********************************************************
                         NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes,
graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, itallic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not
show up in this text version.
Features of the orginal document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing,
pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect
version.
For information on downloading documents using File Transfer Protocol(FTP) see the file
how2ftp in the following directory path:
/pub/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/
*****************************************************************
                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION      FCC 96-335
                          Washington, D.C.  20554
In the Matter of                          )
                                          )
Policies and Rules Concerning             )
Children's Television Programming         )          MM Docket No. 93-48
                                          )
Revision of Programming Policies          )
for Television Broadcast Stations         )
                             REPORT AND ORDER
            Adopted:  August 8, 1996      Released:  August 8, 1996
By the Commission:  Chairman Hundt issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Quello
concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Ness issuing a separate statement;
Commissioner Chong concurring in part and issuing a statement.
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                   Paragraph
I.   Introduction                                          1
II.  Background                                            9
     A.     The Importance of Children's Educational Television
            Programming                              9
     B.     The History of Government Efforts to Promote Children's Educational
            Television                               14
     C.     FCC Proceedings Implementing the CTA     25
     D.     The Supply of Children's Educational Television Programming         29
III. Public Information Initiatives                        47
IV.  Definition of Programming "Specifically Designed" to Serve Children's
     Educational Needs                                                                 73
V.   Processing Guideline
115
VI.  Renewal Procedures                              142
VII. First Amendment Issues                          146
VIII.       Effective Dates and Transition Period    160
IX.  Conclusion                                      164
X.   Ordering Clauses                                165
     Appendix A:  Administrative Matters
     Appendix B:  Rules
     Appendix C:  List of Commenters
     Appendix D:  TV Usage: Children and Teens
                             I.  INTRODUCTION
        1.  In this Order, we take action to strengthen our enforcement of the Children's
Television Act of 1990 ("CTA"), which requires the Commission, in its review of each
television broadcast license renewal application, to "consider 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."  In
enacting the CTA, Congress found that television has the power to teach children -- that
"television can assist children to learn important information, skills, values, and behavior,
while entertaining them and exciting their curiosity to learn about the world around them."
Congress also found, however, that there are significant market disincentives for commercial
broadcasters to air children's educational and informational programming.  The rules we
adopt today are intended to counteract these market disincentives and to ensure that
broadcasters fulfill the promise of the Children's Television Act to our nation's children.
We alter our regulations to provide greater clarity about broadcasters' obligation under the
CTA to air programming "specifically designed" to serve the educational and informational
needs of children and to improve public access to information about the availability of these
programs.
        2.  As explained in greater detail below, we conclude that our 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."  Our review of the record in this proceeding reveals several problems.  First,
because of their imprecision in defining the scope of a broadcaster's obligation under the
Children's Television Act, our rules have led to a variation in the level and nature of
broadcasters' compliance efforts that is incompatible with the intent of the CTA.  In so
doing, our rules fail to adequately counterbalance the marketplace disincentives as Congress
intended when it enacted the CTA.  Indeed, some broadcasters are carrying very little
regularly scheduled standard length programming specifically designed to educate and inform
children.  Second, some broadcasters are claiming to have satisfied their statutory obligations
with shows that, by any reasonable benchmark, cannot be said to be "specifically designed"
to educate and inform children within the meaning of the CTA.  Third, parents and others
frequently lack timely access to information about the availability of programming in their
communities specifically designed to educate and inform children, exacerbating market
disincentives.  Therefore, as proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making ("NPRM") we
released in April 1995, we refine our policies and rules implementing the CTA to remedy
these problems.
        3.  First, we adopt a number of proposals designed to provide better information
to the public about the shows broadcasters air to fulfill their obligation to air educational and
informational programming under the CTA.  Such information will assist parents who wish
to guide their children's television viewing and, if large numbers of parents use that
information to choose educational programming for their children, increase the likelihood
that the market will respond with more educational programming.  In addition, better
information should help parents and others have an effective dialogue with broadcasters in
their community about children's programming and, where appropriate, to urge programming
improvements without resorting to government intervention.
        4.  Second, we adopt a definition of programming "specifically designed" to
educate and inform children (or "core" programming) that provides better guidance to
broadcasters concerning programming that fulfills their statutory obligation to air such
programming.  In order to qualify as core programming, a show must have serving the
educational and informational needs of children as a significant purpose.  The Commission
will ordinarily rely on the good faith judgments of broadcasters as to whether programming
satisfies this test and will evaluate compliance of individual programs with this definition
only as a last resort.  Our new definition of core programming includes other objective
elements.  A core program must be a regularly scheduled, weekly program of at least 30
minutes, and aired between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.  The program must also be identified
as educational and informational for children when it is aired and must be listed in the
children's programming report placed in the broadcaster's public inspection file.
        5.  Third, we adopt a processing guideline that will provide certainty for
broadcasters about how to comply with the CTA and facilitate our processing efforts.  As
described more fully below, under this guideline, broadcasters will receive staff-level
approval of the CTA portion of their renewal applications if they air three hours per week of
core programming or if, while providing somewhat less than three hours per week of core
programming, they air a package of programming that demonstrates a level of commitment
to educating and informing children that is at least equivalent to airing three hours per week
of core programming.  Broadcasters that do not meet this guideline will be referred to the
full Commission for consideration, where they will have a full opportunity to demonstrate
compliance with the CTA, including through efforts other than "core" programming and
through nonbroadcast efforts.
        6.  By publishing our guideline for processing television renewal applications,
and by identifying in advance those broadcasters who clearly are in compliance with the CTA
and those who may not be in compliance, a processing guideline will help ensure that
broadcasters who wish to provide an ample amount of children's educational programming
will not find themselves at an unfair disadvantage in the market relative to competing
broadcasters who do not, and will not find themselves facing competitive pressure to forgo
airing educational programs.  A processing guideline will also facilitate speedy and consistent
application processing by Commission staff.  In short, a processing guideline is a clear, fair
and efficient way to implement the Children's Television Act.
        7.  With regard to the constitutional arguments that have been raised in this
proceeding, we conclude, as Congress did when it enacted the CTA, that requiring
broadcasters to serve the educational and informational needs of their child audience is
clearly within the scope of the long recognized obligation of broadcasters to serve the public
interest.  We further conclude that the regulations we adopt today directly advance the
government's substantial, and indeed compelling, interest in educating America's children.
At the same time, the regulations are appropriately tailored to provide flexibility for
broadcasters.
        8.  Congress has enlisted the creativity of broadcasters to advance the nation's
powerful interest in educating its youth.  As Congress stated, "[i]t is difficult to think of an
interest more substantial than the promotion of the welfare of children who watch so much
television and rely upon it for so much of the information they receive."  We believe that
this Report and Order advances that interest.
                              II.  BACKGROUND
A.  The Importance of Children's Educational Television Programming
        9.  Congress has recognized that television can benefit society by helping to
educate and inform our children.  In enacting the CTA, Congress cited research
demonstrating that television programs designed to teach children specific skills are
effective.   For example, children who watch "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" and "Sesame
Street" have been shown to learn task persistence, imaginative play, and letter and number
skills.
        10.  Studies confirm, and many commenters in this proceeding agree, that
children can benefit substantially from viewing educational television.  In one such study,
children who watch "Barney" showed greater counting skills, knowledge of colors and
shapes, vocabulary, and social skills, than children who did not watch the program.
Although all children can benefit from educational television, it has been found to be
particularly beneficial to children from lower income families.  A study conducted by Dr.
Aletha Huston and Dr. John Wright, co-directors of the Center for Research on the
Influences of Television on Children at the University of Kansas, demonstrated that children
from low- and moderate- income families who frequently watch "Sesame Street" and other
educational programs from ages 2 to 4 performed better on vocabulary, school readiness,
pre-reading, and math tests than non-viewers as much as three years later.  These
differences occurred even when results were controlled for initial language skill and qualities
of family and home environment.  The Children's Television Workshop ("CTW") submitted
another recent study performed by Westat, Inc. that showed that preschoolers from low-
income families who watch "Sesame Street" demonstrated more advanced literacy and
numeracy skills than their counterparts who did not watch the program.  Thus, there is
substantial information before us showing that television can educate children.
        11.  That television has the power to teach is important because nearly all
American children have access to television and spend considerable time watching it.  Recent
data show that television reaches 98 percent of all American homes, including well over 90
percent of households with annual incomes below $5,000.  Data also show that children
from ages 2 to 17 watch on average more than 3 hours of television each day.  The
significance of over-the-air television for children is reinforced by the fact that fewer children
have access to cable television than to over-the-air television.  In the United States, 38
percent of children from ages 12 to 17 and 37 percent of children from ages 2 to 11 live in
homes that are not connected to cable television.  Indeed, according to the consumers
expenditure survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of consumer
households that subscribe to cable television or community antenna systems increases
significantly with household income.  Thus, while about 75 percent of consumer households
with incomes of $70,000 and over subscribe to cable television, only about 36 percent of
consumer households with incomes less than $5,000 subscribe to cable.  Hence, over-the-
air broadcasting is an important source of video programs for children and for all members
of low income families, including children.
        12.  Television reaches children earlier and for more hours per day than any
other educational influence except perhaps family.  Many children watch television before
they are exposed to any formal education.  Nearly 70 percent of day-care facilities have a
television on for several hours each day.  By the time most American children begin the
first grade, they will have spent the equivalent of three school years in front of the television
set.
        13.  Some have argued that children will not watch educational programming.
But there are studies that show that, where educational programming is available, a large
percentage of children watch.  The Westat study found that the majority of young children in
all demographic groups watch "Sesame Street."  Another study submitted by CTW suggests
that children do not distinguish between educational and non-educational programming, and
that they do not find educational programming less appealing.  CTW noted that quality
programming specifically designed to meet children's educational and informational needs
can attract sizeable audiences, as evidenced by "Sesame Street" and "Ghostwriter."  In
addition, Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Children's Network ("FCN"), and Fox Affiliates
Association (collectively referred to herein as "Fox") submitted evidence that the educational
programs developed by the FCN receive high ratings.
B.   The History of Government Efforts to Promote Children's Educational Television
        14.  For over 30 years, the Commission has recognized that, as part of their
obligation as trustees of the public's airwaves, broadcasters must provide programming that
serves the special needs of children.  The Commission's efforts to promote programming for
children began in 1960 with the statement that children were one of the several groups whose
programming needs television licensees must meet to fulfill their community public interest
responsibilities.  In 1974, the Commission specifically recognized that broadcasters have an
obligation to provide children's educational programming:
   "We believe . . . that the broadcaster's public service obligation includes a
   responsibility to provide diversified programming designed to meet the varied
   needs and interests of the child audience.  . . .  In this regard, educational or
   informational programming for children is of particular importance."
The Commission concluded at that time, however, that it was not necessary to prescribe the
number of hours of such programming that broadcasters should show per week.  Instead,
the Commission stated that it expected the industry to take steps voluntarily to increase the
amount of educational and informational programming for children.
        15.   The Commission's 1974 Policy Statement asked broadcasters to make a
meaningful effort to provide programs for children, of which a reasonable part should be
educational programming, to increase the number of programs aimed at children in specific
age groups, and to improve scheduling practices so that children's programming would be
aired during both weekends and weekdays.  The Commission also adopted policies
concerning commercialization in children's programming.  The Commission stated that it
expected the industry to take self-regulatory steps to comply with these guidelines by January
1, 1976.  To evaluate the success of this program, the Commission revised its renewal
forms to obtain information on commercialization practices and programming designed to
serve children and kept the docket open. The United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit") affirmed the Commission's decision as a
reasonable exercise of its regulatory authority.
        16.  In 1978, the Commission sought to determine what changes had taken place
since 1974, and whether self-regulation had been effective.  In 1979, the Commission's
Children's Television Task  Force ("Task  Force") concluded that, although the industry
generally had complied with the commercial time limits adopted in 1974, it had not complied
with the programming guidelines.  The Task Force reported that licensees aired an average
of 2.6 hours of "instructional" programs in a composite week in 1977-78, as compared with
2.8 hours during a composite week in 1973-74.  The Task Force concluded, therefore, that
market forces had failed to ensure that television programming was responsive to the needs
and interests of children.  The Task Force attributed this failure to the limited ability of the
child audience to influence the advertiser-supported television market.  Responding to this
finding, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in late 1979 that
outlined a series of options ranging from relying on noncommercial television for children's
programming to adopting mandatory quantitative requirements.
        17.  In 1983, the Commission held an en banc hearing to update the record
regarding issues raised in the 1979 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and, in 1984, released
the Children's Television decision concluding the rulemaking.  The Commission concluded
that there was no basis on the record before it "to apply a national mandatory quota for
children's programming."  The Commission explained that it had chosen not to rely on the
findings of the 1979 Task Force because the Task Force had not considered the video
distribution industry as a whole.  After considering the supply of programming available on
cable and noncommercial stations, the Commission decided that "there is no national failure
of access to children's programming" requiring quantitative or other specific program-related
requirements  for broadcasters.  Nonetheless, the Commission emphasized that broadcasters
had a "continuing duty . . . to examine the program needs of the child part of the audience"
and chose to rely on this broadly worded obligation and market forces to ensure a sufficient
amount of educational programming for children.  The D.C. Circuit again affirmed the
Commission's decision on appeal as a reasonable exercise of agency discretion.
        18.  The Commission has no independent information about the amount of
children's programming aired following the 1984 Report decision.  According to one
commenter, however, the three major networks collectively aired more than 11 hours per
week (individually about 3.7 hours per week) of children's educational programming in
1980.  NAB states that broadcasters averaged two hours per station in 1990, and 3.6 hours
per station in 1993.
        19.  In 1984, the Commission also repealed the commercial guidelines for
children's programming.  In 1987, the D.C. Circuit ruled that there was no evidence to
support the Commission's decision and remanded it to the Commission for further
explanation of its decision to eliminate its "longstanding children's television
commercialization guidelines."  The court found no reasoned basis for the Commission to
alter its policy regarding commercialization.
        20.  The Commission responded to the remand by issuing a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on the issue of
commercialization guidelines for children's television.  The Commission took no further
action on children's television issues until after Congress enacted the CTA in 1990.  The
Senate Report on the CTA cited the Commission's 1984 decisions as precipitating factors in
the enactment of the CTA.
        21.  Congress enacted the CTA both to impose limitations on the number of
commercials shown during children's programs and to make clear that the FCC could not
rely solely on market forces to increase the educational and informational programming
available to children on commercial television.  While recognizing that commercial television
did provide some "meritorious" programming, the Senate Report stated that "when viewed as
a whole, there is disturbingly little educational of informational programming on commercial
television."  The Report went on to note:
        The same problems with children's programming that the FCC
        found in 1976 exist today.  Market forces have not worked to
        increase the educational and informational programming available
        to children on commercial television.
        22.  In enacting the CTA Congress clearly stated its objective.  The Senate
Report expressly notes that the "objective of this legislation is to increase the amount of
educational and informational broadcast television available to children."  Congress sought
to accomplish this objective by placing on each and every licensee an obligation to provide
educational and informational programming, including programming specifically designed to
educate and inform children, and by requiring the FCC to enforce that obligation.  This is
evident from the plain text of the CTA, which states that the FCC "shall, in its review of any
application for renewal of a commercial or noncommercial television broadcast license,
consider 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."
        23.  The Senate Report explains the statute's language by noting that the CTA
explicitly requires the FCC "to consider at the time of license renewal whether the licensee
has provided programming specifically designed to meet the educational and informational
needs of pre-school and school-age children."  On the floor of the House of
Representatives, Congressman Lent made the same point: "Of course, TV stations already
are required to serve their child audiences.  But now, the FCC will be directed to gauge
whether TV stations are actually meeting that obligation."  The Senate Report emphasized
the newly codified obligation of broadcasters to provide children's educational programming:
        As part of their public interest obligation, broadcasters can and
        indeed must be required to render public service to children.
        Children are the bedrock upon which our society rests.  See
        Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 168 (1943).  As
        demonstrated elsewhere in this report, children watch a great deal
        of television, especially before they start school, and are greatly
        influenced by this medium.  Under these circumstances, the
        broadcaster as a public fiduciary must provide programming
        specifically designed to serve the informational and educational
        needs of children.
        24.  The Senate Report also makes clear that Congress intended "to require
broadcasters to provide programming specifically designed for pre-school and school-aged
children because of the overwhelming evidence that such programming has the most impact
on children's development.  . . .  Each broadcaster must demonstrate that it has served its
child audience with programming which is designed to meet the unique educational and
informational needs of children, taking into account the special characteristics of various
segments of the child population in order to have their license renewed."  Although
Congress required each broadcast television licensee to submit a showing to the FCC that it
has reasonably met its obligation to provide such programming, the legislative history also
notes that Congress intended to allow broadcasters flexibility in determining how to meet
their obligation to children.  Thus, Congress indicated that the FCC could consider general
audience programming in addition to programs specifically designed for children's
educational and informational needs.
C.  FCC Proceedings Implementing the CTA
        25.  The CTA specifies that the Commission "shall" consider, in its review of
applications for television license renewal, "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."  Its
purpose, as noted in the Act's title, is "to require the Federal Communications Commission .
. . to enforce the obligation of broadcasters to meet the educational and informational needs
of the child audience . . . ."  The CTA also states that, "[i]n addition to consideration of the
licensee's programming," the Commission "may" consider any "special" nonbroadcast efforts
by the licensee that enhance the educational and informational value of educational
programming, and  any "special" efforts by the licensee to produce or support programming
specifically designed to serve children's educational needs that is broadcast by another station
in the licensee's market.
        26.  In 1991, the Commission adopted regulations to implement the CTA.  As
the NPRM recounts, these regulations "contain no requirement as to the number of hours of
educational and informational programming that stations must broadcast or the time of day
during which such programming may be aired."   Instead these regulations require
"broadcasters to air some amount of standard-length educational and informational
programming specifically designed for children 16 years of age and under."  The
regulations define "educational and informational programming," including programming
"specifically designed" to educate and inform children, 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."  In adopting the 1991
regulations, the Commission imposed certain reporting requirements on broadcasters, but did
not consider the need for measures to enhance the ability of parents and the public generally
to obtain information on the availability of children's educational programming.
        27.  In response to concerns expressed by a number of parties that our rules
provide insufficient guidance for broadcasters seeking to comply with the CTA, we initiated
this proceeding with a Notice of Inquiry ("NOI") in 1993.  Based on comments responding
to our NOI, as well as comments received in connection with our 1994 en banc hearing on
the subject of children's educational television programming, we proposed in the NPRM to
make a number of changes to our rules to achieve the goals of the CTA.
        28.  In response to the NPRM, we received a substantial number of comments
from interested parties, including individual broadcasters, broadcast associations, public
interest groups, producers of children's programming, educational programming researchers,
and elected officials.  In addition, we received approximately 20,000 letters and Internet
messages from individual members of the public.  The information obtained in these
comments has enhanced our understanding of the market for children's educational television
programming.
D.  The Supply of Children's Educational Television Programming
        29.  The Economics of Children's Educational Programming.  As noted above,
in enacting the CTA, Congress found that market forces were not sufficient to ensure that
commercial stations would provide children's educational and information programming.
Congress concluded that the same problems that the Commission found in 1976 still existed
and that market forces had not worked to increase the educational and information
programming available to children on commercial television.
        30.  A number of factors explain the marketplace constraints on providing such
programming.  Over-the-air commercial broadcast television stations earn their revenues
from the sale of advertising time.  Revenues received from the sale of advertising depend on
the size and the socio-demographic characteristics of the audience reached by the
broadcaster's programming.  Broadcasters thus have a reduced economic incentive to
promote children's programming because children's television audiences are smaller than
general audiences.
        31.  Broadcasters have even less economic incentive to provide educational
programs for children.  Educational programming generally must be targeted at segments of
the child audience.  An educational program for children aged 2-5, however, may well be
of little interest to children aged 6-11 or children aged 12-17.  By contrast, an
entertainment program for children is more likely to appeal to a broader range of children.
Thus the market for children's educational television may be segmented by age in ways that
do not characterize children's entertainment programming or adult programming.
Additionally, the adult audience is much larger than the child audience.  There are 59.5
million children in the television audience: 16.0 million children aged 2-5, 22.2 million aged
6-11, and 21.3 million children aged 12-17.  Adults aged 18-49 number 122.2 million.
Because the adult audience is so much larger than the children's audience, the potential
advertising revenues are also much larger and therefore provide broadcasters with an
incentive to focus on adult programming rather than children's educational television
programming.  And within the category of children's programming, broadcasters have an
economic incentive to select entertainment programs that appeal to a broader range of
children rather than educational programs that appeal to a narrower group.
        32.  If stations are required to provide some educational programming for
children, we believe that the same incentives could cause station owners to prefer to show
such programming when relatively few adults would likely be in the audience.  For example,
it is less costly for broadcasters to show children's educational programs very early in the
morning than to show them at later hours because the number of adult viewers lost, and
hence the advertising revenues lost, will be relatively low.  Hence, as discussed in Section
IV and as shown in the charts in Appendix D, it is not surprising that a significant portion of
children's programming is currently aired before 7:00 a.m. and that few children's programs
are shown in prime time, which draws the largest adult audiences.
        33.  Furthermore, in the broadcasting marketplace it may be difficult for a
small number of parents and others with strong demands for children's educational
programming to signal the intensity of their demand for such programming.  In other retail
markets, consumers can demonstrate the intensity of their preferences by the amount of
money they spend, i.e., their dollar "votes."  However, broadcasting rating services basically
register only one "vote" per viewer.  But the signal that matters to the broadcaster is the
dollar amount of advertising revenues.  Small audiences with little buying power, such as
children's educational television audiences, are unlikely to be able to signal the intensity of
their demand for such programming in the broadcasting market.  Therefore, broadcasters will
have little incentive to provide such programming because the small audiences and small
resulting advertising revenues means that there will be a substantial cost to them (the so-
called "opportunity cost") of forgoing larger revenues from other types of programs not shown.
        34.  The combination of all these market forces consequently can create
economic disincentives for commercial broadcasters with respect to educational
programming.  Broadcasters who desire to provide substantial children's educational
programming may face economic pressure not to do so because airing a substantial amount of
educational programming may place that broadcaster at a competitive disadvantage compared
to those who do very little.  These and the other factors described above tend to lead to an
underprovision of children's educational and informational television programming, as
Congress found in the CTA.
        35.  The amount of educational programming on broadcast television.  A
number of parties have submitted studies in this proceeding examining the amount of
regularly scheduled, standard length educational programming aired on commercial television
stations since passage of the CTA.  In the NPRM we discussed several studies described
below.  We concluded that they provided insufficient evidence to permit us to determine
whether the CTA and our existing rules had precipitated a significant increase in the amount
of children's educational programming aired on commercial television stations.  In
particular, none of these studies permitted us accurately to determine what amount of
programming specifically designed to educate and inform children is currently being aired.
Accordingly, we asked parties to provide us with additional information and studies
documenting changes in the nature and amount of children's programming.  In so doing, we
stated our intent to reassess the need for modification of our current children's programming
rules "if data were submitted that show that the educational and informational needs of
children are being met consistent with the goals of the CTA."
        36.  Like the studies described in the NPRM, the studies submitted in response
to the NPRM (described below) are inconclusive in establishing the exact amount of
educational programming that currently is being provided by broadcasters.  They arrive at
different conclusions on this question in part because they define the programming to be
measured and select their samples of broadcast stations in different ways.  Despite their
deficiencies, however, the studies do allow us to conclude that some broadcasters are
providing a very limited amount of programming specifically designed to educate and inform
children and that broadcasters vary widely in their understanding of the type of programming
that the CTA requires.  This evidence, viewed together with the rest of the record, leads us
to conclude that it is necessary to take the actions adopted here to achieve the goals of the
CTA.
        37.  We discussed in the NPRM two station surveys performed by the National
Association of Broadcasters ("NAB") and the Association of Local Television Stations, Inc.
("ALTV") (formerly the Association of Independent Television Stations) that asserted that the
amount of educational programming aired on commercial stations increased since passage of
the CTA.  According to NAB, the average commercial station aired slightly more than 2
hours per week of regularly scheduled, standard-length educational programming for children
in the fall of 1990 and 3.6 hours per week of such programming in 1993.  In compiling these
figures, NAB asked commercial television stations to list their children's programming that
met the following definition: "programming originally produced and broadcast for an
audience of children 16 years of age and younger which serves their cognitive/intellectual or
social/emotional needs."  The ALTV survey asserted that the average independent station
aired 4.64 hours per week of regularly scheduled, standard-length educational programs in
the first quarter of 1994.  ALTV did not ask respondents to its survey to report programming
conforming to a particular definition.  Instead, it asked stations to list all programs broadcast
during the first quarter of 1994 that the stations believed satisfied the FCC's requirements to
provide programming serving the educational and informational needs of children.
        38.  We also discussed in the NPRM a study of 48 randomly selected license
renewal applications filed in 1992 by stations located in the Midwestern states, which was
conducted by Dr. Dale Kunkel of the University of California, Santa Barbara.  Dr. Kunkel
claimed that commercial stations reported airing on average 3.4 hours per week of regularly
scheduled, standard-length programming specifically designed to educate and inform
children.  In compiling this figure, Dr. Kunkel counted programs that were identified in
some fashion in the license renewal applications as "specifically designed" to educate
children; he did not impose his own definition of such programming.  However, he
concludes that his figure is likely to be inflated because it accepts at face value the claims
made by stations as to the educational objective of these programs.
        39.  Several parties also submitted studies in response to our request in the
NPRM for additional data.  Fox submitted a report estimating that Fox affiliated stations are
airing on average four hours per week of educational programming during the 1995/1996
season.  Fox states, without elaboration, that it used an "extremely conservative"
methodology in determining which programs were "bona fide" children's educational
programs.  NAB and ALTV submitted new studies of the educational programming aired
by commercial broadcasters.  Dr. Kunkel also submitted a new study.
        40.  According to the updated survey of 78 stations conducted by ALTV, the
average independent television station aired 3.77 hours per week of regularly scheduled,
standard length educational programming in the first quarter of 1995.  NAB sent survey
questionnaires to 937 commercial stations with valid fax numbers and received 559
responses.  On this basis, NAB states that in 1994 the average commercial television station
aired almost four and one-third hours per week of educational and informational
programming specifically designed for children.  As in its earlier study, NAB again defined
educational and informational programming as "programming originally produced and
broadcast for an audience of children 16 years of age and younger which serves their
cognitive/intellectual or social/emotional needs."  NAB also accepted at face value stations'
claims that their reported programming met this definition. NAB's study is not conclusive
on the average amount of educational and informational programming broadcasters are now
providing because NAB's definition of the studied programming differs from our current
definition of educational and informational programming.  Nor can we rely on the NAB or
ALTV studies to ascertain the range of performance by different broadcasters.  At the same
time, neither association argues that all of its members are providing exactly the industry
average or disputes that there are "outliers" providing very little children's educational
programming.
        41.  Dr. Kunkel's new study examined 48 randomly selected license renewal
applications filed in 1994.  Dr. Kunkel asserts that commercial stations on average reported
airing the same number of hours of regularly scheduled, standard length programming
specifically designed for children as in his earlier study of 1992 renewal applications (3.4
hours per week).  Dr. Kunkel characterized as "frivolous" some broadcasters' claims that
certain programs are educational.  However, even if one accepts at face value the claims of
the stations in Dr. Kunkel's study of 1994 renewal applications regarding the amount of
regularly scheduled programming they aired that was specifically designed to serve children's
educational needs, some stations apparently aired little or no such programming.  For
example, four stations (8.3 percent) in the Kunkel study did not claim to air any such
programming,  In addition, eleven stations (23 percent) reported airing one hour or less of
such programming per week, sixteen stations (33 percent) reported airing 1.5 hours or less of
such programming per week, and twenty-five stations (52 percent) reported airing two hours
or less of such programming per week.
    42.  The conclusion that some stations are airing very little educational
programming for children is also supported by our experience in implementing the CTA.  As
the regulations enacted in 1991 provided only that broadcasters were required to provide
"some" educational programming, we assessed compliance with this requirement in the
renewal cycle that ran from 1991-1994, which comprised the first renewal cycle immediately
following enactment of the CTA, by examining the overall children's programming efforts of
each licensee to ensure that the licensee broadcast some standard-length programming
specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children.  Licensees
that aired at least one such half-hour program per week received staff-level approval of the
CTA portion of their renewal applications.
    43.  Availability of educational programming on nonbroadcast media.  A
number of broadcasters submitted comments arguing that the Commission should assess not
just the educational programming being provided over-the-air by broadcast stations, but
rather the overall availability of educational programming in the video marketplace.  We
believe, however, that the proper focus in this proceeding should be on the provision of
children's educational programming by broadcast stations, not by cable systems and other
subscription services such as direct broadcast satellite systems that, in contrast to broadcast
service, require the payment of a subscription fee.  The CTA itself expressly focuses on
broadcast licensees.  In enacting this statute, Congress found that, as part of their public
interest obligations, "television station operators and licensees should provide programming
that serves the special needs of children," and the Act applies only to television broadcast
stations.  Thus, the statute focuses on the provision of children's educational programming
through broadcasting, a ubiquitous service, which may be the only source of video
programming for some families that cannot afford, or do not have access to, cable or other
subscription services.  While noting an increase in the number of nonbroadcast outlets
available for children to receive video programming, the House Report states that "the new
marketplace for video programming does not obviate the public interest responsibility of
individual broadcast licensees to serve the child audience."
    44.  Conclusion.  We conclude, on the basis of the studies before us that while
some broadcasters are providing educational and informational programming as Congress
intended, some are not.  Congress was dissatisfied with commercial broadcasters'
performance in 1990 when, according to NAB, commercial broadcasters were devoting an
average of  two hours per week of airtime to educational programming, and in the CTA
Congress provided that each broadcaster has a duty to serve the educational and
informational needs of children through its overall programming, including programming
specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs.  Yet it appears
that, six years after the enactment of the CTA, at least some broadcasters are providing less
than that amount.  Given the Commission's duty to treat similarly situated broadcasters in a
similar manner, by approving the performance under the CTA of broadcasters providing
very little educational programming we would signal that all broadcasters may provide a
minimal amount of such programming.  The effect of that would be contrary to our effort to
counter the economic disincentive to provide children's programming described above.
Moreover, in light of the greater value to advertisers of entertainment programs for adults,
those broadcasters providing very little educational programming for children may receive an
unfair economic advantage, a result that only exacerbates the economic disincentive to
provide children's programming that Congress identified in enacting the CTA.  Thus unless
we modify our approach to implementing the CTA, broadcasters will be able to provide
extremely little educational programming for children.  That would be contrary to Congress'
intent in enacting the CTA.
    45.  The record also shows that our definition of programming fulfilling the
requirements of the CTA should be modified.  As discussed above, all of the studies in the
record define educational programming differently.  NAB, for example, uses a definition
somewhat broader than that we adopt today.   In addition,  Dr. Kunkel, who did not define
it, but relied upon the varying interpretations of those broadcasters whose renewal
applications he reviewed, concluded that some broadcasters were attempting to satisfy their
CTA obligations with programs that should not be counted as satisfying the requirements of
the CTA.   By establishing a clear definition of "specifically designed" programming, we
will give better guidance and greater incentives for broadcasters' compliance with the CTA.
    46.   The record in this proceeding also supports the conclusion that parents and
others would profit from additional information concerning the educational programming
available in their community, a matter to which we now turn.
                   III.  PUBLIC INFORMATION INITIATIVES
    47.  We conclude that the market inadequacies that led Congress to pass the
Children's Television Act can be addressed, in part, by enhancing parents' knowledge of
children's educational programming.  One way to encourage licensees to provide such
programming is to encourage and enable the public, especially parents, to interact with
broadcasters.  Easy public access to information permits the Commission to rely more on
marketplace forces to achieve the goals of the CTA and facilitates enforcement of the statute
by allowing parents, educators, and others to actively monitor a station's performance.  As
CBS "wholeheartedly" agrees, "judgments of the quality of a licensee's programming,
educational or otherwise, are best made by the audience, not the federal government."
Thus, our rules should facilitate easy access to information regarding children's educational
programming in their community.
    48.  Commercial television is advertiser supported.  As we discuss above,
advertisers pay according to audience size, and broadcasters have disincentives to air
programs that attract small audiences.  Parents can increase the audience of an educational
program by encouraging their children to watch the show, but can only do so if they know in
advance when the show will air and that the show is educational.  Increasing the audience
size for educational programs increases the incentive of broadcasters to air, and producers to
supply, more such programs.  Access to information can also facilitate viewer campaigns and
other community-based efforts to influence stations to air more and better educational
programming.  In light of the evidence that parents use programming information to select
programs for their children to watch, we concluded in the NPRM that the lack of
educational programming the CTA was designed to address may be attributable in part to
insufficient programming information.  In the NPRM we identified several places where
information about educational programs could be provided: on-air identifications; program
guides and listings; and the station's children's programming reports in its public file.
    49.  In considering the options to improve the information available regarding
educational programming, we seek to maximize the access to such information by the public
while minimizing the cost to the licensee.  In response to the comments to the NPRM, we
have focused on three basic methods to improve the public's access to information:
commercial broadcasters should identify core programming at the time those programs are
aired in a form that is at the sole discretion of the licensee; they should identify such
programs to publishers of program guides; and, as detailed below, they should provide
improved access to information to the public through standardized reporting and other
means.  We note that disclosure requirements of the sort we adopt today promote First
Amendment interests by increasing the flow of information to the public.
On-Air Identification
    50.  Comments.  Public interest groups generally supported identifying "core"
programs on the air.  For example, the Center for Media Education ("CME et al."), filing
jointly with 19 other parties including the American Academy of Pediatrics ("AAP"), the
American Psychological Association ("APA"), the American Psychiatric Association, the
National Education Foundation, and the National Parent Teacher Association, favored the use
of an icon aired at the beginning of the program.  The Children's Defense Fund and Black
Community Crusade for Children ("CDF and BCCC"), filing jointly, suggested using both an
on-air announcement and an icon visible throughout the program and during pre-
advertisements.  Among broadcasters, ALTV and the National Association of Black Owned
Broadcasters ("NABOB") supported requiring on-air identification of core programming.
Other broadcast commenters agreed with the goal of improving the information flow to the
public, but argued the use of an on-air icon or announcement would be counterproductive by
deterring rather than attracting child viewers.  This view was echoed by children's
programming producer CTW, who reasoned that on-air identifiers could taint educational
programs.  Warner Brothers noted that parents would often miss an announcement or icon
aired only briefly at the beginning of a program.  Finally, Cosmos et al. argued that the
Commission lacks jurisdiction or statutory authority over the methods that stations choose to
promote programming, such as on-air identification.
    51.  NAB filed initial comments opposing the use of an on-air icon or
announcement and disputing the Commission's jurisdiction to impose such requirements.
In supplemental comments, however, NAB supported the adoption of rules to require
broadcasters to "identify core programs at the beginning of the program, in a form that is at
the sole discretion of the licensee."
    52.  Discussion.  We believe the on-air identification of core programs would
greatly assist parents in planning their children's viewing and improve the children's
programming marketplace at minimal cost to stations.  Accordingly, we will require
broadcasters to provide on-air identification of core programs, in a manner and form that is
at the sole discretion of the licensee, at the beginning of the program.  Just as we require
stations to provide on air station identification and sponsor identification, we believe the
public would be served by requiring broadcasters to identify programs specifically designed
to educate and inform children on the air.  On-air identifiers are likely to reach a larger
audience than information printed in programs guides.  Moreover, we note that there is no
certainty that published guides will include such information.  Identifiers will improve
broadcaster accountability by publicizing the programs licensees identify as contributing to
their obligation to air core programming.  An on-air identification requirement will make
broadcasters more accountable to the public and further the goal of minimizing the possibility
that the Commission would be forced to decide whether particular programs serve the
educational and informational needs of children.
    53.  Some commenters speculated that on-air identifiers could deter children
from watching educational programs.  No commenter, however, presented evidence that
such an effect will occur.  We will revisit our decision to require on-air identification if,
after some experience, parties present us with evidence that they in fact have a deterrent
effect.  In the meantime, broadcasters will have full discretion to design their identifiers to
minimize or avoid any such effect.
    54.  We disagree with the argument of Cosmos et al. that the FCC lacks the
statutory authority to require broadcasters to provide on-air identification of core programs.
The Commission has adequate statutory authority under the CTA and under the
Communications Act to require broadcasters to provide information about their core
programming to the public.  The CTA seeks to increase the amount of educational and
informational programming available to children.  Requiring broadcasters to provide
information concerning educational and informational programming will improve the
children's television marketplace, thereby effectuating the goal of the CTA.  In addition to
our authority under the CTA, we have broad authority under the Communications Act of
1934 to regulate all communications services that use radio waves, including the authority to
establish the licensing procedures for broadcast stations.  Section 303(r) of the Act provides
that we have authority to "[m]ake such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions
and conditions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
th[e] Act."  Providing such information will aid parents and children in selecting programs
and help hold broadcasters accountable for compliance with the CTA, thus aiding us in our
mandatory review of such compliance during the renewal process.  Indeed, our entire
licensing scheme is premised on providing adequate information to the public to enable the
public to exercise its statutory right to participate in our renewal proceedings.  Providing on-
air announcements about core programming will improve the functioning of the children's
television market and make broadcasters more accountable to parents and other interested
community members.  Section 303(r) provides ample authority for the on-air identifier
requirement because requiring on-air identifiers will help us make the Sections 309(a) and (k)
determination that grant of a renewal application is in the public interest.
Program Guides
    55.  Comments.  Public interest groups, programmers, and other commenters
generally support stations providing information about core programs to program guides on
the ground that it would provide parents with advance notice of the scheduling of educational
programs.  The National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA")
commented that this proposal is one of the most important improvements we proposed in the
NPRM, and will empower American parents by providing information to help them find
programs that are good for their children.  KIDSNET, a non-profit clearinghouse for
information about educational programming, contended that providing information to
program guides could increase audiences and program loyalty.  Disney advocated requiring
licensees to provide information to program guide publishers, local newspapers, and any
other publishers of material "reasonably calculated" to provide the identifying information to
parents.  NBC suggested that the Commission encourage the adoption of a universal
symbol for educational children's programs and urge broadcasters to include the symbol in
information furnished to program listing services.  Broadcaster parties who favored our
proposal argued generally that printed program information is preferable to on-air
announcements or icons because it permits parents to pre-plan viewing.  Opponents
claimed licensees should retain discretion over the means that they select to promote their
educational programming.  Cosmos et al. argued that we lack the statutory authority to
require that information regarding specifically designed programming be provided to program
guides.
    56.  NAB filed initial comments that opposed a requirement that broadcasters
provide information on core programming to the program guides, stating that specially
marked program listings would be likely to discourage viewing among older children who
refer to program guides.  In supplemental comments, however, NAB set forth its support
for adopting rules to require broadcasters to "provide to program guide publishers
information identifying core programming, including an indication of the age group for
which the program is intended.
    57.  Discussion.  It is industry practice for broadcasters to provide programming
information to program guides, which publish such information without cost to the
broadcasters.  Further, it has become a well-established practice to provide specialized
information about programs, such as which programs are closed captioned for the hearing
impaired.  As broadcasters routinely provide such information about their programming to
program guides and designate core programs for their public records, we believe it would
require a minimum of effort, but have a major positive effect, for broadcasters to provide
publishers of program guides and listings, information identifying core programs, and the age
group for which, in the opinion of the broadcaster, the program is intended.  We recognize
broadcasters cannot require guides to print this information.  The information, however, is
more likely to be in the program listings if broadcasters routinely provide it.  We believe
program guides are an effective means of providing parents with advance notice of
scheduling of educational programs.  This information will assist parents in finding suitable
programs for their children and be useful to parents and others who wish to monitor station
performance in complying with the CTA.  We note that a number of broadcasters supported
this proposal, and that the major networks now employ a voluntary parental advisory plan
pursuant to which they provide to program guide services information indicating whether
programs contain material that may be unsuitable for children.  We believe that a universal
symbol for educational programming would also be useful in readily identifying such
programming to the public, and encourage broadcasters to adopt such a symbol.
    58.  We disagree with Cosmos et al. that we lack the statutory authority to
require broadcasters to furnish this information to program guides.  As noted in the
discussion of our statutory authority to require on-air identifiers, supra, we have adequate
statutory authority under the CTA and under the Communications Act to require broadcasters
to provide information about their core programming to the public.  Just as on-air identifiers
are necessary to fulfill the mandate of the CTA, providing information to program guides
will improve the functioning of the children's television market and make broadcasters more
accountable to parents.
    59.  As with on-air identifiers, our broad authority under the Communications
Act of 1934 to carry out the public interest requirement permits us to have broadcasters
provide programming information where necessary to effectuate the public interest standard
during the renewal process.  Although we have not previously required broadcasters to
furnish information to programming guides, we have required stations to broadcast certain
on-air announcements, to give public notice in a local newspaper for certain broadcast
applications, and to make available certain information in a public file.
    60.  Section 303(r) provides ample authority for the programming information
disclosure requirement because providing this information will help us make the Section
309(a) and (k) determination that grant of a renewal application is in the public interest.
Therefore, we believe that we have the statutory authority to require broadcasters to provide
programming information to programming guides.
Public File Proposals
    61.  Our rules currently require commercial licensees to compile reports,
containing information about the children's programming they air, including the time, date,
duration, and description of the programs.  Licensees maintain these reports in the station's
public inspection file.  We sought comment in the NPRM on changing the existing
requirements to enhance public access to and use of the information in these reports.  We
identify several ways, discussed below, that such enhancements can be made without
materially increasing any burden on the licensee.
    i.  Children's liaison
    62.  In the NPRM, we proposed that stations identify the person at the station
responsible for collecting comments on the station's compliance with the CTA, and asked
how such a requirement could be implemented without being burdensome.  Some broadcast
parties disagreed with this proposal, but the major networks, other broadcasters, and other
commenters supported it.  We believe it is reasonable to require licensees 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, since someone at each station
must, as a practical matter, be responsible for carrying out the broadcaster's responsibilities
under the CTA.  We agree with CME that there is value in identifying for the public an
individual to contact with concerns or complaints about the broadcaster's children's
programming.  This requirement also will facilitate public access to information on
stations' educational programming efforts, and assist stations in responding to comments and
complaints from the public.  Moreover, because licensees are currently required to maintain
children's programming reports and letters received from the public in their public
inspection file, this requirement should not impose a significant additional burden on
licensees.
    ii.  Explanation of how programming meets definition of core programming
    63.  We will adopt the proposal in the NPRM that licensees provide a brief
explanation in their children's programming reports of how particular programs meet the
definition of "core" programming.  A few broadcast parties were opposed, but most,
including most of the major networks, supported the proposal.  Although NAB initially
opposed this proposal, it filed supplemental comments setting forth its support for requiring
broadcasters to explain how programs they identify as "core" meet that definition.  Such
descriptions assist parents and others who wish to monitor station performance in complying
with the CTA.  Having a broadcaster identify those programs it relies upon to meet its CTA
obligation on an ongoing basis, rather than the end of the term, will increase broadcaster
accountability.
    64.  ABC argued that licensees should have broad discretion in the manner and
detail of these descriptions.  For example, ABC contended that, "for a qualifying regular
series, licensees should not be required to describe each weekly or daily episode; a general
description of the series format, subject matter, and other overall qualities should be
sufficient...."  We agree that such a general description of a series should be sufficient so
long as the description is adequate to provide the public with enough information about how
the series is specifically designed to meet the educational and informational needs of
children.
    iii.  Physically separate reports
    65.  In the NPRM, we proposed separating the children's programming reports
from the rest of the public inspection file.  This would enable interested parties to review
the information without having to search through unrelated materials.  This is our current
practice with a licensee's political file.  A few broadcasters commented that this
requirement is unnecessary as the children's programming reports are easily accessible, but
most broadcasters and other commenters supported this proposal.  Facilitating access to
children's programming reports will facilitate public monitoring and increase broadcaster
accountability under the CTA; requiring broadcasters to keep their children's programming
reports separate from other portions of their public inspection files will ensure such ease of
access.  We therefore conclude that broadcasters should separate children's programming
reports from other reports they maintain in their public files.
    iv.  Publicizing children's programming reports
    66.  In the NPRM, we proposed that licensees publicize the children's
programming reports by, for example, announcing their existence and location periodically
over the air.  Some broadcasters opposed this proposal, arguing that members of the public
rarely review information in the public files, and those interested in children's programming
are likely to be aware of the stations' reports.
    67.  We remain concerned that the public is generally unaware of these reports
and agree with commenters who contend that publicizing the children's programming reports
will heighten awareness of the CTA and invite members of the public to take an active role
in monitoring compliance.  Periodic on-air announcements further our desire to minimize
the Commission's involvement in enforcing the CTA by facilitating public monitoring of
broadcasters' educational programming.  We consequently will require, as supported by NAB
in its supplemental comments, that broadcasters publicize in an appropriate manner the
existence and location of their children's programming reports.
    v.  Quarterly reports
    68.  In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether the children's programming
reports should be produced annually or quarterly, or whether we should, as we do now,
allow stations to choose one of these two options.  All parties who addressed this issue,
including a number of broadcasters, supported requiring reports on a quarterly basis.
Commenters noted that a quarterly reporting requirement provides more current information
about station performance and encourages more consistent focus on educational programming
efforts.  Commenters noted that because quarterly production of children's programming
reports will coincide with the quarterly issues/programs reports that broadcasters currently
prepare, this requirement will not impose a significant additional burden on licensees.
Therefore, we will require licensees to prepare children's programming reports on a
quarterly basis.  For an experimental period of three years, we will also require broadcasters
to file such quarterly reports with the Commission on an annual basis, i.e., four quarterly
reports filed jointly once a year.  We encourage stations to file quarterly, in electronic form,
when the reports are prepared.  We will evaluate whether to continue this requirement as
part of our  review of broadcasters' annual reports, see infra paragraph 140.
    vi.  Standardized reporting form
    69.  A number of broadcasters and other commenters, suggested we provide
licensees with a standardized form for these reports.  A standardized form should lessen the
burden on broadcasters by clarifying the information to be included and providing a ready
format.  This form -- a Children's Educational Television Report -- will be designed so
licensees can complete the report on a computer and file it electronically with the
Commission for purposes of the experimental three-year annual filing requirement.  We note
that broadcasters have generally strongly supported the use of electronic filing for
applications and other filings.  We encourage licensees to file the form with us
electronically, although we will accept filings either on computer diskette or a paper copy of
the report form.
    70.  To encourage broadcasters to file their reports electronically, we will
publish on our World Wide Web home page a list of broadcasters that do so.  A standardized
form will facilitate consistency of reporting among all licensees, assist in efforts by the
public and the Commission to monitor station compliance with the CTA, and lessen the
burden on the public and Commission staff.
    71.  This form will request information to identify the individual station and the
programs it airs to meet its obligation under the CTA.  The form will also request
information on educational programs that the station plans to air in the next quarter and ask
whether the licensee has complied with other requirements described in this Report and
Order.  We plan to issue the reporting form by Public Notice and make it available on the
Internet.
    72.  Several commenters suggested that we post information on educational
programming on our FCC home page on the World Wide Web.  NTIA noted that Vice
President Gore has proposed a "Family Right-to-Know" initiative under which broadcasters
would provide information on educational programming in electronic form to the
Commission for posting on the FCC home page on the World Wide Web.  James
Hamilton, professor and Director of the Duke Program on Violence and the Media, urged
the Commission to establish a publicly accessible computerized database containing
information on educational programming as well as other indicators of station performance.
He argued that such a database would facilitate monitoring of station performance by
interested parties.  We believe that ensuring the ready availability of such information will
further the goals of the CTA by giving parents, researchers and other interested parties
information about broadcaster efforts to educate children, and, if feasible, we will do so.
Putting this information on our home page would be consistent with a number of efforts the
Commission has made to make a variety of information available to broadcasters and the
public.  For example, we currently post on our home page detailed technical information,
including radio and television station power levels and antenna heights.  The staff will
explore the feasibility of applying such an approach to CTA information.  We also encourage
broadcasters that have established their own Web sites to post such information there.
          IV.  DEFINITION OF PROGRAMMING "SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED"
          TO SERVE CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL NEEDS
    73.  The CTA requires every television broadcaster to air programming
"specifically designed" to serve the educational and informational needs of children.  Our
current definition of educational and informational programming -- "programming that
furthers the positive development of children 16 years of age and under in any respect,
including the child's intellectual/cognitive or social/emotional needs" --  is very broad and
does not further delineate criteria for programs that are "specifically designed" to educate
and inform children.  In the NPRM, we explained that some stations were identifying general
audience and entertainment programming in their renewal applications as programming
specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs.  These
circumstances led us tentatively to conclude that our current definition does not provide
licensees with sufficient guidance regarding their obligation to air core programming.
    74.  To remedy this situation, we proposed to supplement our broad definition
of educational and informational programming with a more particularized definition of
programming specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs.
Indeed, we noted that programming "specifically designed" to meet the educational and
informational needs of children was the "only category of programming that the CTA
specifically requires every licensee to provide."  We stated that a clearer definition of
"specifically designed" or "core" programming appeared to be necessary to help stimulate an
adequate supply of such programming in view of the apparent confusion among some
licensees regarding this aspect of their children's programming obligation.
    75.  Specifically, we proposed to define core educational programming as those
programs that meet the following requirements: (1) the program has education as a
significant purpose; (2) the educational objective of the program and the target child audience
are specified in writing in the children's programming report; (3) the program is aired
between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.; (4) the program is regularly scheduled; (5)
the program is of a substantial length (e.g., 15 or 30 minutes); and (6) the program is
identified as educational children's programming at the time it is aired, and instructions for
listing it as educational programming are provided by the licensee to program guides.
    76.  Today, we adopt a definition of core educational and informational
programming that is very similar to that proposed in the NPRM.  We intend that this
definition will identify programming that clearly meets the statutory obligation to air
programming "specifically designed" to meet the educational and informational needs of
children.  We emphasize that licensees should not regard our definition of core programming
as imposing a limit on their ability to air other programming that teaches and informs
children even if that programming does not square with each element of our definition of
core programming.  Our definition identifies core programming that we will look to for
purposes of renewal processing to ensure that a broadcaster has met its responsibility under
the CTA.  Beyond this responsibility, we encourage licensees to air a wide variety of
programming directed to children that meets their educational and informational needs.
    77.  Comments.  Many commenters strongly supported providing licensees with
clearer guidance regarding their obligation to air programming "specifically designed" to
educate and inform children.  Public interest groups, children's programming researchers,
children's programming producers, as well as other commenters, generally agreed that the
Commission's proposed definition would assist licensees to determine what programs comply
with their obligation to air programming specifically designed to serve children's educational
and informational  needs, and would improve the overall quality of children's educational
and informational programming.  In contrast, broadcasters' reaction to the Commission's
proposal was mixed.  Although some -- including three of the four major broadcast networks
-- agreed with the principle that a clearer definition would provide certainty to licensees,
others argued that the present definition of educational and informational programming is
working and should be retained.  NAB filed initial comments arguing for retention of our
existing definition, but later filed supplemental comments supporting many aspects of the
definition proposed in the NPRM.  In addition, a number of broadcasters voiced their
concern that the concept of "core" programming contravenes Congress' intent to give
broadcasters wide discretion in choosing the programs they believe are educational and
informational, and that it ignores the CTA's requirement that licensees serve children's
educational and informational needs through their "overall programming" in addition to
programming "specifically designed" to serve those needs.  These parties argue that the
Commission may not ignore any programming that does in fact serve the educational and
informational needs of children, and point out that programming that does not comply with
our definition of programming "specifically designed" for children can nevertheless
contribute to a licensee's fulfillment of its obligations under the CTA.
    78.  Discussion.  The evidence in the record supports our general proposal to
adopt a definition of core educational and informational programming.   Several of the
studies submitted in this proceeding suggest that some licensees are uncertain about what to
classify as programming specifically designed to meet children's educational and
informational needs.  This conclusion is supported by our experience in reviewing renewal
applications and in evaluating licensees' efforts to meet their CTA obligation to air
programming "specifically designed" to educate and inform children.  We agree with those
commenters who believe that a particularized definition will assist broadcasters and will
avoid potentially misplaced reliance on general audience and entertainment programs as
specifically designed to educate and inform.  By more precisely defining "specifically
designed" programming, we increase the likelihood that such programs will be aired,
concomitantly increasing the likelihood children will benefit as Congress intended, from such
programs.
    79.  We will retain, with a slight modification, our existing definition of
"educational and informational programming" to provide a description of the broad variety of
programs that can serve to comply with a licensee's overall requirement to air programming
that meets children's educational and informational needs.  Our existing definition states that
"educational and informational television programming is 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."  In order to track
more closely the express language of the CTA, we will modify this definition somewhat so
that the broad category of "educational and informational television programming" is defined
as "any television programming that furthers the educational and informational needs of
children 16 years of age and under in any respect, including children's intellectual/cognitive
or social/emotional needs."
    80.  The definition of core programming that we adopt is designed to provide
licensees with clear guidance regarding how we will evaluate renewal applications.  The
elements of our proposed definition are also designed to be as objective as possible so that
they are more easily understood by licensees and the Commission staff and to avoid injecting
the Commission unnecessarily into sensitive decisions regarding program content.  As we
stated in the NPRM, programming specifically designed to serve children's educational and
informational needs is the only category of programming the CTA expressly requires each
licensee to provide.  Adopting a definition of such programming will promote this statutory
objective by more precisely defining the programming that qualifies and, consequently,
provide appropriate incentives to increase the amount of such programming.  We further
believe that the definition we adopt today will continue to provide broadcasters ample
discretion in designing and producing such programming.  We emphasize that the test of
whether programming qualifies as core does not depend in any way on its topic or viewpoint.
The test is whether it is "specifically designed" to serve the educational and informational
needs of children.  We now turn to the specific elements of the new definition of core
programming.
Significant Purpose
    81.  With respect to the first element of our definition, we proposed to require
that any program that is claimed to be specifically designed to meet children's needs have
educating and informing children as a "significant purpose."  We proposed that core
programming have serving the educational and informational needs of children as a
"significant" instead of "primary" purpose as suggested in the NOI, in response to the
widely-held view that such programming must be entertaining to be successful.  We indicated
our desire to encourage producers to make programming that educates and informs, but that
is also entertaining and attractive to children.  We stated our belief that this terminology
makes clear that education need not be the only purpose of programming specifically
designed to meet the educational and informational needs of children, but must be more than
an incidental goal.
    82.  Comments.  Most commenters who addressed this aspect of our proposed
standard preferred the "significant purpose" test to the "primary purpose" test we suggested
in the NOI.  Proponents of this element of the definition of core programming generally
believe that the significant purpose standard appropriately acknowledges that educational
programming must be entertaining to be successful.  These commenters also expressed the
view that the primary purpose standard would establish a false dichotomy between education
and entertainment that could discourage the development of exciting and appealing programs
that also serve to inform and enlighten children.
    83.  A number of broadcasters and broadcast organizations, including ALTV,
CBS, and ABC, argued that the definition of core programming adopted by the Commission
must be broad enough to encompass programming that furthers the social and emotional
development of children, in addition to their cognitive and intellectual development.
According to these commenters, the legislative history of the CTA indicates that Congress
intended that a broad range of programming qualify as "specifically designed," including
programming that aids the personal and social growth of children and teenagers.  In contrast,
CME et al., as well as several other public interest organizations, argued that definition of
core programming should not be interpreted to include any program that can be characterized
in some way as pro-social.  CME et al. argued that a program can be "specifically
designed" to further the educational and information needs of children only if it advances
their cognitive/intellectual development.  In the view of these commenters, programs
purporting to advance children's social/emotional development but not their
cognitive/intellectual development do not contain sufficient educational value to qualify as
programming specifically designed for children's educational needs.
    84.  Discussion.  We believe that, to qualify as core programming, a show must
have serving the educational and informational needs of children ages 16 and under as a
significant purpose.  The "significant purpose" standard appropriately acknowledges the point
advanced by broadcasters and others that to be successful, and thus to serve children's needs
as mandated by the CTA, educational and informational programming must also be
entertaining and attractive to children.  Accordingly, as proposed in the NPRM, we will
require that core programming be specifically designed to meet the educational and
informational needs of children ages 16 and under and have educating and informing children
as a significant purpose.
    85.  The NPRM proposed to define core programming as programming that
"has education as a significant purpose."  Several commenters argued that core
programming should have education and information as a significant purpose.  We agree.
The CTA provides that licensees must serve the "educational and informational needs of
children."  Thus, programming that has serving the educational and informational needs of
children ages 16 and under as a significant purpose may qualify as core.
    86.  We believe that our significant purpose requirement is consistent with the
"specifically designed" terminology of the CTA, which is the statutory test.  Although core
programming must be specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs
of children, the term "specifically" does not mean that the sole (or even primary) purpose of
the programming must be to educate and inform.  As discussed above, we acknowledge some
commenters' position that programming must be entertaining in order to be effective, and we
therefore believe that our significant purpose requirement, by allowing to qualify as core
programming shows that do both, is consistent with the language of the CTA.
    87.  Several commenters asked us to clarify that our definition of core
programming includes educational and informational programs that further children's social
and emotional development as well as their cognitive and intellectual development.  The
CTA speaks of programming specifically designed to serve "the educational and
informational needs of children."  It does not draw a distinction between educational and
informational programming that furthers children's cognitive and intellectual development
and educational and informational programming that furthers children's social and emotional
development.  We decline to draw that distinction ourselves and accordingly conclude that
both fall within the scope of our definition.  We underscore that we are not interested in
influencing -- or even knowing -- the viewpoint of any core programming.  The test of
whether programming qualifies as core does not depend in any way on its viewpoint, but
solely on whether it is "specifically designed" to serve children's educational and
informational needs.  In this regard, we note that entertainment programming with a minor
or wrap-around educational and informational message cannot correctly be said to have
serving the educational and informational needs of children as a significant purpose.  We
anticipate that any attempt to incorrectly characterize programming as core will elicit
significant opposition from the community, about which the FCC will be apprised.
    88.  In determining whether programming has a significant purpose of educating
and informing children, we will ordinarily rely on the good faith judgment of broadcasters,
who will be subject to increased community scrutiny as a result of the public information
initiatives described in Section III above.  We consequently will rely primarily on such public
participation to ensure compliance with the significant purpose prong of the definition of core
programming, with Commission review taking place only as a last resort.
    89.  One suggested rule revision discussed in the NPRM was to require that
educational and informational programming specifically designed for children be produced
with the assistance of independent educational advisors.  We stated that we did not propose
to require the use of educational advisors, and that it should be left to broadcasters to decide
whether they need or wish to hire educational advisors to assist them with the production of
programming.  A number of commenters responding to the NPRM continued to express
the view that experts should be used in developing core programming.  CTW reiterated its
opinion that the use of educational advisors would be a more objective determinant of
educational purpose, and a more likely predictor of whether a program has educational
content, than the "significant purpose" test.  Other commenters concurred with the view
that educational advisors should be used to develop core programming.  We continue to
believe, however, that it would not be appropriate to require the use of educational experts in
developing core programming.  Although some broadcasters may find that experts can
provide worthwhile assistance in developing educational programming, as we stated in the
NPRM we prefer to minimize the burdens and potential intrusions on programming decisions
of broadcasters and provide them the flexibility to select the means by which their
educational programming is created.
Educational and Informational  Objective and Target Child Audience Specified in Writing
    90.  With respect to the second element of our core programming definition, we
proposed in the NPRM to require licensees to specify in writing in their children's
programming report the educational and informational objective of a core program, as well
as its target child audience.  We explained that we thought that such a requirement would
help licensees to focus on children's specific educational and informational needs in
compliance with the CTA.  We also stated that this information would assist parents and
other interested parties to understand licensees' programming efforts and afford them the
means to participate with licensees in developing effective educational programming and to
play a more active role in promoting and enforcing the goals of the CTA.  We proposed that
such information be included in the children's programming report that licensees place in
their public inspection files.
    91.  Comments.  Most broadcasters and other commenters who addressed the
first aspect of this proposal -- requiring licensees to specify in writing the educational and
informational objective of core programming -- supported it.  These parties generally
expressed the view that this requirement would permit parents, researchers, and educators to
evaluate whether a core program achieves its stated goals, and would assist broadcasters to
comply with the CTA and the Commission to evaluate stations' performance.  Children
Now also argued that specification of educational and informational purpose would reduce
the incidence of mischaracterization of entertainment programming as educational.
    92.  Public interest groups, researchers, and others also supported the
Commission's proposal to require specification of the target child audience of core
programming.  A number of educational programming researchers submitted comments
stating their belief that educational programming must be targeted to a relatively narrow age
range in order for the program to be effective.  Dale Kunkel asserts that children's ability to
comprehend television content changes substantially over the years between infancy and
adolescence, requiring that different types of educational programming be directed to
children of different ages.  According to Aletha Huston and John Wright, the target age
range specified by licensees should span no more than three to four years to ensure that
programming is appropriate to the developmental level of the intended audience.  In
contrast, some broadcasters opposed requiring specification of the target age group, generally
arguing that the burdens involved outweigh the asserted benefits.  CBS also pointed out
that the CTA does not require licensees to target their educational programming to discrete
segments of the child audience, and argued that many stations do not have the resources to
hire experts to determine the precise ages for which their qualifying programming is
appropriate.  ABC stated that it does not oppose a requirement that licensees identify the
target age group of core programming, as long as licensees retain the discretion to determine
the appropriate age group.
    93.  Discussion.  We are persuaded that we should adopt our proposal to require
that the educational and informational objective of core programming be specified in writing.
Requiring a statement of educational and informational purpose will ensure that broadcasters
devote attention to the educational and informational goals of core programming and how
those goals may be achieved.  A written statement of educational and information purpose
should also assist licensees to distinguish programs specifically designed to serve children's
educational and informational needs from programs whose primary purpose is to entertain
children.  Moreover, this requirement can, as noted, allow parents and other interested
parties to participate more actively in monitoring licensee compliance with the CTA, and thus
is consistent with our public information initiatives.
    94.  The description of a program's educational and informational objective,
which should be included in the licensee's children's programming report, does not have to
be lengthy.  It should state the educational and informational objective of the program and
the expected educational and informational effects.  To satisfy this requirement, broadcasters
need not describe the viewpoint of the program or opinions expressed on it.  The description
must be adequate to demonstrate that a significant purpose of the program is to educate and
inform children.
    95.  We will also require licensees to indicate a specific target age group for
core programs.  In enacting the CTA, Congress found that "[c]hildren's educational
programming is most effective when it is designed to focus on particular age groups and
address specific skills."  Research has demonstrated that the ability of young children to
comprehend television content varies as a function of age, and that educational programming
should be targeted to an age range of no more than three to four years to ensure that its
content is appropriate to the developmental level of the intended audience.   Requiring
licensees to specify the age group a core program is intended to encourage them to consider
whether the content of the program is suited to the interests, knowledge, vocabulary, and
other abilities of that group.  In addition, this requirement will provide information to parents
regarding the appropriate age for core programs, thereby facilitating increased program
audience and ratings.  We decline, however, to identify particular age ranges of children to
which core programs may be directed.  We prefer to leave broadcasters the discretion to
develop programs suited to children with similar educational and informational needs and to
counterprogram to distinct portions of the child audience as they believe appropriate.
    96.  In addition, we decline to require broadcasters to serve particular segments
of the child audience.  We stated in the NPRM that we recognize the possibility that
licensees may be induced to air programming for children over 12 because (1) this group has
greater spending power than young children, (2) shows for older children may attract general
audiences as well as children, and (3) programming designed for children 12 and under is
subject to commercial limits, while programming for older children is not.  Nonetheless, we
tentatively concluded that it would be undesirable to require broadcasters to serve particular
segments of the child audience, in part because we did not have adequate data showing that
in fact younger age groups are underserved relative to other children.  We requested that
those commenters who disagreed with this view submit data relevant to whether there was a
shortage of educational programming targeted to certain age groups.  A few commenters
discussed the need for broadcasters to air more programming directed to children of certain
ages.  For example, C-TREC argued that the preponderance of core programming should be
directed to preschool and elementary aged children, who are in their early, more formative
stages of cognitive, social, and emotional development.  However, none of these parties
submitted data demonstrating that a particular age group was underserved relative to other
groups.  Accordingly, we adhere to our view that we should not at this time require
broadcasters to serve particular segments of the child audience, particularly in light of the
significant new steps we have adopted to promote the overall availability of children's
educational and informational programming.
Times Core Programming May Be Aired
    97.  As for the third element of our definition of core programming, we stated
in the NPRM our belief that credit at license renewal time should be given only for programs
shown during hours children are likely to be watching television.  As a consequence, we
tentatively proposed to credit as core programming children's educational programs broadcast
between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.  We selected this time frame because it
includes the time periods most popular for television viewing among children 2 to 17.  We
noted that several parties commenting in response to the NOI and in connection with our en
banc hearing argued that core programming should be aired between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m.  We stated that we were inclined to adopt a wider permissible time frame based on
evidence that children are in the audience through the entire period of prime time (up to
11:00 p.m.) and that "not an insignificant" number of children are watching television as
early as 6:00 a.m.  However, we expressed our concern that educational programs not be
routinely relegated to the 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. hour simply because it may be a less costly
time for licensees to discharge their educational programming obligation.  Accordingly, we
asked commenters to address whether core program hours should include 6:00 a.m. to 7:00
a.m.
    98.  Comments.  While most broadcasters generally either supported or did not
oppose the proposed 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. time period for core programming, public
interest groups and other commenters generally preferred a 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. time
frame.  With respect to the issue of whether programming aired between 6:00 a.m. and
7:00 a.m. should qualify as core, broadcasters argued that a significant number of children
are in the audience between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., and that broadcasters do not overuse
this early time period for educational programming.  In contrast, public interest groups,
programmers, and other commenters almost unanimously preferred a time frame for core
programming beginning at 7:00 a.m. on the ground that relatively few children are watching
television before 7:00 a.m.  These parties also argued that broadcasters have an incentive to
air educational programming earlier than 7:00 a.m. because it is a less costly time for them
to fulfill their obligation to air core programming.  Several of these commenters also
preferred that licensees not be permitted to air core programming after 10:00 p.m.
    99.  Discussion.  After considering the evidence, we will limit the hours within
which programming may qualify as core to a narrower time frame than that proposed in the
NPRM.  To qualify as core, a program must air between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m.  In specifying this time period, our intention is to encourage broadcasters to air
educational programming at times the maximum number of child viewers will be watching.
With respect to the morning time limit, recent data show that during four sample weeks in
November 1995, less than 5 percent of children 2 to 17 nationwide were watching television
at 6:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and less than 10 percent of this age group was in the
audience at 6:30 a.m.  By 7:00 a.m., however, between 12.5 percent and 14 percent of
children 2 to 11 were watching television, and by 8:00 a.m. more than 20 percent of children
2 to 5, close to 12 percent of children 6 to 8, and just under 9 percent of children 9 to 11,
were in the audience.  Thus, at 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, nearly four times as
many young children are watching television than at 6:00 a.m.  In other words, at 6:00 a.m.
on weekdays, 1.3 million children are watching television.  By 7:00 a.m., the number of
children watching television is 5.1 million.  Data also show that roughly as many (i.e., very
few) young children are watching television at 6:00 a.m. as are watching at midnight.
With respect to weekend viewing, the same data show that less than 4 percent of children 2
to 17 were watching television from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. on Saturday.  By 7:00 a.m. on
Saturday, however, the percentage of children 2 to 11 in the audience had risen to between
about 5 percent and 7 percent, and continued to increase sharply to about 16 percent or more
by 8:00 a.m.  Figures for Sunday showed a comparable low rate of viewership for all
children prior to 7:00 a.m. followed by a sharp increase between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
for children 2 to 11.
    100.  Despite the relatively small percentage of children in the audience prior to
7:00 a.m. as compared to after that hour, a number of studies confirm that broadcasters air a
significant percentage of their educational programming before 7:00 a.m.  For example,
NAB's 1994 and 1995 surveys indicate that approximately 20 percent of programs stations
claimed were educational were shown before 7:00 a.m.  A study submitted by UCC also
demonstrates that 20 percent of the educational children's programs monitored during the
study aired before 7:00 a.m.  In light of the evidence demonstrating that only 5 to 10
percent of children are watching television before 7:00 a.m., broadcasters appear to be
airing a disproportionately large amount of educational programming during early morning
hours in relation to the relatively few children watching television at that time.  As noted in
the NPRM, broadcasters have an incentive to air educational programming during very early
morning hours as this is a less costly time for them to comply with their educational
programming obligation.  In view of these circumstances, we believe it is appropriate to
specify that core programming air no earlier than 7:00 a.m. rather than 6:00 a.m. as
proposed in the NPRM.  An early time limit of 7:00 a.m. will ensure that core programming
is shown when more children are likely to be watching television, especially young children,
thus maximizing the benefit of such programming.  In addition, a 7:00 a.m. cut-off will help
counter the economic incentive of broadcasters to air educational and informational
programming to time periods when few children are in the audience.
    101.  With regard to the evening limit, we believe it is appropriate to require
that core programming air no later than 10:00 p.m. rather than 11:00 p.m. as proposed in
the NPRM.  Recent data show that the number of children 2 to 17 watching television drops
off considerably from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.  For all seven nights combined (Monday -
Sunday), the average number of children 2 to 17 drops from 13 million at 10:00 p.m. to 8
million at 11:00 p.m.  According to these figures, the number of children 2 to 8 watching
television Monday through Friday peaks at approximately 30 percent at 8:00 p.m., and then
declines sharply to approximately 16 percent by 10:00 p.m. and less than 10 percent by
11:00 p.m.  For older children 9 to 17 Monday through Friday, viewership peaks
somewhat later, between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. at approximately 30 percent to 35 percent, and
then falls off to approximately 20 percent to 25 percent at 10:00 p.m. and approximately 12
percent to 19 percent by 11:00 p.m.  The data for these age groups for Saturday and Sunday
also show a sharp decline in viewership from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.  We agree with
those commenters who argued that core programming should be aired before 10:00 p.m.
when a larger proportion of children are awake and watching television.  We do not expect
this evening limit to impose a burden on broadcasters, or impede their program scheduling
strategies, as they typically schedule adult entertainment programming for the 10:00 p.m. to
11:00 p.m. time period.  We therefore will require that, in order to qualify as core,
educational and informational children's programming be aired between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m.  We believe that this time period effectuates the language of the CTA
that licensees air programming "specifically designed" to serve children's educational and
informational needs, as children are best served by programming that airs during times more
children are watching television.
    102.  CME et al. argues that it is "questionable" for the Commission to credit as
core programming aired after the 10:00 p.m. start of the safe harbor for indecent
programming. We do not believe that the time period for core programming must be
consistent with the indecency safe harbor (10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.).  The indecency safe
harbor is intended to provide for the airing of indecent material when the risk of children in
the audience is minimized, while our purpose in this context is to promote the availability of
children's educational programs when substantial numbers of children are watching.
Nevertheless, the data recited above indicate that because there is an appreciable drop in the
number of children in the audience after 10:00 p.m. the time frame for purposes of the core
programming definition should be 10:00 p.m. rather than 11:00 p.m.
Regularly Scheduled
    103.  Turning to the fourth element of our definition of core programming, we
proposed to require that such programming be regularly scheduled to permit children and
their parents to be able easily to anticipate when educational programming will be aired.  We
also stated, however, that we did not wish to create a disincentive to air children's
educational specials, which may not be regularly scheduled or which may air at relatively
infrequent intervals.  We sought comment on whether we should require core programs to be
regularly scheduled and, if so, how often they should be scheduled in order to be considered
"regularly" scheduled.  We specifically indicated "once a week, once a month, or so long
as the program can appear in program guides" as possible definitions for "regularly
scheduled."
    104.  Comments.  Comments on this issue were divided.  Broadcasters generally
argued that the Commission should not limit the credit available for educational specials
because they present valuable educational programming, and cited examples of well-regarded
programs such as the "ABC Afterschool Specials" that are not regularly scheduled.
Broadcasters also expressed the view that, because specials are usually heavily promoted in
order to maximize viewership, the fact that they are not regularly scheduled does not limit
their audience.  On the other hand, public interest groups argued that core programming be
regularly scheduled on the ground that specials are not predictable and cannot be anticipated
by viewers.  Children Now proposed that core programs be required to air at least once a
week in a regular time slot so parents will know when to tune in and children can build on
lessons taught on a daily or weekly basis.  Disney and CTW, both of which produce
educational programs, suggested that the Commission award credit to specials that are
scheduled sufficiently far in advance to permit their inclusion in program guides.
    105.  Discussion.  We continue to believe that qualifying core programming
should be regularly scheduled, particularly in view of our emphasis on improving the flow of
information to parents through published program guides and other means to enable them to
select educational and informational programs for their children.  Programming that is aired
on a regular basis is more easily anticipated and located by viewers, and can build loyalty
that will improve its chance for commercial success.  A large proportion of television
programming, including children's programming, consists of shows that air on a routine
basis.  We agree with those commenters who argue that programs that air regularly can
reinforce lessons from episode to episode.  We also believe that regularly scheduled
programs can develop a theme which enhances the impact of the educational and
informational message.  Accordingly, to be considered as core, we will require that
educational and informational programs air on a regular basis.  Furthermore, to count as
regularly scheduled programming, such programs must be scheduled to air at least once a
week.  Regularly scheduled weekly programming is the dominant form of television
programming.  It 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.  It is
also our view that programs that air at less frequent intervals are less likely to attract a
regular audience and to be anticipated by parents.
    106.  Television series typically air in the same time slot for 13 consecutive
weeks, although some episodes may be preempted for programs such as breaking news or
live sports events.  Indeed, evidence suggests that a significant number of educational and
informational programs, particularly those that air on Saturday, are preempted by sports and
other programming.  Although a program must be regularly scheduled on a weekly basis to
qualify as core, we will leave to the staff to determine, with guidance from the full
Commission as necessary, what constitutes regularly scheduled programming and what level
of preemption is allowable.
    107.  Specials, including those scheduled to appear on a regular nonweekly
basis, will not be credited as core.  As stated above, we believe that programs that are aired
more frequently (i.e., at least once a week) are more likely to build upon and reinforce
educational and informational messages, more likely to develop audience loyalty, and more
likely to be anticipated by children and parents and thus attract a regular audience.
Nonetheless, we recognize that educational and informational specials with a significant
purpose of serving the educational and informational needs of children ages 16 and under can
help accomplish the objectives of the CTA and thus can count toward the second track of our
three-hour processing guideline as described below in Section V.  The value of such
programming is enhanced if parents are informed in advance of the program and the time it
is scheduled to air.  We encourage broadcasters to promote educational and informational
specials and to schedule them far enough in advance to permit information about the program
to be included  in program guides.
Substantial Length
    108.  As to the fifth element of our definition of core programming, we
proposed in the NPRM that core programming be of substantial length (e.g., 15 or 30
minutes).  We noted that standard-length programs (30 minutes or more) are typically
regularly scheduled and therefore available at predictable times, and that it is possible to
schedule 15-minute programs regularly and have such programming listed in program guides.
We asked commenters to address what length of program should satisfy the proposed
requirement that core programming be of substantial length.  Specifically, we asked whether
short segments that are specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational
needs should be credited as core programming and, if so, how they should be credited.
    109.  Comments.  Some broadcasters who addressed this issue supported
crediting short segment programming as core.  They argued generally that short segments
(including interstitials and PSAs) can effectively teach valuable lessons, are suited to the
short attention span of children, and can reach large audiences if aired during popular
children's shows.  ALTV and Tribune also noted that short segments are especially useful
to local stations because of their low production and opportunity cost.  ABC argued that
many short segment programs recur each week at the same time in the same program, and
thus can be anticipated.  In contrast, many public interest groups argued that core
programs should be at least 30 minutes long.  Children Now claimed that long-form
programs are more effective at teaching skills such as counting and reading, and that
broadcasters are inclined to rely too heavily on short segments.  Researchers Aletha
Huston and John Wright agreed that 15 or 30-minute programs are more effective than short
segments because they provide more content, allow the development of a theme, and permit
educational messages to be told in story form.
    110.  Discussion.  We believe that core programming should be at least 30
minutes in length.  In enacting the CTA, Congress identified a number of examples of
worthwhile educational and informational programs, all of which are at least one half-hour in
length.  Although we do not mean to suggest that these examples in the legislative history
are equivalent to statutory requirements, we believe they reflect the fact that the dominant
broadcast television format is 30 minutes or longer in length.  We believe it reasonable that
our rules, which are intended to promote the accessibility of children's educational and
informational programming, reflect this current industry practice.  Programs in these
standard formats are more likely than shorter programming to be regularly scheduled and to
be listed in program guides, and thus are easier for parents to identify for their child's
viewing.  In addition, programs that are 30 minutes or longer allow more time for
educational and informational material to be presented, and a number of commenters stated
that shows of this length can be particularly beneficial to children.  There was no evidence
presented in response to the NPRM to support claims by some parties that children have
short attention spans and thus will not benefit from substantial length programming.
    111.  We will not credit educational and informational PSAs, interstitials, or
other short segments as core programming.  The CTA does not preclude broadcasters from
counting such programming as educational and informational; indeed, we recognize that some
short segments have significant public interest benefits.  Nevertheless, while we have
previously found that short segment programming may qualify as specifically designed
educational and informational programming, for the reasons stated above we believe that
programs that are 30 minutes or more in length are a more appropriate focus of our
definition of "core" programming.  We also note that short segments and PSAs are less
likely to be regularly scheduled or listed in program guides, and consequently are not easily
located and anticipated by parents and children.
    112.  We emphasize that programming with a significant purpose of educating
and informing children that is less than 30 minutes in length, although not credited as core
programming, can contribute to serving children's needs pursuant to the CTA.  Such
programming can count toward meeting the three-hour processing guideline when
broadcasters air somewhat less than 3 hours per week of core programming, as described
below.  We encourage all  broadcasters to continue to provide a diverse mix of educational
and informational programming, including short segments and PSAs, toward their overall
obligation to provide programming for children.
Identified as Educational and Informational
    113.  With respect to the sixth element of our definition, we proposed that
stations be required to identify core programs as educational and informational at the
beginning of the program, and to make available the necessary information for listing these
programs as educational and informational in program guides. As discussed above, we will
adopt both of these proposals in order to improve the information available to parents
regarding programming specifically designed for children's educational and informational
needs, and to assist them in selecting these programs for their children.  We also believe
this measure will make broadcasters more accountable in classifying programming as
specifically designed to educate and inform.  Thus, as with the other aspects of our definition
of core programming, we believe that the identification requirements provide an appropriate
regulatory incentive for licensees to comply with their statutory obligation to air
programming specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs.
Assessment Guidelines
    114.  In view of our adoption of a definition of core educational and
informational programming that provides licensees with clearer guidance regarding the types
of programming required to meet their obligation under the CTA, we believe that our
permissive assessment guidelines are no longer necessary and should be eliminated.  The
guidelines identify factors that we encouraged licensees to consider in assessing the needs of
children in the community, and we intended them to assist licensees in determining what
programs meet the educational and informational needs of children under our broad definition
of "educational and informational programming."  The particularized definition of
"specifically designed" programming that we adopt today goes beyond our existing definition
of educational and informational programming and our assessment factors to further delineate
the types of programming that will meet licensees' obligation to air core educational
programming.  In view of the additional guidance provided by our definition of core
programming, we believe that the assessment guidelines are superfluous and should therefore
be eliminated.
                         V.  PROCESSING GUIDELINE
    115.  In the NPRM, we sought comment on several proposals for evaluating a
licensee's compliance with the Children's Television Act at renewal.  Specifically, we
proposed to adopt one of three alternative options: (1) Commission monitoring of the amount
of educational and informational programming on the air during a period of time following
the adoption of measures to improve the flow of programming information to the public and
adoption of a definition of "core" programming; (2) adoption of a safe harbor processing
guideline specifying an amount of programming specifically designed to serve children's
educational and informational needs that would represent one means of satisfying the CTA's
programming obligation; and (3) adoption of a programming standard that would require
broadcasters to air a specified average number of hours per week of programming
specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children.  We also
sought comment on whether we should adopt "program sponsorship" rules or guidelines,
giving licensees the option of satisfying a portion of the prescribed amount by providing
financial or other "in kind" support for programming aired on other stations in their
market.
    116.  Comments.  A number of broadcasters and broadcaster associations
opposed both a programming standard and a safe harbor processing guideline, arguing
generally that these options would infringe too greatly on broadcaster programming
discretion.  They also argued that quantification was contrary to the legislative history.  In
addition, they questioned the need for taking such measures in view of their claim that there
already is a substantial amount of educational programming available to children.  These
parties prefer the Commission's proposal to monitor future licensee performance in lieu of
adopting either a programming standard or a processing guideline.  For example, ALTV
stated that its latest survey of independent stations demonstrates "dramatic and continuing"
improvement in the amount of educational programming available on independent stations
since passage of the CTA.  ALTV suggested that the Commission collect information
regarding the industry's performance over the course of the next renewal cycle, commencing
in October 1996, at which time all stations will have operated under the CTA's requirements
for a full license term, permitting them sufficient time to become familiar with the
requirements and obtain qualifying programming.
   117.  Although ALTV argued that there is no need for a programming standard
or a processing guideline to increase the amount of educational programming, in the event
such action is taken ALTV suggested the Commission issue a policy statement delineating a
safe harbor policy whereby stations could choose to air either 2 hours of core programming
or 4 hours of core and non-core programming per week.  The policy statement would also
list other practices stations could choose to adopt at their own option, such as use of
consultants and joint ventures with public TV stations.  According to ALTV, a policy
statement is preferable to a guideline or a rule because it permits greater licensee flexibility
and can more easily be eliminated or changed.
   118.  NAB filed initial comments also opposing any quantitative guidelines or
requirement.  In supplemental comments, however, NAB set forth its support for a
"processing guideline under which broadcasters could obtain staff approval of the children's
television service portion of their renewal applications by showing that they either aired an
average of three hours per week of newly defined 'core' educational and informational
programming for children or that, while they aired somewhat less than this amount of  'core'
programming, they aired a package of other programs that demonstrated the same level of
commitment to the needs of children."  NAB stated that this "proposal overall is consistent
with Congress' intent in the Act, addresses specific problems that the record before the
Commission demonstrates, and provides useful guidance to licensees about the ways that they
can fulfill their obligations under the Act while allowing them the programming flexibility
that the FCC has always recognized is an essential element of the Communications Act."
   119.  The vast majority of nonbroadcast commenters, including such varied
groups as CME et al. (including the PTA, NEA, and American Psychiatric Association),
CDF and BCCC, and APA, advocated the adoption of either a processing guideline or a
programming standard in conjunction with a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness
of these measures in improving broadcaster performance.  They contended that monitoring
alone, without a quantitative programming standard or safe harbor guideline, would not
ensure the provision of a sufficient amount of educational children's programming.  These
commenters generally argued that reliance on the voluntary efforts of broadcasters to increase
the amount of educational programming has failed, and that marketplace forces alone do not
generate sufficient educational programming.  Although a few commenters favored a
processing guideline over a programming standard, most public interest groups and other
non-broadcast commenters expressed a preference for a programming standard.  These
commenters also noted that a standard applicable to all stations would ensure that no single
station is put at a potential competitive disadvantage by acting against its economic self
interest in providing more educational programming.  In this regard, Children Now stated its
belief that the lack of clear quantitative requirements creates a financial incentive for
broadcasters to subvert the intent of the CTA because broadcasters believe that airing
educational programming results in lower ratings and lost advertising revenues.
   120.  Discussion.  Based on our review of the record, as well as our experience
in enforcing the CTA over the past five years, we have decided to adopt a three-hour
processing guideline.  As set forth more fully below, under this guideline, the Mass Media
Bureau will be authorized to approve the Children's Television Act portions of a
broadcaster's renewal application where the broadcaster has aired three hours per week
(averaged over a six month period) of educational and informational programming that has as
a significant purpose serving the educational and informational needs of children ages 16 and
under.  A broadcaster can demonstrate that it has aired three hours per week of such
programming in either of two ways:
   (A) By checking a box on its renewal application and providing supporting
   information indicating that it has aired three hours per week of regularly
   scheduled, weekly shows that are 30 minutes or longer and that otherwise meet
   the definition of "core programming" as described in Section IV, supra; or
   (B) 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.
Renewal applications that do not meet this guideline will be referred to the Commission,
where the applicant will have a full opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the CTA by,
for example, relying in part on sponsorship of core educational and informational programs
on other stations in the market that increases the amount of core educational or 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.
   121.  Although in 1991 we concluded that we should not quantify a
broadcaster's CTA obligation, based on our experience over the past five years and the
record in this proceeding, we believe a processing guideline approach is warranted at this
time.  We believe that three hours per week is a reasonable benchmark for all broadcast
television stations to meet six years after enactment of the CTA.  NAB states that
commercial broadcasters were, on average, broadcasting two hours per week of regularly
scheduled, standard length educational programming at the time the CTA passed in 1990.
While we do not know whether Congress was aware of this data in passing the CTA, the
Act's legislative history makes clear that Congress was generally aware of the television
programming being broadcast in 1990 when it found that "the marketplace had failed to
provide an adequate supply of children's educational programming," and that it desired that
the amount of such programming be increased.   Thus, airing two hours per week of such
programming six years after passage of the CTA clearly is not compatible with the long-term
performance improvement Congress intended when it passed the CTA, and a processing
guideline of three hours is clearly a reasonable means of implementing the statute at this
time.
   122.  Our decision to set the guideline at this level does not rely upon a firm
conclusion as to the amount of children's educational and informational programming
currently being provided in the market, but rather on the inferences that we can draw from
the entire record in this proceeding.  NAB states, under its definition of core programming,
that commercial broadcasters air an average of approximately four hours per week of
educational and informational programming in fulfillment of their obligation under the CTA.
Although we cannot verify NAB's figure, we take the NAB conclusion as evidence that
broadcasters believe that it is reasonable to devote three hours per week of their air time to
educating children.  Moreover, the studies of ALTV, Fox, and Kunkel suggest that this is a
reasonable, achievable guideline.
   123.  Our conclusion that a three-hour per week programming guideline is not
unreasonable is further confirmed by the commitment of the CBS network and CBS-owned
stations to provide three hours per week of core educational and informational programming
by the fall 1997 season (when our new rules will go into effect).  On September 20, 1995,
the Westinghouse Electric Corporation announced that it would increase the amount of core
programming provided by its recently acquired CBS television network and aired by its
owned-and-operated stations.  Under this plan, Westinghouse will double network children's
programming from the one hour now broadcast on the CBS network to two hours, and will
add a third hour by the beginning of the fall 1997 season.  With this initiative, over 200
CBS affiliates -- over 17 percent of the total number of commercial television stations in the
country -- already have in place the means of providing at least three hours per week of
educational and informational programming specifically designed to educate and inform
children.
   124.  In the context of the CTA, a processing guideline is clear, fair and
efficient.  First, our experience in reviewing the children's programming portions of renewal
applications teaches us that a processing guideline is desirable as a matter of administrative
efficiency in enforcing the CTA and provides desirable clarity about the extent of a
broadcaster's programming responsibilities under the statute.  Due to the volume of broadcast
television renewal applications received by the Commission -- approximately 1500
commercial and noncommercial applications during each renewal cycle -- the Commission
has for many years delegated to the Mass Media Bureau the authority to act on applications
that do not present difficult issues.  In the absence of an articulated guideline regarding CTA
compliance that the Bureau would use to distinguish applications that are properly processed
at the staff level from those that must be sent to the full Commission, a de facto processing
guideline likely would develop.  But this de facto guideline, if unpublished, would not
provide clear and timely notice of what a licensee can do to guarantee renewal under the
CTA.  By adopting a safe harbor processing guideline in this order, the Commission is
simply giving public notice of the procedures it will use to evaluate a broadcaster's children's
educational and informational programming performance.  Licensees and the public will
consequently know with certainty and in advance what a licensee can do to ensure that it
meets its CTA obligations.
   125.  The guideline will also help ameliorate the inequities that may arise from
the economic disincentives that lead some stations to air little core programming.  Although
some broadcasters are airing a significant amount of educational and informational
programming, the evidence suggests that others are not.  Indeed, as we have discussed
previously, there are economic pressures on licensees not to air children's educational and
informational programming or to air it at times when relatively few children are watching.
A processing guideline will help minimize the inequities and reduce the disincentives created
by below-average performers by subjecting all broadcasters to the same scrutiny for CTA
compliance by the Commission at renewal time.  In contrast to the current situation, a
broadcaster that wishes to air an ample amount of core educational programming can feel
confident that, as a general matter, its competitors will be airing at least three hours of core
programming or its equivalent.  Thus, like our public information initiatives and definitional
requirements, the processing guideline will allow the marketplace to function more
effectively in providing educational and informational children's programming.  Moreover,
the greater certainty provided by the processing guideline we adopt today should create a
more stable and predictable demand for such programming, and thus further the CTA's goal
of increasing the availability of programs that teach and inform the nation's children.
   126.  The processing guideline we adopt today is consistent with the CTA in
that it provides a measure of flexibility for licensees in meeting the requirements of the CTA.
Broadcasters that air somewhat less than three hours per week of core programming can also
receive staff-level renewal.   We create this option not to encourage broadcasters to air fewer
than three hours per week of core programming; we encourage broadcasters to air more than
three hours.  Rather, we create this option to recognize, as Congress did, the need for
flexibility for broadcasters.
   127.  We further believe the processing guideline we adopt today is consistent
with the text of the Children's Television Act, which requires us to "consider the extent" to
which licensees serve the "educational and informational needs of children through the
licensee's overall programming, including programming specifically designed to serve such
needs."  The CTA's renewal review requirement involves, at least in part, an assessment
of the amount of educational and informational programming shown by each licensee.  By
establishing a processing guideline, we provide a clear benchmark for assessing broadcasters'
performance.
   128.  In adopting a processing guideline today, we deliberately depart from the
approach to implementing the CTA underlying our current rules as promulgated in 1991.  As
explained above, we conclude today that the public interest and the interests Congress sought
to promote through the CTA will be better served by this processing guideline approach.
   129.  We recognize that this is contrary to our earlier interpretation of the CTA
as precluding quantification of the CTA obligation.  We reached this conclusion in 1991 on
the grounds that the statute itself "impos[ed] no quantitative standard" and the "legislative
history suggest[ed] that Congress meant that no minimum amount criterion be imposed.  In
reaching a contrary conclusion today, we begin with the fact that nothing in the statutory
language of the CTA forbids the use of a processing guideline.  Furthermore, although there
is specific language in the legislative history, cited in our 1991 Report and Order and by
parties in this proceeding, stating the "Committee does not intend that the FCC interpret this
section as requiring or mandating a quantification standard," this language does not
prohibit us from seeking to provide greater clarity and guidance through a processing
guideline.  Rather, this language simply makes clear that the CTA does not require
quantitative standards or guidelines.  It is not our conclusion today that we must adopt a
quantitative guideline, but that the processing guideline approach we adopt will clarify the
imprecision of our current rules that has led to a variation in the level and nature of
broadcasters' compliance efforts that is incompatible with the intent of the CTA.  Thus,
because of its clarity, fairness, and ease of administration, a processing guideline will remedy
the shortcomings of our initial rules and thereby provide the appropriate counterweight to the
market forces identified by Congress that tend to discourage broadcasters from airing
children's educational and informational programming.
   130.  We consequently believe a safe harbor processing guideline will serve the
public interest by providing a reasonable degree of certainty while also preserving a
reasonable degree of flexibility for broadcasters.  Renewal applications will be divided into
two categories for purposes of staff-level CTA review.  Applications falling into neither of
these categories will be referred to the Commission for consideration.  We will revise our
license renewal form to reflect this processing guideline.  In revising the renewal form, we
will seek to minimize the reporting burden on licensees by, for example, allowing them to
rely on the children's programming reports that they have prepared previously.
                                Category A
   131.  Broadcasters that air an average of three or more hours per week of
programming that satisfies our new definition of programming "specifically designed" to
serve children's educational and informational needs will have their applications approved by
the staff with respect to CTA compliance.  A licensee seeking review under this category
must simply check a box on our revised renewal form, and provide supporting information,
indicating that it has aired three hours per week of regularly scheduled, weekly shows that
are 30 minutes or longer and that otherwise meet the definition of core programming.
   132.  To provide broadcasters scheduling flexibility, we will allow the three-
hour core programming benchmark to be averaged over a six-month period.  We will also
allow repeats and reruns of core programming to be counted toward fulfillment of the three-
hour guideline.  As Tribune pointed out, virtually all network and syndicated programs are
repeated to increase audience exposure.
                                Category B
   133.  Broadcasters that air somewhat less than three hours per week of core
programming will also receive staff-level approval if they show that they have aired a
package of different types of educational and informational programming that demonstrates a
level of commitment to educating and informing children that is at least equivalent to airing
three hours per week of core programming.  We do this to create a measure of flexibility as
to how broadcasters may qualify for routine staff processing of their applications.  Although
core programming is our primary focus under the Children's Television Act, we believe that
specials, regularly scheduled non-weekly programs, short-form programs, and PSAs with a
significant purpose of educating and informing children ages 16 and under can help
accomplish the objectives of the Act and can count toward the staff-level processing
guideline.  Airing such programming or core programming during prime time would also be
a relevant factor under this category, as would investing a substantial amount of money in
developing core programming aired on the broadcaster's channel.  A broadcaster seeking to
secure staff approval under this category must show that any reasonable observer would
recognize its commitment to educating and informing children to be at least equivalent to the
commitment reflected in Category A.
   134.  Review of individual Category B applications will require a degree of
evaluation and judgment by the staff.  We expect the staff to exercise this discretion
judiciously.  We expect that, as broadcasters present different fact patterns, the Bureau, with
guidance from the Commission as necessary, will assess the weight to be given to particular
kinds of noncore efforts and will process such fact patterns in a consistent manner over time.
                         Commission Consideration
   135.  Broadcasters that do not fall within Category A or B will have their
renewal applications referred to the full Commission.  Licensees referred to the Commission
should be on notice by this order that they will not necessarily be found to have complied
with the Children's Television Act.  Given the modest nature of the guideline described in
Categories A and B, we expect few broadcasters will fail to meet this benchmark.  However,
even if a licensee did not meet the guideline for staff approval, it will have an opportunity to
make a showing before the Commission that it has satisfied its Children's Television Act
obligations in other ways.  Broadcasters will have a full opportunity to make this
demonstration by, for example, and as described more fully below, relying in part on
sponsorship of core educational and 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.  It is also possible that a
licensee might seek to demonstrate that it suffered such serious economic hardship -- such as
bankruptcy -- that might excuse noncompliance with the CTA.
   136.  If we find that a broadcaster has not complied with the CTA, we will
apply the same remedies that we use in enforcing our other rules.  These remedies will vary
depending on the severity of the deficiency based on objective criteria.  For less serious
deficiencies, we will consider letters of admonition or reporting requirements.  We may also
consider using a "promise versus performance" approach.  This would be a prospective
remedy under which a licensee would detail its plan for coming into full compliance with
CTA programming obligations; if this plan meets with Commission approval, the station's
license would be renewed on the condition that the licensee adheres to the plan absent special
circumstances.  For more serious violations, we will consider other sanctions, including
forfeitures and short-term renewals.  In extreme cases, we will consider designating the
license for hearing to determine whether the licensee's violations of the CTA and our
implementing rules warrant nonrenewal under the standards set forth in Section 309(k) of the
Communications Act.
   137.  Special Nonbroadcast Efforts.  The CTA states that, "[i]n addition to
consideration of the licensee's [educational] programming, the Commission may consider . .
.  any special nonbroadcast efforts by the licensee which enhance the educational and
informational value of such programming to children."  At the Commission level, a licensee
may present evidence of such special nonbroadcast efforts.  To receive credit under this
provision for a "special" nonbroadcast effort, a broadcaster must show that it has engaged in
substantial community activity.  To receive credit under this provision for a special
nonbroadcast effort that "enhance[s]" the educational value of a broadcaster's educational
programming, a broadcaster must show a close relationship between its core programming
and its nonbroadcast efforts.  Finally, we note that the text of this provision plainly does not
relieve a broadcaster of the obligation to air core programming.  The statute permits the
Commission to consider special nonbroadcast efforts only "in addition to consideration of the
licensee's [educational] programming."
   138.  Special Sponsorship Efforts.  The CTA states that, "[i]n addition to
consideration of the licensee's [educational] programming, the Commission may consider . .
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."  Some parties supported giving credit to a sponsoring
station in assessing its CTA performance at renewal time, while others opposed the idea.
We will allow a licensee to present evidence at the Commission level of such special
sponsorship efforts.  To receive credit under this provision 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.  Also, we note again that the text of Section 103(b) does
not relieve a broadcaster of the obligation to air programming specifically designed to serve
the educational and informational needs of children.  It permits the Commission to consider
sponsorship nonbroadcast efforts only "in addition to consideration of the licensee's
[educational] programming."
   139.  In response to the NPRM's proposal to establish program sponsorship
guidelines, commenters raised a number of issues regarding the appropriate circumstances for
crediting sponsorship efforts, such as the minimum amount of core programming that a
sponsoring station must air on its own station and the extent to which programs could be
sponsored on noncommercial stations.  We believe these matters are best addressed on a
case-by-case basis considering  individual showings licensees may seek to make rather than
by the adoption of program sponsorship guidelines.  We will be a better position to assess
these matters in individual cases after having gained some experience with the operation of
our new rules and programming guideline in the children's television marketplace.
Monitoring and Reexamination of Rules
   140.  We will monitor the broadcast industry's children's educational
programming performance for three years based upon the children's programming reports
that licensees will file with us annually on an experimental basis.  We will conduct a review
of these reports at the end of this three-year period and take appropriate action as necessary
to ensure that stations are complying with the rules and guidelines we adopt today.  To
supplement this review, Commission staff will also conduct selected individual station audits
during the next three years to assess station performance under our new children's
educational and informational programming rules once they go into effect.
   141.  We invited comment in the NPRM on whether we should sunset any
processing guideline or program standard that we adopt on December 1, 2004, unless
affirmatively extended by the Commission.  The few commenters who addressed this issue
expressed concern that the rules not be eliminated without an evaluation of whether continued
regulation was warranted.  Based on the record, we do not believe that an automatic
expiration of the rules, absent further Commission action, is appropriate.  One of our
principal objectives in implementing the safe harbor processing guideline is to provide
broadcasters and the public with fair notice and certainty regarding the level of performance
at which a licensee can be assured it is complying with the CTA.  Automatic elimination of
the processing guideline is inconsistent with this important objective.
                          VI.  RENEWAL PROCEDURES
License renewal challenges
   142.  One of our objectives in this proceeding has been to encourage the public
to participate in promoting broadcasters' compliance with the CTA, and to reduce the role of
government in enforcing compliance.  As one means of achieving this goal, we proposed in
the NPRM to require that any challenger filing a petition to deny a renewal application show
that he or she had first attempted to resolve the alleged problem with the station in
question.  The commenters who addressed this issue were divided.  Cosmos et al.
supported the proposal as long as licensees retained discretion as to how to respond to any
complaints received from members of the public.
   143.  We have decided not to require members of the public to communicate
with a licensee prior to filing a petition to deny.  As CME et al. pointed out, such a
requirement could be unduly burdensome to the public, prevent legitimate complaints from
being heard, and deny the FCC an important source of information.  We will nonetheless
encourage parties to seek to resolve CTA programming concerns with the station before
filing a complaint with the Commission, and will consider whether a petitioner has engaged
in such conciliation efforts as a factor in assessing a petition to deny.
Certification
   144.  As another means of reducing the government's role in reviewing CTA
compliance, in the event we adopted a processing guideline or programming standard, we
sought comment in the NPRM on whether we should permit licensees to certify whether they
have aired the prescribed amount of core programming.  If this proposal were adopted, we
stated that, in the absence of a challenge to their license renewal, licensees would not be
required to submit materials documenting their programming performance, but only to retain
them in their public inspection files.
   145.  We decline to adopt this proposal.  The parties that addressed this
proposal, CME et al. and Children Now, opposed it on the ground that it would inhibit
public monitoring of broadcaster compliance and was contrary to Congress' intent that the
Commission review a licensee's children's programming records.  Given these concerns,
and our decision to require broadcasters to file children's programming reports with the
Commission for an experimental three-year period, we do not believe a certification
approach is workable.
                       VII.  FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES
   146.  Comments.  Broadcasters, including ABC, CBS, Cosmos et al., Donrey,
Great Trails, Meredith, NAB, and NAB advocate Professor Rodney Smolla (of the Marshall-
Wythe School of Law), argued that quantitative processing guidelines would violate the First
Amendment.  Henry Geller, as well as Price and Meyerson, maintained that a processing
guideline is constitutionally permissible.  We address these comments in the course of our
substantive discussion below.
   147.  Discussion.  The First Amendment arguments raised by opponents of our
proposed CTA regulations essentially fall into two categories -- arguments that attack the
CTA obligation and arguments that attack the quantification of the CTA obligation.  To the
extent that some commenters argue that the CTA is unconstitutional, Congress itself
addressed that issue.  It specifically concluded that "it is well within the First Amendment
strictures to require the FCC to consider, during the license renewal process, whether a
television licensee has provided information specifically designed to serve the educational and
informational needs of children in the context of its overall programming."  As the Senate
Report noted, broadcasters, in exchange for "the free and exclusive use of a valuable part of
the public domain," can be expected to serve as a public fiduciary, obliged to serve the needs
and interests of their viewers.  That obligation includes the obligation to serve the needs of
children.  Even more specifically, as the FCC, the courts, and Congress have concluded, a
broadcaster's public interest obligation properly includes an obligation to serve the
educational and informational needs of children.  The question in this proceeding is not
whether the Commission should give effect to the CTA, but how it should do so.
   148.  We do not understand NAB and Professor Smolla to be arguing that the
CTA is unconstitutional insofar as it provides that broadcasters must serve the educational
and informational needs of children and demonstrate that they have done so at renewal.
Professor Smolla argues that, were we to adopt either a rule requiring a specified amount of
particular programming or a processing guideline that effectively imposed a similar
requirement, such a rule or processing guideline would unconstitutionally burden speech and,
further, would rest on an improper construction of the CTA.  Such rules or processing
guidelines were among the options on which we sought comment in the NPRM.  As we
explain above, while we adopt a processing guideline, we do so in a manner that provides
broadcasters with flexibility in the ways in which they can satisfy the requirements imposed
by the CTA.
   149.  The course we adopt today -- defining what qualifies as programming
"specifically designed" to serve the educational needs of children and giving broadcasters
clear but nonmandatory guidance on how to guarantee compliance -- is a constitutional means
of giving effect to the CTA's programming requirement.  "It does not violate the First
Amendment to treat licensees given the privilege of using scarce radio frequencies as proxies
for the entire community, obligated to give suitable time and attention to matters of great
public concern."  Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 394 (1969).
Congress's authority to order "suitable time and attention to matters of great public concern"
includes the authority to require broadcasters to air programming specifically designed to
further the educational needs of children.  The airwaves belong to the public, not to any
individual broadcaster.  As the Supreme Court observed in CBS, Inc. v. FCC, "a
licensed broadcaster is `granted the free and exclusive use of a limited and valuable part of
the public domain; when he accepts that franchise it is burdened by enforceable public
obligations.'"  The fact that Congress elected to retain public ownership of the broadcast
spectrum and to lease it for free to private licensees for limited periods carries significant
First Amendment consequences.
   150.  In CBS  v. FCC the Supreme Court upheld a challenge to the statute (47
U.S.C.  312(a)(7)) that requires broadcasters to provide reasonable access to individual
candidates seeking federal elective office.  Similarly, here, the CTA requires broadcasters to
serve the educational and informational needs of children through programming specifically
designed for those needs.  Both provisions require broadcasters to air certain types of
programming they might not otherwise choose to provide.  However, the obligation imposed
by Section 312(a)(7) appears to be significantly more burdensome than the obligation
imposed by the CTA.  Under Section 312(a)(7), broadcasters have no control over the
content of the political advertising.  In contrast, under the CTA broadcasters are obligated to
provide children's educational programming, yet they retain wide discretion in choosing what
programs to provide, a fact little changed by the clarifying measures we adopt today.
   151.  Because we are adopting a processing guideline that allows broadcasters
more discretion in choosing the ways in which they will meet their CTA obligations than the
one we proposed in the NPRM, most of the arguments raised by Professor Smolla and others
commenters are not applicable.  In Turner Broadcasting v. FCC, the Court made clear
that the Commission has the authority to "inquire of licensees what they have done to
determine the needs of the community they propose to serve," but not to "impose upon them
its private notions of what the public ought to hear."  We have chosen to adopt a
processing guideline that requires broadcasters to show us how they have served the
educational and informational needs of children, and which provides guidance to them about
ways in which they can meet that obligation.  We are not, however, telling licensees what
topics to discuss.  The Turner Court reaffirmed that "broadcast programming, unlike cable
programming, is subject to certain limited content restraints imposed by statute and FCC
regulation."  And, as examples of (presumably) permissible regulation, the Court cited the
Children's Television Act, together with the equal-time and personal attack rules and the
rules channeling indecent programming away from times when children are most likely to be
in the viewing audience.  If these latter regulations survive constitutional scrutiny, then so,
a fortiori, would the Commission's considerably less intrusive proposal for giving meaningful
effect to the Act by defining "core" educational programming and establishing a procedure
that broadcasters can use to assure routine staff processing of the CTA portion of their
renewal applications.
   152.  Our new regulations, like the CTA itself, impose reasonable, viewpoint-
neutral conditions on a broadcaster's free use of the public airwaves.  They do not censor or
foreclose speech of any kind.  They do not tell licensees what topics they must address.
They provide only that broadcasters report the educational objective of the program and the
expected educational effects.  Moreover, they expressly provide that broadcasters need not
describe the viewpoint of the program or the opinions expressed on the program.
   153.  The CTA and our regulations directly advance the government's
substantial, and indeed compelling, interest in the education of America's children.  As
Congress recognized, "[i]t is difficult to think of an interest more substantial than the
promotion of the welfare of children who watch so much television and rely upon it for so
much of the information they receive."  In other contexts, the courts and commentators
have recognized the government's "compelling" interest in "safeguarding the physical and
psychological well being" of minors.
   154.  A recent case, Action for Children's Television v. FCC, affirms the
vitality of the government's interest in ensuring that television programming is consistent
with the needs of America's children.  In Action for Children's Television, the court of
appeals echoed the Supreme Court's recognition of the "well nigh universal belief that good
books, plays and art . . . improve the mind, enrich the human personality, and develop
character."  It then concluded that a legislature may regulate the exposure of children to
indecent material on the corollary assumption that indecent material may "exert a corrupting
and debasing impact."  If Congress and the Commission may rely on this corollary to ban
broadcast of certain material during specified hours, even under standards of strict scrutiny,
it should follow that the Commission's adoption of less restrictive measures to encourage the
airing of material beneficial to children is consistent with the First Amendment.  That is
particularly true because the Children's Television Act is designed to promote programming
that educates and informs children.  The framers of the First Amendment understood that
"the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people," as Justice Brandeis wrote.  It is
entirely consistent with the First Amendment to ask trustees of the public airwaves to pursue
reasonable, viewpoint-neutral measures designed to increase the likelihood that children will
grow into adults capable of fully participating in our deliberative democracy.
   155.  Such a requirement also is supported by the Supreme Court's decision in
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. In that case the Court recognized that "broadcasting is
uniquely accessible to children" and that "the broadcast media have established a uniquely
pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans."  Both of those factors support Congress'
decision to require broadcasters to serve the educational needs of children.  As stated
previously, television has an influence on children in our society rivalled only by family and
school.  It would be accurate to blend the two factors noted in Pacifica and conclude that
television has a pervasive presence in the lives of American children.  The Court in Pacifica
upheld restrictions on the broadcast of indecent material.  As stated above, the government's
interest in the intellectual development of our nation's children is at least as significant as its
interest in protecting them from exposure to indecent material, an interest the Supreme Court
"has often found compelling."
   156.  The measures we adopt today to advance the Nation's interest in the
intellectual development of our children are sustainable under the Pacifica analysis as they
are significantly less burdensome than the measure upheld there.  Pacifica upheld a complete
ban on a particular type of programming (indecent programming) during hours when children
are likely to be in the audience, a period which the Commission was later upheld in defining
as 16 hours per day (6:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.) in Action for Children's Television.  The
measures we adopt today do not ban programming of any type, they simply notify
broadcasters that compliance with the CTA can be achieved with, on average, less than half
an hour a day of programming expressing any viewpoint on any topic that broadcasters
desire.
   157.  For those reasons, our implementing rules are constitutional under the
traditional First Amendment standard.  But even if evaluated under a heightened standard,
our rules would pass muster because the interest advanced is compelling and our regulations
are narrowly tailored.  As detailed above, our regulations are no more burdensome than
necessary to ensure that children will be able to watch educational and informational
programming.  Like the CTA, our regulations require broadcasters to air children's
educational and informational programming, but do not "exclude any programming that does
in fact serve the educational and informational needs of children; rather the broadcaster has
discretion to meet its public service obligation in the way it deems best suited."
Specifically, the processing guideline that we adopt today does not limit this discretion.  It
provides a means by which a broadcaster can be certain that our staff will be in a position to
process its renewal application without further review of the broadcaster's CTA efforts.  As
we explain above, any programming specifically designed to meet the educational and
informational needs of children can "count" for purposes of meeting the processing guideline.
In addition, a broadcaster can rely on other more general programming and related non-
programming efforts to satisfy its CTA obligation -- albeit after full Commission review.
   158.  As the Media Institute observes, we declined to adopt quantitative
processing guidelines in 1991 on the ground that they would "infringe on broadcaster
discretion regarding the appropriate manner in which to meet children's educational and
informational needs." Upon further consideration, we reject that position.  Processing
guidelines give broadcasters an option for guaranteeing routine staff processing of the CTA
portion of their renewal applications, but broadcasters remain free to find other ways to
fulfill their obligation.  In any event, our initial reluctance to adopt any form of processing
guideline derived in large part from our wish to initiate implementation of the CTA with as
little regulation as possible.  As described above, our subsequent experience has persuaded us
that we should alter our course in the interests of fairness and efficiency by clarifying ways
in which broadcasters can ensure compliance.
   159.  Together, the new measures that we adopt today will help parents,
children, and the general public understand the programming benefits that the CTA is
intended to guarantee.  That understanding is necessary to ensure that the public, in
exercising informal influence over the programming choices of broadcasters, can play an
important role in effectuating Congress's intent to increase the amount of educational
children's programming on television.  Similarly, both the clearer definition and the
processing guidelines give broadcasters reasonable notice of nonmandatory ways to guarantee
compliance with their statutory programming obligations.  Such clarity is desirable and helps
to narrowly tailor our regulations.
               VIII.  EFFECTIVE DATES AND TRANSITION PERIOD
   160.  Our rules regarding on-air identification, program guides, public file, and
reporting requirements will become effective on January 2, 1997, subject to OMB approval
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, and we will begin to evaluate compliance with these
requirements in renewal applications filed after that date.  Licensees should be able to
implement these rules in that time frame as they relate to internal station practices and do not
require steps that would necessitate a longer period of transition.
   161.  With respect to our newly adopted definition of programming specifically
designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children, as well as our safe
harbor processing guideline relating to such programming, we believe that a longer transition
period is appropriate.  Some licensees may need time to develop programming that complies
with our new definition or to renegotiate or allow expiration of existing program contracts as
necessary.  Accordingly, we adopt an effective date for these rules of September 1, 1997,
and will begin to evaluate compliance with these provisions in renewal applications filed after
that date.  As with all of the provisions adopted today, these provisions will be applied on
a purely prospective basis.
   162.  Thus, renewal applications filed earlier than September 1, 1997 will be
assessed for compliance with the program-related provisions of the CTA based exclusively on
the rules and criteria set forth in our 1991 CTA rulemaking proceeding.  In our 1991
proceeding, we stated that licensees will be expected to "air some educational and
informational programming  specifically designed' for children 16 years of age and under in
order to satisfy our renewal review", and we 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."  We will continue to follow these general standards in
assessing the CTA programming performance of renewal applicants filing prior to September
1, 1997.
   163.  As noted above, beginning September 1, 1997, we will begin to evaluate
renewal applications to determine the extent to which licensees are providing educational
programming that complies with the new definition of core programming using the new
processing guideline.  In this renewal cycle (i.e. for applications filed through April 1999)
such renewals will cover licensee performance that both pre-dates and post-dates these new
rules.  Licensee performance during the term that predates the relevant effective dates will be
evaluated under existing standards and performance that post-dates the rules will be judged
under the new provisions.  As a practical matter, the new program-related provisions will
apply to a relatively small portion of the license terms for renewal applications filed in the
current renewal filing cycle after September 1, 1997.
                              IX.  CONCLUSION
   164.  For the reasons discussed above, we adopt this Report and Order designed
to further the mandate of the Children's Television Act that broadcast television achieve its
full potential in teaching the nation's children.
                           X.  ORDERING CLAUSES
   165.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in
Sections 4(i) & (j), 303(r), 308, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 
154(i) & (j), 303(r), 308, 403, as amended, and the Children's Television Act of 1990, 47
U.S.C.  303b(a), 303b(b), and 394, Part 73 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 73
IS AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B below.  The amendments set forth in paragraphs
1, 4, 5, and 6 of Appendix B shall be effective on January 2, 1997, subject to necessary
OMB approvals.  The amendments set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Appendix B shall take
effect on September 1, 1997.
   166.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the new or modified paperwork
requirements contained in this Report and Order (which are subject to approval by the Office
of Management and Budget) will go into effect upon OMB approval.
   167.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary shall send a copy of this
Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Publ. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
(1981).
   168.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is terminated.
   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
   William F. Caton
   Acting Secretary                                APPENDIX A
                          ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
                     Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
   This Report and Order contains new or modified information collections subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ("PRA").  It has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget ("OMB") for review under the PRA.  OMB, the general public, and
other federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collections
contained in this proceeding.
                   Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
   As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended ("RFA"), an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA"), 5 U.S.C.  603, was incorporated in the Notice of
Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 93-48 ("NPRM").  The Commission sought
written public comments on the proposals in the NPRM, including the IRFA.  The
Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") in this Report and Order is
as follows:
A.  Need for and Objectives of the Rules.
   The rulemaking proceeding was initiated to explore ways to implement the Children's
Television Act of 1990 ("CTA") more effectively by facilitating broadcasters' compliance
with their obligation to air educational and informational programming for children,
including programming specifically designed for this purpose, and by furthering the CTA's
goal of increasing the amount of educational and informational programming available to
children.  In  9-13 of the Report and Order, we discuss the importance of children's
educational television programming, and in  25-46 and throughout this order, we discuss
the basis of our concerns that our prior rules to implement the CTA were not producing a
level of performance consistent with the long-term goals of the statute.  The rules adopted
herein meet these objectives by giving licensees clear, efficient, and fair guidance regarding
their children's programming obligation under the CTA.  They do this by increasing the flow
of programming information to the public to facilitate enforcement of the CTA and improve
the functioning of the children's programming marketplace; by adopting a definition of
programming that is clearly "specifically designed" to educate and inform children (which we
refer to as "core programming") to provide licensees guidance in fulfilling their statutory
obligation to air this programming; and by adopting a three-hour processing guideline to
facilitate review at renewal time by the Commission, as required by the CTA, of licensees'
compliance with the Act.
B.  Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis.
   There were no comments submitted specifically in response to the IRFA.  We have,
however, taken into account all issues raised by the public in response to the proposals raised
in this proceeding.  In certain instances, we have modified the rules adopted in response to
those comments.
C.  Description and Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply.
       1. Definition of a "Small Business"
   Under the RFA, small entities may include small organizations, small businesses, and
small governmental jurisdictions.  5 U.S.C.  601(6).  The RFA, 5 U.S.C.  601(3),
generally defines the term "small business" as having the same meaning as the term "small
business concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632.  A small business
concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration ("SBA").  Id.  According to the SBA's regulations, entities engaged in
television broadcasting (Standard Industrial Classification ("SIC") Code 4833 -- Television
Broadcasting Stations) may have a maximum of $ 10.5 million in annual receipts in order to
qualify as a small business concern.  13 C.F.R.  121.101 et seq.  This standard also
applies in determining whether an entity is a small business for purposes of the RFA.
   Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies
"unless an agency after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions
of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
definition(s) in the Federal Register."  While we tentatively believe that the foregoing
definition of "small business" greatly overstates the number of television broadcast stations
that are small businesses and is not suitable for purposes of determining the impact of the
new rules on small television stations, we did not propose an alternative definition in the
IRFA.  Accordingly, for purposes of this Report and Order, we utilize the SBA's
definition in determining the number of small businesses to which the rules apply, but we
reserve the right to adopt a more suitable definition of "small business" as applied to
television broadcast stations and to consider further the issue of the number of small entities
that are television broadcasters in the future.  Further, in this FRFA, we will identify the
different classes of small television stations that may be impacted by the rules adopted in this
Report and Order.
       2.  Issues in Applying the Definition of a "Small Business"
   As discussed below, we could not precisely apply the foregoing definition of "small
business" in developing our estimates of the number of small entities to which the rules will
apply.  Our estimates reflect our best judgments based on the data available to us.
   An element of the definition of "small business" is that the entity not be dominant in
its field of operation.  We were unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that
would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation.
Accordingly, the following estimates of small businesses to which the new rules will apply
do not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and
are therefore overinclusive to that extent.  An additional element of the definition of "small
business" is that the entity must be independently owned and operated.  We attempted to
factor in this element by looking at revenue statistics for owners of television stations.
However, as discussed further below, we could not fully apply this criterion, and our
estimates of small businesses to which the rules may apply may be overinclusive to this
extent.  The SBA's general size standards are developed taking into account these two
statutory criteria.  This does not preclude us from taking these factors into account in making
our estimates of the numbers of small entities.
                                      With respect to applying the revenue cap, the SBA has defined "annual receipts"
specifically in 13 C.F.R  121.104, and its calculations include an averaging process.  We
do not currently require submission of financial data from licensees that we could use in
applying the SBA's definition of a small business.  Thus, for purposes of estimating the
number of small entities to which the rules apply, we are limited to considering the revenue
data that are publicly available, and the revenue data on which we rely may not correspond
completely with the SBA definition of annual receipts.
   Under SBA criteria for determining annual receipts, if a concern has acquired an
affiliate or been acquired as an affiliate during the applicable averaging period for
determining annual receipts, the annual receipts in determining size status include the receipts
of both firms.  13 C.F.R.  121.104(d)(1).  The SBA defines affiliation in 13 C.F.R. 
121.103.  In this context, the SBA's definition of affiliate is analogous to our attribution
rules.  Generally, under the SBA's definition, concerns are affiliates of each other when one
concern controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or
has the power to control both.  13 C.F.R.  121.103(a)(1).  The SBA considers factors such
as ownership, management, previous relationships with or ties to another concern, and
contractual relationships, in determining whether affiliation exists.  13 C.F.R. 
121.103(a)(2).  Instead of making an independent determination of whether television stations
were affiliated based on SBA's definitions, we relied on the data bases available to us to
provide us with that information.
       3.  Estimates Based on Census and BIA Data
    According to the Census Bureau, in 1992, there were 1,155 out of 1,478 operating
television stations with revenues of less than ten million dollars.  This represents 78 percent
of all television stations, including non-commercial stations.  See 1992 Census of
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, May 1995, at
1-25.  The Census Bureau does not separate the revenue data by commercial and non-
commercial stations in this report.  Neither does it allow us to determine the number of
stations with a maximum of 10.5 million dollars in annual receipts.  Census data also
indicates that 81 percent of operating firms (that owned at least one television station) had
revenues of less than 10 million dollars.
   We have also performed a separate study based on the data contained in the BIA
Publications, Inc. Master Access Television Analyzer Database, which lists a total of 1,141
full-power commercial television stations.  We have excluded Low Power Television (LPTV)
stations or translator stations, which will not be subject to the new requirements, from our
calculations.  It should be noted that, using the SBA definition of small business concern,
the percentage figures derived from the BIA data base may be underinclusive because the
data base does not list revenue estimates for noncommercial educational stations, and these
are therefore excluded from our calculations based on the data base.  While noncommercial
stations are not subject to the new reporting or recordkeeping requirements adopted in the
Report and Order, the new definition (except for the reporting requirements) and the
processing guideline will apply to them.  The BIA data indicate that, based on 1995 revenue
estimates, 440 full-power commercial television stations had an estimated revenue of 10.5
million dollars or less.  That represents 54 percent of commercial television stations with
revenue estimates listed in the BIA program.  The data base does not list estimated revenues
for 331 stations.  Using a worst case scenario, if those 331 stations for which no revenue is
listed are counted as small stations, there would be a total of 771 stations with an estimated
revenue of 10.5 million dollars or less, representing approximately 68 percent of the 1,141
commercial television stations listed in the BIA data base.
   Alternatively, if we look at owners of commercial television stations as listed in the
BIA data base, there are a total of 488 owners.  The data base lists estimated revenues for 60
percent of these owners, or 295.  Of these 295 owners, 158 or 54 percent had annual
revenues of 10.5 million dollars or less.  Using a worst case scenario, if the 193 owners for
which revenue is not listed are assumed to be small, the total of small entities would
constitute 72 percent of owners.
   In summary, based on the foregoing worst case analysis using census data, we
estimate that our rules will apply to as many as 1,155 commercial and non-commercial
television stations (78 percent of all stations) that could be classified as small entities.  Using
a worst case analysis based on the data in the BIA data base, we estimate that as many as
approximately 771 commercial television stations (about 68 percent of all commercial
televisions stations) could be classified as small entities.  As we noted above, these estimates
are based on a definition that we tentatively believe greatly overstates the number of
television broadcasters that are small businesses.  Further, it should be noted that under the
SBA's definitions, revenues of affiliated businesses that are not television stations should be
aggregated with the television station revenues in determining whether a concern is small.
Therefore, these estimates overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figures on
which they are based do not include or aggregate such revenues from non-television affiliated
companies.
   It should also be noted that the foregoing estimates do not distinguish between
network-affiliated stations and independent stations.  As of April, 1996, the BIA data base
indicates that about 73 percent of all commercial television stations were affiliated with the
ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, UPN, or WB networks.  Moreover, seven percent of those affiliates
have secondary affiliations.  We assume that compliance with the requirements adopted in
the Report and Order will be less burdensome for network affiliates than for independent
stations, as the networks may provide some core programming to network affiliates at lower
costs than the network affiliates might otherwise be able to obtain.  The networks might also
otherwise assist with the fulfillment of additional requirements.
       4.  Alternative Classification of Small Stations
   An alternative way to classify small television stations is by the number of employees.
The Commission currently applies a standard based on the number of employees in
administering its Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") rule for broadcasting.  Thus,
radio or television stations with fewer than five full-time employees are exempted from
certain EEO reporting and recordkeeping requirements.  We estimate that the total number
of commercial television stations with 4 or fewer employees is 132 and that the total number
of noncommercial educational television stations with 4 or fewer employees is 136.
   Size of the station based on the number of employees is only one factor in assessing
the impact of the compliance requirements on small stations.  For example, as discussed
below, the resources that may often be provided from the networks to network affiliates and
from program syndicators to broadcasters showing their programming should ease the
compliance requirements by providing educational program descriptions which can be used in
public information dissemination.  Small group-owned stations may also receive similar
benefits from their parent companies when programs have been produced or acquired for
multiple stations in the group.  However, we do not have the necessary information at this
time to determine the number of small group-owned stations, either under the SBA's
definition or based on those stations that have fewer than five full-time employees.
D.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Rules.
   The rules adopted in the Report and Order require commercial television
broadcasters, regardless of size, but not including LPTV or translator stations, to identify
programs specifically designed to educate and inform children at the time those programs are
aired (at the beginning of the program), in a form that is at the discretion of the licensee, and
to provide information identifying such programs and the age groups for which, in the
opinion of the broadcaster, they are intended, to publishers of program guides.
   Our rules currently require commercial licensees to complete reports containing
information about the children's programming they air, including time, date, duration, and
description of the programs.  These reports may be produced either quarterly or annually at
the licensee's discretion.  Licensees maintain these reports in their public inspection file.
   The new rules will require commercial television licensees to provide a brief
explanation in their children's programming reports of how particular programs meet the
definition of programming specifically designed to meet children's educational and
informational needs that is adopted in the Report and Order.  Licensees will be required to
produce their children's reports quarterly.  For an experimental period of three years,
broadcasters will be required to file these reports with the Commission on an annual basis
(i.e., four quarterly reports filed jointly once a year).  Broadcasters will also be required to
separate their children's programming reports from other materials in their public files and to
publicize in an appropriate manner the existence and location of the children's programming
reports.  The Commission will, at a later date, adopt a standardized form for the
programming reports.  We will also permit, but not require, electronic filing of children's
programming reports.  Finally, the Commission will, at a later date, revise its license
renewal form to reflect the new three hour core programming processing guideline, discussed
below.
   While licensees remain ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with our rules,
we anticipate that they may be able to refer to information provided by the broadcast
networks and program suppliers in assessing the educational and informational purpose of
programming.  Further, we anticipate that station programming and clerical staff will
continue to be able to perform the other reporting and recordkeeping functions required
under the rules.
   Under the new rules, commercial television licensees will also be required to
designate a liaison at the station for children's programming and to include the name and
method of contacting that person in the children's programming reports.  In order to
minimize burdens, the Report and Order exempts noncommercial educational television
stations from this requirement.  With respect to the liaison, the rules do not require that a
new or additional employee be hired to perform this function, and we believe that it is
reasonable to require licensees to designate a liaison for children's programming since
someone at each station must, as a practical matter, be responsible for carrying out the
broadcaster's responsibility under the CTA to air children's educational television
programming and since licensees are currently required to maintain children's programming
reports and letters received from the public in their public inspection file.
   To minimize regulatory burdens, the new rules exempt noncommercial educational
television stations from the foregoing reporting, filing, and submission requirements and
public information initiatives.
E.  Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered.
   In general, we have attempted to keep burdens on television broadcast stations to a
minimum, as discussed below.  The regulatory burdens we have imposed are necessary to
ensure compliance with the CTA.
       1. Public Information Initiatives
   We adopted the requirements that commercial television broadcasters identify
children's educational and informational programs and designate a liaison for children's
programming, as well as the revised public file requirements, based on the goal of affording
the public sufficient information to play an active role in assuring that the goals of the CTA
are met.  We will also make information obtained from the children's programming reports
available on our Internet World Wide Web site if it is feasible so that it will be accessible by
the public.  Allowing the public to play an active role will, in turn, allow the Commission to
minimize its involvement in evaluating the quality of children's programming and to rely
more on the marketplace to achieve the goals of the CTA, thereby minimizing regulatory
burdens.
   We determined that these information requirements should not impose significant
additional burdens on licensees, and, in adopting the rules, the Commission has attempted to
minimize regulatory and significant economic burdens on small businesses and facilitate
compliance with reporting rules wherever possible.
   a. Identification of Core Programming
   The burden of the on-air identification requirement on all commercial television
broadcast stations, including small stations, is minimized because the form of the
identification is at their discretion.  The rules adopted provide greater discretion to television
stations and are thus less burdensome than if we had adopted a requirement that broadcasters
use an icon for such identification, as suggested in the NPRM.  Further, such an
identification requirement may benefit small stations by affording a potential increase in
audience size.  An on-air identification requirement will make broadcasters more accountable
to the public and further the goal of minimizing the possibility that the Commission would be
forced to decide whether particular programs serve the educational and informational needs
of children.  We note that it is standard practice in the broadcast industry for stations to
make various on-air announcements promoting their programming.  We further note that
under longstanding Commission rules, stations must make station identification and
sponsorship announcements.  See 47 C.F.R.  73.1201, 73.1212.
   b. Program Guides
   Television stations currently submit programming information to programming guides,
which publish such information without cost to the broadcasters.  See  60 supra.  Our
current rules do not require broadcasters to provide this information to the guides.  However,
it has become a well-established practice to provide specialized information about programs,
such as which programs are closed captioned for the hearing impaired.  Our new rules will
require commercial television broadcasters to provide to publishers of program guides
information identifying core programs, and the age group for which, in the opinion of the
broadcaster, the program is intended.  This information will assist parents in finding
suitable programs for their children and be useful to parents and others who wish to monitor
station performance in complying with the CTA.  We recognize that broadcasters cannot
require publishers to print this information.  The information, however, is more likely to be
in the program listings if broadcasters routinely provide it.  This requirement is a minor
extension of what small stations already do for their standard programming.  Stations are not
required to purchase advertising space in TV Guide or local TV weekly publications, only to
provide information to them.  As broadcasters routinely provide such information about their
programming to program guides and designate core programs for their public records, we
believe it would require a minimum of effort, but have a major positive effect, for them to
do so.
   c. Public File Requirements
   Our rules currently require commercial television licensees to compile reports,
containing information about the children's programming they air, including the time, date,
duration, and description of the programs.  Licensees maintain these reports in the station's
public inspection file.  Our new rules will require commercial television licensees to prepare
these reports using a standardized format on a quarterly basis.  The reports will describe
their efforts to comply with the CTA-related programming requirements outlined in this
decision.  Licensees will be required to provide a brief explanation of how particular
programs meet the definition of "core" programming.  Commercial television licensees will
be required to separate the children's programming reports from the other reports they
maintain in their public files.
   The impact of this requirement will depend on the specific class into which a small
station falls.  Network-affiliated stations, regardless of staff size, may have network support
in fulfilling aspects of the reporting requirement for the programs that are broadcast by the
network.  For example, we assume that, in developing the educational and informational
programming they furnish to affiliates, networks will have prepared program information
about the educational and informational benefits to children that can be disseminated to
affiliated stations.  Assuming that the network furnishes such material, a small station may
be able to rely on it in preparing its programming report, with respect to the network
programs that it airs.  In addition, program syndicators may also provide the information
needed for a small station to complete its children's programming reports with respect to the
programs furnished by the syndicator, further lessening any burden on small stations.
   A small station that wishes to produce its own children's educational programming
will not have the benefit of any such material provided by a network or syndicator in
fulfilling the program report requirements.  However, assuming a determination of the
educational and informational attributes of the program has been made at the pre-
production/development stage, additional analysis may not be necessary in preparing the
programming report.  It is not required, nor should it be necessary, for a small station to
hire additional personnel or a children's educational expert to prepare such reports.  The
Commission considered but specifically rejected such a requirement in order to minimize
regulatory burdens on licensees.
   A number of broadcasters and other commenters requested that the Commission
develop a standardized form to facilitate their assembly of children's programming reports,
which they are required to do under our current rules. See Report and Order,  69 and n.
174 supra.  So that the reporting burden will be minimized, the Commission will develop a
standardized form to be used for preparing the quarterly children's programming reports.
We believe that the standardized form will make compliance with the reporting requirements
easier and less burdensome for all entities, including small entities.  See Report and Order,
 69-72.
   With regard to licensees publicizing the availability and location of the programming
reports, we believe that this requirement should not be burdensome on small entities because
we do not prescribe the manner in which licensees are to publicize the availability and
location of the reports, but allow the licensees flexibility to do so in an appropriate manner.
Therefore, licensees may choose to fulfill the requirement in a manner that is least
burdensome to them, provided they do so in an appropriate manner.
   Our new rules also require commercial television licensees 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.  Licensees already employ sufficient staff in
order to maintain the children's programming reports and letters received from the public
in their public inspection files, as required by our current regulations.  Thus, we do not
expect that the new requirement for designation of a liaison will impose a significant
additional burden on licensees.  The rules do not require that a new or additional employee
be hired to perform this function, and we believe that it is reasonable to require licensees to
designate a liaison for children's programming since someone at each station must, as a
practical matter, be responsible for carrying out the broadcaster's responsibility under the
CTA to air children's educational television programming.  In addition, our rules place no
limitations on the licensee's discretion in assigning the liaison function and determining how
it will be carried out.
       2. Definition of "Specifically Designed" Programming
   The CTA requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a broadcaster has
"served the educational and informational needs of children through the licensee's overall
programming, including programming specifically designed to serve such needs."  We
determined that we should adopt a definition of programming specifically designed to serve
children's educational and informational needs (or "core programming") because our current
definition is very broad, does not distinguish between general audience/entertainment
programs and programs that are specifically designed to educate and inform, and does not
provide licensees with sufficient guidance regarding their obligation to air "specifically
designed" programming as required by the CTA.  The definition is designed to be sensitive
to our concerns that the rules be explicit, clear, simple, and fair and that they afford clear
guidance to licensees as to their obligations under the CTA.
   In adopting the definition, we attempted to minimize regulatory burdens and economic
impact on small entities.  For example, the Commission rejected a proposal advanced by
several commenters that licensees be required to consult with educational experts in order for
a program to qualify as core programming.  Report and Order,  90.  The Commission
rejected this proposal in order to minimize burdens on our licensees.  An element of our core
programming definition is the requirement that commercial television licensees specify in
writing in their children's programming report the educational and informational objective of
a core program as well as its target child audience.  While we recognize this element of the
revised definition may impose an additional paperwork burden on commercial  licensees, we
conclude that the burden is outweighed by the benefits of the proposal.  See Report and
Order,  91-95.  The description of a program's educational objective does not have to be
lengthy, and we do not require that the description be prepared by an expert.
       3. Processing Guideline
   We adopt a three-hour per week safe harbor processing guideline.  A processing
guideline is consistent with the text of the CTA and with the First Amendment, and we
conclude that our current ad hoc approach provides inadequate guidance to licensees and
Commission staff.  Under the new processing guideline adopted, we would permit staff
approval of the children's programming portion of the renewal application where the three-
hour benchmark is met.  A measure of flexibility is afforded to licensees, including small
businesses, since a licensee falling somewhat short of this benchmark could still receive staff
approval based on 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.  In
this regard, specials, PSAs, short-form programs and regularly scheduled non-weekly shows
with a significant purpose of educating and informing children can count toward the three
hour per week processing guideline.  Renewal applications that do not meet these criteria will
be referred for consideration to the Commission, where they will have a full opportunity to
demonstrate compliance with the CTA.  Such applicants may be able to demonstrate
compliance, for example, by relying in part on sponsorship of core educational and
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 that enhance the value of children's educational and
informational television programming.  A processing guideline is consistent with the text of
the CTA that the Commission "consider the extent" to which licensees serve the "educational
and informational needs of children through the licensee's overall programming, including
programming specifically designed to serve such needs."  Report and Order,  120-130.
   In adopting this guideline, the Commission seeks to minimize the regulatory burdens
and economic impact on licensees, including small businesses, by delegating authority to the
Mass Media Bureau to approve Category A or Category B renewal applications.  See Report
and Order,  120-34.  Additionally, the Commission allows broadcasters scheduling
flexibility by adopting a per-week rather than a per-day safe harbor and by permitting the
three-hour benchmark to be averaged over a six-month period, and further attempts to
minimize the economic impact by allowing repeats and reruns of core programming to be
counted toward fulfillment of the three-hour guideline.
   With respect to network affiliates, we expect that networks, as they have in the past,
will provide programming and compliance information to their affiliates so that, regardless of
revenues, the burden on network-affiliated stations will be minimized.  Indeed, as noted in 
132 of the Report and Order, Westinghouse Electric Corporation has announced that it will
provide three hours per week of children's educational programming over the CBS network
and on its owned and operated stations by the fall 1997 season.  Further, we assume that the
three-hour per week guideline will not be burdensome because, as the National Association
of Broadcasters ("NAB") reports, broadcasters today air an average of more than four hour
per week of total educational and informational programming under the CTA.  See Report
and Order,  40.  Even though that figure may be inflated by the inclusion of some
programming that may not qualify under the definition of core programming, it suggests that
a three-hour processing guideline is a reasonable level that should not be particularly difficult
for broadcasters to achieve.
   The Commission considered but did not adopt two alternative options to the
processing guideline:  (1) Commission monitoring of the amount of educational and
informational programming on the air during a period of time following the adoption of
measures to improve the flow of programming information to the public and a definition of
core programming; and (2) adoption of a programming standard that would require
broadcasters to air a specified average number of hours of programming specifically designed
to serve the educational and informational needs of children.  The rule adopted furthers the
goal of making the Commission's rules and processes as clear, efficient, and fair as possible,
while affording licensees discretion to augment their core programming responsibility with
program sponsorship or other exceptional programming efforts.
   The Commission concludes that the option chosen strikes the appropriate balance
between the need for certainty and flexibility in enforcing the CTA and is thus preferable to
both the monitoring and programming standard proposals set forth in the NPRM.  It should
be noted that the option chosen, a processing standard, is less burdensome and affords
licensees, including small businesses, greater flexibility than if the Commission had imposed
a programming standard.  Based on the record, the Commission does not believe that three
hours of educational programming would be difficult for most broadcasters to achieve.
While mere monitoring might be less burdensome than a processing guideline, the
Commission concludes in the Report and Order that it is inadvisable to process renewals
under the CTA without some quantitative guidelines that are published in advance to provide
licensees notice as to means by which they can fulfill their CTA obligations.
   Finally, the Commission will revise its license renewal form to reflect the new three
hour core programming processing guideline.  To minimize the regulatory burden and
economic impact on broadcasters, including small businesses, they will be able to
demonstrative compliance either by checking a box and providing supporting information
indicating that they have aired an average of three hours per week of core programming or
by showing that they have 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.  In revising the
renewal form, we will seek to minimize the reporting burden on licensees, including small
businesses, by, for example, permitting them to rely on the children's programming reports
they have previously prepared.
F.  Report to Congress
   The Secretary shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis along
with this Report and Order in a report to Congress pursuant to Section 251 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, codified at 5 U.S.C. Section
801(a)(1)(A).  A copy of this FRFA will also be published in the Federal Register.                                APPENDIX  B
Part 73 of Title 47 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Part 73  RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
   1.  The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334.
   2.  Section 73.671 is amended by removing the Note following the section, revising
paragraph (a), and by adding paragraph (c) and Notes 1 and 2 to read as follows:
 73.671  Educational and informational programming for children.
(a) Each commercial and noncommercial educational television broadcast station licensee has
an obligation to serve, over the term of its license, the educational and informational needs
of children through both the licensee's overall programming and programming specifically
designed to serve such needs.
   * * * * *
(c) For purposes of this section, educational and informational television programming is any
television programming that furthers the educational and informational needs of children 16
years of age and under in any respect, including the child's intellectual/cognitive or
social/emotional needs.  Programming specifically designed to serve the educational and
informational needs of children ("Core Programming") is educational and informational
programming that satisfies the following additional criteria:
   (1) It has serving the educational and informational needs of children ages 16 and
under as a significant purpose;
   (2) It is aired between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.;
   (3) It is a regularly scheduled weekly program;
   (4) It is at least 30 minutes in length;
   (5) The educational and informational objective and the target child audience are
specified in writing in the licensee's Children's Television Programming Report, as described
in 73.3526(a)(8)(iii); and
   (6) Instructions for listing the program as educational/informational, including an
indication of the age group for which the program is intended, are provided by the licensee
to publishers of program guides, as described in 73.673(b).
   NOTE 1 to 73.671: For purposes of determining under this section whether
programming has a significant purpose of serving the educational and informational needs of
children, the Commission will ordinarily rely on the good faith judgments of the licensee.
Commission review of compliance with that element of the definition will be done only as a
last resort.
   NOTE 2 to 73.671: The Commission will use the following processing guideline in
assessing whether a television broadcast licensee has complied with the Children's Television
Act of 1990 ("CTA").  A 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) 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.
A licensee will also be deemed to have satisfied this obligation and be eligible for such staff
approval if the licensee demonstrates 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.  In this regard, specials, PSAs, short-form programs, and regularly scheduled
non-weekly programs with a significant purpose of educating and informing children can
count toward the three hour per week processing guideline.  Licensees that do not meet these
processing guidelines will be referred to the Commission, where they will have full
opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the CTA (e.g., 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).
   3.  Section 73.672 is removed and reserved.
   4.  New Section 73.673 is added to read as follows:
 73.673  Public information initiatives regarding educational and informational programming
for children.
(a) Each commercial television broadcast licensee shall identify programs specifically
designed to educate and inform children at the beginning of the program, in a form that is in
the discretion of the licensee.
(b) Each commercial television broadcast station licensee shall provide information
identifying programming specifically designed to educate and inform children to publishers of
program guides.  Such information shall include an indication of the age group for which the
program is intended.
   5.  Section 73.3526(a)(8)(iii) is revised to read as follows:
 73.3526  Local public inspection file of commercial stations.
(a) * * *
     (8)(i)   * * *
         (ii)  * * *
         (iii) For commercial TV broadcast stations, on a quarterly basis, a completed
Children's Television Programming Report ("Report"), on FCC Form 398, reflecting efforts
made by the licensee during the preceding quarter, and efforts planned for the next quarter,
to serve the educational and informational needs of children.  The Report for each quarter is
to be filed by the tenth day of the succeeding calendar quarter.  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 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.
Licensees shall publicize in an appropriate manner the existence and location of these
Reports.  For an experimental period of three years, licensees shall file these Reports with
the Commission on an annual basis, i.e., four quarterly reports filed jointly each year,
preferably in electronic form.  These Reports shall be filed with the Commission on January
10, 1998, January 10, 1999, and January 10, 2000.
   * * * * *
   6.  Section 73.3500 is amended by adding entry 398 in numerical order to read as
follows:
73.3500  Application and Report Forms.
   * * * * *
398Children's Television Programming Report                                APPENDIX  C
   The following parties filed comments in response to the FCC's NPRM:
Initial Comments
Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.
American Academy of Pediatrics
Apple Computer, Inc.
Association of America's Public TV Stations and PBS
Association of Local Television Stations, Inc.
CBS Inc.
Congressman Michael Castle
Center for Educational Priorities
Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors
Children's Broadcasting Corp.
Copley Entertainment, Inc.
Center for Media Education
Channel 6, Inc.
Children Now
Children's Defense Fund and Black Community Crusade for Children
The Children's Television Resource and Education Center
Children's Television Workshop
Children's TV for the '90s
President Clinton
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Cosmos Broadcasting, Cox Broadcasting, First Media TV, Paxson Communications Corp.,
and
River City Broadcasting
Curators of the University of Missouri
Ronald E. Davis
Donrey Media Group
Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Children's Network, and Fox Affiliates Association
Golden Orange Broadcasting Co., Inc.
August E. Grant
Great Trails Broadcasting Corp.
Prof. James T. Hamilton
Aletha C. Huston and John C. Wright
Larry Irving
KIDSNET, Inc.
Dale Kunkel
Senator Joseph Lieberman
Congresswomen Nita Lowey and Constance Morella
Maine Broadcasting Television Co.
Congressman Edward Markey
The Media Institute
Meredith Corporation
National Association of Broadcasters
National Broadcasting Company, Inc.
National Coalition on TV Violence
NATPE International
National Broadcast Association for Community Affairs
Newton N. Minow and Craig L. LaMay
Office of Communication United Church of Christ
OKTV (Our Kid's TV) Foundation
Senators Jeff Bingaman, Paul Simon, Paul Sarbanes, John Breaux, Patty Murray, Wendell
Ford, Daniel Akaka, Bob Graham, Richard Bryan, Herb Kohl, Howell Heflin, Dale
Bumpers, Ernest Hollings, Olympia Snowe, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Harry Reid, Jay
Rockefeller, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, John Glenn, Claiborne Pell, David
Pryor, Bennett Johnston, and Paul Wellstone
Arthur D. Sheekey
Tribune Broadcasting Company
The Walt Disney Company
Warner Bros. Television Network, Warner Bros. and Time Warner, Inc.
Westinghouse Broadcasting Company
U.S. Catholic Conference
Reply Comments
Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.
American Psychological Association
Association of America's Public Television Stations and PBS
Association of Local Television Stations, Inc.
Center for Educational Priorities
Center for Media Education
Children's Television for the '90s
Children's Television Workshop
Henry Geller
Dale Kunkel
Edward Markey
Monroe E. Price & Michael I. Meyerson
National Association of Broadcasters
National Broadcasting Company, Inc.
Named State Broadcaster Associations
National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters
Office of Communication United Church of Christ
Dorothy G. and Jerome L. Singer
Ellen A. Wartella NOTE:  Appendix D is available in the
WordPerfect and Adobe Acrobat versions of this file from
the Mass Media Bureau Home Page under "Orders." 
It may also be examined at the Commission's Public Reference Room
located at 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.