WPC# 2B3T 3|P )Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (TT)44HPLAIISI.WRSx  @,,,!SX@2/-@m Z}VCG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)3|wHP LaserJet IIISiL2 244HPLAIISI.WRSC\  P6Q,,,!SPTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)CG Times (WN)CG Times (WN) (Bold)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)CG Times (WN)CG Times (WN) (Bold)CG Times (WN) (Italic)CG Times (WN) (Bold Italic)D&8C;,3X PjQXP2qav pk X0 Figure 1  Figure 1 #XP\  P6QCXP#a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2kvt)a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2_  i   a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2  F   a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2 xa8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 21f a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2-3a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2ePleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#P2!$d4%& 'XE!HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd$+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date% X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off&@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance'2&(1!)1#*11$+1b%LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5( 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5)f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11*L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14+ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   2u(,n&-X3'.'/i (TITLETitle of a Document,K\ * ăFOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| X2,0d(1j )2u)3E+HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large0B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored1 V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins2u H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice3 ,, $0$0  2I24- -588.68p/70MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format4D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice5:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro6z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX 238X{29[2:[.3;[3NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle8SMALLSmall Typestyle9FINEFine Typestyle:LARGELarge Typestyle;26<[4=[q4>4?O6EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   footnote tex#?']#d6X@C@#29@7A}7B7C8head1 #@'d#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfA$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfB/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfC:` ` `  2<DI9E9F:GD;a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfDE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfEP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfF[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfGf  2KH5<@<@A@_Fa8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfHq "5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BE7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fExTxTxTxo7oE\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^ee*B`^-wSTTn[Cfx`xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBdddddd3hH<,Eh2p NQe ;,%,;2PQP2@@΂@bN"5@^J,JJCJJ%JJCoJJJJ,C%JC`CCC-#-N%,,,,57,JRYJYJYJYJYJw`CYJYJYJYJ%%%%%%%%`JhJhJhJhJ`J`J`J`JYCYJ`JhRhJYC`JYJYJYJYJ`C`C`CYJYJYJhJhJhhJhJ`J`J5R,R,,%RCYCJJ7`J`JhJ~`,`7YCYCN/%HJ,RJJJJJ11ooJ,bbJo,,,J,,JJ,,,t,IIIINQQ!5MN$n_BjnJJfffXsICR`M`FVB`IJIOQ:R:\MfF`Ij[f[T_SQddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd%%/JJwY,,4N%,%%JJJJJJJJJJ%%NNNJYY``YRh`%CYJo`hYh`YR`Y~YYR%%%>J,JJCJJ%JJCoJJJJ,C%JC`CCC-#-NdddJ,JJ,Y,dddd,,/J,C,~ddY%,JJJJ#J,b1JN,bJ5I,,,MH%,,1JoooRYYYYYY`YYYY%%%%``hhhhhNh````YYRJJJJJJwCJJJJ%%%%JJJJJJJIRJJJJCJ"5@^%,?JJw` ,,4N%,%%JJJJJJJJJJ,,NNNR````YRh`%J`Ro`hYh`YR`Y~YYR,%,NJ,JRJRJ,RR%%J%wRRRR4J,RJhJJC4%4N%,,,,57,JR`J`J`J`J`Jw`JYJYJYJYJ%%%%%%%%`RhRhRhRhR`R`R`R`RYJ`J`RhRhRYJ`RYR`J`J`J`J`J`JYJYJYJhRhRhhRhR`R`R5R,R,,%RJ`JR%R7`R`RhR~`4`7YJYJN/%JJ,RJJJJJ11ooJ,bbJo,%%CCJ,,JJ%C,,t,IIIINQQ!5MN$n_BjnJJfffXsICR`M`FVB`IJIOQ:R:\MfF`Ij[f[T_SQddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd%,?JJw` ,,4N%,%%JJJJJJJJJJ,,NNNR````YRh`%J`Ro`hYh`YR`Y~YYR,%,NJ,JRJRJ,RR%%J%wRRRR4J,RJhJJC4%4Nddd%JCJJ,Y,dddd%%CC/J,J,~ddY%,JJJJ%J,b1JN,bJ5I,,,MJ%,,1JoooR```````YYYY%%%%``hhhhhNh````YYRJJJJJJwJJJJJ%%%%RRRRRRRIRRRRRJRy.C8*,/C\  P6QP7PC2,CXP\  P6QXP.7UC2,XU4  pQXD&8C;,3X PjQXPD&V"V(#,3ΡhV PjQhPI(!,ϯ,(\  P6Q,P&7C;,AVaX_ p QX.y.G8*,`G4  pQ&6zC;,V3hH<,Eh2p NQe ;,%,;2PQP>f@,%,@2p NQ&/z=6,mM&z*0 x}BQ&1XC8,jXX2PQXP2Ɲ@@"dbR"5@^88Goo&BBNu8B88oooooooooo88uuuoˆz8dozz888^oBoodoo8oo--d-ooooBd8oddddC4Cu8BB!BBPRBnzoooooȲdoooo88888888ooooooooodoozodooooodddoooooooooPzBzBB8zddo-oRoooȽBRddNF8loBzoooooJIoBoB--BBoBBoo-BBBtBnnnnuyy2Psu6coonCzshbnonvyXzXshn~|y88Goo&BBNu8B88oooooooooo88uuuoˆz8dozz888^oBoodoo8oo--d-ooooBd8oddddC4Cu-oBooBȆBȖ--BBFoBdB8Boooo4oBJouBnPnBBBsl8BBIozȐ8888uzoooooodoooo8888ooooooonzoooodo"5@^8B_oo0BBNu8B88ooooooooooBBuuuzÐz8ozzzB8BuoBozozoBzz88o8zzzzNoBzooodN8Nu8BB!BBPRBnzoooooȲooooo88888888zzzzzzzzzoozzzozzooooooooozzzzzzPzBzBB8zooz8zRzzzȽNRooNF8ooBzoooooJIoBoB88ddoBBoo8dBBtBnnnnuyy2Psu6coonCzshbnonvyXzXshn~|y8B_oo0BBNu8B88ooooooooooBBuuuzÐz8ozzzB8BuoBozozoBzz88o8zzzzNoBzooodN8Nu8odooBȆBȖ88ddFoBoB8Boooo8oBJouBnPnBBBso8BBIozȐ8888uzooooooooooo8888zzzzzzznzzzzzozy.C8*,/C\  P6QP7PC2,CXP\  P6QXP.7UC2,XU4  pQXD&8C;,3X PjQXPD&V"V(#,3ΡhV PjQhPI(!,ϯ,(\  P6Q,P&7C;,AVaX_ p QX.y.G8*,`G4  pQ&6zC;,V3hH<,Eh2p NQe ;,%,;2PQP>f@,%,@2p NQ&/z=6,mM&z*0 x}BQ&1XC8,jXX2PQXP>/`C8,(vX`2p NQX           2 00300K. ]_i_ d UUUUUUUUUUUUU ,,,888EEEQQQaaaqqqMMM3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f3333f3333333333f3333333f3f33ff3f3f3f3333f3333333f3̙333333f333ff3ffffff3f33f3ff3f3f3ffff3fffffffffff3fffffff3fff̙ffff3fffff3f̙3333f33̙3ff3ffff̙f3f̙3f̙̙3f̙3f3333f333ff3fffff̙̙3̙f̙̙̙3f̙3f3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f"""DDDUUUwww𠠤&- \xx;:: >>>=;<:;  ܀:  ,: ,:,U,ULUKـUHـ;E: B: @> == :< ܀; 4: 1: .:+U(NU%QU#TU VUYU\U_UbUeUh<'U k+U n+Up+Us (Uv 'Uy'U{<'U{<  'U{<(UUUUUUUUUUU99990{0!{ (9#{'  %{ '#z  ' w ( u's<' "p<'! *< '  2k< (  :iAg6Hd8Qb0X_0 `]Ud[0hX0mV0qS0vQ0zO0~L0J0GUE2C !1@!0> !0;  !09  !07!0 4F4  !1H2<  !2 4I'<  !UPK'< !$0 ZM'0 ]J'1 `G'4 lE'4 po4 tl4 yj4 }g0 e0} bU{ _Uz ]0x Zw W u U t R r P   q M  o J  *  < l,E    k ,B   i-@! 4h-=? 4f);? 4e%8?  4c  54b"30`,)0_6(U]?'U\ I&UZS'UY]~(UPg|)UPmUPrUP xUO }UMUJUG;  UE  }! UB |! U?{  U<z    U: x  U7 t U4 p  U2 l?  U/h?   U, ŃeU)  ʄaU'   Ä]U$  DŽYU!  ʄUU ŃRU 3NU JU 0 FU SBB  _>BbB d B   ۀB }ڀB ـF  w؀F  rـB  mڀC  hۀU0U Ɇ0U ҆/U ۇ,Uޅ"U TS RR%ۀR1 ۀR>ڀRIڀRKـSKـRI؀U,C,B ,B SRSSB ۀB SRSSCSRSSۀ =      ! €<  $ $   €<  $$  €< ##  €< ## !€< ""  €< ""  €< ! !  €<  !  !   €=  ! ! ! €  3 4 5 6 78  8 8  8  8 8 8 d UUUUUUUUUUUUU ,,,888EEEQQQaaaqqqMMM3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f3333f3333333333f3333333f3f33ff3f3f3f3333f3333333f3̙333333f333ff3ffffff3f33f3ff3f3f3ffff3fffffffffff3fffffff3fff̙ffff3fffff3f̙3333f33̙3ff3ffff̙f3f̙3f̙̙3f̙3f3333f333ff3fffff̙̙3̙f̙̙̙3f̙3f3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f"""DDDUUUwww𠠤|, \xx<:::<:<:<:< ܀< ,U,ULـULULـULހUK߀UJUIUHUGUFUEUDUCUBUAU@<?: >< =< <<;< ܀<:<9<8ـ< 7ـU6ـU5ـU4ـU3ـU2ހU1߀U0U/U.U-U,U,U+U*U)5U(6U'7U&8U%9U$:U#;U";U!<U =<'<>+: ?+< @+< A (< B '< *'< D<'< E<  '< F<(<)U(U'U&U'U(U)U0U2U4U69 89 :9 <9 >0 ?0A (9C'9E '9G  '9I (9 K'0 M<'0 O<'!1 Q< '  S< (!  T" V# X&Z * ^B ` bd0f0h0i0j0k0kUl2m !1n!0o !0p  !0 q  !0r!0s  !1t<  !2u<  !U v< !$0w0w1x4y4 z4{4{"{ {{BB *     0 0 0  U   6    5 ! 4 ? 4 ? 4 ?  4 4 0 0 U U U UUUUUUUU)F (;  E  '! D %&! D ('  C *(    B )  B -x@ F -sG  F }-nM?  F y.jT?   Uu/eZUq 0`6)Um 0J=)Ui 0KB(Ue)LE(Ua+LA'US .L7 'UR0I.&UQ1E$NTM0B YT>/HcS'/H!S.G+R5-G.U+).T *-S3)URI YSN("\TO'!`UP&#cUN$DgUD!CjC9 CnB /8BqB $?BuF G8xE  M:|D U=C ܀BL4B2+B &"U*R4R'ƀR %ҀRDՀRPրRQ׀U,C,B ,B SRSSB ۀB SRSSCSRSSۀ =      ! €<  $ $   €<  $$  €< ##  €< ## !€< ""  €< ""  €< ! !  €<  !  !   €=  ! ! ! €چ `ab c dچeeeeeeچe d UUUUUUUUUUUUU ,,,888EEEQQQaaaqqqMMM3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f3333f3333333333f3333333f3f33ff3f3f3f3333f3333333f3̙333333f333ff3ffffff3f33f3ff3f3f3ffff3fffffffffff3fffffff3fff̙ffff3fffff3f̙3333f33̙3ff3ffff̙f3f̙3f̙̙3f̙3f3333f333ff3fffff̙̙3̙f̙̙̙3f̙3f3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f"""DDDUUUwww𠠤r/ \xx<;::<:<;<:< ܀< ,<,U,ULـULULـULހUK߀UJUH<G: F<E<Dـ<Cـ< B ـ< ـ< @ ـ< ? ـ<> ـU= ؀U< ـU: ڀU9ۀU8U7U6U5U4U3U2U1U0U/U.U,U+< *: )< (< '< &< *< $ B< # C< " D< ! EU  FU GU HU IU J<'U K+U L+U L+U M (U N 'U O'U P<'U Q<  'U R<(U SU T< U:   V<   W<    X<   Y<   Z< *<  [<  \    ]9 ^9 _9  `0  a0 b (9 c'9 d '9 e  '9 f (9 g'0h<'0h<'!1i< ' 2j< (4k5 l6 m n   o  p<  q  r *  t  u  v v0 w0 xU y2z !1{!0{ !0{  !0{  !0{!0  !1<  !2<  !U< !$001"! ! ! "h) ( i'B i&B l'k(0k)0j00j20 i4  0 i6 0 h8 0 h:  U g<   6 g>   5 f@! 4 fB? 4 eD? 4 eF?  4 dH4 dJ0 cL cNB  bPB bRBbTB bUB aWB *B  `[B  `]C __U!_aU"^cU#^e;  U ]g! U!]i! U!\k  U"\m    U}[o  U{[q UyZs  UwXu?  Uv Qw?   Ut PyUr#X{Ul'ZP)US(ZQ)UR 'XQ(F Q &W P(E P%VX'D M$SU'D H#RS&C D #QPBB *B ;!NJF 7#!LG F 2%JEF .(I0U)"H4 U%'F7&U!+D7-U/C2.U26 + .U28%-T4 :UT ;`S5 jS6 uR50S2-T0)U-% U)!U&C" B #B 0ȀF 6΀E 7ԀD 0ՀC ܀B#׀BB R RR'S*T+U, C,B ,B SRSSB ۀB SRSSCSRSSۀ =      ! €<  $ $   €<  $$  €< ##  €< ## !€< ""  €< ""  €< ! !  €<  !  !   €=  ! ! ! €Ά U VW X YΆZZZZZZΆZ d UUUUUUUUUUUUU ,,,888EEEQQQaaaqqqMMM3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f3333f3333333333f3333333f3f33ff3f3f3f3333f3333333f3̙333333f333ff3ffffff3f33f3ff3f3f3ffff3fffffffffff3fffffff3fff̙ffff3fffff3f̙3333f33̙3ff3ffff̙f3f̙3f̙̙3f̙3f3333f333ff3fffff̙̙3̙f̙̙̙3f̙3f3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f"""DDDUUUwww𠠤K- \xx=9<8@ 8>8@ 8@ ހ@ *< *=*W*= )< (< $@? > ހ=   <   <  < WWWW>W"9W%5W( $W*$W-#W0#W3!W6W9'W<+W?+WB+WE (WH 'WK<'WN <'WO <  'WP<(WQWRVXUYTZ= Z< Y< X@  W?  V> ,! R  Q  P O 2 N!< (2#L!';&K" ';)J"  ';,I" (;/H#';2G$'25E$<'28D!< '!3;B< ( 4?A6B@*7E>+8H5-:K6.2N7/2O81WP:3/O94/P86/Y87/[88/[7;/Z6</Y6=2X5:>  W5<< ! V5>!U1A !T0D~  !S/D~  ! R-E}! ,  ! P4Bz  !  P5@v<  !#N5<s< !W&M5Hp$2)M6Il2,K6Ji3/J6Kf62 J6Kb64 H7L_67 G7M\6: <7MX6= >8OU2@ @7OR2C C8PNWFC8QKWHB2QH2KB4RD2NA5SA2O >7T>2O <8T:;  2O ;9U7!2Z 99V+  2] @8V+ 2` @8X*    Wc @8Q*  8f ?8O)  7i ?8N)! 6l ?5L(? 6o ?3x?  6r ?2tu >0 o x >=k | >>f  >Ab>  >B^> ,>  >EU>  >GQ>  3HL> 6JHW 9KDW<L?W<O;W:P +W9R*W 8L)  W 7N(! W 5N)  W 2N*  W /J+   W ,p  W )j W :d?  WĄ <^?  WȄ >X?   W̄ @RWЄ BLWԄ DFW؅ F@W݄ <+W B*W H)WK(WD)W =*W5+W D  D DۀD ۀD"ۀD ۀH 1ۀH 9ۀD @ۀEHۀWHۀWHۀW*E*D *D RQRRD ݀D RQRRERQRR݀ G44 4 4΀E1111̀G3 33 3̀G3  33 3̀G333 3̀G3 33 3̀G3 33 3 ̀G3 33 3 ̀G3333 ̀G4444΀L???BԀL???BԀL???AL???@ԀL???@ԀL????ԀL????ԀL ? ? ? >   3 4 5 6 78  8 8  8  8 8 8 d UUUUUUUUUUUUU ,,,888EEEQQQaaaqqqMMM3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f3333f3333333333f3333333f3f33ff3f3f3f3333f3333333f3̙333333f333ff3ffffff3f33f3ff3f3f3ffff3fffffffffff3fffffff3fff̙ffff3fffff3f̙3333f33̙3ff3ffff̙f3f̙3f̙̙3f̙3f3333f333ff3fffff̙̙3̙f̙̙̙3f̙3f3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f"""DDDUUUwww𠠤, \xx=8< <@<>9@ 8@ ހ@ *< *=*W*V)= %< @ @ >  ր@ ހ@  2Հ@ <Հ< <Ԁ=9ҀW5рW;πW;΀W9̀W"8ʀW%7ɀW(6ǀW*5ƀW-3W02W32W50 W8/ W;- W>,WA,WC*WF)'WI +WL!+WN"+= O" (< P% '< Q&<'@R&<'?W&<  '> Y&<(=  ,<  ['< ]'<^(W_'Wa(Wb(Wd(Vd)Ud(Te)9e*:d);c*; a)2 `*< (2_+';]* ';\+  ';Z+ (;X+';X+'2V)<'2"T'< '!3%S%< ( (R. *Q/ -O0! 0M0" 3M1 5K2 ,< ;H3 >F4AE42CD52FB52I:62L:72N:72O;8WP=9< !4Q<9!3R<: !2Y<:  !2Z<;  !2\;<!/\:<  !/^;=  !0_:><  !1a9>< !T`9;$/^9</[8=0 Y5>3 W4@6 U4@  R3@ P9@N9@~L:@~I:@}> ,> E:=z C;;x @;8u">;Cr2%<<Do;  2(-<Em!2*/<Ej  2-1<Fg 203=Gd    W32=Ha  851=I_  780=I\! 6;/>JY? 6>->KV?  6A ,>LT6C ,>LQ6F+?MN2I)?NK2L(?OIWN'?OFWO&@PCWO $;Q@WO #<R=WZ "=S;W] >S8>` >T5< c <U+> f  ;V+> i "9V*> l $8Q*> o$6O)  > )! > u&1L(  > x.v  >| ,q   W#) k  W'9f W';`?  W&=[?  W!&?U?   W"%AOW#%CJW$%EDW%#G?W# ? +W!"D*W%"H)W) L(W(G)W'B*W'<+W')W&+W%!Wą$'WɅ#-W΅!2D Ӆ0݀D؅ /܀D݅*,ۀD/*ڀD ##ۀD ܀H 3ۀH 9 ۀD 7ۀE 5ۀW+ۀW!ۀW'ۀW2 ۀW<ۀWFۀWHۀWHۀW* E*D *D RQRRD ݀D RQRRERQRR݀ G44 4 4΀E1111̀G3 33 3̀G3  33 3̀G333 3̀G3 33 3̀G3 33 3 ̀G3 33 3 ̀G3333 ̀G4444΀L???BԀL???BԀL???AL???@ԀL???@ԀL????ԀL????ԀL ? ? ? > چ `ab c dچeeeeeeچe d UUUUUUUUUUUUU ,,,888EEEQQQaaaqqqMMM3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f3333f3333333333f3333333f3f33ff3f3f3f3333f3333333f3̙333333f333ff3ffffff3f33f3ff3f3f3ffff3fffffffffff3fffffff3fff̙ffff3fffff3f̙3333f33̙3ff3ffff̙f3f̙3f̙̙3f̙3f3333f333ff3fffff̙̙3̙f̙̙̙3f̙3f3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f"""DDDUUUwww𠠤* \xx=8< <@<>9@ 8@ ހ@ *< *=*W*V)U(T&T= <  @  @ > @ ހ@ ! Հ@ &Ԁ< ,Ӏ=1ӀW6ЀW;΀W@ ̀WF ɀWK ǀWO ĀWP€WQWR WY W[W]W_WaWcWeWgWi'Wk+Wm+Wo+= q (< s '< u<'@v<'? t<  '> j<(=  ,<  U< )-<5/WA0WM1WP-WP*WO & Wf#"Wk#;q%;v';|);+2,< (2 .'8+ '8.  '80 (83'80'/-<'2 *< '!3 & ~< (  #} !| {! y" #u (  q ,<  1j 0 f- b2* ^2?[2 CW2#FS2' JO2+ MLW/ QF< !42 S@!36 T+ !2: V+  !2> W*  !2B X*!2EY)  !2I[)  !3MZ(<  !4OY)< !WOQ*$2OQ+2Y|3\{6_y6bu d qgnjjlfob> ,> u[ wW zS}O2L;  2H!2D  2@ 2<    W9  8 +  7*! 6)? 6(?  6)6*6+22WWWWWW>„< Ƅ> ʄ > ΄ > ҄ > ք   > ,! > ބ |  >  |  > {   Ws  W l Wd?  W]?  WU?   WMW FW)W)W)W%)W,)W3)W:)WA)WH)WHW*D *D*D*D ހH *D *E*W*E*D *D RQRRD ݀D RQRRERQRR݀ G44 4 4΀E1111̀G3 33 3̀G3  33 3̀G333 3̀G3 33 3̀G3 33 3 ̀G3 33 3 ̀G3333 ̀G4444΀L???BԀL???BԀL???AL???@ԀL???@ԀL????ԀL????ԀL ? ? ? > Ά U VW X YΆZZZZZZΆZ d UUUUUUUUUUUUU ,,,888EEEQQQaaaqqqMMM3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f3333f3333333333f3333333f3f33ff3f3f3f3333f3333333f3̙333333f333ff3ffffff3f33f3ff3f3f3ffff3fffffffffff3fffffff3fff̙ffff3fffff3f̙3333f33̙3ff3ffff̙f3f̙3f̙̙3f̙3f3333f333ff3fffff̙̙3̙f̙̙̙3f̙3f3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f"""DDDUUUwww𠠤Y \xx]]cb]F2  j  j  j  j   j  j  ;  J % %  %  J   &:  %; %j %j &j J4j %3j %2j J1j *~2j (}3j  |2j " {1; "|) {(   z'    y &  3    s  '    r&:  q%; %p$j %q#j %q"j &p !j Jo j Jn j %mj %m j Jlj Jkj &gj %fj %e %d   %e   %e  &e  Jd  .c  b :  b ;  a j  ` j   _ j  j  [ j  Zj  Yj 0Zj JZj JYj JX j JW j #V  "U  "Q   "P   "O   "N   &O    JO <   JN <  %M   j %K   j +J  j *F  j %E j   Dj / Cj / Dj C  j  C " j 1 j 0  B! :    B "     A"       @!!    %?*"    %8)#    &8+$   J8-#   J8-$ <  '8-$j &8,, j #%6,/ j $%5(1 j $%,(2 j $%,(4 j #%, 4 j &,3 j ',3  J,2{Jm > {Jm B {Jm A z0m L z/ m N z  m  O y n  O y  m O x  &  l![ x  k"[ w/ k" [  w/j# h v%i0t g  v%i9s h  v+h<r g  t*g=q q  t%g=es  s%a>_u  sJaHTv rJaITv  r&aITv q%aI= v r%aT= | q%cW=} q%bb1p%bc$}o&ad#~oJadnJ`| n&`v m  ` l _ l _ k ^ i ^ i1 ] h & ] g  \  g V  fJV   f&V   f&V   e%V  e%V d%V c%V c%V b&W a+W  a+V `*V `)V ])U ])U  \)U  \)T [%T [ T Z/ S  Z1 S  Y1 S  X1 R   W R   V  &  Q   R Q  RQ   Q&P  Q%P P%P P%O  O%K  N%K  L&KK&K GJKm GJKm  FJKa  FJK_  E%K?   D%J5  B&J)  <+I)  h/ w ) (>g  w * =f w , 'Cg  v- Dh  &  v. Kf  u.Lf/ u/Ne/t/Ne%tJP d%tR R c+sS  R c*sT) R b%sT'R a%rUR ]Jr[ ^ ]Jr[ ` \&q^ _ \%m`_ R%ma ^ R%mdi Q%mek Q%mfj P&mij PJm_  m OJm` y  P&m4    O  m5    O m4  N m*   M m)&  M l)8  L1 l* ;   L & k#<  J  k"<  J k#)H  IJj"(H  G&j#'G  G&j"t  F%i" F%i! E%i!E%h!D%h  D&h C+g  C+g  B*f  A)f  @)f  @)e  ?)a(  <)a) <%a*  ; a,  ;/ a-  :1 a.  :1 a/ 91 b1  8 b2 7  &  a55 `64`60&_6 0%_ 5 /%_ 5 /%^4  .%^: .%] A -&] B  ,&\ D  *J\ G )J[ I %J[J %JVK$%V L$%VM #&V M #+V M "JV S-%W T,%W T* U ]) J _%I `$G a#7 Gc"7 #  7 i$  +k% *l$   y#$ x"#  x##  w$H  %% .% .% #"#"#"###G#(#*%%J)J5C 7 7                                                % %                                                %7                                                %                                                %                                               %aa]E5E3F2G0G.I-I-E.G0I.L       -M       -E.E    -G -G/I/I/L.M-M#-E3E1E/E.F-F-H-E              -E               -E/E.F-F-H-K-M.H2F2E            -E               -E1E   -F   -N-N-M*+++-M+,+,,+-݄_܅][ރZZ d UUUUUUUUUUUUU ,,,888EEEQQQaaaqqqMMM3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f3333f3333333333f3333333f3f33ff3f3f3f3333f3333333f3̙333333f333ff3ffffff3f33f3ff3f3f3ffff3fffffffffff3fffffff3fff̙ffff3fffff3f̙3333f33̙3ff3ffff̙f3f̙3f̙̙3f̙3f3333f333ff3fffff̙̙3̙f̙̙̙3f̙3f3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3f"""DDDUUUwww𠠤[ \xx]] j j j j 2j  j           5   4  3:   J~4:  %}5; %|5j %{ 4j J| 4j &} 3j %} 3j %} 2j %|2j %|1j &|1j &{0j J{0j %{ /j %z / 3z.  z.    y-    x-  " w+  "  v*:   :  r(;  q)j 3p)j &q)j %r(j %q 'j %q &j %p %j %o %j &o $j Jn #j Jn "j %m j %l  Jl  Jk   &k   %j      i    g f: e;  d j 3 e j  j  f j  e j ej %dj %d j .c j .c j .cj .b : Jb Ja   Ja   J`   J`   #`    "_    "_<  "^ j ^ j  \  j  [ j 3 Zj 1 Y  j  Z  j  j  X j  W   j  V   j %Q   j JP   : JO     %N      %O     JN     JL     &F "   %E #    %D $  <  %C % j %D& j &C&j JB' j J@(j   ;(j  :' j # 9, j $8+  $ 91 y$  82 y#   &   55  x  /5  x/.7 xJ-7  wJ,9  wJ$: wJ; wJ = v&= v%> v%u> v%t?  u%r"?  u& m?  tJ c>  tJ N>  s%LA  s%JN  r+HN  rJN  q  F Z  s  8Z  r3  [  r2  b  r  &   g  q   g  q   $ h p  '$h  p%(  o p&)p oJ~,r oJ~6t o&}8u n%x9v n%x9w n%x 2v m%x 2 v m&x 2  mJx 1  l+z 3 l*y 2 l%y * k%x (3 k1 x (5 k w (3 j w *4 i v ,4 i v +4 h  &  u &( g  t %( g  t % fs $g+s &g*r & f)m %f)m$" e)m " e)m d)m d%m c%o cJm bJm bJm aJm  a+l `%l ` k _ k  ] j ]  j  \  i \  &  h[  hZ  g Y g W&fVJf RJa RJa QJa  Q%a*P%a *P&a )O+b 1 NJa 2 L%a3K%`:G+_< G*_= F%^=  F ^>D7]><7\F<\G;VI; & VK7 VL0 VL0VS/JUU /&NU -%C a%%Cc%%Bb$$ 6b##   j"#  y#Gx"(#'#"#"#G#G#   7                                                % %                                                %7                                                %                                                %                                               %aa]E5E3F2G0G.I-I-E.G0I.L       -M       -E.E    -G -G/I/I/L.M-M#-E3E1E/E.F-F-H-E              -E               -E/E.F-F-H-K-M.H2F2E            -E               -E1E   -F   -N-N-M*+++-M+,+,,+-݄_܅][ރZZ X4  Њ*` Before the  X'V FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONxxXFCC 96335  X'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:01` ax yOB'ԍId. at 647, 656.> Nonetheless, the Commission emphasized that broadcasters had a "continuing duty . . . to examine the program needs of the child part of the audience" and chose to rely on this broadly worded obligation and market forces to ensure a sufficient amount of educational programming for children. The D.C. Circuit again affirmed the  Y 4Commission's decision on appeal as a reasonable exercise of agency discretion.z1 ax yOv'ԍAction for Children's Television v. FCC 756 F.2d 899 (D.C. Cir. 1985).z  Y 418. The Commission has no independent information about the amount of  Y4children's programming aired following the 1984 Report decision. According to one commenter, however, the three major networks collectively aired more than 11 hours per week (individually about 3.7 hours per week) of children's educational programming in"b 10*(("  Y41980.2xax yOy' x^ ԍSee "Prepared Remarks of Squire D. Rushnell," June 28, 1994, FCC En Banc Hearing on Children's Television  yOA' x at 2 ("Rushnell Study"). (Squire D. Rushnell is the former Vice President of Children's Television for ABC.) See  yO ' x also NAB En Banc Reply Comments ("The 1990 Children's Television Act: Its Impact on the Amount of  xk Educational and Informational Programming") at 12. NAB pointed out several problems it believes exist with the  xU Rushnell Study, and noted that stations affiliated with the networks today air a considerable amount of nonnetwork  x educational and informational programming for children. On the other hand, the finding of our Task Force that licensees aired about 2.6 hours per week of instructional programming in 197778 suggests that 3.7 may be too high. NAB states that broadcasters averaged two hours per station in 1990, and 3.6 hours  Y4per station in 1993.3ax yO ' x ԍSee NAB En Banc Reply Comments at 12. NAB asked commercial television stations to list their children's  x programming that met the following definition: programming originally produced and broadcast for an audience of  yO2 ' x children 16 years of age and younger which serves their cognitive/intellectual or social/emotional needs. See NAB  yO ' x En Banc Reply Comments ("The 1990 Children's Television Act: Its Impact on the Amount of Educational and  yO 'Informational Programming") at 12. The NAB study is discussed infra paragraphs 37 and 40.  Y419. In 1984, the Commission also repealed the commercial guidelines for  Y4children's programming.4  ax yO ' x ԍSee Revision of Programming and Commercialization Policies, Ascertainment Requirements, and Program Logs  yO' x" for Commercial Television Stations, 98 FCC 2d 1076, 1105 (1984), on reconsideration, 104 FCC 2d 357, 370  x (1986). In 1981, the Commission reduced its license renewal application to a postcard format and eliminated questions on children's programming. 104 FCC 2d at 370 (1986). In 1987, the D.C. Circuit ruled that there was no evidence to support the Commission's decision and remanded it to the Commission for further explanation of its decision to eliminate its "longstanding children's television commercialization  Y_4guidelines."5_ax yO'ԍSee Action for Children's Television v. FCC, 821 F.2d 741, 750 (D.C. Cir. 1987). The court found no reasoned basis for the Commission to alter its policy regarding commercialization.  Y 4  20. The Commission responded to the remand by issuing a Further Notice of  Y 4Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on the issue of  Y 4commercialization guidelines for children's television.6 0ax yO'ԍFurther Notice of Proposed Rulemaking/Notice of Inquiry, MM Docket No. 83670, 2 FCC Rcd 6822 (1987). The Commission took no further action on children's television issues until after Congress enacted the CTA in 1990. The Senate Report on the CTA cited the Commission's 1984 decisions as precipitating factors in  Y 4the enactment of the CTA.=7 ax yO"'ԍSenate Report at 45.=  Yy421. Congress enacted the CTA both to impose limitations on the number of commercials shown during children's programs and to make clear that the FCC could not rely solely on market forces to increase the educational and informational programming available to children on commercial television. While recognizing that commercial television did provide some "meritorious" programming, the Senate Report stated that "when viewed as a" P70*((" whole, there is disturbingly little educational of informational programming on commercial  Y4television."<8ax yOb'ԍSenate Report at 7. < The Report went on to note:  ` XThe same problems with children's programming that the FCC found in 1976 exist today. Market forces have not worked to increase the educational and informational programming available  Yv4to children on commercial television.k9XvX yO ' x ԍSenate Report at 9. See also House Report at 6 (noting the Committee's belief that "the new marketplace for  x; video programming does not obviate the public interest responsibility of individual broadcast licensees to serve the  yO 'child audience."). kx  YH4 `  22. In enacting the CTA Congress clearly stated its objective. The Senate Report expressly notes that the "objective of this legislation is to increase the amount of  Y 4educational and informational broadcast television available to children.";: xax yOC'ԍSenate Report at 1.; Congress sought to accomplish this objective by placing on each and every licensee an obligation to provide educational and informational programming, including programming specifically designed to educate and inform children, and by requiring the FCC to enforce that obligation. This is evident from the plain text of the CTA, which states that the FCC "shall, in its review of any application for renewal of a commercial or noncommercial television broadcast license, consider the extent to which the licensee . . . has served the educational and informational needs of children through the licensee's overall programming, including programming  Yb4specifically designed to serve such needs."?;bax yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  303b(a).?  Y4423. The Senate Report explains the statute's language by noting that the CTA explicitly requires the FCC "to consider at the time of license renewal whether the licensee has provided programming specifically designed to meet the educational and informational  Y4needs of preschool and schoolage children.";<ax yO8'ԍSenate Report at 1.; On the floor of the House of Representatives, Congressman Lent made the same point: "Of course, TV stations already are required to serve their child audiences. But now, the FCC will be directed to gauge whether TV stations  Y4are actually meeting that obligation."u=( ax yO#'ԍ136 Cong. Rec. H8536, 8541 (daily ed. Oct. 1, 1990) (remarks of Rep. Lent). u The Senate Report emphasized the newly codified obligation of broadcasters to provide children's educational programming:  ` XAs part of their public interest obligation, broadcasters can and indeed must be required to render public service to children. "N =0*((@"  Y4Children are the bedrock upon which our society rests. See Prince  Y4v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 168 (1943). As demonstrated elsewhere in this report, children watch a great deal of television, especially before they start school, and are greatly influenced by this medium. Under these circumstances, the broadcaster as a public fiduciary must provide programming specifically designed  Yv4to serve the informational and educational needs of children.>v yO'ԍSenate Report at 16; House Report at 1011 (language virtually identical to Senate Report). x  YH4 `  24. The Senate Report also makes clear that Congress intended "to require broadcasters to provide programming specifically designed for preschool and schoolaged children because of the overwhelming evidence that such programming has the most impact on children's development. . . . Each broadcaster must demonstrate that it has served its child audience with programming which is designed to meet the unique educational and informational needs of children, taking into account the special characteristics of various  Y 4segments of the child population in order to have their license renewed."<? Xax yO'ԍSenate Report at 23.< Although Congress required each broadcast television licensee to submit a showing to the FCC that it has reasonably met its obligation to provide such programming, the legislative history also notes that Congress intended to allow broadcasters flexibility in determining how to meet their  Yb4obligation to children.}@bax yO'ԍSee 136 Cong. Rec. S10121 (daily ed. July 19, 1990)(remarks of Senator Inouye).} Thus, Congress indicated that the FCC could consider general audience programming in addition to programs specifically designed for children's educational  Y44and informational needs.;A4xax yO]'ԍSenate Report at 3.;  X4  X4C. FCC Proceedings Implementing the CTA  Y425. The CTA specifies that the Commission "shall" consider, in its review of applications for television license renewal, "the extent to which the licensee . . . has served the educational and informational needs of children through the licensee's overall  Y|4programming, including programming specifically designed to serve such needs."@B|ax yO5"'ԍ47 U.S.C.  303 b(a).@ Its purpose, as noted in the Act's title, is "to require the Federal Communications Commission . . . to enforce the obligation of broadcasters to meet the educational and informational needs of the child audience . . . ." The CTA also states that, "[i]n addition to consideration of the licensee's programming," the Commission "may" consider any "special" nonbroadcast efforts by the licensee that enhance the educational and informational value of educational programming, and any "special" efforts by the licensee to produce or support programming" B0*((!" specifically designed to serve children's educational needs that is broadcast by another station  Y4in the licensee's market.@Cax yOb'ԍ47 U.S.C.  303 b(b).@  Y426. In 1991, the Commission adopted regulations to implement the CTA.DXax yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  73.671(a) (commercial stations), 73.672(a) (noncommercial stations). As  Y4the NPRM recounts, these regulations "contain no requirement as to the number of hours of educational and informational programming that stations must broadcast or the time of day  Yv4during which such programming may be aired."GEvax yO 'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6315.G Instead these regulations require "broadcasters to air some amount of standardlength educational and informational  YH4programming specifically designed for children 16 years of age and under."1FHxax yOq'ԍId.1 The regulations define "educational and informational programming," including programming "specifically designed" to educate and inform children, as "any television programming which furthers the positive development of children 16 years of age and under in any respect, including the  Y 4child's intellectual/cognitive or social/emotional needs."G ax yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  73.671 Note (commercial stations), 73.672 Note (noncommercial stations). In adopting the 1991 regulations, the Commission imposed certain reporting requirements on broadcasters, but did not consider the need for measures to enhance the ability of parents and the public generally to obtain information on the availability of children's educational programming.  Yy427. In response to concerns expressed by a number of parties that our rules provide insufficient guidance for broadcasters seeking to comply with the CTA, we initiated  YK4this proceeding with a Notice of Inquiry ("NOI") in 1993.rHKax yO'ԍNotice of Inquiry, MM Docket No. 8394, 8 FCC Rcd 1841, 1842 (1993).r Based on comments responding  Y44to our NOI, as well as comments received in connection with our 1994 en banc hearing on  Y4the subject of children's educational television programming,I( ax yO'ԍSee En Banc Hearings on Children's Television in MM Docket No. 9348, June 28, 1994. we proposed in the NPRM to make a number of changes to our rules to achieve the goals of the CTA.  Y428. In response to the NPRM, we received a substantial number of comments from interested parties, including individual broadcasters, broadcast associations, public interest groups, producers of children's programming, educational programming researchers, and elected officials. In addition, we received approximately 20,000 letters and Internet" I0*((h"  Y4messages from individual members of the public.fJXax yOy' xc ԍThe specific NPRM proposals most frequently addressed in these letters were our proposal to define  xQ programming "specifically designed" to meet children's educational and informational needs and our proposal to adopt a quantitative processing guideline or a programming standard. f The information obtained in these comments has enhanced our understanding of the market for children's educational television programming.  X4 D. The Supply of Children's Educational Television Programming  Yv429. The Economics of Children's Educational Programming. As noted above,  in enacting the CTA, Congress found that market forces were not sufficient to ensure that commercial stations would provide children's educational and information programming. Congress concluded that the same problems that the Commission found in 1976 still existed and that market forces had not worked to increase the educational and information  Y 4programming available to children on commercial television.EK ax yO'ԍSee Senate Report at 9.E  Y 430. A number of factors explain the marketplace constraints on providing such programming. Overtheair commercial broadcast television stations earn their revenues from the sale of advertising time. Revenues received from the sale of advertising depend on the size and the sociodemographic characteristics of the audience reached by the broadcaster's  Yy4programming.Lyxax yO' x* ԍB. Watkins, Improving Educational and Informational Television For Children: When the Marketplace Fails, 5 Yale Law and Policy Rev. 361 (1987). Broadcasters thus have a reduced economic incentive to promote children's programming because children's television audiences are smaller than general audiences.  Y4431. Broadcasters have even less economic incentive to provide educational programs for children. Educational programming generally must be targeted at segments of  Y4the child audience.QMax yO'ԍSee CME et al. Comments at 8.Q An educational program for children aged 25, however, may well be of  Y4little interest to children aged 611 or children aged 1217.N` ax yO ' x ԍThese are the age categories for children used by Nielsen in reporting audience ratings. See Huston & Wright Comments at 45. By contrast, an entertainment  Y4program for children is more likely to appeal to a broader range of children.kO ax yOA#' x  ԍNielsen data indicate that children ages 6 to 11 are much more likely to watch general audience or adult x oriented entertainment programs than they are to watch children's programs. Moreover, when asked to name their  x@ favorite programs, children ages 10 to 17 were much more likely to include adultoriented or general audience  x programs than childspecific shows. The State of Children's Television: An Examination of Quantity, Quality, and  x Industry Beliefs, conducted by Amy B. Jordan for the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of  yO)'' x Pennsylvania under the Direction of Kathleen Hall Jamieson, June 17, 1996, citing Nielsen Media Research, March,")'N0*((*'" 1996.k Thus the"XO0*((i" market for children's educational television may be segmented by age in ways that do not characterize children's entertainment programming or adult programming. Additionally, the adult audience is much larger than the child audience. There are 59.5 million children in the television audience: 16.0 million children aged 25, 22.2 million aged 611, and 21.3 million  Y4children aged 1217. Adults aged 1849 number 122.2 million.qPXax yO'ԍSee Nielsen Estimated Persons in TV Households, January 1995.q Because the adult audience is so much larger than the children's audience, the potential advertising revenues are also much larger and therefore provide broadcasters with an incentive to focus on adult programming rather than children's educational television programming. And within the category of children's programming, broadcasters have an economic incentive to select entertainment programs that appeal to a broader range of children rather than educational programs that appeal to a narrower group.  Y 432. If stations are required to provide some educational programming for children, we believe that the same incentives could cause station owners to prefer to show such programming when relatively few adults would likely be in the audience. For example, it is less costly for broadcasters to show children's educational programs very early in the morning than to show them at later hours because the number of adult viewers lost, and hence the advertising revenues lost, will be relatively low. Hence, as discussed in Section IV and as shown in the charts in Appendix D, it is not surprising that a significant portion of children's programming is currently aired before 7:00 a.m. and that few children's programs are shown in prime time, which draws the largest adult audiences.  Y4 33. Furthermore, in the broadcasting marketplace it may be difficult for a small number of parents and others with strong demands for children's educational programming to signal the intensity of their demand for such programming. In other retail markets, consumers can demonstrate the intensity of their preferences by the amount of money they  Y4spend, i.e., their dollar "votes." However, broadcasting rating services basically register  Y4only one "vote" per viewer.Qax yO,' x8 ԍSee B. Owen and S. Wildman, Video Economics 97, 148 (1992); R. Noll, M. Peck and J. McGowan,  yO'Economic Aspects of Television Regulation 32 (1973). But the signal that matters to the broadcaster is the dollar amount of advertising revenues. Small audiences with little buying power, such as children's educational television audiences, are unlikely to be able to signal the intensity of their demand for such programming in the broadcasting market. Therefore, broadcasters will have little incentive to provide such programming because the small audiences and small resulting advertising revenues means that there will be a substantial cost to them (the socalled  Y 4"opportunity cost") of forgoing larger revenues from other types of programs not shown.vRX @ax yO%' x ԍWe recognize that in some instances viewers have been able effectively to communicate their displeasure with  x3 certain programs by way of boycotts. But we are unfamiliar with examples where a boycott has been equally effective in convincing broadcasters to provide more programming of a particular type.v" ` R0*(("Ԍ Y4ԙ!34. The combination of all these market forces consequently can create economic disincentives for commercial broadcasters with respect to educational programming. Broadcasters who desire to provide substantial children's educational programming may face economic pressure not to do so because airing a substantial amount of educational programming may place that broadcaster at a competitive disadvantage compared to those who do very little. These and the other factors described above tend to lead to an underprovision of children's educational and informational television programming, as Congress found in the CTA.  Y14"35. The amount of educational programming on broadcast television. A number of parties have submitted studies in this proceeding examining the amount of regularly scheduled, standard length educational programming aired on commercial television stations  Y 4since passage of the CTA. In the NPRM we discussed several studies described below. We concluded that they provided insufficient evidence to permit us to determine whether the CTA and our existing rules had precipitated a significant increase in the amount of children's  Y 4educational programming aired on commercial television stations.GS ax yO 'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6318.G In particular, none of  Y4these studies permitted us accurately to determine what amount of programming specifically  Yy4designed to educate and inform children is currently being aired. Accordingly, we asked parties to provide us with additional information and studies documenting changes in the  YK4nature and amount of children's programming. In so doing, we stated our intent to reassess the need for modification of our current children's programming rules "if data were submitted that show that the educational and informational needs of children are being met consistent  Y4with the goals of the CTA."@TXax yO'ԍId. at 6320.@  Y4#36. Like the studies described in the NPRM, the studies submitted in response  Y4to the NPRM (described below) are inconclusive in establishing the exact amount of educational programming that currently is being provided by broadcasters. They arrive at different conclusions on this question in part because they define the programming to be measured and select their samples of broadcast stations in different ways. Despite their deficiencies, however, the studies do allow us to conclude that some broadcasters are providing a very limited amount of programming specifically designed to educate and inform children and that broadcasters vary widely in their understanding of the type of programming that the CTA requires. This evidence, viewed together with the rest of the record, leads us to conclude that it is necessary to take the actions adopted here to achieve the goals of the CTA.  Y 4$37. We discussed in the NPRM two station surveys performed by the National Association of Broadcasters ("NAB") and the Association of Local Television Stations, Inc. ("ALTV") (formerly the Association of Independent Television Stations) that asserted that the amount of educational programming aired on commercial stations increased since passage of"#T0*((%"  Y4the CTA.EUax yOy'ԍId. at 63166319.E According to NAB, the average commercial station aired slightly more than 2 hours per week of regularly scheduled, standardlength educational programming for children in the fall of 1990 and 3.6 hours per week of such programming in 1993. In compiling these figures, NAB asked commercial television stations to list their children's programming that met the following definition: "programming originally produced and broadcast for an audience of children 16 years of age and younger which serves their cognitive/intellectual or  Yv4social/emotional needs."mVvXax yO ' x ԍSee NAB En Banc Reply Comments ("The 1990 Children's Television Act: Its Impact on the Amount of  x. Educational and Informational Programming") at 12. This definition appears to narrow somewhat the Commission's  x current definition of educational and informational programming as "television programming which furthers the  x positive development of children 16 years of age and under in any respect, including the child's intellectual/cognitive or social/emotional needs." 47 C.F.R.  73.671 Note. m The ALTV survey asserted that the average independent station aired 4.64 hours per week of regularly scheduled, standardlength educational programs in the first quarter of 1994. ALTV did not ask respondents to its survey to report programming conforming to a particular definition. Instead, it asked stations to list all programs broadcast during the first quarter of 1994 that the stations believed satisfied the FCC's requirements to  Y 4provide programming serving the educational and informational needs of children.W ax yO'ԍSee ALTV En Banc Reply Comments ("Status Report on Children's Television") at 5.  Y 4%38. We also discussed in the NPRM a study of 48 randomly selected license renewal applications filed in 1992 by stations located in the Midwestern states, which was  Y 4conducted by Dr. Dale Kunkel of the University of California, Santa Barbara.GX ax yO'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6317.G Dr. Kunkel claimed that commercial stations reported airing on average 3.4 hours per week of regularly scheduled, standardlength programming specifically designed to educate and inform children. In compiling this figure, Dr. Kunkel counted programs that were identified in some fashion in the license renewal applications as "specifically designed" to educate children; he did not  Y44impose his own definition of such programming.AYX4( ax yO ' xI ԍSee Kunkel NOI Comments ("Broadcasters' License Renewal Claims Regarding Children's Television  x Programming") at 4. His examination was limited to license renewal applications filed by 48 stations located in the midwestern United States.A However, he concludes that his figure is likely to be inflated because it accepts at face value the claims made by stations as to the  Y4educational objective of these programs.ZH ax yO"' x ԍWe also examined the Rushnell Study, which compared the amount of children's educational and informational  yO#' x* programming presented by networks in certain years prior and subsequent to enactment of the CTA. NPRM, 10  xx FCC Rcd at 6317. Among other results, Rushnell's study claimed that the four major networks planned to present  yOW%' x a combined weekly average of 9 hours of educational children's programming for the 1994/95 season. See NAB  yO&'En Banc Reply Comments, Attachment 5.  "Z0*(("Ԍ Y4&39. Several parties also submitted studies in response to our request in the NPRM for additional data. Fox submitted a report estimating that Fox affiliated stations are airing on average four hours per week of educational programming during the 1995/1996  Y4season.O[ax yO4'ԍFox Reply Comments at 4 & attachments. O Fox states, without elaboration, that it used an "extremely conservative"  Y4methodology in determining which programs were "bona fide" children's educational  Y4programs.@\Xax yO'ԍFox Reply Comments at 3.@ NAB and ALTV submitted new studies of the educational programming aired by commercial broadcasters. Dr. Kunkel also submitted a new study.   YH4'40. According to the updated survey of 78 stations conducted by ALTV,]Hax yO ' x ԍALTV reports that it sent its survey to 100 member stations and received 78 "usable responses," but does not describe how it selected the original sample. ALTV Comments, Exhibits at 9. the average independent television station aired 3.77 hours per week of regularly scheduled,  Y 4standard length educational programming in the first quarter of 1995.R^ @ax yO 'ԍSee ALTV Comments at 12 & Exhibit A.R NAB sent survey questionnaires to 937 commercial stations with valid fax numbers and received 559 responses. On this basis, NAB states that in 1994 the average commercial television station aired almost four and onethird hours per week of educational and informational programming specifically  Y 4designed for children.G_ ax yO?'ԍSee NAB Comments at ii. G As in its earlier study, NAB again defined educational and informational programming as "programming originally produced and broadcast for an audience of children 16 years of age and younger which serves their cognitive/intellectual or  Yy4social/emotional needs."J`y` ax yO'ԍNAB Comments, Attachment 1 at 24.J NAB also accepted at face value stations' claims that their  Yb4reported programming met this definition.1ab ax yO'ԍId.1 NAB's study is not conclusive on the average amount of educational and informational programming broadcasters are now providing because NAB's definition of the studied programming differs from our current definition of educational and informational programming. Nor can we rely on the NAB or ALTV studies  Y4to ascertain the range of performance by different broadcasters.ebX ax yO7"' x ԍWe cannot determine the content of NAB's definition or confirm the reliability of NAB's or ALTV's claims  x or data because neither identified in its survey the specific programs reported by stations as "educational," making it difficult to evaluate the reliability of the survey results.e At the same time, neither association argues that all of its members are providing exactly the industry average or disputes that there are "outliers" providing very little children's educational programming. "b0*(("Ԍ Y4(41. Dr. Kunkel's new study examined 48 randomly selected license renewal  Y4applications filed in 1994. cax yOb' x #X\  P6G;/P#эDr. Kunkel's sample in his new study includes commercial broadcast television stations in the northeastern  xk U.S. They are located in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,  xU Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. While such a sample cannot be demonstrated to be representative of the  x entire U.S., the states in Dr. Kunkel's study include a significant percentage (20 percent) of television households  yO'in the U.S. TV & Cable Factbook at C40, No. 63, 1995 Edition. Dr. Kunkel asserts that commercial stations on average reported airing the same number of hours of regularly scheduled, standard length programming specifically designed for children as in his earlier study of 1992 renewal applications (3.4 hours per week). Dr. Kunkel characterized as "frivolous" some broadcasters' claims that  Y4certain programs are educational.,dXxax yO ' xD ԍAs examples, Dr. Kunkel points to "America's Funniest Home Videos," "Biker Mice from Mars," "Bugs and  x Friends," "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers," "Woody Woodpecker," "XMen," and "Yogi Bear." Kunkel Comments at 14 & attachments., However, even if one accepts at face value the claims of the stations in Dr. Kunkel's study of 1994 renewal applications regarding the amount of regularly scheduled programming they aired that was specifically designed to serve children's  YH4educational needs, some stations apparently aired little or no such programming.e Hax yO' x& #X\  P6G;/P#эIt is possible that stations actually aired such programming but did not report that these programs were  x regularly scheduled and specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs. We cannot  x rule out this possibility but judge it unlikely given the countervailing incentive for stations to claim as much such  x^ programming as possible in order to demonstrate compliance with the Children's Television Act and Commission  x7 rules in their license renewal applications. In our 1991 proceeding, we specifically reminded licensees that, while  xZ general audience programming can contribute toward meeting the CTA's requirements, the CTA contains the  x* "additional requirement that licensees air some programming 'specifically designed' to serve the educational and  yO ' x informational needs of children." Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 2115. Our rules implementing the 1991 Report  yO' x and Order require licensees to maintain in their local public inspection files "records demonstrating the extent to  x. which the licensee has responded to the educational and informational needs of children in its overall programming,  yOa' x including programming specifically designed to serve such needs." 47 C.F.R.  73.3526(a)(8)(iii) (emphasis added).  x Our standard license renewal form directs licensees to that precise section of our rules; it instructs licenses to provide  xZ a summary of, among other things, their "programming response" to the CTA "reflecting the most significant  xN programming related to such needs which the licensee has aired, as described in 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3526(a)(8)(iii)." For example, four stations (8.3 percent) in the Kunkel study did not claim to air any such  Y 4programming,qfX ax yO' xV ԍIn his initial comments (attachment at page 6), Dr. Kunkel stated that five stations reported airing no  x "specifically designed" programming. In a February 2, 1996 letter to Mass Media Bureau Chief Roy J. Stewart,  yOs!'however, he corrected this number to four stations.q In addition, eleven stations (23 percent) reported airing one hour or less of such programming per week, sixteen stations (33 percent) reported airing 1.5 hours or less of such programming per week, and twentyfive stations (52 percent) reported airing two hours  Y 4or less of such programming per week. gX 8ax yO%' x; ԍDespite their limited scope, two local studies conducted by the South Florida Preschool PTA ("SFPPTA") also  xQ indicate that some stations are airing very little educational programming for children. The first study, submitted  yON'' xb in response to our NOI, was conducted in January and February 1993, and focused on educational and informational"N'f0*((^'"  x programming aired by four commercial broadcast stations serving the Miami area. The study defined children's  x programming somewhat more narrowly than do our current regulations and focused on regularly scheduled shows,  xQ which were classified "as educational/informational only if their primary intent was to educate, not entertainment  yO' x shows that contained a social theme." SFPPTA NOI Comments, Attachment ("A Children's Television Act of 1990  x Monitoring Report of South Florida Commercial Television Stations") at 5. SFPPTA concluded that the monitored  x3 stations were providing 0.5 to 1.5 hours per week of educational and informational programming for children.  xo SFPPTA's second monitoring study of the same stations, conducted in February 1995 in the same manner as the first  xt study, concludes that the stations provided between 1.5 and 2.0 hours per week of children's educational and  x. informational programming. SFPPTA Comments, Attachment ("A Report on Miami Television Stations' Compliance  x with the Children's Television Act of 1990") at 4 (filed June 23, 1995.) Given their limited scope and narrow  x definition of the programming being measured we do not rely on these studies as measures of the precise amount  x; of programming being offered, but as additional evidence that some broadcasters are still doing very little to comply with the CTA.  "p We similarly evaluate the additional local monitoring effort conducted by Linda L. Schwartz, author of the  x first SFPPTA study. In a letter dated June 13, 1995, Ms. Schwartz reports that the four network affiliates in  yO' x Mobile, Alabama aired between 1.5 and 3.0 hours of children's educational and informational programming. See  x Letter from Linda L. Schwartz to FCC (filed June 19, 1995). Ms. Schwartz does not specify, but presumably she conducted this study in the same fashion that she conducted the 1993 SFPPTA study. " hg0*(( "Ԍ Y4ԙ)42. The conclusion that some stations are airing very little educational programming for children is also supported by our experience in implementing the CTA. As the regulations enacted in 1991 provided only that broadcasters were required to provide  Y4"some" educational programming,Hhhax yO'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd. at 6315.H we assessed compliance with this requirement in the renewal cycle that ran from 19911994, which comprised the first renewal cycle immediately following enactment of the CTA, by examining the overall children's programming efforts of each licensee to ensure that the licensee broadcast some standardlength programming specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children. Licensees  YH4that aired at least one such halfhour program_iHax yO' x ԍThroughout this Report and Order, when we refer to a halfhour of programming, we do so with a recognition  x that a halfhour program is typically less than 30 minutes long, to allow for commercials, station identification, etc.  yO' xg See, e.g., Shop Talk (March 22, 1996) citing New York Daily News (new survey from American Association of  x! Advertising Agencies stated that, on average, there are 14 minutes and 43 seconds of nonprogram material in every primetime hour)._ per week received stafflevel approval of the  Y14CTA portion of their renewal applications.j1ax yO ' x& ԍIn some cases, it was not clear that broadcasters had provided even one halfhour program per week of  x; programming specifically designed to educate and inform children. In instances where no programming was shown,  x the staff contacted the stations. If a showing was made that the station had purchased children's educational  x programming and therefore would be increasing the amount of children's educational programming broadcast in the future, and the licensee's operations otherwise complied with our rules, renewal was granted.  Y 4*43. Availability of educational programming on nonbroadcast media. A number of broadcasters submitted comments arguing that the Commission should assess not just the educational programming being provided overtheair by broadcast stations, but rather the" Xj0*(( "  Y4overall availability of educational programming in the video marketplace.tkax yOy'ԍSee, e.g., ABC Comments at 50; CBS Comments at 18; NAB Comments at 14.t We believe, however, that the proper focus in this proceeding should be on the provision of children's educational programming by broadcast stations, not by cable systems and other subscription services such as direct broadcast satellite systems that, in contrast to broadcast service, require the payment of a subscription fee. The CTA itself expressly focuses on broadcast licensees. In enacting this statute, Congress found that, as part of their public interest  Yv4obligations, "television station operators and licensees should provide programming that  Y_4serves the special needs of children,"Ql_Xax yOh 'ԍ47 U.S.C.  303a (emphasis added).Q and the Act applies only to television broadcast  YH4stations.BmHax yO 'ԍId. at  303b(a).B Thus, the statute focuses on the provision of children's educational programming through broadcasting, a ubiquitous service, which may be the only source of video programming for some families that cannot afford, or do not have access to, cable or other  Y 4subscription services.Qn ax yOC'ԍSee paragraph 11 supra.Q While noting an increase in the number of nonbroadcast outlets available for children to receive video programming, the House Report states that "the new marketplace for video programming does not obviate the public interest responsibility of  Y 4individual broadcast licensees to serve the child audience.":o ax yO'ԍHouse Report at 6.:  Y4+44. Conclusion. We conclude, on the basis of the studies before us that while some broadcasters are providing educational and informational programming as Congress intended, some are not. Congress was dissatisfied with commercial broadcasters' performance in 1990 when, according to NAB, commercial broadcasters were devoting an average of two hours per week of airtime to educational programming, and in the CTA  Y4Congress provided that each broadcaster has a duty to serve the educational and informational needs of children through its overall programming, including programming specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs. Yet it appears that, six years after the enactment of the CTA, at least some broadcasters are providing less than that amount. Given the Commission's duty to treat similarly situated broadcasters in a similar  Y4manner,pax yO! ' x ԍMelody Music, Inc. v. FCC, 345 F.2d 730 (D.C. Cir. 1965), recently reiterated in McElroy Electronics Corp.  yO 'v. FCC, 990 F.2d 1351, 1365 (D.C. Cir. 1993). by approving the performance under the CTA of broadcasters providing very little educational programming we would signal that all broadcasters may provide a minimal amount of such programming. The effect of that would be contrary to our effort to counter the economic disincentive to provide children's programming described above. Moreover, in light of the greater value to advertisers of entertainment programs for adults, those broadcasters providing very little educational programming for children may receive an unfair economic advantage, a result that only exacerbates the economic disincentive to provide children's programming that Congress identified in enacting the CTA. Thus unless we"  p0*((% " modify our approach to implementing the CTA, broadcasters will be able to provide extremely little educational programming for children. That would be contrary to Congress' intent in enacting the CTA.  Y4,45. The record also shows that our definition of programming fulfilling the requirements of the CTA should be modified. As discussed above, all of the studies in the record define educational programming differently. NAB, for example, uses a definition somewhat broader than that we adopt today. In addition, Dr. Kunkel, who did not define it, but relied upon the varying interpretations of those broadcasters whose renewal applications he reviewed, concluded that some broadcasters were attempting to satisfy their CTA obligations with programs that should not be counted as satisfying the requirements of the CTA. By establishing a clear definition of "specifically designed" programming, we will give better guidance and greater incentives for broadcasters' compliance with the CTA.  Y 4-46. The record in this proceeding also supports the conclusion that parents and others would profit from additional information concerning the educational programming available in their community, a matter to which we now turn.   YK4  III. PUBLIC INFORMATION INITIATIVES ă  Y4.47. We conclude that the market inadequacies that led Congress to pass the Children's Television Act can be addressed, in part, by enhancing parents' knowledge of  Y4children's educational programming.qax yOi' x ԍSee NPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 630910. We note that we use the term "parent" to include guardians, foster parents and others responsible for the care of children. One way to encourage licensees to provide such programming is to encourage and enable the public, especially parents, to interact with  Y4broadcasters.>r ax yO'ԍId. at 631520. > Easy public access to information permits the Commission to rely more on marketplace forces to achieve the goals of the CTA and facilitates enforcement of the statute by allowing parents, educators, and others to actively monitor a station's performance. As CBS "wholeheartedly" agrees, "judgments of the quality of a licensee's programming,  Yf4educational or otherwise, are best made by the audience, not the federal government."hsfax yO 'ԍCBS Comments at 6 (citing NPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6310).h Thus, our rules should facilitate easy access to information regarding children's educational programming in their community.  Y 4/48. Commercial television is advertiser supported. As we discuss above, advertisers pay according to audience size, and broadcasters have disincentives to air programs that attract small audiences. Parents can increase the audience of an educational program by encouraging their children to watch the show, but can only do so if they know in" @s0*(("" advance when the show will air and that the show is educational. Increasing the audience size for educational programs increases the incentive of broadcasters to air, and producers to supply, more such programs. Access to information can also facilitate viewer campaigns and other communitybased efforts to influence stations to air more and better educational programming. In light of the evidence that parents use programming information to select  Y4programs for their children to watch,st@ax yO' x7 ԍA number of commenters stated their belief that advance information about educational programs would be  yO' x useful to parents in selecting programs for their children. See, e.g., ABC Comments at 14. Moreover, we noted  yO' x. in the NPRM that television research indicates generally that programming information could help parents influence  yO^ ' x@ the shows viewed by children. NPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6310. For example, a recent study examined the impact  x of viewer advisories on prime time movies and found that viewing among children from 2 to 11 was statistically  yO ' x significantly lower for movies carrying viewer discretion advisories. Id. (citing Hamilton, Marketing Violence: The  yO ' x! Impact of Labeling Violent Television Content, Dewitt Wallace Center for Communications and Journalism Working Paper Series, Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, December 1994).s we concluded in the NPRM that the lack of educational programming the CTA was designed to address may be attributable in part to  Y_4insufficient programming information.Tu_ax yO'ԍSee NPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 630910.T In the NPRM we identified several places where information about educational programs could be provided: onair identifications; program  Y14guides and listings; and the station's children's programming reports in its public file.2v1` ax yOB'ԍId. 2  Y 4049. In considering the options to improve the information available regarding educational programming, we seek to maximize the access to such information by the public  Y 4while minimizing the cost to the licensee. In response to the comments to the NPRM, we have focused on three basic methods to improve the public's access to information: commercial broadcasters should identify core programming at the time those programs are aired in a form that is at the sole discretion of the licensee; they should identify such programs to publishers of program guides; and, as detailed below, they should provide improved access to information to the public through standardized reporting and other  YK4means."w@K ax yO' x ԍWe will continue to exempt noncommercial television licensees from children's programming reporting  yO' xt requirements, see Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 5101, and we will also exempt them from the  x other public information initiatives we adopt today. In light of Congressional intent to avoid unnecessary constraints  x on broadcasters, and in view of the commitment demonstrated by noncommercial stations in general to serving  yO !' xg children, we believe it is inappropriate to impose reporting obligations on such stations. Id. We nonetheless  x encourage noncommercial stations voluntarily to comport with these initiatives to the extent feasible as a means of  x^ providing parents and other members of the public with additional information about the availability of children's educational and informational programming on all broadcast stations." We note that disclosure requirements of the sort we adopt today promote First  Y44Amendment interests by increasing the flow of information to the public.xX 4ax yO%' xg ԍIn Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987), the Supreme Court upheld the Foreign Agents Registration Act,  xb which required the labeling of films distributed by agents of foreign governments to indicate the agent's identity and  xD the identity of the principal for whom the agent acts. The Court agreed with the lower court that "it could not be"m'w0*((}'"  xU gainsaid that this kind of disclosure serves rather than deserves the First Amendment," added that such disclosures  xQ "better enable the public to evaluate the import of the propaganda," and added that striking down the disclosure  yO ' xQ requirement under the First Amendment "[i]ronically" would "withhold[] information from the public." Id. at 477, 480, 481."4x0*(("Ԍ Y4ԙOnAir Identification  Y4150. Comments. Public interest groups generally supported identifying "core"  Y4programs on the air. y ax yO ' xM ԍSee, e.g., Huston & Wright Comments at 34; Kunkel Comments at 1112; Minow and LaMay Comments  yO ' x at 15657. Dr. Kunkel contended that onair identification will not deter children from watching, and pointed out  x that Fox now voluntarily airs an onscreen announcement prior to "Fox Clubhouse" that indicates that the program  yOt 'is endorsed by the NEA. Kunkel Comments at 12.  For example, the Center for Media Education ("CME et al."), filing jointly with 19 other parties including the American Academy of Pediatrics ("AAP"), the American Psychological Association ("APA"), the American Psychiatric Association, the National Education Foundation, and the National Parent Teacher Association, favored the use  Y_4of an icon aired at the beginning of the program.4zX_ax yO' x ԍSee AAP Comments at 12; APA Comments at 5; CME et al. Comments at 32. AAP would require  yOp' x broadcasters to include in an icon information about the ageappropriateness of the program. See AAP Comments at 1.4 The Children's Defense Fund and Black Community Crusade for Children ("CDF and BCCC"), filing jointly, suggested using both an onair announcement and an icon visible throughout the program and during pre Y 4advertisements.t{@ ax yO' x ԍCDF and BCCC reported that Australia has implemented an icon requirement. See CDF and BCCC  yOK' xk Comments at 11. Australian broadcasters are required to identify preschool educational programs with a "P" and  xD primary school (under age 14) educational programs with a "C." These classifications are aired at or immediately  x before the start of a program and after each break or, if the program is aired without interruption, at least once every  yO' x quarterhour (superimposed on the program if necessary). See Children's Television Standards 1 (1), Television  yOk' x Programming Standards 11, as in force under Broadcasting Services (Transitional Provisions and Consequential  yO3' x7 Amendments) Act 1992,  21(2), as varied by a determination of the Australian Broadcasting Authority (Dec. 15,  yO'1995), under Broadcasting Services Act 1992,  122(1)(a).t Among broadcasters, ALTV and the National Association of Black Owned  Y 4Broadcasters ("NABOB") supported requiring onair identification of core programming.|  ax yOt' x ԍSee NABOB Reply Comments at 3. ALTV initially supported onair identification. See ALTV Comments  x^ at 26. In its reply comments, however, ALTV stated that, in light of the mixed responses from commenters to this  yO ' x proposal, local stations should be permitted to determine the utility and effect of onair identifiers themselves. See ALTV Reply Comments at 20.  Other broadcast commenters agreed with the goal of improving the information flow to the public, but argued the use of an onair icon or announcement would be counterproductive by  Y 4deterring rather than attracting child viewers.~}X ax yO%' x ԍSee, e.g., Joint Comments of Cosmos Broadcasting Corp., Cox Broadcasting, Inc., First Media Television,  yO%' x L.P., Paxson Communications Corp., and River City Broadcasting, L.P. ("Cosmos et al.") at 89; Curators of the  yO&'University of Missouri Comments at 7. ~ This view was echoed by children's programming producer CTW, who reasoned that onair identifiers could taint educational" }0*(("  Y4programs.'~ax yOy' x ԍSee CTW Comments at 1314. See also Comments of The Walt Disney Company ("Disney") at 1112.  xH Although CEP stated that it believes that identification of educational programs is appropriate for preschoolers and  x their parents, it argued that such identification would not be appropriate for schoolaged children, for whom the  x educational designation is likely to have a negative connotation. In addition, CEP advocated that the information  x stations provide to parents should include the "results" of the educational programming to allow parents to assess the merits of a station's claims regarding the educational value of their programming. CEP Comments at 8.' Warner Brothers noted that parents would often miss an announcement or icon  Y4aired only briefly at the beginning of a program.@ax yO' x ԍSee Comments of Warner Brothers Television Network, Warner Brothers, and Time Warner, Inc. ("Warner  yO 'Brothers") at 1114. Finally, Cosmos et al. argued that the Commission lacks jurisdiction or statutory authority over the methods that stations choose to  Y4promote programming, such as onair identification.dax yO 'ԍSee Cosmos et al. Comments at 89 . d  Y4251. NAB filed initial comments opposing the use of an onair icon or  Yv4announcement and disputing the Commission's jurisdiction to impose such requirements.Wv( ax yOO'ԍSee NAB Comments at 2433 & Attachment 5.W In supplemental comments, however, NAB supported the adoption of rules to require broadcasters to "identify core programs at the beginning of the program, in a form that is at  Y14the sole discretion of the licensee."TX1 ax yO' xg ԍSee NAB Supplemental Comments, Attachment at 5 (filed July 29, 1996). These supplemental comments  x were filed to "provide the Commission with the results of recent discussions between the NAB and the Clinton  yO*'administration." Id. at 1. T   Y 4352. Discussion. We believe the onair identification of core programs would greatly assist parents in planning their children's viewing and improve the children's programming marketplace at minimal cost to stations. Accordingly, we will require broadcasters to provide onair identification of core programs, in a manner and form that is at the sole discretion of the licensee, at the beginning of the program. Just as we require  Y4stations to provide on air station identification and sponsor identification,Lax yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  73.1201, 73.1212.L we believe the public would be served by requiring broadcasters to identify programs specifically designed to educate and inform children on the air. Onair identifiers are likely to reach a larger  YK4audience than information printed in programs guides.Khax yOd#' x@ ԍThis is especially true for groups that use television more extensively than newspapers or other printed  x materials. For example, Huston & Wright stated in their comments that onair information is likely to reach a larger  x audience than printed television guides or public files maintained by stations. They expressed the view that onair  x identifiers would be more effective, particularly for adults and children in lowincome and minority families because  x surveys indicate that these groups use television extensively and are more likely to use it for information than a newspaper. Huston & Wright Comments at 4. Moreover, we note that there is no"K0*((" certainty that published guides will include such information. Identifiers will improve broadcaster accountability by publicizing the programs licensees identify as contributing to  Y4their obligation to air core programming.ax yOK' x ԍSee e.g., Minow and LaMay Comments at 156157; Huston & Wright Comments at 34; CME et al. Comments at 3132. An onair identification requirement will make broadcasters more accountable to the public and further the goal of minimizing the possibility that the Commission would be forced to decide whether particular programs serve the educational and informational needs of children.  Y_4453. Some commenters speculated that onair identifiers could deter children  YH4from watching educational programs.KH ax yO 'ԍSee supra paragraph 50.K No commenter, however, presented evidence that such an effect will occur. We will revisit our decision to require onair identification if, after some experience, parties present us with evidence that they in fact have a deterrent effect. In the meantime, broadcasters will have full discretion to design their identifiers to minimize or avoid any such effect.   Y 4554. We disagree with the argument of Cosmos et al. that the FCC lacks the statutory authority to require broadcasters to provide onair identification of core programs. The Commission has adequate statutory authority under the CTA and under the Communications Act to require broadcasters to provide information about their core programming to the public. The CTA seeks to increase the amount of educational and informational programming available to children. Requiring broadcasters to provide information concerning educational and informational programming will improve the children's television marketplace, thereby effectuating the goal of the CTA. In addition to our authority under the CTA, we have broad authority under the Communications Act of 1934 to regulate all communications services that use radio waves, including the authority to establish the licensing procedures for broadcast stations. Section 303(r) of the Act provides that we have authority to "[m]ake such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of th[e] Act." Providing such information will aid parents and children in selecting programs and help hold broadcasters accountable for compliance with the CTA, thus aiding us in our mandatory review of such compliance during the renewal process. Indeed, our entire licensing scheme is premised on providing adequate information to the public to enable the public to exercise its statutory right to participate in our renewal proceedings. Providing onair announcements about core programming will improve the functioning of the children's television market and make broadcasters more accountable to parents and other interested community members. Section 303(r) provides ample authority for the onair identifier requirement because requiring onair identifiers will help us make the Sections 309(a) and (k) determination that grant of a renewal application is in the public interest.  Y"4Program Guides""0*(($"Ԍ Y4ԙ655. Comments. Public interest groups, programmers, and other commenters generally support stations providing information about core programs to program guides on the ground that it would provide parents with advance notice of the scheduling of educational  Y4programs.ax yO4' x  ԍSee, e.g., AAP Comments at 12; CME et al. Comments at 3132; Comments of the Children's Television Resource & Education Center ("CTREC") at 1; CDF and BCCC Comments at 11. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") commented that this proposal is one of the most important improvements we proposed in the  Y4NPRM, and will empower American parents by providing information to help them find  Yv4programs that are good for their children.Lv ax yOG 'ԍSee NTIA Reply Comments at 11.L KIDSNET, a nonprofit clearinghouse for information about educational programming, contended that providing information to program  YH4guides could increase audiences and program loyalty.HHax yO 'ԍSee KIDSNET Comments at 4.H Disney advocated requiring licensees to provide information to program guide publishers, local newspapers, and any other publishers of material "reasonably calculated" to provide the identifying information to  Y 4parents.K @ax yO'ԍSee Disney Comments at 1112.K NBC suggested that the Commission encourage the adoption of a universal symbol for educational children's programs and urge broadcasters to include the symbol in  Y 4information furnished to program listing services.  ax yOV' x ԍNBC Comments at 1214. NBC noted that the parental advisory plan that was voluntarily adopted by the  xH national broadcast networks, local stations, and national program distributors provides a model for this requirement.  x. Under that system, participants provide to program guide services information indicating whether programs contain  x material that may be unsuitable for children. These programs are identified with a universal symbol ("PA")  yOv' x indicating they contain a parental advisory. Id. (citing Advance Parental Advisory Plan, A FourNetwork Proposal  yO>'for a TwoYear Test (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) (June 30, 1994)).  Broadcaster parties who favored our proposal argued generally that printed program information is preferable to onair  Y 4announcements or icons because it permits parents to preplan viewing.@ H ax yO' x ԍNBC stated that it voluntarily commits to furnishing to the listing services a universal symbol and related  x information regarding children's programming. NBC Comments at 1214. ALTV supported providing instructions  x to program guides for identifying programs as educational. ALTV Comments at 26. ABC would encourage  x broadcasters to supply information on programming to publications but would not make this proposal mandatory.  x; According to ABC, stations have a variety of options for promoting programs, including the Internet, but they have  x^ no control over whether the guides publish the information provided by stations. ABC Comments at 1415. CBS  x^ supported providing information on regularly scheduled programs to program guides, but stated that it would be burdensome to do so for special programming. CBS Comments at 6 n.5. Opponents claimed licensees should retain discretion over the means that they select to promote their educational"P0*(("  Y4programming.#ax yOy' x ԍSee, e.g., Cosmos et al. Comments at 68. The Named State Broadcaster Associations agreed that there must  x be a flow of information to the public about quality programming, but they argued that the free market and open  x press will accomplish this without government mandates and additional paperwork burdens. Comments of the  yO' x Named State Broadcaster Associations at 6. See also CEP Comments at 8. CEP stated that identification in  x program guides is appropriate for preschool children and their parents, but not for schoolaged children for whom  yOa'the designation is likely to have a negative connotation. Id.# Cosmos et al. argued that we lack the statutory authority to require that  Y4information regarding specifically designed programming be provided to program guides.X@ax yO'ԍSee Cosmos et al. Comments at 45. X  Y4756. NAB filed initial comments that opposed a requirement that broadcasters provide information on core programming to the program guides, stating that specially marked program listings would be likely to discourage viewing among older children who  Yv4refer to program guides.Hvax yO'ԍSee NAB Comments at 2425.H In supplemental comments, however, NAB set forth its support for adopting rules to require broadcasters to "provide to program guide publishers information identifying core programming, including an indication of the age group for which the  Y14program is intended.i1` ax yOB'ԍNAB Supplemental Comments, Attachment at 5 (filed July 29, 1996).i  Y 4857. Discussion. It is industry practice for broadcasters to provide programming information to program guides, which publish such information without cost to the broadcasters. Further, it has become a wellestablished practice to provide specialized information about programs, such as which programs are closed captioned for the hearing impaired. As broadcasters routinely provide such information about their programming to program guides and designate core programs for their public records, we believe it would require a minimum of effort, but have a major positive effect, for broadcasters to provide publishers of program guides and listings, information identifying core programs, and the age  YK4group for which, in the opinion of the broadcaster, the program is intended.K ax yO' x ԍAs described below in Section IV, we will require that broadcasters indicate the age of the target child audience in their program description. We recognize broadcasters cannot require guides to print this information. The information, however, is more likely to be in the program listings if broadcasters routinely provide it. We believe program guides are an effective means of providing parents with advance notice of scheduling of educational programs. This information will assist parents in finding suitable programs for their children and be useful to parents and others who wish to monitor station performance in complying with the CTA. We note that a number of broadcasters supported this proposal, and that the major networks now employ a voluntary parental advisory plan pursuant to which they provide to program guide services information indicating whether programs contain material that may be unsuitable for children. We believe that a universal symbol for"|H 0*((E" educational programming would also be useful in readily identifying such programming to the public, and encourage broadcasters to adopt such a symbol.  Y4958. We disagree with Cosmos et al. that we lack the statutory authority to require broadcasters to furnish this information to program guides. As noted in the discussion  Y4of our statutory authority to require onair identifiers, supra, we have adequate statutory authority under the CTA and under the Communications Act to require broadcasters to provide information about their core programming to the public. Just as onair identifiers are necessary to fulfill the mandate of the CTA, providing information to program guides will improve the functioning of the children's television market and make broadcasters more accountable to parents.  Y 4:59. As with onair identifiers, our broad authority under the Communications Act of 1934 to carry out the public interest requirement permits us to have broadcasters provide programming information where necessary to effectuate the public interest standard during the renewal process. Although we have not previously required broadcasters to furnish information to programming guides, we have required stations to broadcast certain on Yy4air announcements,yax yO'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  73.1201 (requiring station identification); 73.1212 (requiring sponsorship identification). to give public notice in a local newspaper for certain broadcast  Yb4applications,LbXax yOk'ԍSee id. at  73.3580.L and to make available certain information in a public file.Ybax yO'ԍSee id. at  73.3526, 73.3527.Y  Y44;60. Section 303(r) provides ample authority for the programming information disclosure requirement because providing this information will help us make the Section 309(a) and (k) determination that grant of a renewal application is in the public interest. Therefore, we believe that we have the statutory authority to require broadcasters to provide programming information to programming guides.  Y4  Y4Public File Proposals  Y|4<61. Our rules currently require commercial licensees to compile reports, containing information about the children's programming they air, including the time, date, duration, and description of the programs. Licensees maintain these reports in the station's  Y74public inspection file._7xax yO`#'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6322; 47 C.F.R.  73.1202._ We sought comment in the NPRM on changing the existing  Y 4requirements to enhance public access to and use of the information in these reports.G ax yO%'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6323.G We identify several ways, discussed below, that such enhancements can be made without materially increasing any burden on the licensee. "0*((!"Ԍ Y4ԙi. Children's liaison  Y4=62. In the NPRM, we proposed that stations identify the person at the station responsible for collecting comments on the station's compliance with the CTA, and asked  Y4how such a requirement could be implemented without being burdensome.2ax yO'ԍId. 2 Some broadcast  Y4parties disagreed with this proposal,XXax yO' x ԍSee, e.g., Cosmos et al. Comments at 9; Tribune Comments at 2324; Curators of the University of Missouri  xb Comments at 67. These broadcasters argued that this proposal is unnecessary because licensees are conscientious in responding to the public. Tribune opposed all of the proposed public file requirements. Tribune Comments at 24. but the major networks, other broadcasters, and other  Yv4commenters supported it.Xvxax yO ' x@ ԍSee, e.g., CBS Comments at 7; ABC Comments at 1112; Golden Orange Comments at 8; NBC Comments  yOg ' x* at 15; CME et al. Comments at 45; CTW Comments at 1213. ABC stated that it was not aware of any significant  yO/'problems with public access to children's programming reports. ABC Comments at 11. We believe it is reasonable to require licensees to designate a liaison for children's programming and to include the name and method of contacting that individual in the station's children's programming reports, since someone at each station must, as a practical matter, be responsible for carrying out the broadcaster's responsibilities under the CTA. We agree with CME that there is value in identifying for the public an individual to contact with concerns or complaints about the broadcaster's children's  Y 4programming. ax yO5' x ԍSee CME et al.Comments at 45. CME et al. also suggested that the Commission establish and publicize an  x "800" number that consumers could call for assistance in obtaining public information from licensees and in filing  yO' x complaints with the station or with the Commission itself. Id. We note that consumers do not need an 800 number  x to call their local station, and the Commission is seeking to develop a "888" number system that the consumers in all 50 states may use to call the Commission. This requirement also will facilitate public access to information on stations' educational programming efforts, and assist stations in responding to comments and complaints from the public. Moreover, because licensees are currently required to maintain  Y 4children's programming reportsG H ax yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  73.3526(8)(iii).G and letters received from the public in their public  Y4inspection file,ax yO' xp ԍId. at  73.1202. Commercial stations are required to maintain a number of other reports, records, and  yO'applications in their public inspection file as well. See id. at  73.3526. this requirement should not impose a significant additional burden on licensees.  YK4ii. Explanation of how programming meets definition of core programming  Y4>63. We will adopt the proposal in the NPRM that licensees provide a brief explanation in their children's programming reports of how particular programs meet the"00*(("  Y4definition of "core" programming.Gax yOy'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6323.G A few broadcast parties were opposed, Xax yO ' x ԍSee Named State Broadcaster Associations Comments at 8; Cosmos et al. Comments at 10; Curators of the  yO' xQ University of Missouri Comments at 67. These broadcasters argued that this requirement imposes a substantial  x burden on licensees. We note, however, that most broadcasters support this requirement and do not indicate that it will impose such a burden. but most,  Y4including most of the major networks, supported the proposal.@ax yO' x ԍSee, e.g., CBS Comments at 7; ABC Comments at 12; NBC Comments at 15; CDF and BCCC Comments at 1112; CTW Comments at 1213; Golden Orange Comments at 8; Westinghouse Comments at 45. Although NAB initially  Y4opposed this proposal,Eax yO 'ԍSee NAB Comments at 18.E it filed supplemental comments setting forth its support for requiring  Y4broadcasters to explain how programs they identify as "core" meet that definition.s( ax yO'ԍSee NAB Supplemental Comments, Attachment at 8 (filed July 29, 1996).s Such descriptions assist parents and others who wish to monitor station performance in complying with the CTA. Having a broadcaster identify those programs it relies upon to meet its CTA obligation on an ongoing basis, rather than the end of the term, will increase broadcaster accountability.  Y14?64. ABC argued that licensees should have broad discretion in the manner and detail of these descriptions. For example, ABC contended that, "for a qualifying regular series, licensees should not be required to describe each weekly or daily episode; a general description of the series format, subject matter, and other overall qualities should be  Y 4sufficient...."E ax yO>'ԍSee ABC Comments at 12.E We agree that such a general description of a series should be sufficient so long as the description is adequate to provide the public with enough information about how the series is specifically designed to meet the educational and informational needs of children.  Yy4iii. Physically separate reports  YK4@65. In the NPRM, we proposed separating the children's programming reports  Y44from the rest of the public inspection file.H4H ax yO-!'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6323. H This would enable interested parties to review the information without having to search through unrelated materials. This is our current  Y4practice with a licensee's political file.Cax yO$'ԍ47 C.F.R.  73.3526 (4).C A few broadcasters commented that this" h0*(("  Y4requirement is unnecessary as the children's programming reports are easily accessible,ax yOy' x ԍSee Cosmos et al. Comments at 10. Cosmos stated that although it has no objection to this requirement, it  yOA' x& is unnecessary because all files are clearly labeled. See also Tribune Comments at 24. Tribune opposed this  x proposal as unnecessary on the ground the children's reports are the largest part of the public inspection file and thus  yO' x are easily spotted. The Curators of the University of Missouri opposed this proposed requirement. See Curators  yO'of the University of Missouri Comments at 67. but  Y4most broadcasters and other commenters supported this proposal.xax yO' x ԍSee, e.g., ABC Comments at 1113; Golden Orange Comments at 8; NAB Comments at 18; Westinghouse  yO'Comments at 34. Facilitating access to children's programming reports will facilitate public monitoring and increase broadcaster accountability under the CTA; requiring broadcasters to keep their children's programming reports separate from other portions of their public inspection files will ensure such ease of access. We therefore conclude that broadcasters should separate children's programming reports from other reports they maintain in their public files.  YH4iv. Publicizing children's programming reports  Y 4A66. In the NPRM, we proposed that licensees publicize the children's programming reports by, for example, announcing their existence and location periodically  Y 4over the air.G ax yOm'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6322.G Some broadcasters opposed this proposal, arguing that members of the public rarely review information in the public files, and those interested in children's programming  Y 4are likely to be aware of the stations' reports. ` ax yO' x ԍSee, e.g., CBS Comments at 7; ABC Comments at 13; Tribune Comments at 25; Curators of the University of Missouri Comments at 67.  Y4B67. We remain concerned that the public is generally unaware of these reports and agree with commenters who contend that publicizing the children's programming reports will heighten awareness of the CTA and invite members of the public to take an active role in  YK4monitoring compliance.K ax yO'ԍSee, e.g., CME et al. Comments at 44; CTW Comments at 13; CTREC Comments at 3. Periodic onair announcements further our desire to minimize the Commission's involvement in enforcing the CTA by facilitating public monitoring of broadcasters' educational programming. We consequently will require, as supported by NAB  Y4in its supplemental comments,iH ax yO"'ԍNAB Supplemental Comments, Attachment at 5 (filed July 29, 1996).i that broadcasters publicize in an appropriate manner the existence and location of their children's programming reports.  Y4Xv. Quarterly reports(# "!0*((d"Ԍ Y4C68. In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether the children's programming reports should be produced annually or quarterly, or whether we should, as we do now, allow  Y4stations to choose one of these two options.Hax yOK'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6323. H All parties who addressed this issue, including a number of broadcasters, supported requiring reports on a quarterly basis. Commenters noted that a quarterly reporting requirement provides more current information about station performance and encourages more consistent focus on educational programming efforts. Commenters noted that because quarterly production of children's programming reports will coincide with the quarterly issues/programs reports that broadcasters currently prepare, this  YH4requirement will not impose a significant additional burden on licensees.mHXax yOQ 'ԍSee e.g., ABC Comments at 12; Westinghouse Comments at 4.m Therefore, we will require licensees to prepare children's programming reports on a quarterly basis. For an experimental period of three years, we will also require broadcasters to file such quarterly  Y 4reports with the Commission on an annual basis,%X ax yO' x ԍABC and NBC supported requiring broadcasters to file children's programming reports on an annual basis for  x a threeyear interval to monitor broadcasters' performance under the CTA. ABC Comments at 50; NBC Comments at 25.% i.e., four quarterly reports filed jointly once a year. We encourage stations to file quarterly, in electronic form, when the reports are  Y 4prepared. ax yO' x ԍTo encourage licensees to file quarterly, we will post on the FCC World Wide Web home page a list of broadcasters who choose to do so. We will evaluate whether to continue this requirement as part of our review of  Y 4broadcasters' annual reports, see infra paragraph 140.  Y4vi. Standardized reporting form  Yb4D69. A number of broadcasters and other commenters, b` ax yOs' xg ԍSee, e.g., CDF and BCCC Comments at 11; NBC Comments at 25. Both parties suggested that we should  x^ adopt a standardized form that would include all the information necessary regarding licensees' efforts to comply  x* with the CTA, including, among other things, scheduling, lists of programs licensees claim are educational, total number of hours of programming, and other efforts to serve the educational and informational needs of children. suggested we provide licensees with a standardized form for these reports. A standardized form should lessen the burden on broadcasters by clarifying the information to be included and providing a ready format. This form a Children's Educational Television Report will be designed so licensees can complete the report on a computer and file it electronically with the Commission for purposes of the experimental threeyear annual filing requirement. We note that broadcasters have generally strongly supported the use of electronic filing for applications""H 0*((i"  Y4and other filings.ax yOy' xQ ԍSee, e.g., NAB Comments in PP Docket No. 9617 (Notice of Inquiry in the Matter of Improving Commission  yOA'Processes) (released Feb. 14, 1996) at 1112 (filed March 15, 1996). We encourage licensees to file the form with us electronically, although  Y4we will accept filings either on computer diskette or a paper copy of the report form.U ax yO' x ԍWe will issue a Public Notice explaining how to file programming reports electronically and how the public  x can access them. We note that electronic filing is simple and easy to do, and that the Commission has responded  x to a number of industry requests to simplify reporting procedures by making electronic filing available on a  xx voluntary basis for other services, such as for Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) license applications sent to  yO' xD the Mass Media Bureau, see Report and Order in MM Docket No. 94131 (1995), and license applications sent to  yO ' xk the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("WTB"), see Report and Order in WT Docket No. 94148, FCC No. 96 x 51, 61 FR 26670 (May 28, 1996). To date, WTB has implemented electronic filing procedures for auction  x applications (FCC Form 175), 900 Mhz SMR and broadband PCS C block long-form applications for winning  x bidders (FCC Form 600), and applications for a variety of private wireless services. Electronic filing on diskette  yO ' x! is required for circuit status reports sent to the International Bureau, see Report and Order in CC Docket No. 93157,  yO ' x^ 10 FCC Rcd 8605 (1995), and for ARMIS reports required to be filed with the Common Carrier Bureau. See Report  yOR' xy and Order in CC Docket No. 86182, 2 FCC Rcd 5770 (1987), modified on recon., 3 FCC Rcd 6375 (1988).  xb Having said this, we recognize that for some small broadcasters who do not have computer capabilities, paper filings may be more convenient and less burdensome.U  Y4E70. To encourage broadcasters to file their reports electronically, we will publish on our World Wide Web home page a list of broadcasters that do so. A standardized form will facilitate consistency of reporting among all licensees, assist in efforts by the public and the Commission to monitor station compliance with the CTA, and lessen the burden on the public and Commission staff.  Y14F71. This form will request information to identify the individual station and the programs it airs to meet its obligation under the CTA. The form will also request information on educational programs that the station plans to air in the next quarter and ask  Y 4whether the licensee has complied with other requirements described in this Report and  Y 4Order. We plan to issue the reporting form by Public Notice and make it available on the Internet.  Y4G72. Several commenters suggested that we post information on educational programming on our FCC home page on the World Wide Web. NTIA noted that Vice President Gore has proposed a "Family RighttoKnow" initiative under which broadcasters would provide information on educational programming in electronic form to the Commission  Y44for posting on the FCC home page on the World Wide Web.x4ax yO"' x  ԍSee NTIA Reply Comments at 1011. Other commenters also supported improving public access to the  yO#' x information provided by stations regarding their educational children's programming. See, e.g., CEP Comments at  x| 9 (encouraging the Commission to publish such information through various sources, including print, television, and  yO%' xD the Internet); ABC Comments at 15 (supporting permitting broadcasters to develop creative means of circulating  yO%' x such information, such as through the Internet, recorded phone services, and teacher's guides). We also received  yO&' x. comments in response to our Notice of Inquiry regarding the Commission's processes that strongly support the use  yOm'' x of electronic filing for applications and other filings. See, e.g., NAB Comments in PP Docket No. 9617 (Notice"m'0*((i'"  yO' x of Inquiry in the Matter of Improving Commission Processes) (released Feb. 14, 1996) at 1112 (filed March 15,  yOX'1996).  James Hamilton, professor"4# 0*((f" and Director of the Duke Program on Violence and the Media, urged the Commission to establish a publicly accessible computerized database containing information on educational programming as well as other indicators of station performance. He argued that such a  Y4database would facilitate monitoring of station performance by interested parties.1  ax yO' x ԍHamilton noted that the Environmental Protection Agency created such a public database for information on  x release of toxic chemicals, and the resulting publicity increased the calls for industry to control their emissions.  x According to Hamilton, better data on educational programming efforts could put similar attention on the extent to  yO 'which stations are improving the quantity and quality of such programming. Hamilton Comments at 25. 1 We believe that ensuring the ready availability of such information will further the goals of the CTA by giving parents, researchers and other interested parties information about broadcaster efforts to educate children, and, if feasible, we will do so. Putting this information on our home page would be consistent with a number of efforts the Commission has made to make a variety of information available to broadcasters and the public. For example, we currently post on our home page detailed technical information, including radio and television station  Y 4power levels and antenna heights.QX ax yO' x ԍThe Mass Media Bureau also posts on the FCC World Wide Web site copies of FCC News Releases and FCC  x documents in relevant rulemaking proceedings. In addition, the Bureau posts daily Public Notices concerning station application acceptances and application actions.Q The staff will explore the feasibility of applying such an approach to CTA information. We also encourage broadcasters that have established their own Web sites to post such information there.  Y 4 q IV. DEFINITION OF PROGRAMMING "SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED"  X4U\TO SERVE CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL NEEDS ă  Yc4H73. The CTA requires every television broadcaster to air programming  YL4"specifically designed" to serve the educational and informational needs of children.BL( ax yO%'ԍ47 U.S.C.  303b(a)(2).B Our current definition of educational and informational programming "programming that furthers the positive development of children 16 years of age and under in any respect,  Y4including the child's intellectual/cognitive or social/emotional needs"C ax yOp!'ԍ47 C.F.R.  73.671 Note.C is very broad and does not further delineate criteria for programs that are "specifically designed" to educate and  Y4inform children. In the NPRM, we explained that some stations were identifying general audience and entertainment programming in their renewal applications as programming specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs. These"$H 0*((J" circumstances led us tentatively to conclude that our current definition does not provide  Y4licensees with sufficient guidance regarding their obligation to air core programming.Gax yOb'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6327.G  Y4I74. To remedy this situation, we proposed to supplement our broad definition of educational and informational programming with a more particularized definition of programming specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs. Indeed, we noted that programming "specifically designed" to meet the educational and informational needs of children was the "only category of programming that the CTA  YH4specifically requires every licensee to provide.":HXax yOQ 'ԍId. at 6327.: We stated that a clearer definition of "specifically designed" or "core" programming appeared to be necessary to help stimulate an adequate supply of such programming in view of the apparent confusion among some licensees regarding this aspect of their children's programming obligation.   Y 4J75. Specifically, we proposed to define core educational programming as those programs that meet the following requirements: (1) the program has education as a significant purpose; (2) the educational objective of the program and the target child audience are specified in writing in the children's programming report; (3) the program is aired between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.; (4) the program is regularly scheduled; (5) the  Yb4program is of a substantial length (e.g., 15 or 30 minutes); and (6) the program is identified as educational children's programming at the time it is aired, and instructions for listing it as  Y44educational programming are provided by the licensee to program guides.14ax yO'ԍId.1  Y4K76. Today, we adopt a definition of core educational and informational  Y4programming that is very similar to that proposed in the NPRM. We intend that this definition will identify programming that clearly meets the statutory obligation to air programming "specifically designed" to meet the educational and informational needs of children. We emphasize that licensees should not regard our definition of core programming as imposing a limit on their ability to air other programming that teaches and informs children even if that programming does not square with each element of our definition of core programming. Our definition identifies core programming that we will look to for purposes of renewal processing to ensure that a broadcaster has met its responsibility under the CTA. Beyond this responsibility, we encourage licensees to air a wide variety of programming directed to children that meets their educational and informational needs.  Y4L77. Comments. Many commenters strongly supported providing licensees with clearer guidance regarding their obligation to air programming "specifically designed" to educate and inform children. Public interest groups, children's programming researchers, children's programming producers, as well as other commenters, generally agreed that the"!%x0*((#" Commission's proposed definition would assist licensees to determine what programs comply with their obligation to air programming specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs, and would improve the overall quality of children's educational and  Y4informational programming.ax yO4' x ԍSee, e.g., NTIA Comments at 7; CME et al. Comments at 26; CTW Comments at 15; CDF and BCCC Comments at 8. In contrast, broadcasters' reaction to the Commission's proposal was mixed. Although some including three of the four major broadcast networks  Y4ԩ agreed with the principle that a clearer definition would provide certainty to licensees,l ax yO^ 'ԍSee ABC Comments at 18; CBS Comments at 8; NBC Comments at 15.l others argued that the present definition of educational and informational programming is  Y_4working and should be retained. _ax yO ' x ԍSee, e.g., Comments of the Curators of the University of Missouri at 79; Joint Reply Comments of the Named  yO ' x State Broadcaster Associations at 67. See also Tribune Comments at 1012 (arguing that the Commission should  x retain the current definition of "educational and informational" programming and define "core" programming to distinguish this from "overall" programming). NAB filed initial comments arguing for retention of our  YH4existing definition,HHax yO'ԍSee NAB Comments at 1719.H but later filed supplemental comments supporting many aspects of the  Y14definition proposed in the NPRM.s1( ax yO 'ԍSee NAB Supplemental Comments, Attachment at 2 (filed July 29, 1996).s In addition, a number of broadcasters voiced their concern that the concept of "core" programming contravenes Congress' intent to give broadcasters wide discretion in choosing the programs they believe are educational and informational, and that it ignores the CTA's requirement that licensees serve children's educational and informational needs through their "overall programming" in addition to programming "specifically designed" to serve those needs. These parties argue that the Commission may not ignore any programming that does in fact serve the educational and informational needs of children, and point out that programming that does not comply with our definition of programming "specifically designed" for children can nevertheless contribute  Yb4to a licensee's fulfillment of its obligations under the CTA.b ax yO' xx ԍSee, e.g., NBC Comments at 1618; Cosmos et al. Comments at 1113; Named State Broadcaster Associations Comments at 7.  Y44M78. Discussion. The evidence in the record supports our general proposal to adopt a definition of core educational and informational programming. Several of the studies submitted in this proceeding suggest that some licensees are uncertain about what to classify as programming specifically designed to meet children's educational and informational  Y4needs.TXxax yO%' x ԍSee supra paragraphs 36, 38, 41, and 45. Dr. Kunkel's studies of 48 license renewal applications in the  x midwest and 48 renewal applications in the northeast provide evidence that some licensees claim programs as  xH specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs that would more correctly be classified")'0*((9'"  yO' x as entertainment programming. In addition, we cited in the NPRM a review of commercial television license  x renewal applications conducted in 1992 by CME and the Institute for Public Representation of the Georgetown  yO ' x University Law Center. NPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6318. CME found that many stations were listing in their  yO' x applications programs with no educational content. As we noted in the NPRM, NAB challenged CME's conclusions,  x arguing that the renewal applications reviewed were filed only shortly after the effective date of the Commission's  x children's programming rules, at a time when stations had had little opportunity to adjust to the new requirements.  yO@'See id. at 6318 n.35.T This conclusion is supported by our experience in reviewing renewal applications"&0*((v" and in evaluating licensees' efforts to meet their CTA obligation to air programming "specifically designed" to educate and inform children. We agree with those commenters who believe that a particularized definition will assist broadcasters and will avoid potentially misplaced reliance on general audience and entertainment programs as specifically designed to educate and inform. By more precisely defining "specifically designed" programming, we increase the likelihood that such programs will be aired, concomitantly increasing the likelihood children will benefit as Congress intended, from such programs.  YH4N79. We will retain, with a slight modification, our existing definition of "educational and informational programming" to provide a description of the broad variety of programs that can serve to comply with a licensee's overall requirement to air programming that meets children's educational and informational needs. Our existing definition states that "educational and informational television programming is any television programming which furthers the positive development of children 16 years of age and under in any respect,  Y 4including the child's intellectual/cognitive or social/emotional needs."^ ax yOw'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  73.671 Note; 73.672 Note.^ In order to track more closely the express language of the CTA, we will modify this definition somewhat so that the broad category of "educational and informational television programming" is defined as "any television programming that furthers the educational and informational needs of children 16 years of age and under in any respect, including children's intellectual/cognitive or social/emotional needs."  Y4O80. The definition of core programming that we adopt is designed to provide licensees with clear guidance regarding how we will evaluate renewal applications. The elements of our proposed definition are also designed to be as objective as possible so that they are more easily understood by licensees and the Commission staff and to avoid injecting the Commission unnecessarily into sensitive decisions regarding program content. As we  Y4stated in the NPRM, programming specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs is the only category of programming the CTA expressly requires each licensee to provide. Adopting a definition of such programming will promote this statutory objective by more precisely defining the programming that qualifies and, consequently, provide appropriate incentives to increase the amount of such programming. We further believe that the definition we adopt today will continue to provide broadcasters ample discretion in designing and producing such programming. We emphasize that the test of whether programming qualifies as core does not depend in any way on its topic or viewpoint. The test is whether it is "specifically designed" to serve the educational and informational"'0*(( " needs of children. We now turn to the specific elements of the new definition of core programming.  Y4Significant Purpose  Y4P81. With respect to the first element of our definition, we proposed to require that any program that is claimed to be specifically designed to meet children's needs have educating and informing children as a "significant purpose." We proposed that core programming have serving the educational and informational needs of children as a  Y14"significant" instead of "primary" purpose as suggested in the NOI, in response to the widelyheld view that such programming must be entertaining to be successful. We indicated our desire to encourage producers to make programming that educates and informs, but that is also entertaining and attractive to children. We stated our belief that this terminology makes clear that education need not be the only purpose of programming specifically designed to meet the educational and informational needs of children, but must be more than an incidental  Y 4goal.G ax yO 'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6328.G  Yy4Q82. Comments. Most commenters who addressed this aspect of our proposed standard preferred the "significant purpose" test to the "primary purpose" test we suggested in  YK4the NOI. KXax yOT' x ԍSee, e.g., Disney Comments at 56; CDF and BCCC Comments at 8; ABC Comments at 1718; CBS  yO' xV Comments at 8; Warner Brothers Comments at 1011. But see Children Now Comments at 2 (supporting a  x requirement that core programming have education as a "primary" purpose); NTIA Comments at 89 (urging the Commission to require that educational programs have education as a "principal purpose").  Proponents of this element of the definition of core programming generally believe that the significant purpose standard appropriately acknowledges that educational programming must be entertaining to be successful. These commenters also expressed the view that the primary purpose standard would establish a false dichotomy between education and entertainment that could discourage the development of exciting and appealing programs that also serve to inform and enlighten children.  Y4R83. A number of broadcasters and broadcast organizations, including ALTV, CBS, and ABC, argued that the definition of core programming adopted by the Commission must be broad enough to encompass programming that furthers the social and emotional  Ye4development of children, in addition to their cognitive and intellectual development.8Xe@ax yOV"' x ԍSee ALTV Comments at 3132; CBS Comments at 89; ABC Comments at 18. NAB also took this position  yO#' x in its initial comments, see NAB Comments at 19, but did not address this issue directly in its supplemental comments.8 According to these commenters, the legislative history of the CTA indicates that Congress intended that a broad range of programming qualify as "specifically designed," including programming that aids the personal and social growth of children and teenagers. In contrast,  Y 4CME et al., as well as several other public interest organizations, argued that definition of" (` 0*((" core programming should not be interpreted to include any program that can be characterized  Y4in some way as prosocial.FXax yOb' x ԍSee CME et al. Comments at 27 and Reply Comments at 28. CME also argued that just because a program  yO*' x does not contain violence, it should not be considered an educational or informational program. CME et al. Comments at 27.F CME et al. argued that a program can be "specifically designed" to further the educational and information needs of children only if it advances their cognitive/intellectual development. In the view of these commenters, programs purporting to advance children's social/emotional development but not their cognitive/intellectual development do not contain sufficient educational value to qualify as  Yv4programming specifically designed for children's educational needs.gvax yO 'ԍCME et al. Comments at 27 and Reply Comments at 31 n. 83.g  YH4S84. Discussion. We believe that, to qualify as core programming, a show must have serving the educational and informational needs of children ages 16 and under as a significant purpose. The "significant purpose" standard appropriately acknowledges the point advanced by broadcasters and others that to be successful, and thus to serve children's needs as mandated by the CTA, educational and informational programming must also be  Y 4entertaining and attractive to children. Accordingly, as proposed in the NPRM, we will require that core programming be specifically designed to meet the educational and informational needs of children ages 16 and under and have educating and informing children as a significant purpose.  Yb4T85. The NPRM proposed to define core programming as programming that "has  YK4education as a significant purpose."HKxax yOt'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6327. H Several commenters argued that core programming  Y44should have education and information as a significant purpose.4ax yO'ԍSee, e.g., Tribune Comments at 13; Cosmos et al. Comments at 1314. We agree. The CTA  Y4provides that licensees must serve the "educational and informational needs of children."Bax yOf'ԍ47 U.S.C.  303b(a)(2).B Thus, programming that has serving the educational and informational needs of children ages 16 and under as a significant purpose may qualify as core.  Y4U86. We believe that our significant purpose requirement is consistent with the "specifically designed" terminology of the CTA, which is the statutory test. Although core programming must be specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children, the term "specifically" does not mean that the sole (or even primary) purpose of the programming must be to educate and inform. As discussed above, we acknowledge some commenters' position that programming must be entertaining in order to be effective, and we therefore believe that our significant purpose requirement, by allowing to qualify as core programming shows that do both, is consistent with the language of the CTA." )( 0*((!"Ԍ Y4ԙV87. Several commenters asked us to clarify that our definition of core programming includes educational and informational programs that further children's social and emotional development as well as their cognitive and intellectual development. The CTA speaks of programming specifically designed to serve "the educational and informational  Y4needs of children."Bax yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  303b(a)(2).B It does not draw a distinction between educational and informational programming that furthers children's cognitive and intellectual development and educational and informational programming that furthers children's social and emotional development. We decline to draw that distinction ourselves and accordingly conclude that both fall within the scope of our definition. We underscore that we are not interested in influencing or even knowing the viewpoint of any core programming. The test of whether programming qualifies as core does not depend in any way on its viewpoint, but solely on whether it is "specifically designed" to serve children's educational and informational needs. In this regard, we note that entertainment programming with a minor or wraparound educational and informational message cannot correctly be said to have serving the educational and  Y 4informational needs of children as a significant purpose.9X Xax yO' x ԍThe term "wraparound" refers to messages inserted at the beginning or end of an entertainment program in  yO' x an effort to make the program qualify as specifically designed to educate or inform. NOI, 8 FCC Rcd at 1843 & n. 16.9 We anticipate that any attempt to incorrectly characterize programming as core will elicit significant opposition from the community, about which the FCC will be apprised.   Yb4W88. In determining whether programming has a significant purpose of educating  YK4and informing children, we will ordinarily rely on the good faith judgment of broadcasters, Kxax yOt' x ԍSee, e.g., Tribune Comments at 3 (urging the Commission to defer to licensees' good faith determination that  xQ a program has a significant educational purpose). Tribune also argued that licensees should be permitted to rely  x! on representations from program suppliers in determining whether a significant purpose of a program is educational  yO' xD and informational. Id. We disagree. Although licensees certainly may refer to information provided by program  x suppliers in assessing the educational and informational value of programming, they remain ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with our rules.  who will be subject to increased community scrutiny as a result of the public information initiatives described in Section III above. We consequently will rely primarily on such public participation to ensure compliance with the significant purpose prong of the definition of core programming, with Commission review taking place only as a last resort.  Y4X89. One suggested rule revision discussed in the NPRM was to require that educational and informational programming specifically designed for children be produced  Y4with the assistance of independent educational advisors.  ax yO4%' xt ԍSee NPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6326. This proposal was made by CTW in comments filed in connection with  yO%' x our NOI and en banc hearing on children's television programming. Specifically, CTW proposed that educational  x and informational programming specifically designed for children (1) be produced with the assistance of independent  x educational advisors; (2) be created to fulfill explicit written educational goals; and (3) be evaluated for"'0*(('"  yO'effectiveness. See CTW NOI Comments at 810 and En Banc Comments at 23. We stated that we did not propose"*X0*((4" to require the use of educational advisors, and that it should be left to broadcasters to decide whether they need or wish to hire educational advisors to assist them with the production of  Y4programming.GXax yO'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6326.G A number of commenters responding to the NPRM continued to express the view that experts should be used in developing core programming. CTW reiterated its opinion that the use of educational advisors would be a more objective determinant of educational purpose, and a more likely predictor of whether a program has educational  Yv4content, than the "significant purpose" test.Evax yO 'ԍSee CTW Comments at 16.E Other commenters concurred with the view  Y_4that educational advisors should be used to develop core programming.+_xax yO ' x ԍAletha Huston and John Wright believe that consultants and researchers from the fields of education and child  x development should be used to develop the educational goals of a program and to test for effectiveness in achieving  yO' xM those goals. See Huston and Wright Comments at 56. Dale Kunkel would require that specifically designed  yO' x programming have a reasonable expectation of effectiveness as determined by educational experts or testing. See  xD Kunkel Comments at 10. KIDSNET and Dorothy and Jerome Singer suggested that the Commission establish an  x independent nongovernmental commission or board to provide guidance to industry and government regarding,  x among other things, the definition of educational programming and the use of educational advisors in developing  yO' x such programming. See KIDSNET Comments at 13; Letter from Dorothy and Jerome Singer to Chairman Reed  x Hundt (November 13, 1995). We decline to adopt this latter proposal because there are other satisfactory and commonly accepted means available to broadcasters to obtain such guidance.+ We continue to believe, however, that it would not be appropriate to require the use of educational experts in developing core programming. Although some broadcasters may find that experts can provide worthwhile assistance in developing educational programming, as we stated in the  Y 4NPRM we prefer to minimize the burdens and potential intrusions on programming decisions of broadcasters and provide them the flexibility to select the means by which their educational programming is created.  Y 4Educational and Informational Objective and Target Child Audience Specified in Writing  Yy4Y90. With respect to the second element of our core programming definition, we  Yb4proposed in the NPRM to require licensees to specify in writing in their children's programming report the educational and informational objective of a core program, as well as  Y44its target child audience.G4ax yO!'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6328.G We explained that we thought that such a requirement would help licensees to focus on children's specific educational and informational needs in compliance with the CTA. We also stated that this information would assist parents and other interested parties to understand licensees' programming efforts and afford them the means to participate with licensees in developing effective educational programming and to play a more active role in promoting and enforcing the goals of the CTA. We proposed that such information be"+0*((S" included in the children's programming report that licensees place in their public inspection files.  Y4Z91. Comments. Most broadcasters and other commenters who addressed the first aspect of this proposal requiring licensees to specify in writing the educational and  Y4informational objective of core programming supported it.ax yO' x ԍSee, e.g., CTREC Comments at 3; CTW Comments at 1617; NBC Comments at 1819; Westinghouse Comments at 5. These parties generally expressed the view that this requirement would permit parents, researchers, and educators to evaluate whether a core program achieves its stated goals, and would assist broadcasters to  YH4comply with the CTA and the Commission to evaluate stations' performance.H ax yO ' xZ ԍSee, e.g., CME et al. Comments at 28; Westinghouse Comments at 5. NTIA advocated the adoption of a standard reporting form for use in specifying educational objective and target age group. NTIA Comments at 9.  Children Now also argued that specification of educational and informational purpose would reduce the  Y 4incidence of mischaracterization of entertainment programming as educational..  xax yOC' xp ԍChildren Now Comments at 3. In its initial comments, NAB contended that requiring specification of  xQ educational and informational objectives would impose a significant paperwork burden on licensees without any  yO' x significant benefit, but in its supplemental comments it supported this aspect of our proposed definition. See NAB  yO'Comments at 22; see also NAB Supplemental Comments, Attachment at 4 (filed July 29, 1996)..  Y 4[92. Public interest groups, researchers, and others also supported the Commission's proposal to require specification of the target child audience of core programming. A number of educational programming researchers submitted comments stating their belief that educational programming must be targeted to a relatively narrow age range in order for the program to be effective. Dale Kunkel asserts that children's ability to comprehend television content changes substantially over the years between infancy and adolescence, requiring that different types of educational programming be directed to children  YK4of different ages.MK` ax yO\'ԍSee Kunkel Comments at 9.M According to Aletha Huston and John Wright, the target age range specified by licensees should span no more than three to four years to ensure that  Y4programming is appropriate to the developmental level of the intended audience. ax yO' x^ ԍHuston & Wright Comments at 45. Other commenters agreed that effective educational programming must  yO 'be agespecific. See, e.g., Comments of the National Coalition on Television Violence at 2. In contrast, some broadcasters opposed requiring specification of the target age group, generally  Y4arguing that the burdens involved outweigh the asserted benefits.H ax yO#' x@ ԍSee, e.g., NAB Comments at 22. NAB reversed its position on this issue in its Supplemental Comments.  yO$'See NAB Supplemental Comments, Attachment at 4 (filed July 29, 1996). CBS also pointed out that the CTA does not require licensees to target their educational programming to discrete segments of the child audience, and argued that many stations do not have the resources to hire experts to determine the precise ages for which their qualifying programming is",0*((d"  Y4appropriate.Xax yOy'ԍSee CBS Comments at 10 n. 14. X ABC stated that it does not oppose a requirement that licensees identify the target age group of core programming, as long as licensees retain the discretion to determine  Y4the appropriate age group.HXax yO'ԍSee ABC Comments at 2021.H  Y4\93. Discussion. We are persuaded that we should adopt our proposal to require that the educational and informational objective of core programming be specified in writing. Requiring a statement of educational and informational purpose will ensure that broadcasters devote attention to the educational and informational goals of core programming and how those goals may be achieved. A written statement of educational and information purpose should also assist licensees to distinguish programs specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs from programs whose primary purpose is to entertain children. Moreover, this requirement can, as noted, allow parents and other interested parties to participate more actively in monitoring licensee compliance with the CTA, and thus is  Y 4consistent with our public information initiatives.lX ax yOn' xp ԍAs we have noted, supra n.119, noncommercial stations will be exempt from these public information  x initiatives. We will similarly exempt them from the requirement that station's specify in writing the educational and informational objective and target age group of their core programs.l  Y 4]94. The description of a program's educational and informational objective, which should be included in the licensee's children's programming report, does not have to be lengthy. It should state the educational and informational objective of the program and the expected educational and informational effects. To satisfy this requirement, broadcasters need not describe the viewpoint of the program or opinions expressed on it. The description must be adequate to demonstrate that a significant purpose of the program is to educate and inform children.  Y4^95. We will also require licensees to indicate a specific target age group for core programs. In enacting the CTA, Congress found that "[c]hildren's educational programming is most effective when it is designed to focus on particular age groups and  Y4address specific skills.";ax yOc 'ԍSenate Report at 6.; Research has demonstrated that the ability of young children to comprehend television content varies as a function of age, and that educational programming should be targeted to an age range of no more than three to four years to ensure that its  Ye4content is appropriate to the developmental level of the intended audience.\eax yO$'ԍSee supra paragraph 31 and n.75. \ Requiring licensees to specify the age group a core program is intended to encourage them to consider whether the content of the program is suited to the interests, knowledge, vocabulary, and other abilities of that group. In addition, this requirement will provide information to parents" -( 0*((!" regarding the appropriate age for core programs, thereby facilitating increased program audience and ratings. We decline, however, to identify particular age ranges of children to which core programs may be directed. We prefer to leave broadcasters the discretion to develop programs suited to children with similar educational and informational needs and to counterprogram to distinct portions of the child audience as they believe appropriate.  Yv4_96. In addition, we decline to require broadcasters to serve particular segments  Y_4of the child audience. We stated in the NPRM that we recognize the possibility that licensees may be induced to air programming for children over 12 because (1) this group has greater spending power than young children, (2) shows for older children may attract general audiences as well as children, and (3) programming designed for children 12 and under is subject to commercial limits, while programming for older children is not. Nonetheless, we tentatively concluded that it would be undesirable to require broadcasters to serve particular segments of the child audience, in part because we did not have adequate data showing that in fact younger age groups are underserved relative to other children. We requested that those commenters who disagreed with this view submit data relevant to whether there was a  Y4shortage of educational programming targeted to certain age groups.Lax yO 'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 63286329.L A few commenters discussed the need for broadcasters to air more programming directed to children of certain ages. For example, CTREC argued that the preponderance of core programming should be directed to preschool and elementary aged children, who are in their early, more formative  Y44stages of cognitive, social, and emotional development.J4Xax yO='ԍSee CTREC Comments at 34. J However, none of these parties submitted data demonstrating that a particular age group was underserved relative to other groups. Accordingly, we adhere to our view that we should not at this time require broadcasters to serve particular segments of the child audience, particularly in light of the significant new steps we have adopted to promote the overall availability of children's educational and informational programming.  Y4Times Core Programming May Be Aired  Ye4`97. As for the third element of our definition of core programming, we stated in  YN4the NPRM our belief that credit at license renewal time should be given only for programs shown during hours children are likely to be watching television. As a consequence, we tentatively proposed to credit as core programming children's educational programs broadcast between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. We selected this time frame because it includes the time periods most popular for television viewing among children 2 to 17. We  Y4noted that several parties commenting in response to the NOI and in connection with our en  Y 4banc hearing argued that core programming should be aired between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. We stated that we were inclined to adopt a wider permissible time frame based on evidence that children are in the audience through the entire period of prime time (up to 11:00 p.m.) and that "not an insignificant" number of children are watching television as"#.0*((%" early as 6:00 a.m. However, we expressed our concern that educational programs not be routinely relegated to the 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. hour simply because it may be a less costly  Y4time for licensees to discharge their educational programming obligation.Gax yOK'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6330.G Accordingly, we asked commenters to address whether core program hours should include 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.  Yv4a98. Comments. While most broadcasters generally either supported or did not  Y_4oppose the proposed 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. time period for core programming,nX_Xax yOh ' x* ԍSee, e.g., Westinghouse Comments at 56; ABC Comments at 2122; NBC Comments at 19; CBS Comments  x at 1011. In its supplemental comments, NAB stated its support for the narrower 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. time  yO 'period, see NAB Supplemental Comments, Attachment at 4.n public interest groups and other commenters generally preferred a 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. time  Y14frame.1xax yOZ' xD ԍSee, e.g., NTIA Comments at 910; AAP Comments at 2; CME et al. Comments at 2829; CTREC Comments at 4; Children Now Comments at 3. With respect to the issue of whether programming aired between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. should qualify as core, broadcasters argued that a significant number of children are in the audience between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., and that broadcasters do not overuse this early time period for educational programming. In contrast, public interest groups, programmers, and other commenters almost unanimously preferred a time frame for core programming beginning at 7:00 a.m. on the ground that relatively few children are watching television before 7:00 a.m. These parties also argued that broadcasters have an incentive to air educational programming earlier than 7:00 a.m. because it is a less costly time for them to fulfill their obligation to air core programming. Several of these commenters also preferred  Yb4that licensees not be permitted to air core programming after 10:00 p.m.rbax yO'ԍSee, e.g., Children Now Comments at 3; CDF and BCCC Comments at 89.r  Y44b99. Discussion. After considering the evidence, we will limit the hours within which programming may qualify as core to a narrower time frame than that proposed in the  Y4NPRM. To qualify as core, a program must air between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. In specifying this time period, our intention is to encourage broadcasters to air educational programming at times the maximum number of child viewers will be watching. With respect to the morning time limit, recent data show that during four sample weeks in November 1995, less than 5 percent of children 2 to 17 nationwide were watching television at 6:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and less than 10 percent of this age group was in the  Y|4audience at 6:30 a.m.=|` ax yO$'ԍSee Appendix D.= By 7:00 a.m., however, between 12.5 percent and 14 percent of children 2 to 11 were watching television, and by 8:00 a.m. more than 20 percent of children 2 to 5, close to 12 percent of children 6 to 8, and just under 9 percent of children 9 to 11,"N/ 0*((3"  Y4were in the audience.$@ax yOy' xc ԍMorning viewing for teens 12 to 17 peaks earlier Monday through Friday than for younger children,  x presumably because these children are all in school and leave for school earlier than younger schoolaged children.  x For teens 12 to 14, morning viewing peaks at 7:00 a.m. at close to 10 percent, and then declines to 5 percent by  x 8:00 a.m. For older teens 15 to 17, morning viewing peaks at 6:30 a.m., and then declines gradually to  x approximately 3 to 4 percent by 8:00 a.m. In view of the significantly higher level of viewership among younger  x children between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., and the comparatively level rate of viewership among teens over the 6:00  yO)' xV a.m. to 8:00 a.m. period, we believe that a morning time frame of 7:00 a.m. is appropriate. See A.C. Nielsen,  yO'National Audience Demographics, Vol. 1, 1995. See also Appendix D.$ Thus, at 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, nearly four times as many young children are watching television than at 6:00 a.m. In other words, at 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, 1.3 million children are watching television. By 7:00 a.m., the number of children watching television is 5.1 million. Data also show that roughly as many (i.e., very  Y4few) young children are watching television at 6:00 a.m. as are watching at midnight.ax yO% ' x ԍViewership among all age groups is higher at midnight on Saturday than on Sunday and during the week.  yO 'Id. With respect to weekend viewing, the same data show that less than 4 percent of children 2 to  Yv417 were watching television from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. on Saturday.v( ax yOO'ԍAppendix D shows that slightly more than 4% of children 9 to 11 are in the audience at 6:30 a.m. Id. at 54. By 7:00 a.m. on Saturday, however, the percentage of children 2 to 11 in the audience had risen to between about 5 percent and 7 percent, and continued to increase sharply to about 16 percent or more by 8:00 a.m. Figures for Sunday showed a comparable low rate of viewership for all children prior to 7:00 a.m. followed by a sharp increase between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. for  Y 4children 2 to 11. ax yOl' x ԍFor teens 12 to 17, viewership also increases from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday, albeit at  yO4'a less marked rate than for younger children. Id.  Y 4c100. Despite the relatively small percentage of children in the audience prior to 7:00 a.m. as compared to after that hour, a number of studies confirm that broadcasters air a significant percentage of their educational programming before 7:00 a.m. For example, NAB's 1994 and 1995 surveys indicate that approximately 20 percent of programs stations  Yy4claimed were educational were shown before 7:00 a.m.Fyax yO:' x ԍNAB Comments at 23 and Attachment 1 at 11, 12. The 1995 survey shows that 18.1 percent of programs  x stations claimed were regularly scheduled educational and informational children's programming started before 7:00  xQ a.m., while the 1994 survey shows that 22.4 percent of these programs were aired before 7:00 a.m. Another study  xk conducted for CME shows that, in the top 20 television markets, 44 percent of all weekday core programs aired at  yOZ"' x 6:30 a.m. or earlier, and of those 25 percent aired at 5:00 a.m. or 5:30 a.m. See CME En Banc Comments at 15  x* (Patricia Aufderheide and Kathryn Montgomery, "The Impact of the Children's Television Act on the Broadcast  yO#' x Market," Center for Media Education, 1994). NAB and ALTV challenged CME's findings on the ground, inter alia,  x@ that its studies regarding the time educational programming aired were informal, were limited to relatively few  yOz%' x markets and to weekday programs, and were not made available to the public. See ALTV En Banc Reply  yOB&'Comments at 910; NAB En Banc Reply Comments at 67.F A study submitted by UCC also demonstrates that 20 percent of the educational children's programs monitored during the"b00*(("  Y4study aired before 7:00 a.m.Aax yOy'ԍUCC Reply Comments at 9. A In light of the evidence demonstrating that only 5 to 10  Y4percent of children are watching television before 7:00 a.m.,KXax yO'ԍSee supra paragraph 99.K broadcasters appear to be airing a disproportionately large amount of educational programming during early morning hours in relation to the relatively few children watching television at that time. As noted in  Y4the NPRM, broadcasters have an incentive to air educational programming during very early morning hours as this is a less costly time for them to comply with their educational  Yv4programming obligation.qvax yO 'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6330. See also supra paragraph 32.q In view of these circumstances, we believe it is appropriate to specify that core programming air no earlier than 7:00 a.m. rather than 6:00 a.m. as  YH4proposed in the NPRM. An early time limit of 7:00 a.m. will ensure that core programming is shown when more children are likely to be watching television, especially young children, thus maximizing the benefit of such programming. In addition, a 7:00 a.m. cutoff will help counter the economic incentive of broadcasters to air educational and informational programming to time periods when few children are in the audience.  Y 4d101. With regard to the evening limit, we believe it is appropriate to require that core programming air no later than 10:00 p.m. rather than 11:00 p.m. as proposed in the  Y4NPRM. Recent data show that the number of children 2 to 17 watching television drops off considerably from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. For all seven nights combined (Monday Sunday), the average number of children 2 to 17 drops from 13 million at 10:00 p.m. to 8 million at 11:00 p.m. According to these figures, the number of children 2 to 8 watching television Monday through Friday peaks at approximately 30 percent at 8:00 p.m., and then declines sharply to approximately 16 percent by 10:00 p.m. and less than 10 percent by 11:00  Y4p.m.=xax yO/'ԍSee Appendix D.= For older children 9 to 17 Monday through Friday, viewership peaks somewhat later, between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. at approximately 30 percent to 35 percent, and then falls off to approximately 20 percent to 25 percent at 10:00 p.m. and approximately 12 percent to 19 percent by 11:00 p.m. The data for these age groups for Saturday and Sunday also show a  Y4sharp decline in viewership from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.ax yOc ' x ԍThe decline in viewership between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. is somewhat less marked on Saturday for the  yO+!'9 to 17 age group.  We agree with those commenters who argued that core programming should be aired before 10:00 p.m. when a  Y|4larger proportion of children are awake and watching television.s|` ax yO$'ԍSee, e.g., CDF and BCCC Comments at 89;Children Now Comments at 3. s We do not expect this evening limit to impose a burden on broadcasters, or impede their program scheduling strategies, as they typically schedule adult entertainment programming for the 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. time period. We therefore will require that, in order to qualify as core,"71 0*((7" educational and informational children's programming be aired between the hours of 7:00  Y4a.m. and 10:00 p.m.ax yOb' xl ԍWe decline to adopt NAB's suggestion, made in its initial comments, that our time frame for core  x programming be adjusted for the central and mountain time zones, where the morning news programs begin one  yO' x hour earlier than in other time zones. See NAB Comments at 23. We are not aware of any evidence demonstrating  x that children's television viewing patterns in these regions differs from those of the nation as a whole. Consequently, the rationale underlying our selection of a 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. time frame applies to these regions as well.  We believe that this time period effectuates the language of the CTA that licensees air programming "specifically designed" to serve children's educational and informational needs, as children are best served by programming that airs during times more children are watching television.   Yv4e102. CME et al. argues that it is "questionable" for the Commission to credit as core programming aired after the 10:00 p.m. start of the safe harbor for indecent  YH4programming.Hxax yOq' x ԍCME et al. Comments at 1718 (citing Action for Children's Television v. FCC, 58 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). We do not believe that the time period for core programming must be consistent with the indecency safe harbor (10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). The indecency safe harbor is intended to provide for the airing of indecent material when the risk of children in the audience is minimized, while our purpose in this context is to promote the availability of children's educational programs when substantial numbers of children are watching. Nevertheless, the data recited above indicate that because there is an appreciable drop in the number of children in the audience after 10:00 p.m. the time frame for purposes of the core programming definition should be 10:00 p.m. rather than 11:00 p.m.  Yy4Regularly Scheduled  YK4f103. Turning to the fourth element of our definition of core programming, we proposed to require that such programming be regularly scheduled to permit children and their parents to be able easily to anticipate when educational programming will be aired. We also stated, however, that we did not wish to create a disincentive to air children's educational specials, which may not be regularly scheduled or which may air at relatively infrequent intervals. We sought comment on whether we should require core programs to be regularly scheduled and, if so, how often they should be scheduled in order to be considered  Y4"regularly" scheduled.Gax yO+!'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6330.G We specifically indicated "once a week, once a month, or so long as the program can appear in program guides" as possible definitions for "regularly  Y|4scheduled."1|` ax yO$'ԍId.1  YN4g104. Comments. Comments on this issue were divided. Broadcasters generally argued that the Commission should not limit the credit available for educational specials"72 0*((" because they present valuable educational programming, and cited examples of wellregarded  Y4programs such as the "ABC Afterschool Specials" that are not regularly scheduled.tax yOb' x ԍSee, e.g., ABC Comments at 2224; Cosmos et al. Comments at 17; ALTV Comments at 2930; NAB  x Comments at 24. In its Supplemental Comments, NAB supported crediting only regularly scheduled programming  x as core, while allowing educational and informational specials to contribute to the threehour processing guideline  yO' x3 as part of a package of a variety of core and noncore educational and informational programming. See NAB Supplemental Comments, Attachment at 34 (filed July 29, 1996).t Broadcasters also expressed the view that, because specials are usually heavily promoted in order to maximize viewership, the fact that they are not regularly scheduled does not limit  Y4their audience.exax yO 'ԍSee ABC Comments at 23; Tribune Comments at 17. e On the other hand, public interest groups argued that core programming be regularly scheduled on the ground that specials are not predictable and cannot be anticipated  Yv4by viewers.vax yO/' x ԍSee, e.g., CME et al. Comments at 2930; Children Now Comments at 2; CTREC Comments at 4; National Coalition on Television Violence Comments at 3. Children Now proposed that core programs be required to air at least once a week in a regular time slot so parents will know when to tune in and children can build on  YH4lessons taught on a daily or weekly basis.H` ax yOY' x^ ԍChildren Now Comments at 2. CTREC also supported requiring most core programming to be aired at least  yO!'on a weekly basis. CTREC Comments at 4. Disney and CTW, both of which produce educational programs, suggested that the Commission award credit to specials that are  Y 4scheduled sufficiently far in advance to permit their inclusion in program guides. ax yO' x ԍCTW Comments at 18; Disney Comments at 9 n.14 (contending that specials should be considered as part of a broadcasters "overall" efforts to air educational programming.).  Y 4h105. Discussion. We continue to believe that qualifying core programming should be regularly scheduled, particularly in view of our emphasis on improving the flow of information to parents through published program guides and other means to enable them to select educational and informational programs for their children. Programming that is aired on a regular basis is more easily anticipated and located by viewers, and can build loyalty that will improve its chance for commercial success. A large proportion of television programming, including children's programming, consists of shows that air on a routine  YK4basis.XKax yO !' xM ԍNAB's two station surveys demonstrate that broadcasters aired on average of 13.5 minutes per week of  x educational specials in 1994. NAB Comments at Attachment 1, p. 5. In contrast, NAB's survey indicated that in 1994 broadcasters aired an average of 244.74 minutes per week of regulatory scheduled educational programming. We agree with those commenters who argue that programs that air regularly can  Y44reinforce lessons from episode to episode.L40ax yO%'ԍSee supra paragraph 104.L We also believe that regularly scheduled programs can develop a theme which enhances the impact of the educational and informational message. Accordingly, to be considered as core, we will require that"30*((" educational and informational programs air on a regular basis. Furthermore, to count as regularly scheduled programming, such programs must be scheduled to air at least once a week. Regularly scheduled weekly programming is the dominant form of television programming. It is more likely to be anticipated by parents and children, to develop audience loyalty, and to build successfully upon and reinforce educational and informational messages,  Y4thereby better serving the educational and informational needs of children.1ax yO'ԍId.1 It is also our view that programs that air at less frequent intervals are less likely to attract a regular audience and to be anticipated by parents.  Y14i106. Television series typically air in the same time slot for 13 consecutive weeks, although some episodes may be preempted for programs such as breaking news or live sports events. Indeed, evidence suggests that a significant number of educational and informational programs, particularly those that air on Saturday, are preempted by sports and  Y 4other programming.j Xax yO'ԍSee Aufderheide and Montgomery, supra n.232, at 1617.j Although a program must be regularly scheduled on a weekly basis to qualify as core, we will leave to the staff to determine, with guidance from the full Commission as necessary, what constitutes regularly scheduled programming and what level of preemption is allowable.  Yb4j107. Specials, including those scheduled to appear on a regular nonweekly basis, will not be credited as core. As stated above, we believe that programs that are aired  Y44more frequently (i.e., at least once a week) are more likely to build upon and reinforce educational and informational messages, more likely to develop audience loyalty, and more likely to be anticipated by children and parents and thus attract a regular audience. Nonetheless, we recognize that educational and informational specials with a significant purpose of serving the educational and informational needs of children ages 16 and under can help accomplish the objectives of the CTA and thus can count toward the second track of our threehour processing guideline as described below in Section V. The value of such programming is enhanced if parents are informed in advance of the program and the time it is scheduled to air. We encourage broadcasters to promote educational and informational specials and to schedule them far enough in advance to permit information about the program to be included in program guides.  Y 4Substantial Length  Y4k108. As to the fifth element of our definition of core programming, we  Y4proposed in the NPRM that core programming be of substantial length (e.g., 15 or 30"40*((!"  Y4minutes).Gax yOy'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6330.G We noted that standardlength programs (30 minutes or more) are typically regularly scheduled and therefore available at predictable times, and that it is possible to schedule 15minute programs regularly and have such programming listed in program guides. We asked commenters to address what length of program should satisfy the proposed requirement that core programming be of substantial length. Specifically, we asked whether short segments that are specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational  Yv4needs should be credited as core programming and, if so, how they should be credited.1vXax yO 'ԍId.1  YH4l109. Comments. Some broadcasters who addressed this issue supported crediting short segment programming as core. They argued generally that short segments (including interstitials and PSAs) can effectively teach valuable lessons, are suited to the short attention span of children, and can reach large audiences if aired during popular children's  Y 4shows.  ax yO' x ԍSee, e.g., National Broadcast Association for Community Affairs Comments at 35; NBC Comments at 2122;  yOM' xD Warner Brothers Comments at 79. NAB took this position in its initial comments, see NAB Comments at 24, but  yO' xx in its supplemental comments supported requiring core programming to be at least 30 minutes in length, see NAB Supplemental Comments, Attachment at 4 (filed July 29, 1996). ALTV and Tribune also noted that short segments are especially useful to local  Y 4stations because of their low production and opportunity cost. ax yOV' x7 ԍSee ALTV Comments at 28; Tribune Comments at 19. NAB also made this argument in its initial comments.  yO'See NAB Comments at 24. ABC argued that many short segment programs recur each week at the same time in the same program, and thus can be  Y 4anticipated. ( ax yO' x^ ԍSee ABC Comments at 27. For example, ABC states that "ABC Schoolhouse Rock" is presented twice each  yOH'Saturday morning at regular times. In contrast, many public interest groups argued that core programs should be  Y4at least 30 minutes long. ax yO' x ԍSee, e.g., AAP Comments at 2; Children Now Comments at 2; CTREC Comments at 4; CME Comments at 30; CDF and BCCC Comments at 9. Children Now claimed that longform programs are more effective at teaching skills such as counting and reading, and that broadcasters are inclined to  Yb4rely too heavily on short segments.Obax yO 'ԍSee Children Now Comments at 12.O Researchers Aletha Huston and John Wright agreed that 15 or 30minute programs are more effective than short segments because they provide more content, allow the development of a theme, and permit educational messages to be told  Y4in story form.jXhax yO6%' x; ԍSee Huston and Wright Comments at 67. These commenters cited research that shows that, for children older  x than 5 or 6, programs that convey educational messages in story form are more effective than programs that move  yO&'quickly from one idea to another. Id.j "50*(("Ԍ Y4m110. Discussion. We believe that core programming should be at least 30 minutes in length. In enacting the CTA, Congress identified a number of examples of worthwhile educational and informational programs, all of which are at least one halfhour in  Y4length.ax yO4' x ԍSee Senate Report at 68. See also Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 5101 ("Congress used standardlength programming to exemplify the type of programming the Act sought to encourage."). Although we do not mean to suggest that these examples in the legislative history are equivalent to statutory requirements, we believe they reflect the fact that the dominant broadcast television format is 30 minutes or longer in length. We believe it reasonable that our rules, which are intended to promote the accessibility of children's educational and informational programming, reflect this current industry practice. Programs in these standard formats are more likely than shorter programming to be regularly scheduled and to be listed in program guides, and thus are easier for parents to identify for their child's viewing. In addition, programs that are 30 minutes or longer allow more time for educational and informational material to be presented, and a number of commenters stated that shows of this  Y 4length can be particularly beneficial to children.( ax yO' x ԍA number of commenters stated that longer form programming is more effective because it permits the  x educational message to be presented in a story format. Commenters presented evidence that, beginning at age 5 or  x 6, children are more interested in and learn more from programs that present information in the form of a story than  x from public service announcements or programs with a "magazine" format that moves quickly from one idea to the  yO' x next. See supra n.256. With respect to younger children, commenters also presented evidence that young children  xQ are capable of benefiting from extended educational and informational messages, as long as the show is properly  yOm' x tailored to the cognitive ability of the intended audience. See APA NOI Comments at 23. See also Petition for  xx Reconsideration filed by APA, AAP, and the National Parent Teacher Association (May 10, 1991) in MM Docket  yO' x Nos. 90570 and 83670, challenging the Report and Order adopting our initial rules implementing the CTA. The  x Petition sought reconsideration of our 1991 decision to allow public service announcements and short vignettes to  xH qualify as programming specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children, and cites  yOU' x evidence to refute the statement in the Report and Order that short segment programming is "well suited" to the short attention span of children. There was no evidence presented in  Y 4response to the NPRM to support claims by some parties that children have short attention  Y 4spans and thus will not benefit from substantial length programming.0X ax yO' xU ԍTo the contrary, Dale Kunkel submitted comments stating that there is no scientific basis upon which to assert  x that children have inherently short attention spans in their processing of television content. Kunkel Comments at 1011.0  Y4n111. We will not credit educational and informational PSAs, interstitials, or other short segments as core programming. The CTA does not preclude broadcasters from counting such programming as educational and informational; indeed, we recognize that some short segments have significant public interest benefits. Nevertheless, while we have previously found that short segment programming may qualify as specifically designed  Y4educational and informational programming,X0ax yO%' x ԍWe have stated previously that shortsegment programming may qualify as specifically designed educational  x and informational programming, although broadcasters must air some standardlength children's programs to fulfill  yO'' xQ their programming renewal review requirement. See Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 2115; Memorandum Opinion"'0*(('"  yO'and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 5101.  for the reasons stated above we believe that"6X0*((j" programs that are 30 minutes or more in length are a more appropriate focus of our definition of "core" programming. We also note that short segments and PSAs are less likely to be regularly scheduled or listed in program guides, and consequently are not easily located and  Y4anticipated by parents and children.XXax yO' x& ԍWhile the NPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6330, raised the possibility that a core program could be 15 minutes in  x length, no broadcast parties addressed the issue, and the few nonbroadcast commenters who did address it stated that programs of this length rarely if ever appear on television, and would not be expected by parents and children.  Y4o112. We emphasize that programming with a significant purpose of educating and informing children that is less than 30 minutes in length, although not credited as core programming, can contribute to serving children's needs pursuant to the CTA. Such programming can count toward meeting the threehour processing guideline when broadcasters air somewhat less than 3 hours per week of core programming, as described below. We encourage all broadcasters to continue to provide a diverse mix of educational and informational programming, including short segments and PSAs, toward their overall obligation to provide programming for children.  Y 4Identified as Educational and Informational  Y4p113. With respect to the sixth element of our definition, we proposed that stations be required to identify core programs as educational and informational at the beginning of the program, and to make available the necessary information for listing these  YK4programs as educational and informational in program guides.Q Kxax yOt'ԍSee NPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6331.Q As discussed above, we will adopt both of these proposals in order to improve the information available to parents regarding programming specifically designed for children's educational and informational  Y4needs, and to assist them in selecting these programs for their children.S ax yO'ԍSee supra paragraphs 52 and 57.S We also believe this measure will make broadcasters more accountable in classifying programming as specifically designed to educate and inform. Thus, as with the other aspects of our definition of core programming, we believe that the identification requirements provide an appropriate regulatory incentive for licensees to comply with their statutory obligation to air programming  Y4specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs. ax yO"'ԍAs we have noted, supra n.119, we will exempt noncommercial stations from these identification requirements.  Ye4Assessment Guidelines  Y74q114. In view of our adoption of a definition of core educational and informational programming that provides licensees with clearer guidance regarding the types" 7( 0*((" of programming required to meet their obligation under the CTA, we believe that our  Y4permissive assessment guidelines are no longer necessary and should be eliminated.5  ax yOb' xx ԍSee NPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6331. Comments were divided on whether these guidelines should be preserved.  x For example, ABC argued that the guidelines should be retained because they permit broadcasters to counter yO' x program, see ABC Comments at 2829, while CTREC argued that they should be eliminated on the ground they  yO'serve to perpetuate the current "abysmal" state of children's programming, see CTREC Comments at 5. 5 The guidelines identify factors that we encouraged licensees to consider in assessing the needs of children in the community, and we intended them to assist licensees in determining what programs meet the educational and informational needs of children under our broad definition  Y4of "educational and informational programming."\ ax yO 'ԍSee Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 2115.\ The particularized definition of "specifically designed" programming that we adopt today goes beyond our existing definition of educational and informational programming and our assessment factors to further delineate the types of programming that will meet licensees' obligation to air core educational programming. In view of the additional guidance provided by our definition of core programming, we believe that the assessment guidelines are superfluous and should therefore be eliminated.  Y 4\ V. PROCESSING GUIDELINE ă  Y4r115. In the NPRM, we sought comment on several proposals for evaluating a licensee's compliance with the Children's Television Act at renewal. Specifically, we proposed to adopt one of three alternative options: (1) Commission monitoring of the amount of educational and informational programming on the air during a period of time following the adoption of measures to improve the flow of programming information to the public and adoption of a definition of "core" programming; (2) adoption of a safe harbor processing guideline specifying an amount of programming specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs that would represent one means of satisfying the CTA's programming obligation; and (3) adoption of a programming standard that would require broadcasters to air a specified average number of hours per week of programming specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children. We also sought comment on whether we should adopt "program sponsorship" rules or guidelines, giving licensees the option of satisfying a portion of the prescribed amount by providing financial or  Yf4other "in kind" support for programming aired on other stations in their market.Pf@ax yOW"'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 633649.P  Y84s116. Comments. A number of broadcasters and broadcaster associations opposed both a programming standard and a safe harbor processing guideline, arguing generally that these options would infringe too greatly on broadcaster programming discretion. They also argued that quantification was contrary to the legislative history. In"80*(( " addition, they questioned the need for taking such measures in view of their claim that there already is a substantial amount of educational programming available to children. These parties prefer the Commission's proposal to monitor future licensee performance in lieu of  Y4adopting either a programming standard or a processing guideline.ax yO4' x ԍSee, e.g., ABC Comments at 50; CBS Comments at 5; NBC Comments at 3; ALTV Comments at 12; Cosmos  yO'et al. Comments at 19; Golden Orange Comments at 6. For example, ALTV stated that its latest survey of independent stations demonstrates "dramatic and continuing" improvement in the amount of educational programming available on independent stations  Yv4since passage of the CTA.<v ax yOG 'ԍALTV Comments at 13.< ALTV suggested that the Commission collect information regarding the industry's performance over the course of the next renewal cycle, commencing in October 1996, at which time all stations will have operated under the CTA's requirements for a full license term, permitting them sufficient time to become familiar with the  Y 4requirements and obtain qualifying programming. ax" yO{' x "ЍId. at 2425. NBC suggests the monitoring period should be three years or three broadcast seasons. See X hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: ax yO'ԍSenate Report at 1, 5.> Thus, airing two hours per week of such programming six years after passage of the CTA clearly is not compatible with the longterm performance improvement Congress intended when it passed the CTA, and a processing guideline of three hours is clearly a reasonable means of implementing the statute at this time.  Y4y122. Our decision to set the guideline at this level does not rely upon a firm conclusion as to the amount of children's educational and informational programming currently being provided in the market, but rather on the inferences that we can draw from the entire record in this proceeding. NAB states, under its definition of core programming, that commercial broadcasters air an average of approximately four hours per week of educational and informational programming in fulfillment of their obligation under the CTA.  Y4Although we cannot verify NAB's figure,Xxax yO/' x@ ԍAs we have explained, the studies filed in this proceeding are not conclusive due to differences in their  x methodologies, but allow us to draw some conclusions about the average amount of children's educational and  yO'informational programming that broadcasters are airing. See generally supra paragraphs 3542, 44. we take the NAB conclusion as evidence that broadcasters believe that it is reasonable to devote three hours per week of their air time to educating children. Moreover, the studies of ALTV, Fox, and Kunkel suggest that this is a reasonable, achievable guideline.  Y4z123. Our conclusion that a threehour per week programming guideline is not unreasonable is further confirmed by the commitment of the CBS network and CBSowned stations to provide three hours per week of core educational and informational programming by the fall 1997 season (when our new rules will go into effect). On September 20, 1995, the Westinghouse Electric Corporation announced that it would increase the amount of core programming provided by its recently acquired CBS television network and aired by its ownedandoperated stations. Under this plan, Westinghouse will double network children's programming from the one hour now broadcast on the CBS network to two hours, and will"<0*((!"  Y4add a third hour by the beginning of the fall 1997 season.tax yOy' x ԍWestinghouse stated that these programs will be "specifically designed to serve the educational and  x informational needs of children," and will be broadcast after 7:00 a.m. to ensure that they "will be accessible to the  x greatest number of young viewers." This initiative will run for three years, through the end of the 199899 season,  yO' x after which "its effectiveness will be thoroughly evaluated by Westinghouse." See Stockholders of CBS Inc., FCC 95469, released Nov. 22, 1995, at  13.t With this initiative, over 200 CBS affiliates over 17 percent of the total number of commercial television stations in the country already have in place the means of providing at least three hours per week of educational and informational programming specifically designed to educate and inform children.  Yv4{124. In the context of the CTA, a processing guideline is clear, fair and efficient. First, our experience in reviewing the children's programming portions of renewal applications teaches us that a processing guideline is desirable as a matter of administrative efficiency in enforcing the CTA and provides desirable clarity about the extent of a broadcaster's programming responsibilities under the statute. Due to the volume of broadcast television renewal applications received by the Commission approximately 1500 commercial and noncommercial applications during each renewal cycle the Commission has for many years delegated to the Mass Media Bureau the authority to act on applications that do not present difficult issues. In the absence of an articulated guideline regarding CTA compliance that the Bureau would use to distinguish applications that are properly processed  Y4at the staff level from those that must be sent to the full Commission, a de facto processing  Yy4guideline likely would develop.K yxax yO'ԍSee supra paragraph 42.K But this de facto guideline, if unpublished, would not provide clear and timely notice of what a licensee can do to guarantee renewal under the CTA. By adopting a safe harbor processing guideline in this order, the Commission is simply giving public notice of the procedures it will use to evaluate a broadcaster's children's  Y4educational and informational programming performance. \!ax yO' x ԍThe Commission in the past has adopted processing guidelines to achieve similar purposes. For example, the  x| Commission's nonentertainment programming processing guidelines provided that the applications of licensees that  x| offered less than certain amounts of nonentertainment programming had to be acted upon by the Commission rather  yO.' xg than by the Bureau. See Deregulation of Radio, 84 FCC 2d 968, 975, recon., 87 FCC 2d 797 (1981), aff'd in part,  yO' x  remanded in part, Office of Communication of United Christ v. FCC, 707 F.2d 1413, 1432 (D.C. Cir. 1983). It is  yO'universally accepted that these guidelines were "purely procedural." Id. at 1432.\ Licensees and the public will consequently know with certainty and in advance what a licensee can do to ensure that it meets its CTA obligations.  Y4|125. The guideline will also help ameliorate the inequities that may arise from the economic disincentives that lead some stations to air little core programming. Although some broadcasters are airing a significant amount of educational and informational  Y|4programming, the evidence suggests that others are not.W"| ax yO''ԍSee supra paragraphs 4042, and 44.W Indeed, as we have discussed"|="0*((+" previously, there are economic pressures on licensees not to air children's educational and  Y4informational programming or to air it at times when relatively few children are watching.N#ax yOb'ԍSee supra paragraph 2934.N A processing guideline will help minimize the inequities and reduce the disincentives created by belowaverage performers by subjecting all broadcasters to the same scrutiny for CTA compliance by the Commission at renewal time. In contrast to the current situation, a broadcaster that wishes to air an ample amount of core educational programming can feel confident that, as a general matter, its competitors will be airing at least three hours of core programming or its equivalent. Thus, like our public information initiatives and definitional requirements, the processing guideline will allow the marketplace to function more effectively in providing educational and informational children's programming. Moreover, the greater certainty provided by the processing guideline we adopt today should create a more stable and predictable demand for such programming, and thus further the CTA's goal of increasing the availability of programs that teach and inform the nation's children.  Y 4}126. The processing guideline we adopt today is consistent with the CTA in that it provides a measure of flexibility for licensees in meeting the requirements of the CTA. Broadcasters that air somewhat less than three hours per week of core programming can also receive stafflevel renewal. We create this option not to encourage broadcasters to air fewer than three hours per week of core programming; we encourage broadcasters to air more than three hours. Rather, we create this option to recognize, as Congress did, the need for flexibility for broadcasters.  Y4~127. We further believe the processing guideline we adopt today is consistent with the text of the Children's Television Act, which requires us to "consider the extent" to which licensees serve the "educational and informational needs of children through the licensee's overall programming, including programming specifically designed to serve such  Y4needs."B$Xax yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  303b(a)(2).B The CTA's renewal review requirement involves, at least in part, an assessment of  Y4the amount of educational and informational programming shown by each licensee.O%ax yO,'ԍSee Geller Reply Comments at 19.O By establishing a processing guideline, we provide a clear benchmark for assessing broadcasters' performance.  Y74128. In adopting a processing guideline today, we deliberately depart from the approach to implementing the CTA underlying our current rules as promulgated in 1991. As explained above, we conclude today that the public interest and the interests Congress sought to promote through the CTA will be better served by this processing guideline approach.  Y 4129. We recognize that this is contrary to our earlier interpretation of the CTA as precluding quantification of the CTA obligation. We reached this conclusion in 1991 on"!>x%0*((#" the grounds that the statute itself "impos[ed] no quantitative standard" and the "legislative  Y4history suggest[ed] that Congress meant that no minimum amount criterion be imposed.R&ax yOb'ԍReport and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 2115.R In reaching a contrary conclusion today, we begin with the fact that nothing in the statutory language of the CTA forbids the use of a processing guideline. Furthermore, although there  Y4is specific language in the legislative history, cited in our 1991 Report and Order and by parties in this proceeding, stating the "Committee does not intend that the FCC interpret this  Yv4section as requiring or mandating a quantification standard,"'vXax yO ' x ԍThe House Report states: "The Committee does not intend that the FCC interpret this section as requiring or  x; mandating a quantification standard governing the amount of children's educational and informational programming  x that a broadcast licensee must broadcast to pass a license renewal ...." House Report at 17. The Senate Report  yO ' x contains almost identical language. See Senate Report at 23. Similar statements were also made on both the House  yO ' x and Senate floors. See, e.g., 136 Cong. Rec. S10122 (July 19, 1990) (comments of Senator Inouye that "[t]he  x Committee does not intend that the FCC interpret this section as requiring or mandating quantification standards....");  x^ 136 Cong. Rec. 148536 (Oct. 1, 1990) (comments of Speaker Foley that "[t]his legislation does not require the FCC  xo to set quantitative guidelines for educational programming...."). Thus, we do not by our decision today suggest that  x we are required by the CTA to adopt a quantitative standard. As commenters have noted, such a conclusion is  x contradicted by the statement in the legislative history of the CTA. On the other hand, we do not read this history to preclude the administrative step we take today.  this language does not prohibit us from seeking to provide greater clarity and guidance through a processing guideline.  YH4Rather, this language simply makes clear that the CTA does not require quantitative standards  Y14or guidelines. It is not our conclusion today that we must adopt a quantitative guideline, but that the processing guideline approach we adopt will clarify the imprecision of our current rules that has led to a variation in the level and nature of broadcasters' compliance efforts that is incompatible with the intent of the CTA. Thus, because of its clarity, fairness, and ease of administration, a processing guideline will remedy the shortcomings of our initial rules and thereby provide the appropriate counterweight to the market forces identified by Congress that tend to discourage broadcasters from airing children's educational and informational  Y4programming.O( ax yO'ԍSee supra paragraphs 2934.O  Yb4130. We consequently believe a safe harbor processing guideline will serve the public interest by providing a reasonable degree of certainty while also preserving a reasonable degree of flexibility for broadcasters. Renewal applications will be divided into two categories for purposes of stafflevel CTA review. Applications falling into neither of these categories will be referred to the Commission for consideration. We will revise our license renewal form to reflect this processing guideline. In revising the renewal form, we will seek to minimize the reporting burden on licensees by, for example, allowing them to  Y4rely on the children's programming reports that they have prepared previously.^)XXH ax yO%' x ԍAs noted above, we will continue our policy of exempting noncommercial television stations from specific  yO&' x recordcompilation, filing and submission requirements. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 5101.  x As is our current practice, we will require noncommercial broadcast television stations "to maintain documentation"J'(0*((Z'"  xD sufficient to show compliance at renewal time with the Act's programming obligations in response to a challenge  yOX' x or to specific complaints." Id. at 5102. Any such showing that a noncommercial station may need to make will be governed by the definition of core programming and the processing guideline we adopt today.^"?)0*((F"Ԍ W4ԙbCategory Aă  Y4131. Broadcasters that air an average of three or more hours per week of programming that satisfies our new definition of programming "specifically designed" to serve children's educational and informational needs will have their applications approved by the staff with respect to CTA compliance. A licensee seeking review under this category must simply check a box on our revised renewal form, and provide supporting information, indicating that it has aired three hours per week of regularly scheduled, weekly shows that are 30 minutes or longer and that otherwise meet the definition of core programming.  Y 4132. To provide broadcasters scheduling flexibility, we will allow the threehour core programming benchmark to be averaged over a sixmonth period. We will also allow repeats and reruns of core programming to be counted toward fulfillment of the threehour guideline. As Tribune pointed out, virtually all network and syndicated programs are  Y 4repeated to increase audience exposure.k* ax yOW'ԍTribune Comments at 2223. See also CTW Comments at 24 n.22.k  Y4cCategory Bă  Yd4133. Broadcasters that air somewhat less than three hours per week of core programming will also receive stafflevel approval if they show that they have aired a package of different types of educational and informational programming that demonstrates a level of commitment to educating and informing children that is at least equivalent to airing three hours per week of core programming. We do this to create a measure of flexibility as to how broadcasters may qualify for routine staff processing of their applications. Although core programming is our primary focus under the Children's Television Act, we believe that specials, regularly scheduled nonweekly programs, shortform programs, and PSAs with a significant purpose of educating and informing children ages 16 and under can help accomplish the objectives of the Act and can count toward the stafflevel processing guideline. Airing such programming or core programming during prime time would also be a relevant factor under this category, as would investing a substantial amount of money in developing core programming aired on the broadcaster's channel. A broadcaster seeking to secure staff approval under this category must show that any reasonable observer would recognize its commitment to educating and informing children to be at least equivalent to the commitment reflected in Category A.  Y4134. Review of individual Category B applications will require a degree of evaluation and judgment by the staff. We expect the staff to exercise this discretion judiciously. We expect that, as broadcasters present different fact patterns, the Bureau, with"!@x*0*((#" guidance from the Commission as necessary, will assess the weight to be given to particular kinds of noncore efforts and will process such fact patterns in a consistent manner over time.  Y41Commission Considerationă  Y4135. Broadcasters that do not fall within Category A or B will have their renewal applications referred to the full Commission. Licensees referred to the Commission should be on notice by this order that they will not necessarily be found to have complied with the Children's Television Act. Given the modest nature of the guideline described in Categories A and B, we expect few broadcasters will fail to meet this benchmark. However, even if a licensee did not meet the guideline for staff approval, it will have an opportunity to make a showing before the Commission that it has satisfied its Children's Television Act obligations in other ways. Broadcasters will have a full opportunity to make this demonstration by, for example, and as described more fully below, relying in part on sponsorship of core educational and informational programs on other stations in the market that increases the amount of core educational and informational programming on the station airing the sponsored program and/or on special nonbroadcast efforts which enhance the value of children's educational and informational television programming. It is also possible that a licensee might seek to demonstrate that it suffered such serious economic hardship such as bankruptcy that might excuse noncompliance with the CTA.  Y4136. If we find that a broadcaster has not complied with the CTA, we will apply the same remedies that we use in enforcing our other rules. These remedies will vary depending on the severity of the deficiency based on objective criteria. For less serious deficiencies, we will consider letters of admonition or reporting requirements. We may also consider using a "promise versus performance" approach. This would be a prospective remedy under which a licensee would detail its plan for coming into full compliance with CTA programming obligations; if this plan meets with Commission approval, the station's license would be renewed on the condition that the licensee adheres to the plan absent special circumstances. For more serious violations, we will consider other sanctions, including forfeitures and shortterm renewals. In extreme cases, we will consider designating the license for hearing to determine whether the licensee's violations of the CTA and our implementing rules warrant nonrenewal under the standards set forth in Section 309(k) of the  Y 4Communications Act.H+ ax yO 'ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  309(k).H  Y4137. Special Nonbroadcast Efforts. The CTA states that, "[i]n addition to consideration of the licensee's [educational] programming, the Commission may consider . . . any special nonbroadcast efforts by the licensee which enhance the educational and informational value of such programming to children." At the Commission level, a licensee may present evidence of such special nonbroadcast efforts. To receive credit under this provision for a "special" nonbroadcast effort, a broadcaster must show that it has engaged in"j$AX+0*((&" substantial community activity. To receive credit under this provision for a special nonbroadcast effort that "enhance[s]" the educational value of a broadcaster's educational programming, a broadcaster must show a close relationship between its core programming and its nonbroadcast efforts. Finally, we note that the text of this provision plainly does not relieve a broadcaster of the obligation to air core programming. The statute permits the Commission to consider special nonbroadcast efforts only "in addition to consideration of the licensee's [educational] programming."  YH4138. Special Sponsorship Efforts. The CTA states that, "[i]n addition to consideration of the licensee's [educational] programming, the Commission may consider . . any special efforts by the licensee to produce or support programming broadcast by another station in the licensee's marketplace which is specifically designed to serve the educational  Y 4and informational needs of children."E, ax yOe 'ԍId. at  303b(b)(1).E Some parties supported giving credit to a sponsoring  Y 4station in assessing its CTA performance at renewal time,- Xax yO' xV ԍSee Comments of ACTS at 9, 11; Association of America's Public Television Stations and the Public Broadcasting Service at 1019; CPB at 35; CTREC at 7; Ronald Davis at 2; Reply Comments of ALTV at 2122. while others opposed the idea..  ax yO6' x ԍSee AAP Comments at 3; CME et al. Comments at 4850; Children Now Comments at 5; CTW Comments  xZ at 27; UCC Comments at 35. These parties argued that the majority of sponsored programs would appear on  x noncommercial stations, thus adding to the existing imbalance between the amount of educational programming appearing on such stations as opposed to commercial stations. We will allow a licensee to present evidence at the Commission level of such special sponsorship efforts. To receive credit under this provision for a "special" sponsorship effort, a broadcaster must demonstrate that its production or support of core programming aired on another station in its market increased the amount of core programming on the station airing the sponsored core programming. Also, we note again that the text of Section 103(b) does not relieve a broadcaster of the obligation to air programming specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children. It permits the Commission to consider sponsorship nonbroadcast efforts only "in addition to consideration of the licensee's [educational] programming."  Y4139. In response to the NPRM's proposal to establish program sponsorship guidelines, commenters raised a number of issues regarding the appropriate circumstances for crediting sponsorship efforts, such as the minimum amount of core programming that a sponsoring station must air on its own station and the extent to which programs could be sponsored on noncommercial stations. We believe these matters are best addressed on a casebycase basis considering individual showings licensees may seek to make rather than by the adoption of program sponsorship guidelines. We will be a better position to assess these matters in individual cases after having gained some experience with the operation of our new rules and programming guideline in the children's television marketplace.  Y4Monitoring and Reexamination of Rules"B.0*(( "Ԍ Y4ԙ140. We will monitor the broadcast industry's children's educational programming performance for three years based upon the children's programming reports that licensees will file with us annually on an experimental basis. We will conduct a review of these reports at the end of this threeyear period and take appropriate action as necessary to ensure that stations are complying with the rules and guidelines we adopt today. To supplement this review, Commission staff will also conduct selected individual station audits during the next three years to assess station performance under our new children's educational and informational programming rules once they go into effect.  Y14141. We invited comment in the NPRM on whether we should sunset any processing guideline or program standard that we adopt on December 1, 2004, unless  Y 4affirmatively extended by the Commission.G/ ax yO| 'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6349.G The few commenters who addressed this issue expressed concern that the rules not be eliminated without an evaluation of whether continued  Y 4regulation was warranted.X0 Xax yO'ԍSee AAP Comments at 3; CTW Comments at 24.X Based on the record, we do not believe that an automatic expiration of the rules, absent further Commission action, is appropriate. One of our principal objectives in implementing the safe harbor processing guideline is to provide broadcasters and the public with fair notice and certainty regarding the level of performance at which a licensee can be assured it is complying with the CTA. Automatic elimination of the processing guideline is inconsistent with this important objective.  Y4F  VI. RENEWAL PROCEDURES ă  Y4License renewal challenges  Y4142. One of our objectives in this proceeding has been to encourage the public to participate in promoting broadcasters' compliance with the CTA, and to reduce the role of government in enforcing compliance. As one means of achieving this goal, we proposed in  Y}4the NPRM to require that any challenger filing a petition to deny a renewal application show that he or she had first attempted to resolve the alleged problem with the station in  YO4question.G1Oax yO 'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6344.G The commenters who addressed this issue were divided. Cosmos et al. supported the proposal as long as licensees retained discretion as to how to respond to any  Y!4complaints received from members of the public.T2!xax yOJ$'ԍSee Cosmos et al. Comments at 9.T  Y4143. We have decided not to require members of the public to communicate  Y4with a licensee prior to filing a petition to deny. As CME et al. pointed out, such a"C20*((!" requirement could be unduly burdensome to the public, prevent legitimate complaints from  Y4being heard, and deny the FCC an important source of information.U3ax yOb'ԍSee CME et al. Comments at 4647.U We will nonetheless encourage parties to seek to resolve CTA programming concerns with the station before filing a complaint with the Commission, and will consider whether a petitioner has engaged in such conciliation efforts as a factor in assessing a petition to deny.  Yv4Certification  YH4144. As another means of reducing the government's role in reviewing CTA compliance, in the event we adopted a processing guideline or programming standard, we  Y 4sought comment in the NPRM on whether we should permit licensees to certify whether they  Y 4have aired the prescribed amount of core programming.G4 Xax yO 'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6345.G If this proposal were adopted, we stated that, in the absence of a challenge to their license renewal, licensees would not be required to submit materials documenting their programming performance, but only to retain them in their public inspection files.  Y4145. We decline to adopt this proposal. The parties that addressed this  Yy4proposal, CME et al. and Children Now, opposed it on the ground that it would inhibit public monitoring of broadcaster compliance and was contrary to Congress' intent that the  YK4Commission review a licensee's children's programming records.s5Kax yO'ԍSee CME et al. Comments at 40 n.21; Children Now Comments at 5.s Given these concerns, and our decision to require broadcasters to file children's programming reports with the  Y4Commission for an experimental threeyear period,K6xax yOF'ԍSee supra paragraph 68.K we do not believe a certification approach is workable.  Y4  VII. FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES ă  Y4146. Comments. Broadcasters, including ABC, CBS, Cosmos et al., Donrey, Great Trails, Meredith, NAB, and NAB advocate Professor Rodney Smolla (of the MarshallWythe School of Law), argued that quantitative processing guidelines would violate the First Amendment. Henry Geller, as well as Price and Meyerson, maintained that a processing guideline is constitutionally permissible. We address these comments in the course of our substantive discussion below.  Y4147. Discussion. The First Amendment arguments raised by opponents of our proposed CTA regulations essentially fall into two categories arguments that attack the"D60*((!" CTA obligation and arguments that attack the quantification of the CTA obligation. To the extent that some commenters argue that the CTA is unconstitutional, Congress itself  Y4addressed that issue.e7ax yOK'ԍ Senate Report at 1018; see also House Report at 812.e It specifically concluded that "it is well within the First Amendment strictures to require the FCC to consider, during the license renewal process, whether a television licensee has provided information specifically designed to serve the educational and  Y4informational needs of children in the context of its overall programming."=8Xax yO'ԍ Senate Report at 16.= As the Senate Report noted, broadcasters, in exchange for "the free and exclusive use of a valuable part of the public domain," can be expected to serve as a public fiduciary, obliged to serve the needs  YH4and interests of their viewers.}9Hax yO 'ԍId.(citing  Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)).} That obligation includes the obligation to serve the needs of  Y14children.:1xax yOZ'ԍ See id. (citing Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 168 (1943)). Even more specifically, as the FCC, the courts, and Congress have concluded, a broadcaster's public interest obligation properly includes an obligation to serve the educational  Y 4and informational needs of children.>;X ax yO' x ԍ Id.(citing ACT v. FCC, 564 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir. 1977)(affirming our 1974 Policy Statement specifying that  x the public interest obligation included an obligation to provide educational and informational programming for children)).> The question in this proceeding is not whether the  Y 4Commission should give effect to the CTA, but how it should do so.  Y 4148. We do not understand NAB and Professor Smolla to be arguing that the CTA is unconstitutional insofar as it provides that broadcasters must serve the educational and  Y4informational needs of children and demonstrate that they have done so at renewal.o<( ax yOi'ԍ See NAB Comments, Attachment at 6; ("Smolla Comments") at 3536.o Professor Smolla argues that, were we to adopt either a rule requiring a specified amount of particular programming or a processing guideline that effectively imposed a similar requirement, such a rule or processing guideline would unconstitutionally burden speech and,  Y44further, would rest on an improper construction of the CTA.H=4 ax yO'ԍSmolla Comments at 1417, 2733.H Such rules or processing  Y4guidelines were among the options on which we sought comment in the NPRM. As we explain above, while we adopt a processing guideline, we do so in a manner that provides broadcasters with flexibility in the ways in which they can satisfy the requirements imposed by the CTA.  Y4149. The course we adopt today defining what qualifies as programming "specifically designed" to serve the educational needs of children and giving broadcasters clear but nonmandatory guidance on how to guarantee compliance is a constitutional means"|EH =0*((_" of giving effect to the CTA's programming requirement. "It does not violate the First Amendment to treat licensees given the privilege of using scarce radio frequencies as proxies for the entire community, obligated to give suitable time and attention to matters of great  Y4public concern." Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 394 (1969). Congress's authority to order "suitable time and attention to matters of great public concern" includes the authority to require broadcasters to air programming specifically designed to further the educational needs of children. The airwaves belong to the public, not to any  Y_4individual broadcaster.>_ax yO'ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 301; FCC v. National Citizens Comm. for Broadcasting, 436 U.S. 755, 806 n.25 (1978). As the Supreme Court observed in CBS, Inc. v. FCC,<?_Xax yOh 'ԍ453 U.S. 367 (1981).< "a licensed broadcaster is `granted the free and exclusive use of a limited and valuable part of the public domain; when he accepts that franchise it is burdened by enforceable public  Y 4obligations.'"9@ ax yO 'ԍId. at 395.9 The fact that Congress elected to retain public ownership of the broadcast spectrum and to lease it for free to private licensees for limited periods carries significant First Amendment consequences.  Y 4150. In CBS v. FCC the Supreme Court upheld a challenge to the statute (47 U.S.C.  312(a)(7)) that requires broadcasters to provide reasonable access to individual candidates seeking federal elective office. Similarly, here, the CTA requires broadcasters to serve the educational and informational needs of children through programming specifically designed for those needs. Both provisions require broadcasters to air certain types of programming they might not otherwise choose to provide. However, the obligation imposed by Section 312(a)(7) appears to be significantly more burdensome than the obligation imposed by the CTA. Under Section 312(a)(7), broadcasters have no control over the content of the political advertising. In contrast, under the CTA broadcasters are obligated to provide children's educational programming, yet they retain wide discretion in choosing what programs to provide, a fact little changed by the clarifying measures we adopt today.  Y4151. Because we are adopting a processing guideline that allows broadcasters more discretion in choosing the ways in which they will meet their CTA obligations than the  Y|4one we proposed in the NPRM, most of the arguments raised by Professor Smolla and others  Ye4commenters are not applicable.HAeax yO ' x ԍIn its supplemental comments proposing a processing guideline of the sort we adopt, NAB stated that  x3 "[b]ecause this proposal retains substantial flexibility for broadcasters in meeting their obligations under the  xo Children's Television Act, NAB believes that a constitutional rationale can be crafted in support of these regulations  xg that rests on established First Amendment doctrines long accepted by the Commission." NAB Supplemental Comments at 2 (filed July 29, 1996).H In Turner Broadcasting v. FCC,?Be? ax yOU%'ԍ114 S. Ct. 2445 (1994).? the Court made clear that the Commission has the authority to "inquire of licensees what they have done to determine the needs of the community they propose to serve," but not to "impose upon them"7F B0*(("  Y4its private notions of what the public ought to hear.";Cax yOy'ԍ Id. at 2463.; We have chosen to adopt a processing guideline that requires broadcasters to show us how they have served the educational and informational needs of children, and which provides guidance to them about ways in which they can meet that obligation. We are not, however, telling licensees what  Y4topics to discuss. The Turner Court reaffirmed that "broadcast programming, unlike cable programming, is subject to certain limited content restraints imposed by statute and FCC  Yv4regulation.":DvXax yO 'ԍId. at 2462.: And, as examples of (presumably) permissible regulation, the Court cited the Children's Television Act, together with the equaltime and personal attack rules and the rules channeling indecent programming away from times when children are most likely to be in the  Y14viewing audience.AE1ax yO 'ԍId. at 246263 n.7.A If these latter regulations survive constitutional scrutiny, then so, a  Y 4fortiori, would the Commission's considerably less intrusive proposal for giving meaningful effect to the Act by defining "core" educational programming and establishing a procedure that broadcasters can use to assure routine staff processing of the CTA portion of their renewal applications.  Y 4152. Our new regulations, like the CTA itself, impose reasonable, viewpointneutral conditions on a broadcaster's free use of the public airwaves. They do not censor or foreclose speech of any kind. They do not tell licensees what topics they must address. They provide only that broadcasters report the educational objective of the program and the  YK4expected educational effects. Moreover, they expressly provide that broadcasters need not describe the viewpoint of the program or the opinions expressed on the program.  Y4153. The CTA and our regulations directly advance the government's substantial, and indeed compelling, interest in the education of America's children. As Congress recognized, "[i]t is difficult to think of an interest more substantial than the promotion of the welfare of children who watch so much television and rely upon it for so  Y4much of the information they receive."eFxax yO'ԍSenate Report at 17; see also House Report at 11.e In other contexts, the courts and commentators have recognized the government's "compelling" interest in "safeguarding the physical and  Y|4psychological well being" of minors.G |ax yO5"' x@ ԍAction for Children's Television v. FCC, 852 F.2d 1332, 1343 n.18 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citing cases); see also  x R. Smolla, Smolla and Nimmer on Freedom of Speech, at 1427 to 1428 (1994) ("the Supreme Court has applied  xD what might be called the Child's First Amendment, permitting regulation of speech implicating children in ways that would be impermissible for adults"); Minow and LaMay Comments at 121132. "eG G0*((<"Ԍ Y4154. A recent case, Action for Children's Television v. FCC,pHax yOy'ԍ58 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 701 (1996).p affirms the vitality of the government's interest in ensuring that television programming is consistent with  Y4the needs of America's children. In Action for Children's Television, the court of appeals echoed the Supreme Court's recognition of the "well nigh universal belief that good books, plays and art . . . improve the mind, enrich the human personality, and develop character." It then concluded that a legislature may regulate the exposure of children to indecent material on the corollary assumption that indecent material may "exert a corrupting and debasing  Y_4impact."I_Xax yOh 'ԍ58 F.3d at 662 (quoting Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 63 (1973)). If Congress and the Commission may rely on this corollary to ban broadcast of certain material during specified hours, even under standards of strict scrutiny, it should follow that the Commission's adoption of less restrictive measures to encourage the airing of material beneficial to children is consistent with the First Amendment. That is particularly  Y 4true because the Children's Television Act is designed to promote programming that educates  Y 4and informs children. The framers of the First Amendment understood that "the greatest  Y 4menace to freedom is an inert people," as Justice Brandeis wrote.sJ ax yOn'ԍWhitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 372 (1927) (concurring opinion).s It is entirely consistent with the First Amendment to ask trustees of the public airwaves to pursue reasonable, viewpointneutral measures designed to increase the likelihood that children will grow into adults capable of fully participating in our deliberative democracy.  Yb4155. Such a requirement also is supported by the Supreme Court's decision in  YK4FCC v. Pacifica Foundation.<KKxax yOt'ԍ438 U.S. 726 (1978).< In that case the Court recognized that "broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children" and that "the broadcast media have established a uniquely  Y4pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans."BLax yO'ԍId. at 748, 749750.B Both of those factors support Congress' decision to require broadcasters to serve the educational needs of children. As stated previously, television has an influence on children in our society rivalled only by family and  Y4school. It would be accurate to blend the two factors noted in Pacifica and conclude that  Y4television has a pervasive presence in the lives of American children. The Court in Pacifica upheld restrictions on the broadcast of indecent material. As stated above, the government's interest in the intellectual development of our nation's children is at least as significant as its interest in protecting them from exposure to indecent material, an interest the Supreme Court  Ye4"has often found compelling."Meax yO$'ԍDenver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium v. FCC, 116 S. Ct. 2374, 2385, 2387 (1996).  Y74156. The measures we adopt today to advance the Nation's interest in the  Y 4intellectual development of our children are sustainable under the Pacifica analysis as they are" H( M0*((."  Y4significantly less burdensome than the measure upheld there. Pacifica upheld a complete ban on a particular type of programming (indecent programming) during hours when children are likely to be in the audience, a period which the Commission was later upheld in defining as  Y416 hours per day (6:00 a.m.10:00 p.m.) in Action for Children's Television. The measures we adopt today do not ban programming of any type, they simply notify broadcasters that compliance with the CTA can be achieved with, on average, less than half an hour a day of programming expressing any viewpoint on any topic that broadcasters desire.  YH4157. For those reasons, our implementing rules are constitutional under the traditional First Amendment standard. But even if evaluated under a heightened standard, our  Y 4rules would pass muster because the interest advanced is compelling and our regulations are  Y 4 narrowly tailored. As detailed above, our regulations are no more burdensome than necessary to ensure that children will be able to watch educational and informational programming. Like the CTA, our regulations require broadcasters to air children's educational and informational programming, but do not "exclude any programming that does in fact serve the educational and informational needs of children; rather the broadcaster has  Y4discretion to meet its public service obligation in the way it deems best suited."=Nax yO 'ԍ Senate Report at 17.= Specifically, the processing guideline that we adopt today does not limit this discretion. It provides a means by which a broadcaster can be certain that our staff will be in a position to process its renewal application without further review of the broadcaster's CTA efforts. As we explain above, any programming specifically designed to meet the educational and informational needs of children can "count" for purposes of meeting the processing guideline. In addition, a broadcaster can rely on other more general programming and related nonprogramming efforts to satisfy its CTA obligation albeit after full Commission review.  Y4158. As the Media Institute observes, we declined to adopt quantitative processing guidelines in 1991 on the ground that they would "infringe on broadcaster discretion regarding the appropriate manner in which to meet children's educational and  Y|4informational needs."O|Xax yO'ԍThe Media Institute Comments at 1617 (citing Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5093, n.105). Upon further consideration, we reject that position. Processing  Ye4guidelines give broadcasters an option for guaranteeing routine staff processing of the CTA portion of their renewal applications, but broadcasters remain free to find other ways to fulfill their obligation. In any event, our initial reluctance to adopt any form of processing guideline  Y 4derived in large part from our wish to initiate implementation of the CTA with as little regulation as possible. As described above, our subsequent experience has persuaded us that we should alter our course in the interests of fairness and efficiency by clarifying ways in  Y4which broadcasters can ensure compliance.Pax yOt%' x ԍSee Price and Meyerson Comments at 1819 (discussing the Commission's "gradual tailoring" in implementing the CTA). " I@P0*((""Ԍ Y4159. Together, the new measures that we adopt today will help parents, children, and the general public understand the programming benefits that the CTA is intended to guarantee. That understanding is necessary to ensure that the public, in exercising informal influence over the programming choices of broadcasters, can play an important role in effectuating Congress's intent to increase the amount of educational children's programming on television. Similarly, both the clearer definition and the processing guidelines give broadcasters reasonable notice of nonmandatory ways to guarantee compliance with their statutory programming obligations. Such clarity is desirable and helps to narrowly tailor our regulations.  Y 4  VIII. EFFECTIVE DATES AND TRANSITION PERIOD ă  Y 4160. Our rules regarding onair identification, program guides, public file, and reporting requirements will become effective on January 2, 1997, subject to OMB approval  Y 4under the Paperwork Reduction Act,Q ax yO!' x ԍThus, the first quarterly Children's Television Programming Report under these new rules must be placed by commercial broadcasters in their public file by April 10, 1997. and we will begin to evaluate compliance with these requirements in renewal applications filed after that date. Licensees should be able to implement these rules in that time frame as they relate to internal station practices and do not require steps that would necessitate a longer period of transition.  Y54161. With respect to our newly adopted definition of programming specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children, as well as our safe harbor processing guideline relating to such programming, we believe that a longer transition period is appropriate. Some licensees may need time to develop programming that complies with our new definition or to renegotiate or allow expiration of existing program contracts as necessary. Accordingly, we adopt an effective date for these rules of September 1, 1997, and will begin to evaluate compliance with these provisions in renewal applications filed after that  Y4date.ZRx ax yOe' x ԍAs noted above, our rules regarding onair identification, program guides and public file requirements will  x be effective sooner and we will begin to assess compliance with them after their effective date. To the extent these  xU rules require licensees to provide information or announcements regarding their core educational programming, they  x should use our new definition of such programming once it goes into effect on September 1, 1997. Prior to that  x date, licensees will need to provide such information or announcements based on their judgment as to what programs  x qualify under the general statutory wording as "specifically designed" to serve the educational and informational needs of children.Z As with all of the provisions adopted today, these provisions will be applied on a purely prospective basis.  YO4162. Thus, renewal applications filed earlier than September 1, 1997 will be assessed for compliance with the programrelated provisions of the CTA based exclusively on the rules and criteria set forth in our 1991 CTA rulemaking proceeding. In our 1991 proceeding, we stated that licensees will be expected to "air some educational and" J` R0*((" informational programming specifically designed' for children 16 years of age and under in  Y4order to satisfy our renewal review",RSax yOb'ԍReport and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 2115.R and we defined educational and informational programming as "any television programming which furthers the positive development of children 16 years of age and under in any respect, including the child's intellectual/cognitive  Y4or social/emotional needs."#TXax yO' x ԍ47 C.F.R.  73.671 Note. We also stated that broadcasters must air some standardlength children's programs  yOu'in order to satisfy the renewal review requirement. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 5101.# We will continue to follow these general standards in assessing the CTA programming performance of renewal applicants filing prior to September 1, 1997.  Y_4163. As noted above, beginning September 1, 1997, we will begin to evaluate renewal applications to determine the extent to which licensees are providing educational programming that complies with the new definition of core programming using the new  Y 4processing guideline.U ax yO{' x& ԍThus, the new definition and processing guideline will be applied for the first time to television renewal applications filed on or before October 1, 1997 for stations whose renewal terms expire February 1, 1998. In this renewal cycle (i.e. for applications filed through April 1999) such renewals will cover licensee performance that both predates and postdates these new rules. Licensee performance during the term that predates the relevant effective dates will be evaluated under existing standards and performance that postdates the rules will be judged under the new provisions. As a practical matter, the new programrelated provisions will apply to a relatively small portion of the license terms for renewal applications filed in the current renewal filing cycle after September 1, 1997.  Y4v; IX. CONCLUSION ă  Y4164. For the reasons discussed above, we adopt this Report and Order designed to further the mandate of the Children's Television Act that broadcast television achieve its full potential in teaching the nation's children.  Yf4. X. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  Y94165. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i) & (j), 303(r), 308, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) & (j), 303(r), 308, 403, as amended, and the Children's Television Act of 1990, 47 U.S.C.  303b(a), 303b(b), and 394, Part 73 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 73 IS AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B below. The amendments set forth in paragraphs 1,"KU0*((!" 4, 5, and 6 of Appendix B shall be effective on January 2, 1997, subject to necessary OMB approvals. The amendments set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Appendix B shall take effect on September 1, 1997.  Y4166. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the new or modified paperwork requirements contained in this Report and Order (which are subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget) will go into effect upon OMB approval.  YH4167. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel  for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of  Y 4the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Publ. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981).  Y 4168. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is terminated.  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION    William F. Caton  Y4 Acting Secretary "LU0*((("  X4 X(#RAPPENDIX A ă  X4 ]ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ă  Y4  Paperwork Reduction Act Statement ă  Yw4This Report and Order contains new or modified information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ("PRA"). It has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") for review under the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collections contained in this proceeding.  X 4 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ă As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended ("RFA"), an Initial  Y 4Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA"), 5 U.S.C.  603, was incorporated in the Notice of  Y4Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 9348 ("NPRM"). The Commission sought  Yz4written public comments on the proposals in the NPRM, including the IRFA. The  Yc4Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA")@VXcax yO' x ԍThis FRFA conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub.  x L. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) ("CWAAA"). Subtitle II of the CWAAA is The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA").@ in this Report and Order is as follows:  X4 A. Need for and Objectives of the Rules. The rulemaking proceeding was initiated to explore ways to implement the Children's Television Act of 1990 ("CTA") more effectively by facilitating broadcasters' compliance with their obligation to air educational and informational programming for children, including programming specifically designed for this purpose, and by furthering the CTA's goal of increasing the amount of educational and informational programming available to children. In  Y}4 913 of the Report and Order, we discuss the importance of children's educational television programming, and in  2546 and throughout this order, we discuss the basis of our concerns that our prior rules to implement the CTA were not producing a level of performance consistent with the longterm goals of the statute. The rules adopted herein meet these objectives by giving licensees clear, efficient, and fair guidance regarding their children's programming obligation under the CTA. They do this by increasing the flow of programming information to the public to facilitate enforcement of the CTA and improve the functioning of the children's programming marketplace; by adopting a definition of programming that is clearly "specifically designed" to educate and inform children (which we refer to as "core programming") to provide licensees guidance in fulfilling their statutory obligation to air this programming; and by adopting a threehour processing guideline to""MV0*(($" facilitate review at renewal time by the Commission, as required by the CTA, of licensees' compliance with the Act.  X4 B. Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the Initial Regulatory  X4Flexibility Analysis. There were no comments submitted specifically in response to the IRFA. We have, however, taken into account all issues raised by the public in response to the proposals raised in this proceeding. In certain instances, we have modified the rules adopted in response to those comments.  X 4 C. Description and Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply. 1. Definition of a "Small Business" Under the RFA, small entities may include small organizations, small businesses, and small governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C.  601(6). The RFA, 5 U.S.C.  601(3), generally defines the term "small business" as having the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business  Y4Administration ("SBA"). Id. According to the SBA's regulations, entities engaged in television broadcasting (Standard Industrial Classification ("SIC") Code 4833 Television Broadcasting Stations) may have a maximum of $ 10.5 million in annual receipts in order to  Y4qualify as a small business concern.lW@ax yOQ' x! ԍ This revenue cap appears to apply to noncommercial educational television stations, as well as to commercial  yO' xx television stations. See Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), at 283, which describes "Television Broadcasting Stations (SIC Code 4833) as:  J XEstablishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by television to the public,  h except cable and other pay television services. Included in this industry are commercial, religious,   educational and other television stations. Also included here are establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and which produce taped television program materials. l 13 C.F.R.  121.101 et seq. This standard also applies in determining whether an entity is a small business for purposes of the RFA. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register." While we tentatively believe that the foregoing definition of "small business" greatly overstates the number of television broadcast stations that are small businesses and is not suitable for purposes of determining the impact of the new  Y4rules on small television stations, we did not propose an alternative definition in the IRFA.AX ax yO ' xk ԍ We have pending proceedings seeking comment on the definition of and data relating to small businesses.  yOI ' xc In our Notice of Inquiry in GN Docket No. 96113 (In the Matter of Section 257 Proceeding to Identify and  x Eliminate Market Entry Barriers for Small Businesses), FCC 96216, released May 21, 1996, we requested  x commenters to provide profile data about small telecommunications businesses in particular services, including  x television, and the market entry barriers they encounter, and we also sought comment as to how to define small  x* businesses for purposes of implementing Section 257 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires us  x to identify market entry barriers and to prescribe regulations to eliminate those barriers. The comment and reply  yO' xb comment deadlines in that proceeding have not yet elapsed. Additionally, in our Order and Notice of Proposed Rule  yO' x Making in MM Docket No. 9616 (In the Matter of Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies, Vacating the  xx EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture  x Guidelines), 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), we invited comment as to whether relief should be afforded to stations: (1)  yO' xI based on small staff and what size staff would be considered sufficient for relief, e.g., 10 or fewer fulltime  x employees; (2) based on operation in a small market; or (3) based on operation in a market with a small minority work force. We have not concluded the foregoing rule making. A "NPX0*(( "  Y4Accordingly, for purposes of this Report and Order, we utilize the SBA's definition in determining the number of small businesses to which the rules apply, but we reserve the right to adopt a more suitable definition of "small business" as applied to television broadcast stations and to consider further the issue of the number of small entities that are television broadcasters in the future. Further, in this FRFA, we will identify the different classes of  Y4small television stations that may be impacted by the rules adopted in this Report and Order.  2. Issues in Applying the Definition of a "Small Business" As discussed below, we could not precisely apply the foregoing definition of "small business" in developing our estimates of the number of small entities to which the rules will apply. Our estimates reflect our best judgments based on the data available to us. An element of the definition of "small business" is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We were unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the following estimates of small businesses to which the new rules will apply do not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore overinclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of "small business" is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. We attempted to factor in this element by looking at revenue statistics for owners of television stations. However, as discussed further below, we could not fully apply this criterion, and our estimates of small businesses to which the rules may apply may be overinclusive to this extent. The SBA's general size standards are developed taking into account these two statutory criteria. This does not preclude us from taking these factors into account in making our estimates of the numbers of small entities.  Y4 With respect to applying the revenue cap, the SBA has defined "annual receipts" specifically in 13 C.F.R  121.104, and its calculations include an averaging process. We do not currently require submission of financial data from licensees that we could use in applying the SBA's definition of a small business. Thus, for purposes of estimating the number of small entities to which the rules apply, we are limited to considering the revenue data that are publicly available, and the revenue data on which we rely may not correspond completely with the SBA definition of annual receipts. Under SBA criteria for determining annual receipts, if a concern has acquired an affiliate or been acquired as an affiliate during the applicable averaging period for determining annual receipts, the annual receipts in determining size status include the receipts of both firms. 13 C.F.R.  121.104(d)(1). The SBA defines affiliation in 13 C.F.R.  121.103. In this context, the SBA's definition of affiliate is analogous to our attribution rules. Generally, under the SBA's definition, concerns are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both. 13 C.F.R.  121.103(a)(1). The SBA considers factors such as ownership, management, previous relationships with or ties to another concern, and"#'OX0*((})" contractual relationships, in determining whether affiliation exists. 13 C.F.R.  121.103(a)(2). Instead of making an independent determination of whether television stations were affiliated based on SBA's definitions, we relied on the data bases available to us to provide us with that information. 3. Estimates Based on Census and BIA Data  According to the Census Bureau, in 1992, there were 1,155 out of 1,478 operating television stations with revenues of less than ten million dollars. This represents 78 percent  Y14of all television stations, including noncommercial stations. See 1992 Census of  Y 4Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, May 1995, at 125. The Census Bureau does not separate the revenue data by commercial and noncommercial stations in this report. Neither does it allow us to determine the number of stations with a maximum of 10.5 million dollars in annual receipts. Census data also indicates that 81 percent of operating firms (that owned at least one television station) had  Y 4revenues of less than 10 million dollars.Yx ax yO ' x ԍAlternative data supplied by the U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy indicate that 65  xx percent of TV owners (627 of 967) have less than $10 million in annual revenue and that 39 percent of TV stations  xk (627 of 1,591) have less than $10 million in annual revenue. These data were prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau  xx under contract to the Small Business Administration. U.S. Small Business Administration 1992 Economic Census  x Industry and Enterprise Receipts Report, Table 2D (U.S. Census Bureau data adopted by SBA). These data show  x a lower percentage of small businesses than the data available directly from the Census Bureau. Therefore, for purposes of our worst case analysis, we will use the data available directly from the Census Bureau. We have also performed a separate study based on the data contained in the BIA  Yb4Publications, Inc. Master Access Television Analyzer Database,NZbax yO'ԍBIA Publications, Inc., Chantilly, VA.N which lists a total of 1,141 fullpower commercial television stations. We have excluded Low Power Television (LPTV) stations or translator stations, which will not be subject to the new requirements, from our  Y4calculations. [ ax yOf' x ԍIt should be noted that the Commission has attempted to minimize the burden on small entities by not  x applying the rules to LPTV stations and television translators. As of June 30, 1996, there were 1,903 LPTV stations  yO' xD and 4,910 television translators licensed in the United States. FCC News Release, Broadcast Station Totals as of  yO'June 30, 1996, Mimeo No. 63298, released July 10, 1996.  It should be noted that, using the SBA definition of small business concern, the percentage figures derived from the BIA data base may be underinclusive because the data base does not list revenue estimates for noncommercial educational stations, and these are  Y4therefore excluded from our calculations based on the data base.\  ax yO $' xb ԍ In the Joint Comments of the Association of America's Public Television Stations and the Public Broadcasting  x Service (p. 6), it is reported that there are 38 public televisions stations with annual operating budgets of less than  yO%' xQ $2 million. As of June 30, 1996, there were 364 public television stations licensed. FCC News Release, Broadcast  yOa&'Station Totals as of June 30, 1996, released July 10, 1996. While noncommercial stations are not subject to the new reporting or recordkeeping requirements adopted in the"Ph\0*((S"  Y4Report and Order, the new definition (except for the reporting requirements) and the processing guideline will apply to them. The BIA data indicate that, based on 1995 revenue estimates, 440 fullpower commercial television stations had an estimated revenue of 10.5 million dollars or less. That represents 54 percent of commercial television stations with revenue estimates listed in the BIA program. The data base does not list estimated revenues for 331 stations. Using a worst case scenario, if those 331 stations for which no revenue is listed are counted as small stations, there would be a total of 771 stations with an estimated revenue of 10.5 million dollars or less, representing approximately 68 percent of the 1,141 commercial television stations listed in the BIA data base. Alternatively, if we look at owners of commercial television stations as listed in the BIA data base, there are a total of 488 owners. The data base lists estimated revenues for 60 percent of these owners, or 295. Of these 295 owners, 158 or 54 percent had annual revenues of 10.5 million dollars or less. Using a worst case scenario, if the 193 owners for which revenue is not listed are assumed to be small, the total of small entities would constitute 72 percent of owners. In summary, based on the foregoing worst case analysis using census data, we estimate that our rules will apply to as many as 1,155 commercial and noncommercial television stations (78 percent of all stations) that could be classified as small entities. Using a worst case analysis based on the data in the BIA data base, we estimate that as many as approximately 771 commercial television stations (about 68 percent of all commercial televisions stations) could be classified as small entities. As we noted above, these estimates are based on a definition that we tentatively believe greatly overstates the number of television broadcasters that are small businesses. Further, it should be noted that under the SBA's definitions, revenues of affiliated businesses that are not television stations should be aggregated with the television station revenues in determining whether a concern is small. Therefore, these estimates overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figures on which they are based do not include or aggregate such revenues from nontelevision affiliated companies. It should also be noted that the foregoing estimates do not distinguish between  Y 4networkaffiliatedx]X ax yO' x ԍIn this context, "affiliation" refers to any local broadcast television station that has a contractual arrangement  xH with a programming network to carry the network's signal. This definition of affiliated station includes both stations owned and operated by a network and stations owned by other entities.x stations and independent stations. As of April, 1996, the BIA data base indicates that about 73 percent of all commercial television stations were affiliated with the ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, UPN, or WB networks. Moreover, seven percent of those affiliates  Y4have secondary affiliations.^ax yOt%' xk ԍSecondary affiliations are secondary to the primary affiliation of the station and generally afford the affiliate additional choice of programming. We assume that compliance with the requirements adopted in  Y 4the Report and Order will be less burdensome for network affiliates than for independent" Q@^0*(("" stations, as the networks may provide some core programming to network affiliates at lower costs than the network affiliates might otherwise be able to obtain. The networks might also otherwise assist with the fulfillment of additional requirements. 4. Alternative Classification of Small Stations An alternative way to classify small television stations is by the number of employees. The Commission currently applies a standard based on the number of employees in  YH4administering its Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") rule for broadcasting._xHax yO ' x^ ԍThe Commission's definition of a small broadcast station for purposes of applying its EEO rule was adopted  x prior to the requirement of approval by the Small Business Administration pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Small  x Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632(a), as amended by Section 222 of the Small Business Credit and Business  x Opportunity Enhancement Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102366,  222(b)(1), 106 Stat. 999 (1992), as further amended  xD by the Small Business Administration Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103403,  301,  x 108 Stat. 4187 (1994). However, this definition was adopted after public notice and an opportunity for comment.  yOq'See Report and Order in Docket No. 18244, 23 FCC 2d 430 (1970). Thus, radio or television stations with fewer than five fulltime employees are exempted from  Y 4certain EEO reporting and recordkeeping requirements.` ax yO' x ԍSee, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  73.3612 (Requirement to file annual employment reports on Form 395B applies to  yO' xM licensees with five or more fulltime employees); First Report and Order in Docket No. 21474 (In the Matter of  yOc' xD Amendment of Broadcast Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and FCC Form 395), 70 FCC 2d 1466 (1979). The  x Commission is currently considering how to decrease the administrative burdens imposed by the EEO rule on small  yO' x. stations while maintaining the effectiveness of our broadcast EEO enforcement. Order and Notice of Proposed Rule  yO' x Making in MM Docket No. 9616 (In the Matter of Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies, Vacating the  xx EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture  x& Guidelines), 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996). One option under consideration is whether to define a small station for  yO'purposes of affording such relief as one with ten or fewer fulltime employees. Id. at  21. We estimate that the total number of commercial television stations with 4 or fewer employees is 132 and that the total number  Y 4of noncommercial educational television stations with 4 or fewer employees is 136.a ax yOu' x ԍWe base this estimate on a compilation of 1995 Broadcast Station Annual Employment Reports (FCC Form 395B), performed by staff of the Equal Opportunity Employment Branch, Mass Media Bureau, FCC. Size of the station based on the number of employees is only one factor in assessing the impact of the compliance requirements on small stations. For example, as discussed below, the resources that may often be provided from the networks to network affiliates and from program syndicators to broadcasters showing their programming should ease the compliance requirements by providing educational program descriptions which can be used in public information dissemination. Small groupowned stations may also receive similar benefits from their parent companies when programs have been produced or acquired for multiple stations in the group. However, we do not have the necessary information at this time to determine the number of small groupowned stations, either under the SBA's definition or based on those stations that have fewer than five fulltime employees. "R0a0*((O"Ԍ X4 D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance  X4Requirements of the Rules.  Y4The rules adopted in the Report and Order require commercial television broadcasters, regardless of size, but not including LPTV or translator stations, to identify programs specifically designed to educate and inform children at the time those programs are aired (at the beginning of the program), in a form that is at the discretion of the licensee, and to provide information identifying such programs and the age groups for which, in the opinion of the broadcaster, they are intended, to publishers of program guides. Our rules currently require commercial licensees to complete reports containing information about the children's programming they air, including time, date, duration, and description of the programs. These reports may be produced either quarterly or annually at the licensee's discretion. Licensees maintain these reports in their public inspection file. The new rules will require commercial television licensees to provide a brief explanation in their children's programming reports of how particular programs meet the definition of programming specifically designed to meet children's educational and  Yb4informational needs that is adopted in the Report and Order. Licensees will be required to produce their children's reports quarterly. For an experimental period of three years, broadcasters will be required to file these reports with the Commission on an annual basis  Y4(i.e., four quarterly reports filed jointly once a year). Broadcasters will also be required to separate their children's programming reports from other materials in their public files and to publicize in an appropriate manner the existence and location of the children's programming reports. The Commission will, at a later date, adopt a standardized form for the programming reports. We will also permit, but not require, electronic filing of children's programming reports. Finally, the Commission will, at a later date, revise its license renewal form to reflect the new three hour core programming processing guideline, discussed below. While licensees remain ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with our rules, we anticipate that they may be able to refer to information provided by the broadcast networks and program suppliers in assessing the educational and informational purpose of programming. Further, we anticipate that station programming and clerical staff will continue to be able to perform the other reporting and recordkeeping functions required under the rules. Under the new rules, commercial television licensees will also be required to designate a liaison at the station for children's programming and to include the name and method of contacting that person in the children's programming reports. In order to minimize burdens,  Y#4the Report and Order exempts noncommercial educational television stations from this requirement. With respect to the liaison, the rules do not require that a new or additional employee be hired to perform this function, and we believe that it is reasonable to require licensees to designate a liaison for children's programming since someone at each station must, as a practical matter, be responsible for carrying out the broadcaster's responsibility"#'Sa0*((})" under the CTA to air children's educational television programming and since licensees are currently required to maintain children's programming reports and letters received from the public in their public inspection file. To minimize regulatory burdens, the new rules exempt noncommercial educational television stations from the foregoing reporting, filing, and submission requirements and public information initiatives.  XH4 E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and  X14Significant Alternatives Considered.  Y 4 In general, we have attempted to keep burdens on television broadcast stations to a minimum, as discussed below. The regulatory burdens we have imposed are necessary to ensure compliance with the CTA. 1. Public Information Initiatives We adopted the requirements that commercial television broadcasters identify children's educational and informational programs and designate a liaison for children's programming, as well as the revised public file requirements, based on the goal of affording the public sufficient information to play an active role in assuring that the goals of the CTA are met. We will also make information obtained from the children's programming reports available on our Internet World Wide Web site if it is feasible so that it will be accessible by the public. Allowing the public to play an active role will, in turn, allow the Commission to minimize its involvement in evaluating the quality of children's programming and to rely more on the marketplace to achieve the goals of the CTA, thereby minimizing regulatory burdens.  Y|4We determined that these information requirements should not impose significant additional burdens on licensees, and, in adopting the rules, the Commission has attempted to minimize regulatory and significant economic burdens on small businesses and facilitate compliance with reporting rules wherever possible. a. Identification of Core Programming The burden of the onair identification requirement on all commercial television broadcast stations, including small stations, is minimized because the form of the identification is at their discretion. The rules adopted provide greater discretion to television stations and are thus less burdensome than if we had adopted a requirement that broadcasters  Y#4use an icon for such identification, as suggested in the NPRM. Further, such an identification requirement may benefit small stations by affording a potential increase in audience size. An onair identification requirement will make broadcasters more accountable to the public and further the goal of minimizing the possibility that the Commission would be forced to decide whether particular programs serve the educational and informational needs of"#'Ta0*((})" children. We note that it is standard practice in the broadcast industry for stations to make various onair announcements promoting their programming. We further note that under longstanding Commission rules, stations must make station identification and sponsorship  Y4announcements. See 47 C.F.R.  73.1201, 73.1212.  Y4b. Program Guides Television stations currently submit programming information to programming guides,  YH4which publish such information without cost to the broadcasters. See  60 supra. Our current rules do not require broadcasters to provide this information to the guides. However, it has become a wellestablished practice to provide specialized information about programs, such as which programs are closed captioned for the hearing impaired. Our new rules will require commercial television broadcasters to provide to publishers of program guides information identifying core programs, and the age group for which, in the opinion of the  Y 4broadcaster, the program is intended.b ax yO7' x@ ԍAs described above in Section IV of the Report and Order, we will require that commercial broadcasters indicate the age of the target child audience in their program description. This information will assist parents in finding suitable programs for their children and be useful to parents and others who wish to monitor station performance in complying with the CTA. We recognize that broadcasters cannot require publishers to print this information. The information, however, is more likely to be in the program listings if broadcasters routinely provide it. This requirement is a minor extension of what small stations already do for their standard programming. Stations are not required to purchase advertising space in TV Guide or local TV weekly publications, only to provide information to them. As broadcasters routinely provide such information about their programming to program guides and designate core programs for their public records, we believe it would require a minimum of effort, but have a major positive effect, for them to do so.  Y4c. Public File Requirements Our rules currently require commercial television licensees to compile reports, containing information about the children's programming they air, including the time, date, duration, and description of the programs. Licensees maintain these reports in the station's public inspection file. Our new rules will require commercial television licensees to prepare these reports using a standardized format on a quarterly basis. The reports will describe their efforts to comply with the CTArelated programming requirements outlined in this decision. Licensees will be required to provide a brief explanation of how particular programs meet the definition of "core" programming. Commercial television licensees will be required to separate the children's programming reports from the other reports they maintain in their public files. The impact of this requirement will depend on the specific class into which a small station falls. Networkaffiliated stations, regardless of staff size, may have network support"h$U b0*((&" in fulfilling aspects of the reporting requirement for the programs that are broadcast by the  Y4network. For example, we assume that, in developing the educational and informational programming they furnish to affiliates, networks will have prepared program information about the educational and informational benefits to children that can be disseminated to  Y4affiliated stations.c ax yO' x ԍSee e.g., NBC Comments at 7, 19; NBC Reply Comments at 9 (written articulation of the educational theme  x* or goal of each educational segment furnished to affiliates for inclusion in their children's programming reports);  yO' x see also ABC Comments at 12 (ABC currently provides to its affiliates a brief explanation of how particular programs meet the definition of educational and informational programming for children).  Assuming that the network furnishes such material, a small station may be able to rely on it in preparing its programming report, with respect to the network programs that it airs. In addition, program syndicators may also provide the information needed for a small station to complete its children's programming reports with respect to the programs furnished by the syndicator, further lessening any burden on small stations. A small station that wishes to produce its own children's educational programming will not have the benefit of any such material provided by a network or syndicator in fulfilling the program report requirements. However, assuming a determination of the educational and informational attributes of the program has been made at the preproduction/development stage, additional analysis may not be necessary in preparing the programming report. It is not required, nor should it be necessary, for a small station to hire additional personnel or a children's educational expert to prepare such reports. The Commission considered but specifically rejected such a requirement in order to minimize regulatory burdens on licensees. A number of broadcasters and other commenters requested that the Commission develop a standardized form to facilitate their assembly of children's programming reports,  Y4which they are required to do under our current rules. See Report and Order,  69 and n.  Y4174 supra. So that the reporting burden will be minimized, the Commission will develop a standardized form to be used for preparing the quarterly children's programming reports. We believe that the standardized form will make compliance with the reporting requirements  Y4easier and less burdensome for all entities, including small entities. See Report and Order,  6972. With regard to licensees publicizing the availability and location of the programming reports, we believe that this requirement should not be burdensome on small entities because we do not prescribe the manner in which licensees are to publicize the availability and location of the reports, but allow the licensees flexibility to do so in an appropriate manner. Therefore, licensees may choose to fulfill the requirement in a manner that is least burdensome to them, provided they do so in an appropriate manner.  Y 4Our new rules also require commercial television licensees to designate a liaison for children's programming and to include the name and method of contacting that individual in"!Vc0*((#"  Y4the station's children's programming reports.dax yOy'ԍ As noted earlier, noncommercial educational television licensees are exempt from this requirement. Licensees already employ sufficient staff in  Y4order to maintain the children's programming reports_eXax yO'ԍNPRM, 10 FCC Rcd at 6322; 47 C.F.R.  73.1202._ and letters received from the public in  Y4their public inspection files, as required by our current regulations.fax yOk' x ԍId. at  73.1202. Commercial stations are required to maintain a number of other reports, records, and  yO3'applications in their public inspection file as well. See id. at  73.3526. Thus, we do not expect that the new requirement for designation of a liaison will impose a significant additional burden on licensees. The rules do not require that a new or additional employee be hired to perform this function, and we believe that it is reasonable to require licensees to designate a  Yv4liaison for children's programming since someone at each station must, as a practical matter, be responsible for carrying out the broadcaster's responsibility under the CTA to air children's educational television programming. In addition, our rules place no limitations on the licensee's discretion in assigning the liaison function and determining how it will be carried out. 2. Definition of "Specifically Designed" Programming The CTA requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a broadcaster has "served the educational and informational needs of children through the licensee's overall programming, including programming specifically designed to serve such needs." We determined that we should adopt a definition of programming specifically designed to serve children's educational and informational needs (or "core programming") because our current definition is very broad, does not distinguish between general audience/entertainment programs and programs that are specifically designed to educate and inform, and does not provide licensees with sufficient guidance regarding their obligation to air "specifically designed" programming as required by the CTA. The definition is designed to be sensitive to our concerns that the rules be explicit, clear, simple, and fair and that they afford clear guidance to licensees as to their obligations under the CTA. In adopting the definition, we attempted to minimize regulatory burdens and economic impact on small entities. For example, the Commission rejected a proposal advanced by several commenters that licensees be required to consult with educational experts in order for  Ye4a program to qualify as core programming. Report and Order,  90. The Commission rejected this proposal in order to minimize burdens on our licensees. An element of our core programming definition is the requirement that commercial television licensees specify in writing in their children's programming report the educational and informational objective of a core program as well as its target child audience. While we recognize this element of the revised definition may impose an additional paperwork burden on commercial licensees, we  Y4conclude that the burden is outweighed by the benefits of the proposal. See Report and"W@f0*((!"  Y4Order,  9195. The description of a program's educational objective does not have to be lengthy, and we do not require that the description be prepared by an expert. 3. Processing Guideline We adopt a threehour per week safe harbor processing guideline. A processing guideline is consistent with the text of the CTA and with the First Amendment, and we  Y_4conclude that our current ad hoc approach provides inadequate guidance to licensees and Commission staff. Under the new processing guideline adopted, we would permit staff approval of the children's programming portion of the renewal application where the threehour benchmark is met. A measure of flexibility is afforded to licensees, including small businesses, since a licensee falling somewhat short of this benchmark could still receive staff approval based on a showing that it has aired a package of different types of educational and informational programming that, while containing somewhat less than three hours per week of core programming, demonstrates a level of commitment to educating and informing children that is at least equivalent to airing three hours per week of core programming. In this regard, specials, PSAs, shortform programs and regularly scheduled nonweekly shows with a significant purpose of educating and informing children can count toward the three hour per week processing guideline. Renewal applications that do not meet these criteria will be referred for consideration to the Commission, where they will have a full opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the CTA. Such applicants may be able to demonstrate compliance, for example, by relying in part on sponsorship of core educational and informational programs on other stations in the market that increases the amount of core educational and informational programming on the station airing the sponsored program and/or on special nonbroadcast efforts that enhance the value of children's educational and informational television programming. A processing guideline is consistent with the text of the CTA that the Commission "consider the extent" to which licensees serve the "educational and informational needs of children through the licensee's overall programming, including  Y|4programming specifically designed to serve such needs." Report and Order,  120130. In adopting this guideline, the Commission seeks to minimize the regulatory burdens and economic impact on licensees, including small businesses, by delegating authority to the  Y 4Mass Media Bureau to approve Category A or Category B renewal applications. See Report  Y 4and Order,  12034. Additionally, the Commission allows broadcasters scheduling flexibility by adopting a perweek rather than a perday safe harbor and by permitting the threehour benchmark to be averaged over a sixmonth period, and further attempts to minimize the economic impact by allowing repeats and reruns of core programming to be counted toward fulfillment of the threehour guideline. With respect to network affiliates, we expect that networks, as they have in the past, will provide programming and compliance information to their affiliates so that, regardless of revenues, the burden on networkaffiliated stations will be minimized. Indeed, as noted in   Y:&4132 of the Report and Order, Westinghouse Electric Corporation has announced that it will provide three hours per week of children's educational programming over the CBS network"#'Xf0*((})" and on its owned and operated stations by the fall 1997 season. Further, we assume that the threehour per week guideline will not be burdensome because, as the National Association of Broadcasters ("NAB") reports, broadcasters today air an average of more than four hour per  Y4week of total educational and informational programming under the CTA. See Report and  Y4Order,  40. Even though that figure may be inflated by the inclusion of some programming that may not qualify under the definition of core programming, it suggests that a threehour processing guideline is a reasonable level that should not be particularly difficult for broadcasters to achieve.  Y14 The Commission considered but did not adopt two alternative options to the processing guideline: (1) Commission monitoring of the amount of educational and informational programming on the air during a period of time following the adoption of measures to improve the flow of programming information to the public and a definition of core programming; and (2) adoption of a programming standard that would require broadcasters to air a specified average number of hours of programming specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children. The rule adopted furthers the goal of making the Commission's rules and processes as clear, efficient, and fair as possible, while affording licensees discretion to augment their core programming responsibility with program sponsorship or other exceptional programming efforts. The Commission concludes that the option chosen strikes the appropriate balance between the need for certainty and flexibility in enforcing the CTA and is thus preferable to  Y4both the monitoring and programming standard proposals set forth in the NPRM. It should be noted that the option chosen, a processing standard, is less burdensome and affords licensees, including small businesses, greater flexibility than if the Commission had imposed a programming standard. Based on the record, the Commission does not believe that three hours of educational programming would be difficult for most broadcasters to achieve. While mere monitoring might be less burdensome than a processing guideline, the Commission  Y|4concludes in the Report and Order that it is inadvisable to process renewals under the CTA without some quantitative guidelines that are published in advance to provide licensees notice as to means by which they can fulfill their CTA obligations. Finally, the Commission will revise its license renewal form to reflect the new three hour core programming processing guideline. To minimize the regulatory burden and economic impact on broadcasters, including small businesses, they will be able to demonstrative compliance either by checking a box and providing supporting information indicating that they have aired an average of three hours per week of core programming or by showing that they have aired a package of different types of educational and informational programming that, while containing somewhat less than three hours per week of core programming, demonstrates a level of commitment to educating and informing children that is at least equivalent to airing three hours per week of core programming. In revising the renewal form, we will seek to minimize the reporting burden on licensees, including small businesses, by, for example, permitting them to rely on the children's programming reports they have previously prepared."#'Yf0*((})"Ԍ X4ԙ F. Report to Congress The Secretary shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis along  Y4with this Report and Order in a report to Congress pursuant to Section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, codified at 5 U.S.C. Section 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA will also be published in the Federal Register."Zf0*(("  X4 dPAPPENDIX B ă Part 73 of Title 47 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: Part 73 RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334. 2. Section 73.671 is amended by removing the Note following the section, revising paragraph (a), and by adding paragraph (c) and Notes 1 and 2 to read as follows:  73.671 Educational and informational programming for children. (a) Each commercial and noncommercial educational television broadcast station licensee has an obligation to serve, over the term of its license, the educational and informational needs of children through both the licensee's overall programming and programming specifically designed to serve such needs. * * * * * (c) For purposes of this section, educational and informational television programming is any television programming that furthers the educational and informational needs of children 16 years of age and under in any respect, including the child's intellectual/cognitive or social/emotional needs. Programming specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children ("Core Programming") is educational and informational programming that satisfies the following additional criteria: (1) It has serving the educational and informational needs of children ages 16 and under as a significant purpose; (2) It is aired between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; (3) It is a regularly scheduled weekly program; (4) It is at least 30 minutes in length; (5) The educational and informational objective and the target child audience are specified in writing in the licensee's Children's Television Programming Report, as described in 73.3526(a)(8)(iii); and (6) Instructions for listing the program as educational/informational, including an indication of the age group for which the program is intended, are provided by the licensee to publishers of program guides, as described in 73.673(b). NOTE 1 to 73.671: For purposes of determining under this section whether programming has a significant purpose of serving the educational and informational needs of children, the Commission will ordinarily rely on the good faith judgments of the licensee. ":&[f0*(((" Commission review of compliance with that element of the definition will be done only as a last resort. NOTE 2 to 73.671: The Commission will use the following processing guideline in assessing whether a television broadcast licensee has complied with the Children's Television Act of 1990 ("CTA"). A licensee that has aired at least three hours per week of Core Programming (as defined in paragraph (c) of this section and as averaged over a six month period) will be deemed to have satisfied its obligation to air such programming and shall have the CTA portion of its license renewal application approved by the Commission staff. A licensee will also be deemed to have satisfied this obligation and be eligible for such staff approval if the licensee demonstrates that it has aired a package of different types of educational and informational programming that, while containing somewhat less than three hours per week of Core Programming, demonstrates a level of commitment to educating and informing children that is at least equivalent to airing three hours per week of Core Programming. In this regard, specials, PSAs, shortform programs, and regularly scheduled nonweekly programs with a significant purpose of educating and informing children can count toward the three hour per week processing guideline. Licensees that do not meet these processing guidelines will be referred to the Commission, where they will have full  Yb4opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the CTA (e.g., by relying in part on sponsorship of core educational/informational programs on other stations in the market that increases the amount of core educational and informational programming on the station airing the sponsored program and/or on special nonbroadcast efforts which enhance the value of children's educational and informational television programming). 3. Section 73.672 is removed and reserved. 4. New Section 73.673 is added to read as follows:  73.673 Public information initiatives regarding educational and informational programming for children. (a) Each commercial television broadcast licensee shall identify programs specifically designed to educate and inform children at the beginning of the program, in a form that is in the discretion of the licensee. (b) Each commercial television broadcast station licensee shall provide information identifying programming specifically designed to educate and inform children to publishers of program guides. Such information shall include an indication of the age group for which the program is intended. 5. Section 73.3526(a)(8)(iii) is revised to read as follows:  73.3526 Local public inspection file of commercial stations. "#'\f0*((})"Ԍ(a) * * * (8)(i) * * * (ii) * * * (iii) For commercial TV broadcast stations, on a quarterly basis, a completed Children's Television Programming Report ("Report"), on FCC Form 398, reflecting efforts made by the licensee during the preceding quarter, and efforts planned for the next quarter, to serve the educational and informational needs of children. The Report for each quarter is to be filed by the tenth day of the succeeding calendar quarter. The Report shall identify the licensee's educational and informational programming efforts, including programs aired by the station that are specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children, and it shall explain how programs identified as Core Programming meet the definition set forth in 73.671(c). The Report shall include the name of the individual at the station responsible for collecting comments on the station's compliance with the Children's Television Act, and it shall be separated from other materials in the public inspection file. Licensees shall publicize in an appropriate manner the existence and location of these Reports. For an experimental period of three years, licensees shall file these Reports with the  Y4Commission on an annual basis, i.e., four quarterly reports filed jointly each year, preferably in electronic form. These Reports shall be filed with the Commission on January 10, 1998, January 10, 1999, and January 10, 2000. * * * * * 6. Section 73.3500 is amended by adding entry 398 in numerical order to read as follows: 73.3500 Application and Report Forms. * * * * *  Ye4398Children's Television Programming Report"e]f0*(("  Y4 ^O APPENDIX C ă  Y4The following parties filed comments in response to the FCC's NPRM:  X4 Initial Comments  Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. American Academy of Pediatrics Apple Computer, Inc. Association of America's Public TV Stations and PBS Association of Local Television Stations, Inc. CBS Inc. Congressman Michael Castle Center for Educational Priorities Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors Children's Broadcasting Corp. Copley Entertainment, Inc. Center for Media Education Channel 6, Inc. Children Now Children's Defense Fund and Black Community Crusade for Children The Children's Television Resource and Education Center Children's Television Workshop Children's TV for the '90s President Clinton "$'^f0*((})"ԌCorporation for Public Broadcasting Cosmos Broadcasting, Cox Broadcasting, First Media TV, Paxson Communications Corp., and River City Broadcasting Curators of the University of Missouri Ronald E. Davis Donrey Media Group Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Children's Network, and Fox Affiliates Association Golden Orange Broadcasting Co., Inc. August E. Grant Great Trails Broadcasting Corp. Prof. James T. Hamilton Aletha C. Huston and John C. Wright Larry Irving KIDSNET, Inc. Dale Kunkel Senator Joseph Lieberman Congresswomen Nita Lowey and Constance Morella Maine Broadcasting Television Co. Congressman Edward Markey The Media Institute Meredith Corporation National Association of Broadcasters "#'_f0*((})"ԌNational Broadcasting Company, Inc. National Coalition on TV Violence NATPE International National Broadcast Association for Community Affairs Newton N. Minow and Craig L. LaMay Office of Communication United Church of Christ OKTV (Our Kid's TV) Foundation Senators Jeff Bingaman, Paul Simon, Paul Sarbanes, John Breaux, Patty Murray, Wendell Ford, Daniel Akaka, Bob Graham, Richard Bryan, Herb Kohl, Howell Heflin, Dale Bumpers, Ernest Hollings, Olympia Snowe, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, John Glenn, Claiborne Pell, David Pryor, Bennett Johnston, and Paul Wellstone Arthur D. Sheekey Tribune Broadcasting Company The Walt Disney Company Warner Bros. Television Network, Warner Bros. and Time Warner, Inc. Westinghouse Broadcasting Company U.S. Catholic Conference  X 4 Reply Comments  Y4 Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. American Psychological Association Association of America's Public Television Stations and PBS Association of Local Television Stations, Inc. Center for Educational Priorities "#'`f0*((})"Ԍ Center for Media Education Children's Television for the '90s Children's Television Workshop Henry Geller Dale Kunkel Edward Markey Monroe E. Price & Michael I. Meyerson National Association of Broadcasters National Broadcasting Company, Inc. Named State Broadcaster Associations National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters Office of Communication United Church of Christ Dorothy G. and Jerome L. Singer Ellen A. Wartella "af0*(( "  oN#X*0 x7 X# # *0 x7 #     `44T# ^\  P6Q ~P#Appendix D# X*0 x}BQ X#  X>' *# XP\  P6QCXP#TV Usage By Children and Teens #X*0 x}BQ X#">bf0*(("  T4H# a2P P# y!x T'T_ ddE:\KIDVID~1\6M-F.BMPcx yTV Usage By Kids and Teens, 6 AM to 8 AM For Mon.Fri.; Sat.; and Sun. # X*0 x7 X#  f@} # <2PP# Source: Nielsens National Audience Demographics, Vol. 1, November 1995 #X*0 x7 X#  U4 1 !KKKK Figure 1 yA x | KKK ddE:\KIDVID~1\6SUN.BMPhcx yya x |KKKK" ddE:\KIDVID~1\6SAT.BMPcx y# X*0 x7 X#cf0*((u'L_f!c T'L1l .-Ac| h L1hu ac|  P4`# a2P  P# # &z*0 x}BQM&# yx {eKKKK{ ddE:\KIDVID~1\10M-F.BM8dx y#XP\  P6QCXP# #XX2PQjXP#TV Usage By Kids and Teens, 10 PM to 12 AM For Mon.Fri.; Sat.; and Sun. #X*0 x}BQ X#  f@} #<2P P# Source: Nielsens National Audience Demographics, Vol. 1, November 1995 #X*0 x 7X#  U4#X*0 x 7X# KKKK Figure 1 KKKK Figure 1 y x |h"KKK ddE:\KIDVID~1\10SUN.BMx yy x |KKKK ddE:\KIDVID~1\10SAT.BMx yx0*0*0*}R(L0'{e8L1".m|h"L1AN |  P4  #XZ2PjXP#KKKK Figure 1 KKKK Figure 1  y ]KKKK] ddE:\KIDVID~1\M-F.BMPp yTV Usage: Children and Teens, Monday Friday#X*0 x7X#             KKKK Figure 1 KKKK Figure 1   K"CU   K"CU  y _aKKKK_ ddE:\KIDVID~1\SAT.BMP y  Py4I  #XZ2PjXP#TV Usage: Children and Teens, Saturday   UK4 #X*0 x7X#             U74 y! "KKKK" ddE:\KIDVID~1\SUN.BMP@  y  P 4  #XZ2PjXP#TV Usage: Children and Teens, Sunday   #Xh6X@ X@# K"CU