children's 
programming portion of a licensee's renewal application where the 
licensee has aired three hours per week (averaged over a six-month 
period) of ``Core Programming'' (i.e., programming that is specifically 
designed to serve children's educational and informational needs and 
meets certain defined criteria). A licensee can demonstrate compliance 
with the processing guideline by (1) checking a box on its renewal 
application and providing supporting information indicating that it has 
aired three hours per week of Core Programming; or (2) showing that it 
has aired a package of different types of educational and informational 
programming that, while containing somewhat less than three hours per 
week of Core Programming, demonstrates a level of commitment to 
educating and informing children that is at least equivalent to airing 
three hours per week of Core Programming. Stations that multicast must 
provide an additional three hours per week of Core Programming for each 
full-time multicast stream that airs free programming. Licensees that 
do not satisfy the processing guideline have their renewal applications 
referred to the full Commission, where they have the opportunity to 
demonstrate compliance with the CTA by relying in part on special non-
broadcast efforts which enhance the value of children's educational and 
informational programming and/or special efforts by the licensee to 
produce or support programming broadcast by another station in the 
licensee's marketplace which is specifically designed to serve the 
educational and informational needs of children. The children's 
programming rules also include, among other requirements, procedures 
governing the preemption of Core Programming; quarterly reporting 
requirements; program guide requirements; a requirement to publicize 
the existing and location of children's programming reports; and a 
requirement to identify Core Programming on-air with the E/I symbol and 
display this symbol throughout the program.
    4. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to revise the children's 
television programming rules to modify outdated requirements and to 
give broadcasters greater flexibility in serving the educational and 
informational needs of children. Many of the proposed revisions are 
based on comments received in response to the Commission's 
Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative proceeding. These proposed 
revisions reflect the dramatic changes in the video landscape in the 
two decades since the children's programming rules were adopted, 
including changes in the way television viewers, including younger 
viewers, consume video programming, the increase in the amount of 
programming for children available via non-broadcast platforms, such as 
children's cable networks, over-the-top providers, and the internet, 
and the availability today of multicast channels which provide 
additional programming options for households that rely exclusively on 
over-the-air television. Among other matters, the NPRM seeks input on 
the following issues and proposals:
     Requirement that Core Programming Be At Least 30 Minutes 
in Length. The NPRM tentatively concludes that the requirement that 
educational and informational programming be at least 30 minutes in 
length to be counted as Core Programming should be eliminated, which 
would allow public service announcements, interstitials (i.e., 
programming of brief duration that is used as a bridge between two 
longer programs), and other short segments to be counted as Core 
Programming.
     Core Programming Hours. The NPRM seeks comment on whether 
it is still necessary to define the hours in which educational and 
informational programming must be aired to be considered Core 
Programming, and if so, whether to expand the Core Programming hours 
from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
     Regularly Scheduled Weekly Programming Requirement. The 
NPRM tentatively concludes that the requirement that educational and 
informational programming be regularly scheduled weekly programming 
should be eliminated, which would allow educational specials and non-
weekly programming to be counted as Core Programming.
     On-Air Identification. The NPRM tentatively concludes that 
noncommercial stations should no longer be required to identify Core 
Programming with the ``E/I'' symbol or to display this symbol 
throughout the program. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether to 
continue to require commercial stations to display the E/I symbol 
throughout Core Programming.
     Program Guides. The NPRM seeks comment on whether to 
retain or eliminate the requirement that broadcasters provide 
information identifying programming specifically designed to educate 
and inform children, including an indication of the intended age group, 
to publishers of program guides.

[[Page 35171]]

     Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. The NPRM 
tentatively concludes that the Children's Television Programming 
Report, FCC Form 398, should be filed on an annual rather than 
quarterly basis and seek comment on ways to streamline this report. The 
NPRM also seeks comment on whether the rules should be revised to 
require broadcasters and cable operators to place in their public files 
on an annual basis, instead of on quarterly basis as is currently 
required, records demonstrating compliance with the limits on 
commercial matter in children's programming. Additionally, the NPRM 
tentatively concludes that the requirement that broadcasters publicize 
the existence and location of their Children's Television Programming 
Reports should be eliminated.
     Processing Guideline. The NPRM seeks comment on whether to 
modify the three-hour per week safe harbor processing guideline for 
determining compliance with the children's programming rules to make it 
an annual guideline, which would give broadcasters greater flexibility 
to air Core Programming based on scheduling demands.
     Special Sponsorship Efforts and Special Non-Broadcast 
Efforts. The NPRM seeks comment on the creation of a framework under 
which broadcasters could satisfy their children's programming 
obligations by relying in part on special sponsorship efforts and/or 
special non-broadcast effort. In particular, the NPRM seeks comment on 
how much Core Programming a licensee should be required to air when it 
is relying in part on special sponsorship and/or special non-broadcast 
efforts; whether to count the sponsorship of Core Programming on 
another in-market station on a straightforward ``minute-for-minute'' 
basis or on some other basis; and on the types of activities that 
should be credited as special non-broadcast efforts. The NPRM also 
proposes to allow Media Bureau staff, rather than the full Commission, 
to approve the children's programming portion of renewal applications 
of licensees relying in part on such special efforts.
     Multicasting Stations. The NPRM proposes to allow 
broadcasters that multicast the flexibility to choose on which of their 
free over-the-air streams to air their required Core Programming hours 
without regard to carriage by multichannel video programming 
distributors. Moreover, the NPRM tentatively concludes that the 
additional Core Programming guideline applicable to broadcasters 
providing streams of free over-the-air programming in addition to their 
main program stream (i.e., multicasting stations) should be eliminated.
     Preemption Policies. The NPRM seeks comment on whether the 
policies regarding the preemption of children's programming should be 
revised or whether other rules changes proposed in the NPRM, including 
elimination of the regularly scheduled weekly programming requirement 
and the requirement that Core Programming be at least 30 minutes in 
length, making the three-hour per week processing guideline an annual 
processing guideline, and allowing broadcasters to choose on which of 
their free OTA streams to air their required Core Programming hours, 
would provide broadcasters sufficient flexibility to schedule their 
Core Programming so as to avoid the need for preemptions. To the extent 
that commenters believe that these other rule changes would not fully 
address their concerns with the preemption policies, or some or all of 
these other rules changes are not adopted, the NPRM seeks comment on 
NAB's proposal to eliminate the ``second home'' policy and instead 
permit stations to air preempted core programs on the day, time, and 
OTA channel of their choice, provided that the broadcaster gives 
adequate notice of the rescheduled time.

C. Legal Basis

    5. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 303, 
303b, 307, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 303, 303b, 307, and 336.

D. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    6. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    7. The rules proposed herein will directly affect small television 
broadcast stations. Below, we provide a description of these small 
entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, 
where feasible.
    8. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images 
together with sound.'' These establishments operate television 
broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission 
of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or 
transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television 
stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a 
predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, 
from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has 
created the following small business size standard for such businesses: 
those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. The 2012 
Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in 
that year. Of this number, 656 had annual receipts of $25 million or 
less. Based on this data we therefore estimate that the majority of 
commercial television broadcasters are small entities under the 
applicable SBA size standard.
    9. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial 
television stations to be 1,377. Of this total, 1,257 stations had 
revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review 
of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on 
January 8, 2018, and therefore these licensees qualify as small 
entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission has 
estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) 
television stations to be 390. Notwithstanding, the Commission does not 
compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the 
revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such 
stations would qualify as small entities.
    10. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely 
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our 
action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, 
another element of the definition of ``small business'' requires that 
an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at 
this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish 
whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its 
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to 
which rules may

[[Page 35172]]

apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a 
small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive. 
Also, as noted above, an additional element of the definition of 
``small business'' is that the entity must be independently owned and 
operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess 
these criteria in the context of media entities and its estimates of 
small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this 
extent.
    11. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission 
has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of 
cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable 
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. 
Industry data indicate that there are currently 4,600 active cable 
systems in the United States. Of this total, all but nine cable 
operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size 
standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a 
``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 
Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this 
total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 
systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records. 
Thus, under this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems 
are small entities.
    12. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard 
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 
one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not 
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in 
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' There are approximately 52,403,705 
cable video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an 
operator serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small 
operator if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual 
revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the 
aggregate. Based on available data, we find that all but nine incumbent 
cable operators are small entities under this size standard. We note 
that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on 
whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross 
annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that 
some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose 
gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time 
to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators 
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    13. Reporting Requirements. The NPRM tentatively concludes that the 
Children's Television Programming Report, FCC Form 398, should be filed 
on an annual rather than quarterly basis. The NPRM also seeks comment 
whether the requirement that broadcasters specify the educational and 
informational purpose and the target child audience of Core Programming 
in their Children's Television Programming Reports continues to serve 
the objectives underlying its adoption. In addition, the NPRM seeks 
comment on whether to streamline the Children's Television Programming 
Report and allow broadcasters to certify their compliance with the 
children's programming requirements, rather than provide detailed 
information in the report documenting their compliance.
    14. Recordkeeping Requirements. The NPRM seeks comment on whether 
the rules should be revised to require broadcasters and cable operators 
to place in their public files on an annual basis, instead of on 
quarterly basis as is currently required, records demonstrating 
compliance with the limits on commercial matter in children's 
programming.
    15. Other Compliance Requirements. The NPRM seeks comment on 
whether it is still necessary to define the hours in which educational 
and informational programming must be aired to be considered ``Core 
Programming'' and if so, whether to expand the Core Programming hours 
from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Additionally, 
the NPRM tentatively concludes that the requirement that educational 
and informational programming be ``regularly scheduled weekly 
programming'' to considered Core Programming, which would allow 
educational specials and non-weekly programming to be counted as Core 
Programming. The NPRM also tentatively concludes that the requirement 
that educational and informational programming be at least 30 minutes 
in length to be considered Core Programming should be eliminated, which 
would enable broadcasters to receive Core Programming credit for public 
service announcements, interstitials (i.e., programming of brief 
duration that is used as a bridge between two longer programs), and 
other short segments.
    16. The NPRM seeks comment on whether to provide broadcasters 
greater flexibility in scheduling their Core Programming by modifying 
the three-hour per week safe harbor processing guideline for 
determining compliance with the children's programming rules to make it 
an annual guideline. The NPRM also seeks comment on the creation of a 
framework under which broadcasters could satisfy their children's 
programming obligations by relying in part on special sponsorship 
efforts and/or special non-broadcast efforts. The NPRM tentatively 
concludes that the additional Core Programming requirement applicable 
to multicasting stations should be eliminated. Further, the NPRM seeks 
comment on whether to allow broadcasters to choose on which of their 
free over-the-air streams to air their required Core Programming hours.
    17. Finally, the NPRM tentatively concludes that the requirement 
that broadcasters publicize the existence and location of their 
Children's Television Programming Reports should be eliminated; 
tentatively concludes that noncommercial stations should no longer be 
required to identify Core Programming with the ``E/I'' symbol or to 
display this symbol throughout the program and seeks comment on whether 
commercial stations should be required to do so; and seeks comment on 
whether to retain or eliminate the requirement that broadcasters 
provide information identifying programming specifically designed to 
educate and inform children, including an indication of the intended 
age group, to publishers of program guides.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    18. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
    19. The revisions proposed in the NPRM are intended to modernize 
the children's programming rules by

[[Page 35173]]

modifying outdated requirements, reducing recordkeeping burdens on 
broadcasters and cable operators, and giving broadcasters greater 
flexibility in fulfilling their children's programming obligations. 
Thus, we expect that the proposed revisions, if adopted, will only 
benefit affected small entities.

G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    20. None

H. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    21. This document contains proposed modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission will seek specific comment 
on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

I. Ex Parte Rules

    22. Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy 
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with section 1.1206(b) of the rules. In proceedings 
governed by section 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission 
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.

J. Filing Procedures

    23. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of 
this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy 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.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th Street SW, TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes 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 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    24. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex 
parte submissions will be available for public inspection 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. Documents will 
be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe 
Acrobat.
    25. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the FCC's 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), 
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).

V. Ordering Clauses

    26. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
found in sections 303, 303b, 307, and 336 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 303, 303b, 307, and 336 this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    27. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 73 and 76

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Television, Cable 
television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--Radio Broadcast Services

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.

0
2. Amend Sec.  73.671 by removing paragraphs (c)(3) and (4), 
redesignating paragraphs (c)(5) through (7) as paragraphs (c)(3) 
through (5), and revising redesignated paragraph (c)(3) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 35174]]

Sec.  73.671  Educational and informational programming for children.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) For commercial broadcast stations only, the program is 
identified as specifically designed to educate and inform children by 
the display on the television screen throughout the program of the 
symbol E/I;
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  73.671 by removing paragraph (d), redesignating 
paragraph (e) as paragraph (d), and revising redesignated paragraph (d) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  73.671  Educational and informational programming for children.

* * * * *
    (d) The Commission will apply the following processing guideline to 
digital stations in assessing whether a television broadcast licensee 
has complied with the Children's Television Act of 1990 (``CTA'') on 
its digital channel(s). A digital television licensee that has aired at 
least three hours per week of Core Programming (as defined in paragraph 
(c) of this section and as averaged over a six month period) on its 
main program stream will be deemed to have satisfied its obligation to 
air such programming and shall have the CTA portion of its license 
renewal application approved by the Commission staff. The licensee may 
air all of the Core Programing on its main program stream or on another 
free program stream, or may distribute it across multiple free program 
streams, at its discretion. Licensees that do not meet this processing 
guidelines will have full opportunity to demonstrate compliance with 
the CTA and be eligible for such staff approval by relying in part on 
sponsorship of Core educational/informational programs on other 
stations in the market that increases the amount of Core educational 
and informational programming on the station airing the sponsored 
program and/or on special nonbroadcast efforts which enhance the value 
of children's educational and informational television programming.
0
4. Amend 73.3526 by revising paragraph (e)(11)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  73.3526  Local public inspection file of commercial stations.

    (e) * * *
    (11) * * *
    (iii) Children's television programming reports. For commercial TV 
broadcast stations on an annual basis, a completed Children's 
Television Programming Report (``Report''), on FCC Form 398, reflecting 
efforts made by the licensee during the preceding year to serve the 
educational and informational needs of children. The Report is to be 
placed in the public inspection file by the tenth day of the succeeding 
calendar year. By this date, a copy of the Report is also to be filed 
electronically with the FCC. The Report shall identify the licensee's 
educational and informational programming efforts, including programs 
aired by the station that are specifically designed to serve the 
educational and informational needs of children, and it shall explain 
how programs identified as Core Programming meet the definition set 
forth in Sec.  73.671(c). The Report shall include the name of the 
individual at the station responsible for collecting comments on the 
station's compliance with the Children's Television Act, and it shall 
be separated from other materials in the public inspection file. The 
Report shall also identify the program guide publishers to which 
information regarding the licensee's educational and informational 
programming was provided as required in Sec.  73.673, as well as the 
station's license renewal date. These Reports shall be retained in the 
public inspection file until final action has been taken on the 
station's next license renewal application.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-15819 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P