35158 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

by participating by webinar (See table 

below). 

1. To attend the stakeholder meeting 

in Arlington, Virginia: 

• Address—201 12th Street South, 

Arlington, Virginia 22202. 

• When you enter the building, take 

the East elevators to your right, up to the 

4th Floor reception area, 4E401, to 

check in. You will then be escorted to 

the conference room. 

• Nearest metro stations: Pentagon 

City, and Crystal City. Parking is 

available on the street and in the 

building. 

2. To participate at the Webinar by 

Phone or WebEx: 

By Phone— 

• Dial the toll-free conference number 

(Verizon): 1–866–718–1874. 

• Attendee access code: 242 716 6. 

By WebEx— 

• To log into the Webinar, go to: 

https://dol.webex.com. 

• Enter Meeting number: 642 399 450. 

• Meeting password: M!ne2018. 

A. Stakeholder Meetings 

SAFETY IMPROVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR MOBILE EQUIPMENT AT SURFACE MINES, AND FOR BELT CONVEYORS AT

SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND MINES STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS

[Dates, times, and locations] 

Date/time Location Contact No. 

August 7, 2018, 9 a.m. Central Time ...... Sheraton Birmingham Hotel, 2101 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd. N, Birmingham, 

Alabama 35203.

205–324–5000 

August 9, 2018, 9 a.m. Central Time ...... DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel, Dallas-Market Center, 2015 Market Center Blvd., 

Dallas, Texas 75207.

214–741–7481 

August 16, 2018, 11 a.m. Eastern Time Webinar .................................................................................................................... 202–693–9440 

August 21, 2018, 9 a.m. Pacific Time ..... Renaissance Reno Downtown Hotel, One South Lake Street, Reno, Nevada 

89501.

775–682–3900 

September 11, 2018, 9 a.m. Eastern 

Time.

National Mine Health and Safety Academy, 1301 Airport Road, Beckley, West 

Virginia 25813 (Auditorium).

304–256–3100 

September 20, 2018, 9 a.m. Eastern 

Time.

Hilton Albany, 40 Lodge Street, Albany, New York 12207 ..................................... 518–462–6611 

September 25, 2018, 9 a.m. Eastern 

Time.

Mine Safety and Health Administration (Headquarters), 201 12th Street South, 

4E401, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

202–693–9440 

II. Background 

On June 26, 2018, (83 FR 29716), 

MSHA published an RFI on Safety 

Improvement Technologies for Mobile 

Equipment at Surface Mines, and for 

Belt Conveyors at Surface and 

Underground Mines. MSHA is soliciting 

stakeholder comments, data and 

information on technologies that can 

reduce accidents involving mobile 

equipment at surface mines and belt 

conveyors at surface and underground 

mines. Specifically, the Agency is 

requesting information from the mining 

community regarding the types of 

engineering controls available, how to 

implement such engineering controls, 

and how these controls could be used in 

mobile equipment and belt conveyors to 

reduce accidents, fatalities and injuries. 

MSHA is also seeking suggestions from 

stakeholders on best practices, training 

materials, policies and procedures, 

innovative technologies, and any other 

information that stakeholders may have 

available to improve safety in and 

around mobile equipment, and working 

near and around belt conveyors. The 

meetings will provide the mining 

community an opportunity to discuss 

and share information about the issues 

raised in the RFI. Comments must be 

received or postmarked by midnight 

Eastern Standard Time on December 24, 

2018. 

David G. Zatezalo, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety 

and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15808 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4520–43–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket Nos. 18–202, 17–105; FCC 18– 

93] 

Children’s Television Programming 

Rules; Modernization of Media 

Regulation Initiative 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes to revise the 

children’s television programming rules 

to modify outdated requirements and 

give broadcasters greater flexibility in 

serving the educational and 

informational needs of children. The 

proposed revisions reflect the dramatic 

changes in the video programming 

marketplace since the children’s 

television programming rules were first 

adopted more than 20 years ago. 

DATES: Comments for this proceeding 

are due on or before September 24, 

2018; reply comments are due on or 

before October 23, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket Nos. 18–202 

and 17–105, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: http://

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although the Commission continues to 

experience delays in receiving U.S. 

Postal Service mail). All filings must be 

addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information, contact Kathy 

Berthot, Kathy.Berthot@fcc.gov, of the 

Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 

418–7454. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35159 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 18– 

93, adopted on July 12, 2018 and 

released on July 13, 2018. The full text 

of this document is available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY– 

A257, Washington, DC 20554. The full 

text of this document will also be 

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

cgb/ecfs/). Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats 

are available for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), by sending an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

The NPRM may result in new or 

revised information collection 

requirements. If the Commission adopts 

any new or revised information 

collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register inviting the public to 

comment on such requirements, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, the Commission will seek specific 

comment on how it might ‘‘further 

reduce the information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees.’’ 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. In the NPRM, we propose to revise 

the children’s television programming 

rules to modify outdated requirements 

and to give broadcasters greater 

flexibility in serving the educational 

and informational needs of children. In 

the more than two decades since the 

Commission adopted the children’s 

programming rules, there have been 

dramatic changes in the way television 

viewers, including younger viewers, 

consume video programming. 

Appointment viewing—watching the 

same program on the same channel at 

the same time every week—has 

significantly declined, while timeshifted viewing has risen. At the same 

time, the amount of programming for 

children available via non-broadcast 

platforms, including children’s cable 

networks, over-the-top providers, and 

the internet, has proliferated. Moreover, 

with the transition to digital television, 

broadcasters are able to carry more than 

one programming stream on their 6 MHz 

spectrum blocks. Thus, if given more 

flexibility, broadcasters can now 

provide a host of alternative children’s 

programming options outside of the 

primary stream, giving over-the-air 

(OTA) viewers access to additional free 

children’s programming. In light of 

these changes, and based on comments 

we have received in response to the 

Commission’s Modernization of Media 

Regulation Initiative proceeding, we 

think the time is ripe to modernize the 

children’s programming rules to 

improve broadcasters’ ability to serve 

the educational and informational needs 

of today’s young viewers. Our proposals 

are guided by the directives of the 

Children’s Television Act of 1990 

(CTA), which requires the Commission 

to consider, in its review of television 

license renewals, the extent to which 

the licensee ‘‘has served the educational 

and informational needs of children 

through the licensee’s overall 

programming, including programming 

specifically designed to serve such 

needs.’’ (47 U.S.C. 303b(a)(2)) 

2. Among other matters, we seek 

input on the Core Programming 

definition, the Commission’s processing 

guidelines, and updated rules on 

multicasting stations. In addition to the 

specific issues and proposals discussed 

in this NPRM, we also seek comment on 

whether there are any other changes to 

the existing children’s programming 

rules that we should consider. 

II. Background 

3. The CTA requires that the 

Commission consider, in reviewing 

television license renewals, the extent to 

which the licensee ‘‘has served the 

educational and informational needs of 

children through the licensee’s overall 

programming, including programming 

specifically designed to serve such 

needs.’’ The CTA provides that, in 

addition to considering the licensee’s 

programming, the Commission may 

consider in its review of television 

license renewals (1) any special nonbroadcast efforts by the licensee which 

enhance the educational and 

informational value of such 

programming to children; and (2) any 

special efforts by the licensee to 

produce or support programming 

broadcast by another station in the 

licensee’s marketplace which is 

specifically designed to serve the 

educational and informational needs of 

children. 

4. Initial Children’s Programming 

Rules. In 1991, the Commission adopted 

rules implementing the CTA. 

Specifically, the Commission defined 

‘‘educational and informational 

programming’’ as ‘‘any television 

programming which furthers the 

positive development of children 16 

years of age and under in any respect, 

including the child’s intellectual/ 

cognitive or social/emotional needs.’’ 

The Commission declined at that time 

to adopt specific requirements as to the 

number of hours of educational and 

informational programming that 

commercial stations must broadcast or 

the time of day during which such 

programming must be aired. Instead, the 

Commission simply required that 

commercial stations air some amount of 

educational and informational 

programming specifically designed for 

children 16 years of age and under. The 

Commission also adopted recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for 

commercial stations. Specifically, it 

required commercial licensees to 

maintain records on their children’s 

programming efforts, including a 

summary of the licensee’s programming, 

non-broadcast efforts, and support for 

other stations’ programming directed to 

the educational and informational needs 

of children, and to place these records 

in their public inspection files. In 

addition, it required commercial 

licensees to submit with their license 

renewal applications the summary of 

the programming and other efforts 

directed to the educational and 

informational needs of children. 

5. The Commission initially declined 

to impose any children’s programming 

requirements on noncommercial 

stations. The Commission noted that the 

legislative history of the CTA ‘‘portrays 

public broadcasting as a model for 

educational and informational 

programming which commercial 

broadcasters should emulate’’ and 

concluded that application of the CTA’s 

programming provisions to 

noncommercial stations is not required 

by the statute, its legislative history, or 

the public interest. On reconsideration, 

the Commission reversed course, 

concluding that the statutory obligation 

to meet children’s educational and 

informational needs applies to all 

broadcasters, including noncommercial 

broadcasters. However, the Commission 

continued to exempt noncommercial 

stations from the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements applicable to 

commercial stations, finding such 

requirements unnecessary given the 

commitment that noncommercial 

stations had demonstrated to serving 

children. The Commission instead 

required noncommercial stations to 

maintain documentation sufficient to 

show compliance at renewal time with 

the CTA’s programming obligations in 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
35160 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

response to a challenge or to specific 

complaints. 

6. 1996 ‘‘Core Programming’’ Rules 

and Processing Guidelines. The 

Commission revised the children’s 

programming rules in 1996, concluding 

that its initial regulations implementing 

the CTA ‘‘have not been fully effective 

in prompting broadcasters ‘to increase 

the amount of educational and 

informational broadcast television 

programming available to children.’ ’’ In 

order to provide broadcasters with clear 

guidance regarding their children’s 

programming obligations, the 

Commission adopted a more 

particularized definition of 

programming ‘‘specifically designed’’ to 

serve children’s educational and 

informational needs. The Commission 

labeled such programming as ‘‘Core 

Programming,’’ which it defined as 

programming that, among other things, 

has serving the educational and 

informational needs of children ages 16 

and under as a significant purpose, is at 

least 30 minutes in length, is aired 

between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 

10:00 p.m., and is a regularly scheduled 

weekly program. The Commission 

stated that although a program must be 

regularly scheduled on a weekly basis to 

qualify as Core, it would leave it to the 

staff to determine, with guidance from 

the full Commission as necessary, what 

constitutes regularly scheduled 

programming and what level of 

preemption is allowable. 

7. The Commission also adopted 

several public information initiatives 

designed to facilitate access to 

information about the shows 

broadcasters air to fulfill their obligation 

to air educational and informational 

programming under the CTA. The 

Commission reasoned that enhancing 

parents’ knowledge of children’s 

educational programming could result 

in larger audiences for such programs, 

which in turn could increase the 

incentives for broadcasters to air more 

educational programming. The 

Commission further concluded that 

access to programming information 

could facilitate viewer campaigns and 

other community-based efforts to 

influence stations to air more and better 

educational programming. These public 

information initiatives require licensees 

to provide publishers of program guides 

and listings information identifying core 

programs and the target age group for 

the programs; to submit children’s 

programming reports on a quarterly 

basis on a standardized reporting form, 

the Children’s Television Programming 

Report (FCC Form 398); to publicize the 

existence and location of their 

children’s programming reports; to 

provide a brief explanation in their 

children’s programming reports of how 

particular programs meet the definition 

of ‘‘Core Programming’’; and to 

designate a liaison for children’s 

programming and to include the name 

and method of contacting that 

individual in the station’s children’s 

programming reports. The Commission 

also required licensees to provide on-air 

identification of core educational 

programs, in a manner and form at the 

sole discretion of the licensee, at the 

beginning of the program. The 

Commission continued to exempt 

noncommercial licensees from the 

reporting requirements and also 

exempted them from the other new 

public information initiatives. 

8. Additionally, the Commission 

adopted a three-hour per week safe 

harbor processing guideline for 

determining compliance with the 

children’s programming rules. The 

Commission concluded that a 

processing guideline would provide 

broadcasters clarity about their 

programming obligations under the CTA 

and would minimize the inequities 

created by stations that air little Core 

Programming by subjecting all 

broadcasters to the same scrutiny for 

CTA compliance at renewal time. Under 

the processing guideline, the Media 

Bureau staff is authorized to approve the 

children’s programming portion of a 

licensee’s renewal application where 

the licensee has aired approximately 

three hours per week (as averaged over 

a six month period) of Core 

Programming. Renewal applications are 

divided into two categories for purposes 

of staff-level CTA review. Under 

Category A, a licensee can demonstrate 

compliance with the processing 

guideline by checking a box on its 

renewal application and providing 

supporting information indicating that it 

has aired three hours per week of Core 

Programming. Under Category B, the 

Bureau staff will approve the children’s 

programming portion of a licensee’s 

renewal application where the licensee 

makes a showing that it has aired a 

package of different types of educational 

and informational programming that, 

while containing somewhat less than 

three hours per week of Core 

Programming, demonstrates a level of 

commitment to educating and informing 

children that is at least equivalent to 

airing three hours per week of Core 

Programming. Specials, public service 

announcements (PSAs), short-form 

programs, and regularly scheduled nonweekly programs with a significant 

purpose of educating and informing 

children can count toward the 

processing guideline under Category B. 

Licensees have rarely attempted to 

demonstrate compliance under Category 

B due to uncertainty as to how much 

Core Programming must be provided. 

9. The Commission stated that 

licensees whose showings do not fall 

within Category A or B of the processing 

guideline will have their renewal 

applications referred to the full 

Commission, where they will have the 

opportunity to demonstrate compliance 

with the CTA by relying in part on 

special non-broadcast efforts which 

enhance the value of children’s 

educational and informational 

programming and/or special efforts by 

the licensee to produce or support 

programming broadcast by another 

station in the licensee’s marketplace 

which is specifically designed to serve 

the educational and informational needs 

of children. The Commission explained 

that to receive credit for special nonbroadcast efforts, a licensee must show 

that it has engaged in substantial 

community activity and that there is a 

close relationship between its Core 

Programming and its non-broadcast 

efforts. To receive credit for special 

sponsorship efforts, a licensee must 

demonstrate that its production or 

support of Core Programming aired on 

another station in its market increased 

the amount of Core Programming on the 

station airing the sponsored Core 

Programming. The Commission stated 

that relying on special non-broadcast 

efforts or special sponsorship efforts 

does not relieve a licensee of the 

obligation to air Core Programming, 

noting that the CTA permits the 

Commission to consider such special 

efforts only ‘‘in addition to 

consideration of the licensee’s 

[educational] programming.’’ The 

Commission declined to define the 

minimum amount of Core Programming 

that a station must air on its own station 

to receive credit for special efforts or to 

establish specific program sponsorship 

guidelines, concluding that these 

matters are best addressed on a case-bycase basis. Use of this option to 

demonstrate compliance with the CTA 

is even rarer than use of Category B 

because of the uncertainty as to how 

much Core Programming must be 

provided and how special nonbroadcast efforts and special 

sponsorship efforts will be weighed. 

10. 2004 Digital Broadcasting, 

Preemption, and ‘‘E/I’’ Symbol 

Requirements. In 2004, the Commission 

revised the processing guideline to 

address how the children’s 

programming requirements apply to 

digital broadcasters that multicast. 

Under the revised guideline, in addition 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35161 

to the requirement that stations air an 

average of three hours of Core 

Programming on their main program 

stream, digital broadcasters that choose 

to provide supplemental streams of free 

video programming have an increased 

Core Programming benchmark that is 

proportional to the additional amount of 

free video programming they choose to 

provide via such multicast streams. 

Specifically, digital broadcasters must 

provide one-half hour per week of 

additional Core Programming for every 

increment of one to 28 hours of free 

video programming provided in 

addition to that provided on the main 

program stream. Broadcasters are 

permitted to air all of their additional 

digital Core Programming on either one 

free digital video channel or distribute 

it across multiple free digital video 

channels, at their discretion, as long as 

the stream on which the Core 

Programming is aired has comparable 

carriage on MVPDs as the stream 

triggering the additional Core 

Programming obligation. To ensure that 

digital broadcasters do not simply 

replay the same Core Programming to 

meet the revised processing guideline, 

the Commission required that at least 50 

percent of Core Programming on 

multicast streams not be repeated 

during the same week to qualify as core. 

The Commission exempted from the 

additional Core Programming guideline 

any program stream that merely time 

shifts the entire programming line-up of 

another program stream. 

11. The Commission also revised its 

policies regarding when a station can 

count preempted Core Programming 

toward meeting the three-hour per week 

safe harbor processing guideline. The 

Commission determined that a 

preempted core program must be 

rescheduled in order to be considered 

Core Programming. Additionally, the 

Commission stated that it would 

consider, in determining whether the 

rescheduled program counts as a core 

educational program, the reason for the 

preemption, the licensee’s efforts to 

promote the rescheduled program, the 

time when the rescheduled program is 

broadcast, and the station’s level of 

preemption of Core Programming. The 

Commission exempted core programs 

preempted for breaking news from the 

requirement that core programs be 

rescheduled. With respect to digital 

broadcasters that multicast, the 

Commission stated that it would not 

consider a core program moved to the 

same time slot on another of the 

station’s digital program streams to be 

preempted as long as the alternate 

program stream receives MVPD carriage 

comparable to the stream from which 

the program is being moved and the 

station provides adequate on-screen 

information about the move, including 

when and where the program will air, 

on both the original and the alternate 

program stream. Further, the 

Commission limited the number of 

preemptions under the processing 

guideline to no more than ten percent of 

core programs in each calendar quarter, 

explaining that each preemption beyond 

the ten percent limit would cause that 

program not to count as core under the 

processing guideline, even if the 

program is rescheduled. The 

Commission exempted from this ten 

percent limit preemptions for breaking 

news. 

12. Moreover, the Commission 

amended its rules regarding on-air 

identification of Core Programming to 

require broadcasters to identify Core 

Programming with the symbol ‘‘E/I’’ and 

to display this symbol throughout the 

program in order for the program to 

qualify as Core. The Commission found 

that this amendment was warranted 

because studies of the effectiveness of 

the children’s programming 

requirements showed a continued lack 

of awareness on the part of parents 

regarding the availability of Core 

Programming and the use of different 

identifiers by different broadcasters was 

confusing parents and impairing their 

ability to choose Core Programming for 

their children. The Commission applied 

the revised on-air identification 

requirement to both commercial and 

noncommercial licensees. Although the 

Commission previously had exempted 

noncommercial licensees from the onair identification requirement, it found 

that requiring all licensees to use the 

E/I symbol throughout the program to 

identify Core Programming would help 

‘‘reinforce viewer awareness of the 

meaning of this symbol.’’ The 

Commission also revised the definition 

of ‘‘Core Programming’’ to include this 

on-air identification requirement. 

13. 2006 Reconsideration Order and 

Joint Proposal. In 2006, the Commission 

modified the children’s programming 

rules in response to petitions for 

reconsideration of the 2004 Report and 

Order and a Joint Proposal negotiated by 

a group of cable and broadcast industry 

representatives and children’s television 

advocates to resolve their concerns with 

the rules adopted in 2004. The 

Commission clarified that at least 50 

percent of the Core Programming 

counted toward meeting the revised 

programming guideline for multicasting 

stations cannot consist of program 

episodes that had already aired within 

the previous seven days on either the 

station’s main program stream or on 

another of the station’s free digital 

program streams. In addition, the 

Commission adopted the Joint Proposal 

recommendation to amend the 

Children’s Television Programming 

Report, FCC Form 398, to collect the 

information necessary to enforce the 

limit on repeats under the revised 

guideline. Licensees are permitted to 

certify on Form 398 that they have 

complied with the repeat restriction and 

are not required to identify each 

repeated program episode on Form 398, 

but must retain records sufficient to 

document the accuracy of their 

certification, including records of actual 

program episodes aired, and to make 

such documentation available to the 

public upon request. 

14. The Commission also accepted the 

Joint Proposal recommendation to 

repeal the ten percent cap on 

preemptions adopted in the 2004 Report 

and Order and instead institute a 

procedure similar to that previously 

used by the Media Bureau, whereby 

broadcast networks sought informal 

approval of their preemption plans each 

year. Under this procedure, a program 

counts as preempted only if it was not 

aired in a fixed substitute time slot of 

the station’s choice (known as a ‘‘second 

home’’) with an on-air notification of 

the schedule change occurring at the 

time of preemption during the 

previously scheduled time slot. The onair notification must announce the 

alternate date and time when the 

preempted show will air. All networks 

requesting preemption flexibility must 

file a request with the Bureau by August 

1 of each year stating the number of 

preemptions the network expects, when 

the program will be rescheduled, 

whether the rescheduled time is the 

program’s second home, and the 

network’s plan to notify viewers of the 

schedule change. Non-network stations 

are presumed to be complying with the 

Core Programming guideline and do not 

need to request preemption relief. 

III. Discussion 

15. As discussed above, the CTA 

requires the Commission to take into 

account the extent to which a broadcast 

television licensee ‘‘has served the 

educational and informational needs of 

children through its overall 

programming, including programming 

specifically designed to serve such 

needs’’ when evaluating its license 

renewal application. In addition to 

considering a licensee’s programming, 

the Commission is also permitted under 

the CTA to consider any special nonbroadcast efforts by the licensee which 

enhance the educational and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
35162 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

informational value of such 

programming to children and any 

special efforts by the licensee to sponsor 

educational and informational 

programming for children aired on 

another in-market station. While the 

CTA does not mandate a particular 

quantitative standard for children’s 

programming, the statute makes clear 

that all television broadcast stations 

must air some amount of programming 

specifically designed to serve children’s 

educational and informational needs. 

16. The video programming landscape 

has changed dramatically since the 

Commission first adopted rules 

implementing the CTA more than 20 

years ago. There has been a major shift 

in the way in which viewers, including 

children, consume video programming. 

Appointment viewing has declined 

sharply as viewers increasingly access 

video programming using time-shifting 

technology (e.g., DVRs and video on 

demand). Recent Nielsen data indicate 

that live TV viewing has been declining 

between 2% and 6% each year for the 

last four years in the U.S. Moreover, 

there is a vast array of children’s 

programming available on nonbroadcast platforms today. As NAB 

observes, myriad full-time children’s 

cable channels are flourishing, 

including Nickelodeon, Nick Jr., Teen 

Nick, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, 

and Disney XD, as are other channels, 

such as Discovery, Discovery Family, 

National Geographic, National 

Geographic Wild, Animal Planet, 

History Channel, and Smithsonian 

Channel, that provide educational and 

informational programming intended for 

viewers of all ages. In addition, overthe-top providers such as Netflix, 

Amazon, and Hulu offer a host of 

original and previously-aired children’s 

programming. There are also numerous 

online sites which provide educational 

content for children for free or via 

subscription, including LeapFrog, 

National Geographic Kids, PBS Kids, 

Scholastic Kids, Smithsonian Kids, 

Time for Kids, Funbrain, Coolmath, 

YouTube, and Apple iTunes U. Further, 

as part of their educational mission, PBS 

member stations, which make up 89 

percent of all noncommercial television 

stations, are required by the terms of 

their membership to air at least seven 

hours of educational children’s 

programming each weekday, far in 

excess of what is required under our 

safe harbor processing guideline. 

17. Furthermore, with the transition 

of broadcast television from analog to 

digital, broadcasters are now able to 

offer multiple free, OTA digital streams 

or channels of programming 

simultaneously, using the same amount 

of spectrum previously required for one 

stream of analog programming. As of 

February 2016, broadcast television 

stations were offering more than 5,900 

digital multicast channels. Multicasting 

allows broadcasters to offer additional 

programming choices to consumers, 

particularly consumers in smaller, rural 

markets, by expanding access to the four 

major broadcast networks (i.e., ABC, 

CBS, Fox, or NBC), other established 

networks (e.g., The CW, myNetworkTV, 

and Telemundo), and newer networks 

(e.g., MeTV, This-TV, and Grit). 

Programming content offered on 

multicast channels includes increased 

local news and public affairs coverage, 

sports and entertainment programming, 

foreign-language programming, religious 

programming, and children’s 

programming. We also note that in 

January 2017, PBS launched a 24/7 

educational children’s multicast 

channel that reaches 95 percent of 

households and ‘‘that is re-doubling the 

efforts of local stations to serve all 

children with curriculum-driven 

children’s programing.’’ And, Qubo, Ion 

Television’s 24/7 broadcast network for 

kids on one of its multicast streams, 

allows Ion to provide over 500 percent 

more children’s programming than what 

is required in our rules. The additional 

programming choices afforded by 

multicast channels today are 

particularly beneficial to households 

that rely exclusively on OTA 

programming. 

18. Given these developments, we 

believe that it is appropriate at this time 

to take a fresh look at the children’s 

programming rules, with an eye toward 

updating our rules to reflect the current 

media landscape in a manner that will 

ensure that the objectives of the CTA 

continue to be fulfilled. Our proposals 

set forth below are intended to provide 

broadcasters more flexibility in fulfilling 

their obligations under the CTA, while 

at the same time recognizing that 

particularized guidance may provide 

them greater regulatory certainty. 

A. ‘‘Core Programming’’ Definition and 

Requirements 

19. We seek comment on possible 

modifications to the definition of ‘‘Core 

Programming’’ to remove outdated 

requirements and provide broadcasters 

more flexibility in fulfilling their 

children’s programming obligations. As 

noted above, ‘‘Core Programming’’ is 

defined as programming that satisfies 

the following criteria: (1) It has serving 

the educational and informational needs 

of children ages 16 and under as a 

significant purpose; (2) it is at least 30 

minutes in length; (3) it is aired between 

the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; 

(4) it is a regularly scheduled weekly 

program; (5) the program is identified as 

specifically designed to educate and 

inform children by the display on the 

television screen throughout the 

program of the symbol E/I; (6) 

instructions for listing the program as 

educational/informational, including an 

indication of the intended age group, are 

provided to publishers of program 

guides; and (7) the educational and 

informational objective and the target 

child audience are specified in writing 

in the licensee’s children’s 

programming report. This definition has 

remained largely unchanged since its 

adoption in 1996. Given the evolution 

in the way Americans, including 

children, consume video now, we seek 

comment on potential changes to the 

Core Programming definition. 

1. Requirement That Core Programming 

Be at Least 30 Minutes in Length 

20. We tentatively conclude that we 

should eliminate the requirement that 

educational and informational 

programming be at least 30 minutes in 

length to be considered Core 

Programming. Elimination of this 

requirement would enable broadcasters 

to receive Core Programming credit for 

PSAs, interstitials (i.e., programming of 

brief duration that is used as a bridge 

between two longer programs), and 

other short segments. The Commission 

recognized that short segments can 

serve the educational and informational 

needs of children when it initially 

implemented the CTA in 1991 and again 

when it revised the children’s 

programming rules in 1996. NAB 

asserts, however, that the Commission’s 

decision to count only programs 30 

minutes or longer as core has effectively 

driven popular short segment 

programming such as ‘‘Schoolhouse 

Rock’’ and ‘‘In the News’’ from the air 

and that this reduction in the variety of 

children’s educational programming 

does not promote the public interest. 

We agree with NAB that short segments 

can be used effectively to educate and 

inform children. We seek comment on 

our tentative decision to eliminate the 

requirement that educational and 

informational programming be of a 

minimum length to be considered Core 

Programming. Are there additional 

studies or other data showing the 

benefits to children of educational and 

informational short segments? Are there 

any recent studies that evaluate the 

utility of short form programming 

relative to long form programming? 

21. Furthermore, if we eliminate the 

requirement that educational and 

informational programming be at least 

30 minutes in length to be counted as 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35163 

Core Programming, can we address 

concerns that short segments may be 

difficult to locate by requiring 

broadcasters to promote such segments? 

Moreover, if we eliminate the 

requirement that educational and 

information programming be at least 30 

minutes in length to be counted as Core 

Programming, we seek comment on 

whether we should count short segment 

programming on a minute-for-minute 

basis (e.g., 30 minutes of short segment 

programming would be equivalent to 30 

minutes of Core Programming) or in 

some other manner. 

2. Core Programming Hours 

22. We seek comment on whether the 

existing 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. time 

frame should be expanded and if so, 

what the expanded Core Programming 

hours should be. NAB suggests that we 

should expand the Core Programming 

hours to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. We seek 

comment on this suggestion. Is there 

data showing that a substantial number 

of children ages 16 and under watch 

television programming or view video 

content earlier than 7:00 a.m. and/or 

later than 10:00 p.m.? Commenters that 

propose alternative expanded Core 

Programming hours should provide 

support or justification for their 

proposed hours. What are the costs of 

the Core Programming hours 

requirement and what savings or other 

benefits would viewers receive if we 

expanded the Core Programming hours? 

For example, to what extent does the 

current Core Programming hours 

requirement limit broadcasters’ 

flexibility to air other desired 

programming, such as weekend local 

news and live sports programming? 

23. Alternatively, we seek comment 

on whether it is still necessary to define 

the time frame in which educational 

and informational programming for 

children must be aired to be considered 

Core Programming. The Commission 

adopted the current 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 

p.m. Core Programming time frame in 

1996 because then data showed that 

there was a relatively small percentage 

of children in the audience prior to 7:00 

a.m. and that the number of children 

watching television dropped off 

considerably after 10:00 p.m. 

Commenters assert that the 7:00 a.m. to 

10:00 p.m. Core Programming time 

frame has become unduly narrow given 

the decline in ‘‘appointment viewing’’ 

by viewers, especially young viewers, 

and the increased ability of viewers to 

access children’s programming using 

time-shifting technology. We seek 

comment on this view. We ask 

commenters to present studies or other 

data indicating the extent of 

appointment viewing by children ages 

16 and under. Is it reasonable to expect 

that the decline in appointment viewing 

by viewers over 18 extends to children 

16 and under? Do these studies or other 

data demonstrate that appointment 

viewing by children ages 16 and under 

has declined to the extent that there is 

no longer any need or that there is a 

significantly reduced need to require 

that Core Programming air during a 

prescribed time period to be counted as 

Core Programming? We note that DVRs 

that record OTA television are now 

available at a relatively low cost. Have 

such devices led to a decrease in 

appointment viewing of children’s 

programming for families that rely on 

OTA television? 

3. Regularly Scheduled Weekly 

Programming Requirement 

24. We tentatively conclude that we 

should eliminate the requirement that 

educational and informational 

programming be ‘‘regularly scheduled 

weekly programming’’ to be counted as 

Core Programming. The Commission 

adopted the regularly scheduled weekly 

programming requirement because it 

found that such programming ‘‘is more 

likely to be anticipated by parents and 

children, to develop audience loyalty, 

and to build successfully upon and 

reinforce educational and informational 

messages, thereby better serving the 

educational and informational needs of 

children.’’ We seek comment on 

whether, given the overall decline in 

appointment viewing noted above, the 

regularly scheduled weekly 

programming requirement is no longer 

needed to serve its intended purposes 

and whether it may in fact undermine 

broadcasters’ incentives to air a wider 

variety of children’s programming. If we 

eliminate this requirement, broadcasters 

could receive Core Programming credit 

for airing more types of children’s 

programming, such as educational 

specials that are not regularly scheduled 

and non-weekly children’s 

programming. We note, for example, 

that the ‘‘ABC Afterschool Specials’’ 

aired between 1972 and 1997 and the 

‘‘CBS Schoolbreak Specials’’ aired 

between 1980 and 1996 were popular 

and highly acclaimed. We seek 

comment on our tentative conclusion 

that the regularly scheduled 

programming requirement should be 

eliminated. Would elimination of the 

regularly scheduled weekly 

programming requirement likely 

incentivize broadcasters to invest in 

high quality educational specials and 

non-weekly programming? Is it 

reasonable to expect that broadcasters 

would be motivated to promote 

educational specials and non-weekly 

children’s programming to promote 

viewership? Do the costs of the regularly 

scheduled weekly programming 

requirement outweigh the benefits and, 

if so, how? 

4. On-Air Notification Requirement 

25. We tentatively conclude that 

noncommercial stations should no 

longer be required to identify Core 

Programming with the E/I symbol at the 

beginning of the program or to display 

this symbol throughout the program. As 

discussed above, the Commission 

adopted this requirement for both 

commercial and noncommercial 

broadcasters in 2004 to address 

concerns that there was a continued 

lack of awareness on the part of parents 

regarding the availability of Core 

Programming, finding that use of the 

E/I symbol could greatly improve the 

public’s ability to recognize and locate 

core programs at minimal cost to 

broadcasters. Although noncommercial 

stations previously had been exempted 

from the on-air identification 

requirement, the Commission 

concluded that requiring all stations to 

display the E/I symbol throughout the 

program would help ‘‘reinforce viewer 

awareness of the meaning of this 

symbol.’’ Public Broadcasting urges the 

Commission to eliminate this 

requirement for noncommercial 

stations, asserting that since the E/I 

symbol is intended to facilitate the 

children’s programming requirements 

that apply only to commercial stations, 

it is not rational to continue to apply 

this mandate to noncommercial stations. 

We think that the E/I symbol is 

sufficiently familiar to parents today 

that there is little benefit to requiring 

noncommercial stations—which are not 

otherwise subject to the reporting 

requirements and other public 

information initiatives applicable to 

commercial stations—to display the E/I 

symbol. We seek comment on our 

tentative conclusion to eliminate this 

requirement for noncommercial 

stations. If we eliminate the requirement 

that noncommercial stations display the 

E/I symbol, how will parents 

distinguish programming aired on 

noncommercial stations that is 

specifically designed to educate and 

inform children from programming that 

may be educational or informative but is 

intended for general audiences? 

26. Public Broadcasting also asserts 

that displaying the E/I symbol ‘‘creates 

technical and viewability challenges for 

PBS as it works to innovate by 

streaming across a wide range of 

platforms’’ and ‘‘is particularly 

disruptive on smaller screens.’’ In order 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
35164 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

to more fully understand this concern as 

a basis for eliminating the E/I symbol 

requirement, we request additional 

information on exactly what technical 

and viewability challenges are created 

for noncommercial stations when 

displaying the E/I symbol on children’s 

programming. Is the symbol generally 

added to programming prior to delivery 

to the station, or is it added at the time 

of broadcast by the station? How does 

the answer impact a broadcaster’s 

ability to remove the E/I symbol? Do 

stations send their signals to smaller 

devices, such as smartphones and 

tablets, through the same transmission 

that is used to send the signals to 

television set receivers or through a 

separate transmission? If separate 

transmissions are used, does that impact 

a broadcaster’s ability to remove the 

E/I symbol? Do these challenges arise 

when the E/I symbol is displayed in 

programming transmitted OTA to 

devices with smaller screens or do the 

challenges arise only when 

programming containing the E/I symbol 

is streamed online? If we do not 

eliminate the requirement that 

noncommercial stations include the E/I 

symbol on Core Programming displayed 

on television sets, should we 

nonetheless eliminate the requirement 

when the programming is transmitted 

OTA to and received by smaller devices, 

such as smartphones and tablets? 

27. We also request comment on 

whether we should continue to require 

commercial stations to identify Core 

Programming with the E/I symbol and 

display this symbol throughout the 

program in order for the program to 

qualify as Core Programming. To what 

extent do parents today use the E/I 

symbol to locate and choose Core 

Programming on commercial stations for 

their children? Do the costs to 

commercial licensees of the requirement 

to display the E/I symbol outweigh the 

benefits to parents? Does the current 

E/I symbol requirement cause undue 

technical difficulties for commercial 

stations or limit their flexibility to air 

programming on a variety of devices, 

including those with small screens? We 

seek comment from commercial 

broadcasters on the technical issues 

raised in the previous paragraph. If we 

retain the on-air identification 

requirement for commercial stations, 

should we afford commercial licensees 

greater flexibility to address any such 

technical difficulties by not requiring 

them to display the E/I symbol when 

consumers are viewing Core 

Programming transmitted OTA to and 

received by devices with smaller 

screens? 

5. Program Guides 

28. We seek comment on whether we 

should retain or eliminate the 

requirement that broadcasters provide 

information identifying programming 

specifically designed to educate and 

inform children, including an indication 

of the intended age group, to publishers 

of program guides. This requirement 

was intended to improve the 

information available to parents 

regarding programming specifically 

designed for children’s educational and 

informational needs and to make 

broadcasters more accountable in 

classifying programming as specifically 

designed to educate and inform. We 

request comment on whether this 

requirement continues to serve its 

intended purposes. Do program guides 

publish the information provided by 

stations? If not, why not? If so, do 

parents use program guide information 

today to identify educational and 

information programming for their 

children? If not, how do parents identify 

such programming? Is program guide 

information used by interested parties to 

ensure that broadcasters are properly 

classifying programming as specifically 

designed to educate and inform? How is 

the information provided to publishers 

of program guides made available for 

use by OTA viewers? Is this information 

only available in print form, such as in 

the newspaper or TV Guide? Is the 

information also passed along to 

interactive guides available on internet 

connected television sets or other 

devices capable of receiving an OTA 

signal? Do stations include information 

on their websites to identify their Core 

Programming as educational and 

informational? 

6. Reporting Requirements 

29. We seek comment on ways to 

streamline the children’s television 

reporting requirements to eliminate 

unnecessary burdens and redundancies. 

Currently, commercial television 

broadcasters are required to file a 

Children’s Television Programming 

Report on FCC Form 398 on a quarterly 

basis reflecting efforts made during the 

preceding quarter, and efforts planned 

for the next quarter, to serve the 

educational and informational needs of 

children. The report requires licensees 

to provide the average weekly number 

of hours of Core Programming aired by 

the station on its main program stream 

and any multicast streams over the 

quarter and to provide detailed 

information on each core and non-core 

program that is specifically designed to 

serve the educational and informational 

needs of children. The report also 

requires licensees to certify that at least 

50 percent of Core Programming aired 

on its multicast streams was not 

repeated during the same week, identify 

the program guide publishers to which 

information regarding the licensee’s 

educational and informational 

programming was provided, as required 

by our rules, list each core program that 

was preempted during the preceding 

quarter, and provide information about 

whether each such program was 

rescheduled in accordance with the 

Commission’s preemption policy. 

Licensees are required to place a copy 

of each quarterly report in the station’s 

online public file and to publicize the 

existence and location of the reports. 

30. We tentatively conclude that the 

Children’s Television Programming 

Report should be filed on an annual 

rather than quarterly basis, as proposed 

by NAB and other commenters. NAB 

asserts that the extraordinary detail 

required by the quarterly reports places 

undue burdens on television stations. 

NAB indicates that the reports of a 

single station that provides three 

program streams (one main and two 

multicast) generally range from 30–40 

pages per quarter and that a station 

whose reports average 40 pages per 

quarter will file 160 pages of 

programming details every year and 

approximately 1,280 pages during the 

station’s eight-year license term. NAB 

maintains that the quarterly reports are 

also redundant, as stations must identify 

every quarter the programs they expect 

to air in the next quarter and then in the 

following quarter must report on the 

programs actually aired. We seek 

comment on our tentative conclusion 

that these reports should be filed on an 

annual basis. We note that the quarterly 

reporting requirement was intended to 

‘‘provide[] more current information 

about station performance and 

encourage[] more consistent focus on 

educational programming efforts.’’ It 

does not appear, however, that requiring 

broadcasters to file these reports on a 

quarterly basis serves any useful 

purpose today. Does broadcasters’ 

educational and informational 

programming change significantly from 

quarter to quarter so as to justify the 

burden of quarterly reports? To what 

extent does the public use the quarterly 

reports to monitor station performance 

in complying with the CTA? Do the 

burdens to broadcasters of preparing 

these reports on a quarterly basis 

outweigh the benefits to the public of 

having this information on a quarterly 

basis? If we adopt an annual reporting 

requirement, we seek comment on when 

licensees should be required to file their 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35165 

annual reports. Should they be required 

to file within 10 days of the end of the 

calendar year, or is a longer filing 

deadline, such as within 30 days of the 

end of the calendar year, more 

appropriate? We also seek comment on 

whether we should revise our rules to 

require broadcasters and cable operators 

to place in their public files on an 

annual basis, instead of on quarterly 

basis as is currently required, records 

demonstrating compliance with the 

limits on commercial matter in 

children’s programming. Would such 

modification of the recordkeeping 

requirements result in any loss of 

accountability or transparency? 

31. Whether we adopt an annual 

reporting requirement or retain the 

quarterly reports, we tentatively 

conclude that the reports should only 

require broadcasters to provide 

information on the programs that they 

aired to meet their Core Programming 

requirement and not on the programs 

they plan to air in the future. There is 

no evidence that such duplicative 

reporting serves any useful purpose 

today. We seek comment on this 

tentative conclusion. 

32. In addition, we seek comment on 

whether the requirement that 

broadcasters specify the educational and 

informational purpose and the target age 

group of Core Programming in their 

Children’s Television Programming 

Reports continues to serve the objectives 

underlying its adoption. The 

Commission previously found that 

requiring a statement of educational and 

informational purpose will ensure that 

licensees devote attention to the 

educational and informational goals of 

Core Programming and how those goals 

may be achieved, assist licensees in 

distinguishing programs specifically 

designed to serve children’s educational 

and informational needs from programs 

whose primary purpose is to entertain 

children, and allow parents and other 

interested parties to participate more 

actively in monitoring licensee 

compliance with the CTA. Requiring 

licensees to specify the target age group 

of a core program was intended to 

encourage licensees to consider whether 

the content of the program is suited to 

the interests, knowledge, vocabulary, 

and other abilities of that age group, was 

specifically designed to meet the 

informational and educational needs for 

children under 16, and to provide 

information to parents regarding the 

appropriate age for core programs, 

thereby facilitating increased program 

audience and ratings. We request 

comment on whether the requirement 

that licensees specify the educational 

and informational purpose and target 

age group of Core Programming in their 

reports is still needed to serve these 

goals. Do parents rely on this 

information to plan their children’s 

viewing or do they use program guides 

or some other source of information? Do 

parents and other interested parties use 

this information to monitor licensee 

compliance with the CTA? To what 

extent does the E/I symbol obviate the 

need for this requirement? Do the costs 

of providing this information outweigh 

the benefits? 

33. We also seek comment on whether 

to streamline the report and permit 

broadcasters to certify their compliance 

with the children’s programming 

requirements, instead of providing 

detailed information documenting their 

compliance, as proposed by several 

commenters. For example, with regard 

to a station’s Core Programming, the 

streamlined report could require a 

licensee to certify that it aired the 

required number of Core Programming 

hours and that the programming 

complied with all applicable Core 

Programming criteria. To the extent that 

a station does not fully comply, the 

report would require the licensee to 

provide details concerning its noncompliance. We request comment on 

whether the detailed program 

information required by the current 

report is still needed for any useful 

purpose or whether certifications of 

compliance with the various children’s 

programming requirements would be 

sufficient. If we streamline the reports 

and eliminate the requirement to 

provide detailed program information, 

how would the Media Bureau staff and 

the public verify broadcasters’ 

compliance with the children’s 

programming rules? Similar to how the 

Commission addresses noncommercial 

stations, should we require commercial 

stations to maintain documentation 

sufficient to show compliance at 

renewal time in response to a challenge 

or to specific complaints? How has this 

process worked for noncommercial 

stations? 

34. What other certifications should 

be included in a streamlined children’s 

programming report? What information 

should the reports continue to require in 

more detail? For example, if a station 

relies in part on special sponsorship 

efforts and/or special non-broadcast 

efforts, should the report continue to 

require the licensee to provide details 

on these efforts? While we expect that 

the rule changes we are proposing 

should largely eliminate the need for 

preemptions of Core Programming, to 

the extent that a station does preempt 

Core Programming, should the report 

continue to require the station to 

provide detailed information on 

preemptions and any necessary 

rescheduling, or should a station be 

permitted to certify compliance with 

any preemption policies? 

35. We tentatively conclude that we 

should eliminate the requirement that 

licensees publicize their Form 398s. We 

note that licensees currently are 

required to place their Form 398s in 

their public files and we are not 

proposing to change this requirement. 

The additional requirement that 

licensees publicize their Form 398s was 

originally intended to ‘‘heighten 

awareness of the CTA and invite 

members of the public to take an active 

role in monitoring compliance.’’ We 

tentatively conclude that it no longer 

serves this purpose. We seek comment 

on our tentative conclusion. Does the 

requirement that licensees publicize 

their Form 398s encourage members of 

the public to seek out stations’ Form 

398s or to take an active role in 

monitoring stations’ compliance with 

the CTA? 

B. Processing Guideline 

36. We seek comment on whether we 

should modify the three-hour per week 

safe harbor processing guideline for 

determining compliance with the 

children’s programming rules. Under 

the Commission’s children’s 

programming processing guideline, 

Media Bureau staff is authorized to 

approve the children’s programming 

portion of a broadcaster’s license 

renewal application if the broadcaster 

has aired three hours per week 

(averaged over a six-month period) of 

Core Programming on its primary 

stream, and an additional three hours 

per week for each free 24-hour multicast 

stream. How has this requirement 

affected the delivery of broadcast 

content to consumers? What have been 

the costs and benefits of this 

requirement? What programming would 

broadcasters air if they were not 

constrained by our processing 

guideline? Commenters are encouraged 

to provide real world examples of the 

scheduling challenges associated with 

our current processing guideline. 

37. If we modify our requirement to 

carry children’s programming on the 

primary stream, how does this equation 

change? For example, if broadcasters 

were able to meet our processing 

guideline by delivering educational and 

informational programming on one of 

their multicast streams, would the 

scheduling burdens associated with this 

quantitative requirement diminish? 

What benefits could arise from such an 

arrangement? Could this additional 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
35166 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

flexibility incentivize broadcasters to air 

more children’s programming? 

38. Alternatively, if we maintain the 

processing guideline on the 

broadcaster’s primary stream, is more 

flexibility needed to address scheduling 

demands? For example, should the safe 

harbor processing guideline be based on 

the number of hours aired annually, 

instead of weekly? Under this 

modification, Media Bureau staff would 

be authorized to approve the children’s 

programming portion of a broadcaster’s 

license renewal application where the 

broadcaster has aired 156 hours per 

calendar year as opposed to three hours 

per week of Core Programming as 

averaged over six months. 

39. We seek comment on the merits of 

evaluating broadcasters’ compliance 

based on programming aired over the 

course of a year. Would an annual 

processing guideline provide benefits to 

broadcasters over the weekly guideline? 

What impact, if any, would an annual 

processing guideline have on viewers? If 

we adopt an annual processing 

guideline, should we nevertheless 

require that broadcasters air some 

minimum number or percentage of their 

Core Programming hours throughout the 

year, to ensure that they do not attempt 

to ‘‘stack’’ Core Programming by airing 

it all within a single week, month, or 

quarter and that children have access to 

educational and informational 

programming year-round? In addition, 

we seek comment on whether there are 

other adjustments to the current 

processing guideline we should 

consider and what the justification 

would be for any such changes. 

40. We also seek comment on the 

impact of our proposals in this NPRM 

on Category B of the processing 

guideline. Under Category B, a licensee 

can demonstrate compliance with the 

three-hour per week processing 

guideline by showing that it has aired a 

package of different types of educational 

and informational programming that, 

while containing somewhat less than 

three hours per week of Core 

Programming, demonstrates a level of 

commitment to educating and informing 

children that is at least equivalent to 

airing three hours per week of Core 

Programming. Specials, PSAs, shortform programs, and regularly scheduled 

non-weekly programs with a significant 

purpose of educating and informing 

children can count toward the 

processing guideline under Category B. 

For example, Media Bureau staff might 

approve the children’s programming 

portion of a renewal application based 

upon a showing that, while a station fell 

two hours short of meeting its Core 

Processing Guideline during a sixmonth period (i.e. an average of 2.92 

hours of Core Programming over the sixmonth period), it aired one hour of 

interstitial programming and an hourlong special. If we determine that the 

definition of ‘‘Core Programming’’ 

should be revised as proposed above to 

eliminate the requirements that Core 

Programming be at least 30 minutes in 

length and regularly scheduled (i.e., 

allow broadcasters to count specials, 

PSAs, short segments, and non-weekly 

programming towards their Core 

Programming hours), we seek comment 

on whether there is still a need for 

Category B. Are there other factors that 

should continue to be considered under 

Category B even if we eliminate the 

requirements that Core Programming be 

at least 30 minutes in length and 

regularly scheduled? For example, the 

Commission stated in 1996 that airing 

Core Programming or non-Core 

Programming during primetime and 

investing a substantial amount of money 

in developing Core Programming aired 

on the broadcaster’s channel would be 

relevant factors under Category B. 

Should these Category B factors still be 

considered if a licensee does not air the 

required number of Core Programming 

hours? If so, how much weight should 

we give these factors? 

41. In the event we decide to retain 

Category B, we seek comment on how 

to clarify or revise Category B to 

increase its certainty and predictability, 

as requested by commenters. According 

to NAB, Category B’s vague ‘‘somewhat 

less than three hours per week’’ 

requirement creates uncertainty as to 

how much Core Programming a licensee 

is expected to provide. For example, 

should we require that licensees 

utilizing the Category B option provide 

some minimum number of hours of Core 

Programming and if so, how many hours 

(under the existing three-hours per week 

processing guideline, as well as under 

the annual guideline option discussed 

above)? Are there other clarifications or 

revisions that could be made to make 

the Category B option a more viable 

alternative for broadcasters? As noted 

above, it is our intent in this proceeding 

to provide broadcasters greater 

flexibility, while at the same time 

ensuring that they have sufficient 

guidance on how to comply with the 

children’s programming rules. 

42. Additionally, we seek comment 

on whether there is still a need at all for 

a quantitative processing guideline for 

determining compliance of television 

licensees with the children’s 

programming rules. As discussed above, 

the CTA does not require the 

Commission to prescribe specific 

requirements as to the number of hours 

of educational and informational 

programming that television stations 

must broadcast. Rather, it simply 

requires that the Commission consider, 

in its review of television license 

renewals, the extent to which the 

licensee ‘‘has served the educational 

and informational needs of children 

through its overall programming, 

including programming specifically 

designed to serve such needs.’’ The 

three-hour weekly processing guideline 

was intended to provide licensees clear 

and timely notice of what they can do 

to ensure they meet their obligations 

under the CTA. Nevertheless, given the 

abundance of children’s programming 

available today from various sources, 

including PBS, cable networks, overthe-top video providers, internet sites, 

and video on demand, is a quantitative 

processing guideline for television 

stations still needed? We seek comment 

on the extent to which children’s 

programming available on 

noncommercial broadcast stations, cable 

networks, and other non-broadcast 

platforms is programming that is 

‘‘specifically designed to meet the 

educational and informational needs of 

children’’ and thus an adequate 

substitute for commercial broadcasters’ 

educational and informational 

programming. How has the availability 

of programming for children via nonbroadcast platforms changed since the 

CTA was enacted in 1990? Considering 

that Congress prescribed only a very 

general children’s programming 

requirement and gave the Commission 

the discretion in how to implement this 

requirement, is the amount of children’s 

programming available today on 

noncommercial broadcast stations, cable 

networks, and other sources relevant to 

a determination as to whether a 

quantitative processing guideline is still 

needed? We also seek comment on how 

the increase in other sources of 

children’s programming, changes in 

relevant viewing patterns, and other 

developments since the enactment of 

the CTA in 1990 may affect the First 

Amendment considerations applicable 

to the Commission’s prescription of 

broadcast television programming 

requirements in this manner. 

43. We also seek comment on what 

effect the elimination of the quantitative 

processing guideline would have on the 

amount of educational and 

informational programming available to 

children. What percentage of parents 

rely on OTA commercial television to 

provide programming serving the 

educational and informational needs of 

their children? Does OTA commercial 

television continue to be an important 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35167 

source of video programming, including 

educational and informational 

programming, for children of low 

income families? Are there current 

studies or data showing how much 

educational and informational 

programming children watch overall 

and on OTA commercial stations in 

particular? If we determine that there is 

no need for a quantitative processing 

guideline, how should the Commission 

evaluate a television licensee’s 

compliance with the children’s 

programming requirement under the 

CTA during the license renewal 

process? 

C. Special Sponsorship Efforts and 

Special Non-Broadcast Efforts 

44. We seek comment on the creation 

of a framework under which 

broadcasters could satisfy their 

children’s programming obligations by 

relying in part on special efforts to 

produce or support Core Programming 

aired on other stations in the market 

and/or special non-broadcast efforts 

which enhance the value of children’s 

educational and informational 

programming. The CTA permits the 

Commission to consider special 

sponsorship and special non-broadcast 

efforts, in addition to consideration of a 

licensee’s programming, in evaluating 

whether a licensee has served the 

educational and informational needs of 

children. However, few, if any, 

broadcasters have taken advantage of 

this opportunity to date. Broadcasters 

explain that this is because of the 

additional regulatory hurdles and 

uncertainty built into our existing rules 

for broadcasters that choose this option. 

Specifically, broadcasters note that our 

rules require the full Commission to 

approve the children’s programming 

portion of renewal applications relying 

on such special efforts and claim that 

there is insufficient guidance on how 

such special efforts will be counted. 

Thus, we seek to establish a framework 

that will make the use of special 

sponsorship efforts and special nonbroadcast efforts a more viable option 

for broadcasters in fulfilling their 

children’s programming obligations. 

45. The CTA states that special 

sponsorship and special non-broadcast 

efforts may be considered only ‘‘in 

addition to considering the licensee’s 

[educational] programming.’’ We seek 

comment on how much Core 

Programming a licensee should be 

required to air when it is relying in part 

on special sponsorship and/or special 

non-broadcast efforts. Should we 

require a minimum amount of Core 

Programming and if so, how much 

should we require? Alternatively, 

should we give broadcasters the 

flexibility to decide how much Core 

Programming to air, provided that their 

Core Programming hours when 

combined with their special 

sponsorship and/or special nonbroadcast efforts are the equivalent of 

the required Core Programming hours? 

As we have previously stated, we wish 

to give broadcasters flexibility in 

fulfilling their children’s programming 

obligations, but we also recognize that 

particularized guidance may provide 

them more regulatory certainty. 

46. In addition, we seek comment on 

how we should count a licensee’s 

sponsorship of Core Programming on 

another in-market station. NAB 

proposes that we count the sponsorship 

of Core Programming on another inmarket station on a straightforward 

‘‘minute-for-minute’’ basis (i.e., count 

each minute of a sponsored program as 

the equivalent of a minute of Core 

Programming). We request comment on 

this proposal and encourage 

commenters to suggest alternative 

proposals for quantifying sponsorship 

efforts. Should the size of the 

sponsoring broadcast station be taken 

into account in our analysis? For 

example, should we require larger 

broadcast stations to undertake more 

substantial sponsorship efforts (e.g., by 

sponsoring a greater number of minutes 

of Core Programming) than small 

broadcast stations in order to receive 

sponsorship credit? If so, how much 

more? How should we define ‘‘large 

broadcast station’’ and ‘‘small broadcast 

station’’ for purposes of such a 

requirement—based on annual 

revenues, market size, or some other 

measure? The Commission previously 

has stated that to receive credit for a 

special sponsorship effort, a broadcaster 

must demonstrate that its production or 

support of Core Programming aired on 

another station in its market increased 

the amount of Core Programming on the 

station airing the sponsored Core 

Programming. We tentatively agree that 

a licensee should not receive credit 

where its sponsorship results in no net 

increase in the amount of Core 

Programming on the other in-market 

station; rather, the licensee should be 

required to demonstrate that its 

sponsorship resulted in the creation of 

new Core Programming or expanded the 

hours of an existing core program. We 

seek comment on this view. 

47. We also seek comment on how to 

define ‘‘special non-broadcast efforts.’’ 

Under the CTA, special non-broadcast 

efforts must ‘‘enhance the educational 

and informational value’’ of a licensee’s 

programming to children. We request 

comment on the types of special nonbroadcast efforts that should receive 

credit under this provision. We note 

that PBS stations currently engage in a 

variety of non-broadcast activities to 

supplement their educational and 

informational programming for 

children, such as hosting educational 

events for kids at libraries, bookstores, 

children’s museums, science centers, 

theaters, and other locations in their 

local communities; partnering with 

local organizations, including schools, 

libraries, and summer camps, to keep 

kids reading and learning during the 

summer months; and providing free 

books and learning materials to children 

from low-income families in their 

communities. Are these the types of 

activities that should be credited as 

special non-broadcast efforts? Should a 

broadcaster receive credit for hosting or 

participating in an educational website 

for children that reinforces the themes 

or lessons in the broadcaster’s Core 

Programming? Under non-broadcast 

efforts, should the Commission take into 

consideration the availability of 

children’s programming that is aired on 

internet streaming platforms? For 

example, PBS has a dedicated website 

and app for its children’s programming. 

Are there similar on-demand outlets for 

children’s programming aired by 

commercial stations? Should it matter 

whether such content is accessible for 

free or on a paid or subscription basis? 

How should we count or weigh special 

non-broadcast efforts? For example, 

should we count each special nonbroadcast effort in which the 

broadcaster participates as the 

equivalent of a specified number of 

required Core Programming hours? 

Should some special non-broadcast 

efforts be assigned greater weight than 

others? 

48. Finally, we propose to allow 

Media Bureau staff, rather than the full 

Commission, to approve the children’s 

programming portion of renewal 

applications of licensees relying in part 

on special sponsorship and/or special 

non-broadcast efforts. The Bureau staff 

has substantial experience in evaluating 

the children’s programming efforts of 

license renewal applicants. Further, we 

note NAB’s comment that broadcasters 

would be unlikely to take advantage of 

this option if they are required to 

subject their license renewal to a nonroutine review by the full Commission. 

We seek comment on this proposal. 

D. Multicasting Stations 

49. We propose to allow broadcasters 

the flexibility to choose on which of 

their free OTA streams to air any Core 

Programming (or non-Core 

Programming, to the extent that a 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
35168 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

broadcaster relies on non-Core 

Programming to meet its children’s 

programming obligation). Under this 

proposal, broadcasters would not be 

required to air their Core Programming 

on their main program stream or on a 

stream that has comparable MVPD 

carriage as the main program stream. 

This approach would provide 

broadcasters with more flexibility to air 

Core Programming during hours when 

children are most likely to be watching 

TV and alleviate the need for 

broadcasters to preempt Core 

Programming when it conflicts with 

content such as public affairs 

programming and live sports. We seek 

comment on this proposal. NAB asserts 

that under the current rules, ‘‘[e]ven if 

a station devotes a significant portion or 

the entirety of another stream to 

children’s educational programming, it 

must still air E/I programming on its 

main stream. Such a requirement 

appears overly burdensome and 

unnecessarily restrictive, if not 

irrational.’’ Do our current rules 

disincentivize more broadcasters from 

airing additional children’s 

programming on their multicast streams, 

outside of our requirements? How 

would increased flexibility enhance the 

scheduling and delivery of broadcast 

content to viewers, both adults and 

children? 

50. We tentatively conclude that 

neither section 336 or the CTA 

mandates that a station fulfill its 

obligation to serve the educational and 

informational needs of children through 

its primary programming stream. In 

establishing the statutory framework for 

the transition to DTV, Congress stated in 

section 336(d) that ‘‘[n]othing in this 

section shall be construed as relieving a 

television broadcasting station from its 

obligation to serve the public interest, 

convenience, and necessity.’’ We 

tentatively conclude that a station can 

continue to serve the public interest by 

providing children’s educational and 

informational programming on a 

multicast channel. Indeed, this is 

consistent with the CTA, which requires 

that we consider at renewal whether a 

television licensee has served the 

educational and informational needs of 

children through its ‘‘programming,’’ 

but does not dictate that such 

programming must be provided on the 

primary stream. We believe that this 

meets the statutory obligation as 

outlined by Congress while continuing 

to serve OTA-only households and 

children that do not have access to 

alternative non-broadcast content. As 

Members of Congress recently stressed 

to the Commission, ‘‘‘Kid Vid’ rules 

remain important today, especially for 

the many underserved families who rely 

on free broadcast stations for 

educational content. Many families 

cannot access or afford the broadband 

speeds necessary for streaming online 

video and have trouble paying for 

monthly pay-TV subscription services. 

The ‘Kid Vid’ rules (and especially the 

mandatory programming hours 

requirement) make sure that these 

children have access to quality content 

to help them learn and thrive in 

school.’’ We believe that permitting 

broadcasters to air their Core 

Programming on a multicast stream 

would be the surest way to provide 

needed flexibility while at the same 

time allow broadcasters to continue 

serving this important segment of the 

population. We seek comment on this 

tentative conclusion. 

51. We also tentatively conclude that 

we should eliminate the additional Core 

Programming processing guideline 

applicable to digital stations that 

multicast. Under this guideline, 

broadcasters providing streams of free 

video programming in addition to their 

main program stream must air 

additional Core Programming based on 

the amount of programming that is aired 

on their multicast streams. Multicasting 

stations are permitted to air all of their 

additional Core Programming on one 

free video channel, or distribute it 

across multiple free video channels, at 

their discretion, as long as the stream on 

which the Core Programming is aired 

has comparable MVPD carriage as the 

stream whose programming generates 

the Core Programming obligation. 

Commenters note that when the 

Commission adopted this processing 

guideline in 2004, it stated that it 

intended to revisit the issues addressed 

in that proceeding within the next three 

years and consider whether its 

determinations should be changed in 

light of technological developments. In 

2018, we finally revisit this issue. 

52. Given the changes in how 

consumers access video programming 

and the growth in the amount and 

sources of educational and information 

programming available for children 

since the rule’s adoption in 2004, we 

tentatively conclude that the additional 

Core Programming processing guideline 

for multicasting stations is no longer 

needed. We also tentatively find that 

neither the CTA nor section 336 of the 

Act mandates that the Commission 

impose children’s educational and 

informational programming 

requirements on multicast streams. The 

CTA requires that we consider at 

renewal whether a television licensee 

has served the educational and 

informational needs of children through 

its ‘‘programming,’’ but does not dictate 

that such programming be assessed on 

a stream-by-stream basis. In addition, in 

establishing the statutory framework for 

the transition to DTV, Congress stated in 

section 336(b)(5) that the Commission 

‘‘shall prescribe such other regulations 

as may be necessary for the protection 

of the public interest, convenience, and 

necessity.’’ We tentatively conclude that 

children’s educational and 

informational programming 

requirements for multicast streams are 

not necessary for the protection of the 

public interest, convenience, and 

necessity. We seek comment on our 

tentative conclusions and ask 

commenters to provide input on the 

relative costs and benefits of the current 

requirements for multicasting stations. 

To what extent do consumers benefit 

from the additional Core Programming 

hours that currently must be provided 

on multicast channels under the 

existing processing guideline? Is this 

programming well-known to or 

frequently watched by children? To 

what extent does the current processing 

guideline increase programming costs 

for stations or require them to forego 

other programming options? 

53. We also seek comment on how to 

ensure that the current viewership of 

children’s programming is not reduced. 

Should the flexibility to choose on 

which free OTA stream to air required 

Core Programming hours come with 

additional public interest obligations? 

For example, if a broadcaster decides to 

air its Core Programming on a multicast 

stream rather than its primary stream, 

should it be required to air additional 

hours of children’s programming or 

provide some other service to its 

community? What other, if any, 

additional safeguards should apply? 

54. To the extent that we adopt our 

proposal to allow broadcasters to choose 

on which of their free OTA streams to 

air any Core Programming, we seek 

comment on how to apply our 

children’s programming rules to stations 

broadcasting in ATSC 3.0. In the recent 

order authorizing television 

broadcasters to use the Next Generation 

or ATSC 3.0 broadcast television 

transmission standard on a voluntary, 

market-driven basis, the Commission 

concluded that the ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 

3.0 signals of a Next Gen TV broadcaster 

will be two separately authorized 

companion channels under the 

broadcaster’s single, unified license. It 

further required Next Gen TV 

broadcasters to simulcast the primary 

video programming stream of their 

ATSC 3.0 channels in an ATSC 1.0 

format, so that viewers will continue to 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35169 

receive ATSC 1.0 service. The 

programming aired on the ATSC 1.0 

simulcast channel must be 

‘‘substantially similar’’ to the 

programming aired on the 3.0 channel. 

This means that the programming must 

be the same, except for programming 

features that are based on the enhanced 

capabilities of ATSC 3.0, 

advertisements, and promotions for 

upcoming programs. Although the 

Commission ‘‘encourage[d] those Next 

Gen TV broadcasters that elect to air 

multiple streams of ATSC 3.0 

programming to also simulcast more 

than a single programming stream,’’ it 

only required Next Gen TV broadcasters 

to simulcast their primary stream in 

ATSC 1.0 format. The Commission also 

concluded that each 1.0 and 3.0 stream 

is subject to children’s programming 

obligations. Accordingly, based on the 

rules adopted in the Next Gen TV 

Report and Order, if we adopt our 

proposal to allow broadcasters to choose 

on which of their free OTA streams to 

air any Core Programming, a Next Gen 

TV broadcaster that chooses to air its 

Core Programming on its primary 3.0 

video stream would be required to 

simulcast ‘‘substantially similar’’ 

programming, including any Core 

Programming, in 1.0 format. If, however, 

a Next Gen TV broadcaster chooses to 

air its Core Programming on a multicast 

3.0 stream, there is no current 

requirement that this programming be 

simulcast on a 1.0 stream—although the 

broadcaster would still have the 

obligation to air Core Programming in 

1.0 format. Given this, we seek comment 

on whether the flexibility of our 

children’s programming proposal 

requires us to modify our recent ATSC 

3.0 rules. For example, a Next Gen TV 

broadcaster may wish to air its Core 

Programming on its primary 3.0 video 

stream, but instead of simulcasting that 

Core Programming in 1.0 format, air 

unique Core programming on a 1.0 

multicast stream. Should we permit 

such flexibility? How would this 

flexibility impact the children’s 

programming available to 1.0 viewers? 

Similarly, how would it impact the 

other, non-children’s programming 

offered to viewers via the 1.0 stream? 

Should broadcasters be required to 

simulcast the Core Programming aired 

on the 3.0 multicast video stream on a 

1.0 multicast video stream? Are there 

other issues related to compliance with 

the proposed revisions to our children’s 

programming rules, as they relate to the 

ATSC 3.0 rules, that we should 

consider? We invite specific comment 

on what modifications to our ATSC 3.0 

rules, if any, may be necessary in light 

of the contemplated changes to our 

children’s programming rules. 

55. We acknowledge that MVPDs are 

not required to carry stations’ multicast 

streams, so it is possible that the stream 

on which a station chooses to air its 

required Core Programming would not 

be available to those viewing broadcast 

stations only through MVPDs. 

Nevertheless, the stream would still be 

available over the air and therefore 

should be available to children in 

households that do not subscribe, and 

therefore do not have access to, the 

myriad of children’s programming 

options available on cable or satellite. 

We note that the Commission has 

allowed multicasting stations to air all 

of their additional Core Programming 

(beyond the three-hour weekly baseline) 

on any free OTA stream only where the 

stream has MVPD carriage comparable 

to the stream whose programming 

generates the Core Programming 

obligation. We tentatively conclude that 

the comparable MVPD carriage 

requirement is no longer necessary. We 

believe that the MVPD comparable 

carriage requirement is less important 

today, given that viewers with MVPD 

service have access to cable children’s 

networks and likely also have access to 

children’s programming on over-the-top 

services and internet sites. We seek 

comment on this tentative conclusion. If 

we allow broadcasters to move all of 

their Core Programming off of their 

main program stream to a stream that 

does not receive MVPD carriage, do 

broadcasters have business incentives to 

ensure that the programming attracts as 

many viewers as possible? How do such 

incentives operate in connection with 

the broadcast of children’s educational 

and informational programming? Would 

the statutory purpose of 47 U.S.C. 303b 

continue to be fulfilled if we were to 

permit Core Programming to be moved 

off of the stream that is carried by the 

MVPD? 

56. If we adopt this proposal and 

broadcasters choose to move their 

required Core Programming from their 

main program stream to another free 

OTA stream, would there be a need to 

ensure that parents are able to locate the 

Core Programming? We note that for 

OTA viewers the multicast stream is 

located next to the main stream in the 

channel lineup. Nevertheless, should 

we require broadcasters to provide onair notifications to consumers that they 

intend to move the Core Programming 

from the main program stream to 

another channel? If we require them, 

how often and when should such 

notifications air? Should they be aired 

only on those days on which the Core 

Programming is broadcast or 

immediately before or during the 

broadcast of the Core Programming, to 

ensure that the notifications are seen by 

the programming’s existing audience? 

Should we also require broadcasters to 

post information about the move on 

their websites or allow broadcasters to 

use websites to notify viewers in lieu of 

on-air notifications? Alternatively, are 

there more relevant ways to educate 

viewers today? Should we give 

broadcasters flexibility in determining 

the best way to inform their viewers? 

Even after initially moving Core 

Programming to a secondary stream, 

should stations be required to publicize 

the availability of children’s 

programming on their secondary 

stream? 

E. Preemption of Children’s 

Programming 

57. We seek comment on whether we 

should revise our policies regarding the 

preemption of children’s programming 

or whether the added flexibility 

afforded to broadcasters by the other 

rule changes proposed in this NPRM, if 

adopted, would largely eliminate the 

need for preemptions. Under our 

existing policies, if a station preempts 

an episode of a core program for any 

reason other than breaking news, the 

station generally must air the 

rescheduled program in a previously 

selected ‘‘second home’’ and provide an 

on-air notification of the schedule 

change in order for the rescheduled 

program to count toward compliance 

with the processing guideline. 

Commenters complain that the 

restrictive ‘‘second home’’ policy 

unnecessarily burdens local stations— 

especially those stations that air live 

network sports programming and 

network and local newscasts on 

weekend mornings—and impairs their 

ability to reschedule preempted 

programs. We seek comment on whether 

the potential rule changes discussed 

above would provide broadcasters 

sufficient flexibility to schedule their 

Core Programming so as to avoid the 

need for preemptions. To the extent that 

commenters believe that these other rule 

changes would not fully address their 

concerns with the preemption policies, 

or if we do not adopt all of those 

proposals, we request comment on how 

to provide broadcasters greater 

flexibility in rescheduling preempted 

Core Programming. NAB proposes that 

we eliminate the ‘‘second home’’ policy 

and instead permit stations to air 

preempted core programs on the day, 

time, and OTA stream of their choice, 

provided that the broadcaster gives 

adequate notice of the rescheduled time. 

We seek comment on this proposal and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
35170 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

invite commenters to suggest alternative 

proposals to address their concerns with 

preemption issues. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

1. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in the 

NPRM. Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments provided on the first page of 

the NPRM. The Commission will send a 

copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

B. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

2. The Children’s Television Act of 

1990 (CTA) requires that the 

Commission consider, in its review of 

television license renewals, the extent to 

which the licensee ‘‘has served the 

educational and informational needs of 

children through its overall 

programming, including programming 

specifically designed to serve such 

needs.’’ The CTA provides that, in 

addition to considering the licensee’s 

programming, the Commission also may 

consider in its review of television 

license renewals (1) any special nonbroadcast efforts by the licensee which 

enhance the educational and 

informational value of such 

programming to children; and (2) any 

special efforts by the licensee to 

produce or support programming 

broadcast by another station in the 

licensee’s marketplace which is 

specifically designed to serve the 

educational and informational needs of 

children. The Commission adopted 

rules implementing the CTA in 1991, 

and revised these rules in 1996, 2004, 

and 2006. 

3. The existing children’s 

programming rules include a three-hour 

per week safe harbor processing 

guideline for determining a renewal 

applicant’s compliance with the rules. 

Under the processing guideline, the 

Media Bureau staff is authorized to 

approve the children’s programming 

portion of a licensee’s renewal 

application where the licensee has aired 

three hours per week (averaged over a 

six-month period) of ‘‘Core 

Programming’’ (i.e., programming that is 

specifically designed to serve children’s 

educational and informational needs 

and meets certain defined criteria). A 

licensee can demonstrate compliance 

with the processing guideline by (1) 

checking a box on its renewal 

application and providing supporting 

information indicating that it has aired 

three hours per week of Core 

Programming; or (2) showing that it has 

aired a package of different types of 

educational and informational 

programming that, while containing 

somewhat less than three hours per 

week of Core Programming, 

demonstrates a level of commitment to 

educating and informing children that is 

at least equivalent to airing three hours 

per week of Core Programming. Stations 

that multicast must provide an 

additional three hours per week of Core 

Programming for each full-time 

multicast stream that airs free 

programming. Licensees that do not 

satisfy the processing guideline have 

their renewal applications referred to 

the full Commission, where they have 

the opportunity to demonstrate 

compliance with the CTA by relying in 

part on special non-broadcast efforts 

which enhance the value of children’s 

educational and informational 

programming and/or special efforts by 

the licensee to produce or support 

programming broadcast by another 

station in the licensee’s marketplace 

which is specifically designed to serve 

the educational and informational needs 

of children. The children’s 

programming rules also include, among 

other requirements, procedures 

governing the preemption of Core 

Programming; quarterly reporting 

requirements; program guide 

requirements; a requirement to 

publicize the existing and location of 

children’s programming reports; and a 

requirement to identify Core 

Programming on-air with the E/I symbol 

and display this symbol throughout the 

program. 

4. In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposes to revise the children’s 

television programming rules to modify 

outdated requirements and to give 

broadcasters greater flexibility in 

serving the educational and 

informational needs of children. Many 

of the proposed revisions are based on 

comments received in response to the 

Commission’s Modernization of Media 

Regulation Initiative proceeding. These 

proposed revisions reflect the dramatic 

changes in the video landscape in the 

two decades since the children’s 

programming rules were adopted, 

including changes in the way television 

viewers, including younger viewers, 

consume video programming, the 

increase in the amount of programming 

for children available via non-broadcast 

platforms, such as children’s cable 

networks, over-the-top providers, and 

the internet, and the availability today 

of multicast channels which provide 

additional programming options for 

households that rely exclusively on 

over-the-air television. Among other 

matters, the NPRM seeks input on the 

following issues and proposals: 

• Requirement that Core 

Programming Be At Least 30 Minutes in 

Length. The NPRM tentatively 

concludes that the requirement that 

educational and informational 

programming be at least 30 minutes in 

length to be counted as Core 

Programming should be eliminated, 

which would allow public service 

announcements, interstitials (i.e., 

programming of brief duration that is 

used as a bridge between two longer 

programs), and other short segments to 

be counted as Core Programming. 

• Core Programming Hours. The 

NPRM seeks comment on whether it is 

still necessary to define the hours in 

which educational and informational 

programming must be aired to be 

considered Core Programming, and if so, 

whether to expand the Core 

Programming hours from 7:00 a.m. to 

10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 

• Regularly Scheduled Weekly 

Programming Requirement. The NPRM 

tentatively concludes that the 

requirement that educational and 

informational programming be regularly 

scheduled weekly programming should 

be eliminated, which would allow 

educational specials and non-weekly 

programming to be counted as Core 

Programming. 

• On-Air Identification. The NPRM 

tentatively concludes that 

noncommercial stations should no 

longer be required to identify Core 

Programming with the ‘‘E/I’’ symbol or 

to display this symbol throughout the 

program. The NPRM also seeks 

comment on whether to continue to 

require commercial stations to display 

the E/I symbol throughout Core 

Programming. 

• Program Guides. The NPRM seeks 

comment on whether to retain or 

eliminate the requirement that 

broadcasters provide information 

identifying programming specifically 

designed to educate and inform 

children, including an indication of the 

intended age group, to publishers of 

program guides. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35171 

• Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements. The NPRM tentatively 

concludes that the Children’s Television 

Programming Report, FCC Form 398, 

should be filed on an annual rather than 

quarterly basis and seek comment on 

ways to streamline this report. The 

NPRM also seeks comment on whether 

the rules should be revised to require 

broadcasters and cable operators to 

place in their public files on an annual 

basis, instead of on quarterly basis as is 

currently required, records 

demonstrating compliance with the 

limits on commercial matter in 

children’s programming. Additionally, 

the NPRM tentatively concludes that the 

requirement that broadcasters publicize 

the existence and location of their 

Children’s Television Programming 

Reports should be eliminated. 

• Processing Guideline. The NPRM 

seeks comment on whether to modify 

the three-hour per week safe harbor 

processing guideline for determining 

compliance with the children’s 

programming rules to make it an annual 

guideline, which would give 

broadcasters greater flexibility to air 

Core Programming based on scheduling 

demands. 

• Special Sponsorship Efforts and 

Special Non-Broadcast Efforts. The 

NPRM seeks comment on the creation of 

a framework under which broadcasters 

could satisfy their children’s 

programming obligations by relying in 

part on special sponsorship efforts and/ 

or special non-broadcast effort. In 

particular, the NPRM seeks comment on 

how much Core Programming a licensee 

should be required to air when it is 

relying in part on special sponsorship 

and/or special non-broadcast efforts; 

whether to count the sponsorship of 

Core Programming on another in-market 

station on a straightforward ‘‘minutefor-minute’’ basis or on some other 

basis; and on the types of activities that 

should be credited as special nonbroadcast efforts. The NPRM also 

proposes to allow Media Bureau staff, 

rather than the full Commission, to 

approve the children’s programming 

portion of renewal applications of 

licensees relying in part on such special 

efforts. 

• Multicasting Stations. The NPRM 

proposes to allow broadcasters that 

multicast the flexibility to choose on 

which of their free over-the-air streams 

to air their required Core Programming 

hours without regard to carriage by 

multichannel video programming 

distributors. Moreover, the NPRM 

tentatively concludes that the additional 

Core Programming guideline applicable 

to broadcasters providing streams of free 

over-the-air programming in addition to 

their main program stream (i.e., 

multicasting stations) should be 

eliminated. 

• Preemption Policies. The NPRM 

seeks comment on whether the policies 

regarding the preemption of children’s 

programming should be revised or 

whether other rules changes proposed 

in the NPRM, including elimination of 

the regularly scheduled weekly 

programming requirement and the 

requirement that Core Programming be 

at least 30 minutes in length, making the 

three-hour per week processing 

guideline an annual processing 

guideline, and allowing broadcasters to 

choose on which of their free OTA 

streams to air their required Core 

Programming hours, would provide 

broadcasters sufficient flexibility to 

schedule their Core Programming so as 

to avoid the need for preemptions. To 

the extent that commenters believe that 

these other rule changes would not fully 

address their concerns with the 

preemption policies, or some or all of 

these other rules changes are not 

adopted, the NPRM seeks comment on 

NAB’s proposal to eliminate the 

‘‘second home’’ policy and instead 

permit stations to air preempted core 

programs on the day, time, and OTA 

channel of their choice, provided that 

the broadcaster gives adequate notice of 

the rescheduled time. 

C. Legal Basis 

5. The proposed action is authorized 

pursuant to sections 303, 303b, 307, and 

336 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 303, 303b, 307, 

and 336. 

D. Description and Estimates of the 

Number of Small Entities To Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

6. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A small 

business concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

7. The rules proposed herein will 

directly affect small television broadcast 

stations. Below, we provide a 

description of these small entities, as 

well as an estimate of the number of 

such small entities, where feasible. 

8. Television Broadcasting. This 

Economic Census category ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting images together with 

sound.’’ These establishments operate 

television broadcast studios and 

facilities for the programming and 

transmission of programs to the public. 

These establishments also produce or 

transmit visual programming to 

affiliated broadcast television stations, 

which in turn broadcast the programs to 

the public on a predetermined schedule. 

Programming may originate in their own 

studio, from an affiliated network, or 

from external sources. The SBA has 

created the following small business 

size standard for such businesses: those 

having $38.5 million or less in annual 

receipts. The 2012 Economic Census 

reports that 751 firms in this category 

operated in that year. Of this number, 

656 had annual receipts of $25 million 

or less. Based on this data we therefore 

estimate that the majority of commercial 

television broadcasters are small entities 

under the applicable SBA size standard. 

9. The Commission has estimated the 

number of licensed commercial 

television stations to be 1,377. Of this 

total, 1,257 stations had revenues of 

$38.5 million or less, according to 

Commission staff review of the BIA 

Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television 

Database (BIA) on January 8, 2018, and 

therefore these licensees qualify as 

small entities under the SBA definition. 

In addition, the Commission has 

estimated the number of licensed 

noncommercial educational (NCE) 

television stations to be 390. 

Notwithstanding, the Commission does 

not compile and otherwise does not 

have access to information on the 

revenue of NCE stations that would 

permit it to determine how many such 

stations would qualify as small entities. 

10. We note, however, that in 

assessing whether a business concern 

qualifies as ‘‘small’’ under the above 

definition, business (control) affiliations 

must be included. Our estimate, 

therefore, likely overstates the number 

of small entities that might be affected 

by our action, because the revenue 

figure on which it is based does not 

include or aggregate revenues from 

affiliated companies. In addition, 

another element of the definition of 

‘‘small business’’ requires that an entity 

not be dominant in its field of operation. 

We are unable at this time to define or 

quantify the criteria that would 

establish whether a specific television 

broadcast station is dominant in its field 

of operation. Accordingly, the estimate 

of small businesses to which rules may 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
35172 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

apply does not exclude any television 

station from the definition of a small 

business on this basis and is therefore 

possibly over-inclusive. Also, as noted 

above, an additional element of the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the 

entity must be independently owned 

and operated. The Commission notes 

that it is difficult at times to assess these 

criteria in the context of media entities 

and its estimates of small businesses to 

which they apply may be over-inclusive 

to this extent. 

11. Cable Companies and Systems 

(Rate Regulation). The Commission has 

developed its own small business size 

standards for the purpose of cable rate 

regulation. Under the Commission’s 

rules, a ‘‘small cable company’’ is one 

serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers 

nationwide. Industry data indicate that 

there are currently 4,600 active cable 

systems in the United States. Of this 

total, all but nine cable operators 

nationwide are small under the 400,000- 

subscriber size standard. In addition, 

under the Commission’s rate regulation 

rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system 

serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 

Current Commission records show 4,600 

cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 

3,900 cable systems have fewer than 

15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems 

have 15,000 or more subscribers, based 

on the same records. Thus, under this 

standard as well, we estimate that most 

cable systems are small entities. 

12. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, also contains 

a size standard for small cable system 

operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator 

that, directly or through an affiliate, 

serves in the aggregate fewer than one 

percent of all subscribers in the United 

States and is not affiliated with any 

entity or entities whose gross annual 

revenues in the aggregate exceed 

$250,000,000.’’ There are approximately 

52,403,705 cable video subscribers in 

the United States today. Accordingly, an 

operator serving fewer than 524,037 

subscribers shall be deemed a small 

operator if its annual revenues, when 

combined with the total annual 

revenues of all its affiliates, do not 

exceed $250 million in the aggregate. 

Based on available data, we find that all 

but nine incumbent cable operators are 

small entities under this size standard. 

We note that the Commission neither 

requests nor collects information on 

whether cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million. 

Although it seems certain that some of 

these cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, 

we are unable at this time to estimate 

with greater precision the number of 

cable system operators that would 

qualify as small cable operators under 

the definition in the Communications 

Act. 

E. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

13. Reporting Requirements. The 

NPRM tentatively concludes that the 

Children’s Television Programming 

Report, FCC Form 398, should be filed 

on an annual rather than quarterly basis. 

The NPRM also seeks comment whether 

the requirement that broadcasters 

specify the educational and 

informational purpose and the target 

child audience of Core Programming in 

their Children’s Television 

Programming Reports continues to serve 

the objectives underlying its adoption. 

In addition, the NPRM seeks comment 

on whether to streamline the Children’s 

Television Programming Report and 

allow broadcasters to certify their 

compliance with the children’s 

programming requirements, rather than 

provide detailed information in the 

report documenting their compliance. 

14. Recordkeeping Requirements. The 

NPRM seeks comment on whether the 

rules should be revised to require 

broadcasters and cable operators to 

place in their public files on an annual 

basis, instead of on quarterly basis as is 

currently required, records 

demonstrating compliance with the 

limits on commercial matter in 

children’s programming. 

15. Other Compliance Requirements. 

The NPRM seeks comment on whether 

it is still necessary to define the hours 

in which educational and informational 

programming must be aired to be 

considered ‘‘Core Programming’’ and if 

so, whether to expand the Core 

Programming hours from 7:00 a.m. to 

10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 

Additionally, the NPRM tentatively 

concludes that the requirement that 

educational and informational 

programming be ‘‘regularly scheduled 

weekly programming’’ to considered 

Core Programming, which would allow 

educational specials and non-weekly 

programming to be counted as Core 

Programming. The NPRM also 

tentatively concludes that the 

requirement that educational and 

informational programming be at least 

30 minutes in length to be considered 

Core Programming should be 

eliminated, which would enable 

broadcasters to receive Core 

Programming credit for public service 

announcements, interstitials (i.e., 

programming of brief duration that is 

used as a bridge between two longer 

programs), and other short segments. 

16. The NPRM seeks comment on 

whether to provide broadcasters greater 

flexibility in scheduling their Core 

Programming by modifying the threehour per week safe harbor processing 

guideline for determining compliance 

with the children’s programming rules 

to make it an annual guideline. The 

NPRM also seeks comment on the 

creation of a framework under which 

broadcasters could satisfy their 

children’s programming obligations by 

relying in part on special sponsorship 

efforts and/or special non-broadcast 

efforts. The NPRM tentatively concludes 

that the additional Core Programming 

requirement applicable to multicasting 

stations should be eliminated. Further, 

the NPRM seeks comment on whether to 

allow broadcasters to choose on which 

of their free over-the-air streams to air 

their required Core Programming hours. 

17. Finally, the NPRM tentatively 

concludes that the requirement that 

broadcasters publicize the existence and 

location of their Children’s Television 

Programming Reports should be 

eliminated; tentatively concludes that 

noncommercial stations should no 

longer be required to identify Core 

Programming with the ‘‘E/I’’ symbol or 

to display this symbol throughout the 

program and seeks comment on whether 

commercial stations should be required 

to do so; and seeks comment on whether 

to retain or eliminate the requirement 

that broadcasters provide information 

identifying programming specifically 

designed to educate and inform 

children, including an indication of the 

intended age group, to publishers of 

program guides. 

F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

18. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance, rather than 

design, standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for small entities. 

19. The revisions proposed in the 

NPRM are intended to modernize the 

children’s programming rules by 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35173 

modifying outdated requirements, 

reducing recordkeeping burdens on 

broadcasters and cable operators, and 

giving broadcasters greater flexibility in 

fulfilling their children’s programming 

obligations. Thus, we expect that the 

proposed revisions, if adopted, will only 

benefit affected small entities. 

G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

20. None 

H. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

21. This document contains proposed 

modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

the Commission will seek specific 

comment on how we might further 

reduce the information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees. 

I. Ex Parte Rules 

22. Permit-But-Disclose. This 

proceeding shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with section 

1.1206(b) of the rules. In proceedings 

governed by section 1.49(f) of the rules 

or for which the Commission has made 

available a method of electronic filing, 

written ex parte presentations and 

memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

J. Filing Procedures 

23. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th Street SW, TW–A325, Washington, 

DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. 

to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be 

held together with rubber bands or 

fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes 

must be disposed of before entering the 

building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

24. Availability of Documents. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY– 

A257, Washington, DC 20554. These 

documents will also be available via 

ECFS. Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 

and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

25. People with Disabilities. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (Braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 

or call the FCC’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

V. Ordering Clauses 

26. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority found in 

sections 303, 303b, 307, and 336 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 303, 303b, 307, and 

336 this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

is adopted. 

27. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 73 and 

76 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Television, Cable 

television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—Radio Broadcast Services 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

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

and 339. 

■ 2. Amend § 73.671 by removing 

paragraphs (c)(3) and (4), redesignating 

paragraphs (c)(5) through (7) as 

paragraphs (c)(3) through (5), and 

revising redesignated paragraph (c)(3) to 

read as follows: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
35174 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

§ 73.671 Educational and informational 

programming for children. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) For commercial broadcast stations 

only, the program is identified as 

specifically designed to educate and 

inform children by the display on the 

television screen throughout the 

program of the symbol E/I; 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 73.671 by removing 

paragraph (d), redesignating paragraph 

(e) as paragraph (d), and revising 

redesignated paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 73.671 Educational and informational 

programming for children. 

* * * * * 

(d) The Commission will apply the 

following processing guideline to digital 

stations in assessing whether a 

television broadcast licensee has 

complied with the Children’s Television 

Act of 1990 (‘‘CTA’’) on its digital 

channel(s). A digital television licensee 

that has aired at least three hours per 

week of Core Programming (as defined 

in paragraph (c) of this section and as 

averaged over a six month period) on its 

main program stream will be deemed to 

have satisfied its obligation to air such 

programming and shall have the CTA 

portion of its license renewal 

application approved by the 

Commission staff. The licensee may air 

all of the Core Programing on its main 

program stream or on another free 

program stream, or may distribute it 

across multiple free program streams, at 

its discretion. Licensees that do not 

meet this processing guidelines will 

have full opportunity to demonstrate 

compliance with the CTA and be 

eligible for such staff approval by 

relying in part on sponsorship of Core 

educational/informational programs on 

other stations in the market that 

increases the amount of Core 

educational and informational 

programming on the station airing the 

sponsored program and/or on special 

nonbroadcast efforts which enhance the 

value of children’s educational and 

informational television programming. 

■ 4. Amend 73.3526 by revising 

paragraph (e)(11)(iii) to read as follows: 

§ 73.3526 Local public inspection file of 

commercial stations. 

(e) * * * 

(11) * * * 

(iii) Children’s television 

programming reports. For commercial 

TV broadcast stations on an annual 

basis, a completed Children’s Television 

Programming Report (‘‘Report’’), on FCC 

Form 398, reflecting efforts made by the 

licensee during the preceding year to 

serve the educational and informational 

needs of children. The Report is to be 

placed in the public inspection file by 

the tenth day of the succeeding calendar 

year. By this date, a copy of the Report 

is also to be filed electronically with the 

FCC. The Report shall identify the 

licensee’s educational and informational 

programming efforts, including 

programs aired by the station that are 

specifically designed to serve the 

educational and informational needs of 

children, and it shall explain how 

programs identified as Core 

Programming meet the definition set 

forth in § 73.671(c). The Report shall 

include the name of the individual at 

the station responsible for collecting 

comments on the station’s compliance 

with the Children’s Television Act, and 

it shall be separated from other 

materials in the public inspection file. 

The Report shall also identify the 

program guide publishers to which 

information regarding the licensee’s 

educational and informational 

programming was provided as required 

in § 73.673, as well as the station’s 

license renewal date. These Reports 

shall be retained in the public 

inspection file until final action has 

been taken on the station’s next license 

renewal application. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–15819 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2018–0007; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BC97 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revision of the 

Regulations for Prohibitions to 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, propose to revise our 

regulations extending most of the 

prohibitions for activities involving 

endangered species to threatened 

species. For species already listed as a 

threatened species, the proposed 

regulations would not alter the 

applicable prohibitions. The proposed 

regulations would require the Service, 

pursuant to section 4(d) of the 

Endangered Species Act, to determine 

what, if any, protective regulations are 

appropriate for species that the Service 

in the future determines to be 

threatened. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

September 24, 2018. Comments 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–HQ–ES–2018–0007, which 

is the docket number for this 

rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel 

on the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, click on the 

Proposed Rules link to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–ES–2018– 

0007; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Request 

for Information, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bridget Fahey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Conservation and 

Classification, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803, telephone 

703/358–2171. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 

800/877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended (‘‘ESA’’ or ‘‘Act’’; 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.), states that the purposes of 

the Act are to provide a means to 

conserve the ecosystems upon which 

listed species depend, to develop a 

program for the conservation of listed 

species, and to achieve the purposes of 

certain treaties and conventions. 

Moreover, the Act states that it is the 

policy of Congress that the Federal 

Government will seek to conserve 

threatened and endangered species and 

use its authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act. This proposed 

rulemaking action pertains primarily to 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS