modest proposal research paper

A Modest Proposal

Introduction of “a modest proposal”, summary of “a modest proposal”, major themes in “a modest proposal”, writing style of “a modest proposal”, analysis of literary devices in “a modest proposal” , related posts:, post navigation.

Games & Quizzes
History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
On This Day
One Good Fact
New Articles
Lifestyles & Social Issues
Philosophy & Religion
Politics, Law & Government
World History
Health & Medicine
Browse Biographies
Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
Environment
Fossils & Geologic Time
Entertainment & Pop Culture
Sports & Recreation
Visual Arts
Demystified
Image Galleries
Infographics
Top Questions
Britannica Kids
Saving Earth
Space Next 50
Student Center

Gulliver in Lilliput. Lemuel Gulliver, set ashore after a mutiny, regains consciousness and finds himself a prisoner of the Lilliputians. From Gulliver's Travels, Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts by Jonathan Swift.

Why is Jonathan Swift an important writer?
What was Jonathan Swift’s family like when he was growing up?
What is Jonathan Swift best known for?

Close up of books. Stack of books, pile of books, literature, reading. Homepage 2010, arts and entertainment, history and society

A Modest Proposal

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

The Guardian - The 100 best nonfiction books: No 88 – A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift (1729)
Internet Archive - "A Modest Proposal"
Pressbooks - Jonathan Swift: A Modest Proposal
Academia - A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift
The Victorian Web - "A Modest Proposal"
Humanities LibreTexts - "A Modest Proposal"
Literary Devices - A Modest Proposal

A Modest Proposal , satiric essay by Jonathan Swift , published in pamphlet form in 1729.

Presented in the guise of an economic treatise , the essay proposes that the country ameliorate poverty in Ireland by butchering the children of the Irish poor and selling them as food to wealthy English landlords. Swift’s proposal is a savage comment on England’s legal and economic exploitation of Ireland. The essay is a masterpiece of satire , with a blend of rational deliberation and unthinkable conclusion, and its title has come to symbolize any proposition to solve a problem with an effective but outrageous cure.

British Literature Wiki

Contemporary Reactions to A Modest Proposal

A modest proposal.

“ A Modest Proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the public” -J. Swift

read full text here

Swift’s ireland.

Although Jonathan Swift was born in Ireland, he did not consider himself very Irish. He was actually quite dismayed with Ireland and its people because of the way it allowed England to overtake and control it. He writes in a journal about Ireland:

“Remove me from this land of slaves, Where all are fools and all are knaves; Where every knave and fool is bought, Yet kindly sells himself for naught; Where Whig and Tory fiercely fight, Who’s in the wrong, who in the right; And when their country lies at stake, They only fight for fighting’s sake, While English sharpers take the pay, And then stand by to see fair play.” (King)

Swift’s family moved to England after his birth, but at age 3, Swift returned to Ireland to live with his uncle. There he attended Trinity College in Dublin. Here he received his M.A. while being chastised, censored, and fined for causing trouble. Swift left Ireland in 1689 amidst the Glorious Revolution. He desired to gain religious and political power in England. (DeGategno)

Swift believed it was his duty to help maintain stability between political and religious forces in Ireland (as well as England). He was an advocate for Anglicanism, which had to resist the forces of Roman Catholicism and Protestant Dissenters. He began his political career as Whig, but rejected their association with the dissenters. After being recruited by the Tory Prime Minister, Swift became the chief Tory pamphleteer. However he rejected the Tory belief of the divine right of Kings, and thought that the ultimate political power of England should rest in the hands of the people. It was then maintained by the relationship between Parliament and Kings that protected individual rights and resisted tyranny.

After the Whigs regained power, Swift return to Ireland where he was attacked by Anglo-Irish Whigs. Political, economic, and religious struggles plagued England and Ireland in the mid 18th-Century. The rifts between the Catholics and the Protestants, competition for English farms and businesses, and the “legal impotence of the Irish government” put the Irish in a position of “economic prostration” under the power of the English. The English made laws to oppress and destroy the Irish economy by downright forbidding trade of high success industrial products such as woolen goods. In 1720, Swift protested against the current state of Ireland saying “We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another” (Baker).

Concerned with the inequities of policies enacted by the Whig prime minister and the depletion of the Irish economy, Swift composed many politically driven works in hopes to restore Ireland socially, economically, and politically. A Modest Proposal, written in 1729, is a satire and perhaps the most popular and controversial of Swift’s works. This work attempts to free Ireland from what Swift believed to be its worst enemy; itself. (Damrosch) When Swift wrote A Modest Proposal streets of Dublin were swarming with mothers begging and seeking sustenance for their children. Most of these children would turn into thieves and end up selling themselves as slaves (DeGategno). In a letter to Pope, Swift described the situation: “There have been three terrible years’ dearth of corn, and every place strewn with beggars, but deaths are common in better climates, and our evils lie much deeper.” (Damrosch) Swift’s plan to save Ireland from the beggars was to take the offspring of the women on the streets and sell them to the wealthy. He proposed that the person who comes up with a solution for “making these children sound…would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation” (Swift).

Literary Influences

It is impossible to write about Jonathan Swift and A Modest Proposal without the use of the word satire. Swift and various other authors of his time were influenced by Roman satirical writers like Horace and Juvenal. Though satire has a serious intent of reforming social or individual flaws, it achieves its success through humor and through exaggeration of these flaws. Swift’s Modest Proposal is an example of political satire. There were many works written about political reform and social change during Swift’s time. His Proposal is partly satirizing William Petty’s Political Arithmetic (1691). In this Piece, Petty suggested that all of Ireland be used as a farm to serve England and that all of the Irish be removed. Petty’s work is an example of the kind of “‘Political arithmetic’ projects [that were ] published during the Restoration and 18th Century, reflecting English interest in ‘scientific’ programs for social ‘improvement'” (Damrosch, 2598).

A Contemporary Reaction

Whether or not Swift’s A Modest Proposal brought about the political and economic changes he advocated, he did get a reaction from his friend Lord Bathurst. In a letter, Bathurst picked up on the suggestion made by Swift in A Modest Proposal. Using similar linguistic techniques, Lord Bathurst jokingly shows his agreement with Swift’s proposal, deciding that it would be beneficial for his own family of nine children. Unable to repay some unspecified debt to Swift, Lord Bathurst claims, “But I have four or five [children], that are very fit for the table.” (Scott)

It is evident in this letter that Lord Bathurst takes Swift’s piece and plays with it. He writes the letter in the same pragmatic fashion as Swift. This technique silences the issue of morality. This way, he can emphasize the ridiculousness of the suggestion while making it seem like a probable solution, further poking fun at the failed attempts of others to reform Ireland’s economic problems.

read the rest of Lord Bathurst’s letter here

Works Cited

Image 1: boingboing.net/images/ iateababyadkfjgnakdjfgn.jpg
Image 2: http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/InstPg/RitFamine/iish-famine-links.htm
Baker, Lyman A. “Conditions in Early 18th Century Ireland.” 28 March 1999.
25 September 2008. http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~lyman/english320/sg-Swift-18thC.htm
Cody, David. “Jonathan Swift: A Brief Biography.” The Victorian Web. http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/swift/bio.html . May, 2008.
Damrosch, David and Kevin J.H. Dettmer, eds. The Longman Anthology of British Literature. Third Ed. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2006.
DeGategno, Paul J. and Jay Stubblefield. Cricitcal Companion To Jonathan Swift: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, 2006.
King, Richard Ashe, M.A. Swift in Ireland. New York, NY: Haskell House Publishers, 1971.
Scott, Walter. The Works of Jonathan Swift: Containing Additional Letters, Tracts, and Poems Not Hitherto Published; with Notes and a Life of the Author. Printed for A. Constable, 1814. Original from Harvard University. Digitized Jan 17, 2008
Swift, Jonathan. A Modest Proposal. 1729.

Contributors

58 A Modest Proposal Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best a modest proposal topic ideas & essay examples, ⭐ good research topics about a modest proposal, 👍 simple & easy a modest proposal essay titles.

Rhetoric in “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift Swift does conduct some math to establish the number of miscarriages, deaths, and the number of children born in a year.
Jonathan Swift’s a Modest Proposal: Swift’s Satire Approach Concerning the Social Problem of Dublin’s Starving Children Instead of suggesting the obvious limiting the number of children each female “breeder” should have he encourages the “breeders” to get pregnant, enjoy motherhood and nursing of their suckling infants for one year, and then […]
A Literary Analysis of “A Modest Proposal” and “The Tempest” For example, the mother in the family in the 2019 remake is presented as a kind woman without any sins, with her daughters claiming that she is never angry and her partly corroborating this statement, […]
Satire in “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift Just like successful manipulative politicians, Swift carefully selects and presents facts to shift society’s attention from the proposed measure’s ethical inappropriateness to the practical benefits that it can promote.
Satirical Features of “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift Indeed, he is a man who saw and is aware of the subhuman conditions of the Irish poor, both in Dublin and in the country.
“A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift: Life on the Island However, when a person gets to the island due to circumstances and cannot get out of there for more than one year, it is comparable to a prison in which fate is the warden.
Response to Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” In his satirical essay A Modest Proposal, Swift intends to showcase the absurdity of the economic state at the time, and the suffering already resulted from the income gap. Lastly, there is a question of […]
Poverty in “A Modest Proposal” by Swift The high number of children born to poor families presents significant problems for a country.”A Modest Proposal” is a satirical essay by Jonathan Swift that proposes a solution to the challenge facing the kingdom.
Jonathan Swift’s Essay “A Modest Proposal” The text begins with the description of the realities of society living in the time of famine. Since small children are not capable of work, they only constitute the source of expenditures to families and […]
Issues in “The Rape of the Lock” and “Modest Proposal” In both The Rape of the Lock and Modest Proposal, the writers use irony to satirize and mock the socio-political attitudes and values in British society in the 18th century.
Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” and Brady’s “I Want a Wife” As if supporting the general trend of the time towards emancipation of women, men take advantage of the situation and load the woman with both the housework and the role of the main breadwinner in […]
Mockery of the Life in Ireland in “A Modest Proposal“ by Jonathan Swift Jonathan Swift, the author of the famous Gulliver Travels, takes a dig at the Irish and British Bureaucracy in his masterful satire, ‘A Modest Proposal,’ which in the true sense is a mockery of the […]
“A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift and “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell In case of the abovementioned Swift’s work it is the problem of poverty and other social problems of Ireland of the 18th century.
Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”: Response The utilization of children will reduce the number of “papists who, according to Swift, were “most perilous enemies” and also the “principal breeders of the nation”.
Satire in “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift Moreover, it is known that he published it anonymously to ensure that the reader is not aware of what to expect from this proposal.
Surprising Effect in Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” From the very beginning, the writer expressed his concern for the plight of the poor, which was central to the whole story.
Review of “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift and Its Application to Solve School Violence Having analyzed violence in schools and the age of children maturity I have thus reached to a conclusion that this plan will be better applied to children under the age of 14.
Satire, Humor, and Shock in Swifts “A Modest Proposal”
Irish Oppression and Modern Parallels in “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift
Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”: Rhetorical Devices – Example-Based Argumentation
The Basis for Satirical News Publications: Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”
The Feminist Theory Throughout “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift
Satire: Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”
Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”: Religious, Political, and Social Strife in Ireland
Satire and the Deployment of Irony in “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift
Comparing Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World” and Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”
“A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift: The Greatest Works of Irony and Satire in All Literature
George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” vs. Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”
“A Modest Proposal”: The Most Popular and Controversial of Swift’s Essays
Three Excerpts From Jonathan Swifts “A Modest Proposal”: Social Issues
Ostracizing the “Other”: Foreignness and Social Class in “A Modest Proposal”
Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”: Excess Children and Social Problems in Ireland
“A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift and Inhumanity of the Upper-Class English
Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”: Caustic Wit Becomes the Means to Critique Society to a More Receptive and Entertained Audience
Modern-Day American Life and “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift
The Concern of Poverty in Two Essays: “On Dumpster Diving” by Lars Eighner and “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift
Satire in Voltaire’s “Candide” and Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”
Jonathan Swift’s Real Argument: “A Modest Proposal”
How Jonathon Swift Use of Satire in “A Modest Proposal”
“A Modest Proposal” in the Context of Swift’s Irish Tracts
Similarities Between Martin Luther King’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail” and Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”
Social Criticism and Jonathan Swift “A Modest Proposal”
Analysis of the Speaker in “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift
The Political and Social Issues Addressed in “A Modest Proposal,” “The Diary,” “The Education of Women,” and “The Spectator Club”
“The Lady’s Dressing Room” and “A Modest Proposal”: The Satirical Persona of Identities by Jonathan Swift
Replicating Jonathan Swift’s Satire in “A Modest Proposal”
“A Modest Proposal” and Swift’s a Hyperbolically Heartless Tone
Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”: An Early Example of Western Satire
Desperate Times, Desperate Measures in Jonathon Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”
Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” and Famine in Ireland
The Uses for Babies in Ireland in “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift
“A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift: A Masterpiece of Irony
The Surprise Ending in Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”
What Are Swift’s Aims in “A Modest Proposal,” and How Does He Achieve Them
The Imagery and Irony in the Satirical Essay “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift
Jonathan Swift Presents “The Marginalized” in “A Modest Proposal”
“A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift and the British Government’s Inability to Solve the Problem of Poverty in Ireland
Tartuffe Essay Ideas
Candide Essay Titles
1984 Essay Titles
Shooting an Elephant Essay Titles
Brave New World Paper Topics
Censorship Essay Ideas
Paradise Lost Ideas
Harrison Bergeron Research Ideas
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 2). 58 A Modest Proposal Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/a-modest-proposal-essay-topics/

"58 A Modest Proposal Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 2 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/a-modest-proposal-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '58 A Modest Proposal Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 2 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "58 A Modest Proposal Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/a-modest-proposal-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "58 A Modest Proposal Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/a-modest-proposal-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "58 A Modest Proposal Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/a-modest-proposal-essay-topics/.

DOI: 10.4324/9781315121765-65
Corpus ID: 240209849

A modest proposal

S. Schulman
Published in My American History 24 September 2018
My American History

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Get Help from the Experts with A Modest Proposal Essay Topics Paper

You want to write a paper, but you don’t know what it should be about? We can help! Our professional writers are here to provide you with the best essay writing service . Want examples of Modest Proposal essays we’ve written in the past? Check out our free essays section for inspiration and easy tips on how to get started! If you are struggling with your essay, do not worry. Whether your professor’s question is simple or complex, we’re here for you 24/7. Get in touch today, and let us turn those ideas into an A+ paper that will make your teacher proud.” Please place an order today and get help from professional writers to complete it in a timely fashion. You’ll feel confident about handling this paper knowing that it is has been professionally revised by our team of experts. Our expert writers will do all of your work without any worries at all! Don’t forget – we offer discounts on orders every week.

With a passion for education and student empowerment, I create blog content that speaks directly to the needs and interests of students. From study hacks and productivity tips to career exploration and personal development

Most Popular Articles

Racism thesis statement example, how to rephrase a thesis statement, capstone project topic suggestions, how to write an abortion essay, should students wear school uniforms essay, list causal essay topics write, respect essay, signal words, great synonyms, informative speech examples, essay writing guide, introduction paragraph for an essay, argumentative essay writing, essay outline templates, write an autobiographical essay, personal narrative essay ideas, descriptive essay writing, how to write a reflective-essay, how to write a lab report abstract, how to write a grant proposal, point of view in an essay, debate topics for youth at church, theatre research paper topics, privacy overview.

https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/rockcms/2024-06/240620-skye-mcbride-portrait-ew-1232p-a01fa8.jpg

The smallest victims: Why does America keep allowing toddlers to shoot themselves?

Nearly every day, a child unintentionally fires a gun and injures or kills someone. It's one of the most preventable forms of gun violence — but that doesn’t mean it’s easy to solve.

FLINT, Mich. — It was nearly 3 a.m. when LaDorothy Griggs was jolted awake by the banging on her front door. She was still in the haze of sleep when her uncle rushed into her home.

“Skye’s been shot,” he said. “Skye’s been shot in the head.”

Griggs couldn’t stop screaming, jumping up and down, even after her uncle said they had to get to the hospital and see if her 3-year-old niece was still alive.

By the time they pulled up to Hurley Medical Center on Feb. 15, Skye McBride had already undergone emergency surgery for the bullet that ripped through her right eye and out the top of her head.

Skye’s hair was shaved where the surgeon had removed a piece of her skull, and her small body was hooked up to tubes and wires in every direction. “I couldn’t even stand to look at her,” Griggs said. A nurse said that Skye might not survive the night.

As the hours stretched on in the waiting room, no one — not Skye’s relatives, not the doctors, not the police the family spoke to at the hospital — could explain how she had gotten hurt.

Skye had been shot the previous day — Valentine’s Day — around 7 p.m. Her father, Michael Tolbert, 45, drove her to the hospital, where he told police that she had been hit during a drive-by shooting.

But when officers pulled up to his Flint home before midnight, they found no evidence that such a shooting had happened, according to a police report. Instead, they followed a trail of blood up the driveway, through the house’s entryway, to Tolbert’s cluttered bedroom, where blood soaked the floor next to a toddler-sized folding chair.

On the bed, beside a red-and-white balloon, police found two loaded weapons: a semiautomatic pistol and a revolver with an empty bullet casing in the chamber. There was a single bullet hole in the ceiling.

This clearly wasn’t a drive-by shooting, police concluded. But it did fit another pattern, one that unfolds too often across America: curious young children picking up guns and unintentionally firing them, often with catastrophic consequences.

Investigators found that Tolbert had left the loaded revolver on his bed, police told her relatives the next day. While her father was in another room, they said, Skye had grabbed the revolver, held it with the barrel pointing toward her face, and pulled the trigger.

As Skye lay unconscious in a hospital bed in the days that followed — with doctors telling her family that even if she survived, she might never speak or walk again — local officials prepared to make a major announcement.

The day before Skye shot herself, Michigan’s new firearms storage law went into effect. The measure made it a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison if a gun is left unsecured and a child finds it and injures or kills someone. Skye’s father would be the first person charged under the law.

“I did not ever dream that within days of the law going into effect, we would need it,” state Sen. Kristen McDonald Rivet, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, said at the news conference announcing the charges, six days after the shooting. “But here we are.”

Tolbert’s attorney, Major J.C. White, said in a statement that his client was entitled to a presumption of innocence and that the police’s version of events was “in dispute.”

Skye McBride at Hurley Medical Center Feb. 23-25, 2024.

Despite America’s deep divide on guns, everyone seems willing to agree that no toddler should be able to find a loaded, unsecured weapon and fire it.

Unlike so many other types of gun violence that plague the U.S., this appears, on paper, to be a solvable problem. There is a broad consensus that people who own firearms ought to store them properly to limit children’s access to them — a rare patch of common ground between the gun industry and gun control advocates .

And yet, a person is injured or killed nearly every day in America because a child has unintentionally fired a gun , according to reports from 2015 to 2022 compiled by Everytown, an advocacy group for firearm safety. And children under 6 are among the most likely victims.

The crisis shows just how intractable even the most preventable forms of gun violence can be.

Americans are buying a record number of guns , largely to defend themselves and their families. Many do not keep their firearms unloaded and locked up, according to recent surveys — in part because they believe they need to keep their weapons at the ready, not hidden away in gun safes.

But that makes it easier for children to fire loaded weapons they weren’t supposed to touch. And U.S. policymakers are at odds over how to prevent such shootings from happening.

How to store guns safely

Unintentional shootings are almost entirely preventable if firearms are stored safely and securely.
That means guns are unloaded and locked up, with ammunition stored separately in a locked container, experts say.
Here's what to know .

Congressional Democrats have repeatedly introduced sweeping measures to restrict who can buy guns and govern how they should be stored. These bills have failed to advance, stymied by opposition from more conservative lawmakers, Second Amendment advocates and gun lobbyists.

Gun control advocates have turned, instead, to more modest measures. Michigan is now one of 26 states with safe storage laws, holding gun owners criminally liable if children get ahold of their unsecured firearms. The U.S. surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, issued an advisory this week declaring firearm violence a “public health crisis,” with recommendations that included requiring safe storage of guns.

But there is only limited evidence that these state laws — which vary in how stringent they are — reduce unintentional injuries and deaths or convince gun owners to change their behavior, especially since many aren’t aware that the requirements exist. And gun rights groups have continued to resist safe storage requirements, arguing owners should be able to make the choice themselves — not the government.

Safe storage laws may be an intervention that’s too small to stop the problem, and yet too large a change to win universal support — exactly the type of unsatisfactory middle ground one might expect in a country at war over the Second Amendment.

David Leyton, Genesee County’s prosecutor, still believes it’s worth trying. When he got the call about Skye McBride, he knew that he needed to bring the charge against her father — and try to make an example of him.

“I don’t believe it’s going to happen overnight,” said Leyton, who spent years lobbying for Michigan to pass a safe storage law. “But if it saves one life, then it’s a good law.”

Skye, the youngest of Pam Williams’ eight grandchildren, never had trouble grabbing her family’s attention. “The baby, the princess, the queen,” said Williams, a 56-year-old Flint native.

Before the shooting, Skye and her mother, Donetta McBride, lived at Williams’ home across the street from a newly remodeled Walmart. (McBride declined to be interviewed.)

LaDorothy Griggs and her niece Skye McBride

Skye spent most days with her grandmother, whose white-sided house was a hub for all the grandkids. But she often begged to spend the night with her four cousins at Griggs’ house nearby. A single mother, 31-year-old Griggs was always in motion — getting to her current job while interviewing for a better one, rushing to make her oldest daughter’s track meet before scooping up her niece and tucking everyone in at bedtime.

Skye’s parents shared custody, but she seldom saw Tolbert, whose relationship with her mother had ended, Griggs and Williams said. Her father’s attorney disputed that description and said that Tolbert “believes he has a good relationship with Skye and her mother.”

Not long after Skye’s second birthday, in October 2022, Tolbert was arrested on drug and firearm charges that could land him in prison for decades. He posted bail after his arrest and ultimately pleaded guilty in January.

As Valentine’s Day approached, while he was awaiting sentencing, Tolbert mentioned that he wanted a visit with Skye. Williams and Griggs said they had always been wary of Tolbert and worried about Skye’s safety on the rare occasions that she was in his care. But neither of them knew about the 2022 charges — or about the weapons that police would later say he was keeping at home.

Skye McBride, and with her father, Michael Tolbert, center, prior to shooting.

Skye had just put on her new pink cowboy boots when her father showed up at her grandmother’s house around 4 p.m., Williams said. Skye clambered into the backseat of the blue Chevy Trailblazer, and they drove to her father’s home on Flint’s north side, a small brick house that had been painted silver and sat next to an empty lot.

Tolbert later told police that he had stashed a gun under his pillow, according to a police affidavit. About three hours after he picked Skye up, he said that he left his daughter alone in his bedroom and went to the bathroom and kitchen.

Then he heard a single shot.

The gun Skye had fired was a compact Smith & Wesson revolver, the prosecutor said, which at 6 inches long is small enough that the 3-year-old might have mistaken it for a toy. Unlike many semiautomatic pistols with lighter trigger pulls, this type of revolver typically requires so much pressure to fire — roughly equivalent to yanking a 10-pound weight with a string — that it would have been extremely difficult for a toddler to pull the trigger, according to two gun experts who reviewed the case for NBC News.

The hand gun prosecutors believe Skye used

Leyton’s office sent the gun to be tested and analyzed, partly to figure out how Skye had managed to fire it. The gun experts who spoke to NBC News had a theory: The design of the revolver allows it to be fired in two ways. The one that requires far more force is to pull the trigger, which cocks the hammer — aligning the loaded chamber with the barrel of the gun — and then fires the bullet. The other method is to manually pull back the hammer, leaving the gun in a cocked position, where it needs only a light squeeze of the trigger to fire.

If the revolver that Skye picked up was cocked — which the experts said would be an extremely risky way to leave it unattended — the gun would have been easy for her to fire accidentally.

The .38 caliber round pierced Skye’s right eye, severing a large artery in her brain and causing a massive stroke before it exited the top of her head, said Dr. Christian Bowers, a neurosurgeon at Hurley Medical Center. By the time she arrived at the hospital, he said, “she was really about as bad off as you could be.”

Bowers performed an emergency craniotomy, removing about a third of her skull to relieve the rapidly increasing pressure. The bone was studded with metal fragments from the shattered bullet casing.

“We never judge anyone’s behavior or actions” while treating patients, the surgeon said. “But there shouldn’t be bullets hitting children for any reason.”

Days after the shooting, Skye’s condition had stabilized, but she remained unconscious in a medication-induced coma to rest her body.

The only sign of movement was the occasional twitch of a finger. Nurses insisted it was just a side effect of the medication, which the doctors were slowly lowering in hopes that she would wake up.

Then, just before the end of February, nurses in Skye’s room were wishing each other “good morning” — and were taken aback to see her right hand give a little wave.

“That’s when I really knew,” Griggs said. “She might be coming back.”

Pam Williams and her granddaughter Skye McBride

Little by little, Skye started to make other movements — a toe wiggle, a hand squeeze, a head shake, and then, amazingly, a full thumbs-up. When she finally opened her good eye, on the left side, she gave a tiny smile.

Her family was astounded and relieved. Still, doctors warned that Skye could have severe limitations. She wasn’t moving her left arm or leg because of the stroke. There was no knowing what kind of cognitive impairment she might have. She couldn’t speak or eat normally because of the tube inserted into her trachea to help her breathe — and she might have to rely on that kind of tube for years.

Skye’s mother, grandmother and aunt camped out in shifts, knowing Skye was used to having someone next to her when she fell asleep; relatives of Skye’s father visited as well. Griggs quit a new customer service job at a lawn care company that she had just started — the first one in months with reasonable hours and pay — to help her family manage it all.

Staying with Skye at the hospital meant spending money on takeout meals and hotel rooms. The family launched a GoFundMe to help with the expenses and worried about future medical bills. Friends, neighbors and strangers who’d seen Skye on the local news filled her hospital room with stuffed animals and “Paw Patrol” toys.

Griggs forced herself to watch a video of the news conference that local officials held after Skye’s shooting, grimacing as they described the scene in Tolbert’s bedroom in bloody detail.

There was one moment that she could far too easily picture: Skye wandering over to her father’s bed and picking up a gun, simply because it was lying there.

“You can tell her, ‘Don’t touch this right now,’ and she’ll still do it,” Griggs said. “That’s the kind of kid she was — she was curious. She’s 3. That’s what they do.”

A leg brace and head protection helmet provided to Skye for recovery after her shooting accident.

Before Skye, there was 3-year-old Karmelo Johnson, who died in 2016 after apparently shooting himself with a pistol he found in his great-grandparents’ Flint home. Two years later, a Flint preschooler accidentally shot herself in the hand after she looked in a closet for a toy and found a loaded gun instead.

“I’ve just seen too much,” said Leyton, who’s served as Genesee County prosecutor since 2004. In any given year, he estimated there were five or six unintentional shootings by children — whether it was a toddler who found a weapon under a bed or a teenager who accidentally shot his friend while fooling around with a gun he thought was unloaded.

In the Detroit area, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy counted 34 incidents from 2020 to 2022 in which children had accessed guns that weren’t properly stored and shot themselves or others.

A child “is no longer living, all because an adult did not safely secure that weapon, and to me that was just outrageous,” she said, recalling a horrific incident in which a 9-year-old died after his sister grabbed her father’s loaded shotgun from an unlocked closet and mimicked the video game they were just playing.

For years, Leyton and Worthy regularly charged the adults whose weapons had been used in such shootings with gross negligence, involuntary manslaughter, child abuse and other crimes — sometimes facing criticism for going after grieving parents who were already suffering the loss of their children.

Still, the shootings kept happening, month after month — a 5-year-old boy who shot himself in Detroit, a 15-year-old girl accidentally shot by another teenager in Bay City, according to reports. And local prosecutors became convinced that Michigan could do more to stop them.

For decades, public officials, safety advocates and gun industry groups have stressed the importance of securing firearms around children. They’ve given out millions of gun locks and pamphlets, exhorting gun owners to be responsible and children to run away if they ever find a gun when they’re on their own.

Some states decided it wasn’t enough. In 1989, Florida became the first state to hold gun owners criminally liable for failing to secure their firearms if a child gains access to the weapon. More than a dozen states passed similar safe storage laws in the 1990s. By the end of the decade, major handgun manufacturers had agreed to provide child-safety locks for free with their firearms. Then in 2005, Congress passed a law requiring all handguns purchased at licensed dealers to be sold with a gun storage or safety device.

The lawn outside the Capitol is covered with 7,000 pairs of empty shoes

More gun owners with children are storing their weapons securely now, compared to years prior, some surveys have found . However, since gun ownership has risen sharply in recent years, there are still just as many children living in households with unsecured firearms now as in 2015 — about 4.6 million , researchers have found. And there are signs that unintentional shootings by children are again on the rise .

All this has led gun control advocates to make a renewed push for safe storage laws, viewing the measures as more politically palatable than restricting the types of weapons that Americans are able to buy, or who is able to purchase them. Six more states have adopted safe storage laws since the beginning of 2021. Securing firearms would not only keep children from accessing them, proponents say, but could also help prevent theft, suicide and mass shootings .

But these measures have continued to prompt a backlash from many gun rights advocates — and the issue remains highly partisan.

In Michigan, it wasn’t until Democrats took control of the state Legislature in 2023 that lawmakers moved forward with a safe storage bill — a proposal prompted in part by a 2021 mass shooting at a Michigan high school carried out by a teenager who used his family’s unsecured handgun.

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald demonstrates how swiftly she was able to insert a gun lock

The state GOP fought the measure, tweeting an image comparing gun control to the Holocaust hours before the bill passed. Gun rights advocates criticized the proposal for undermining their ability to defend themselves. “Am I supposed to say ‘HOLD ON, LET ME GET MY GUN, LET ME UNLOCK MY GUN AND NOW I NEED MY AMMO,’” David Johnson, president of the Upper Peninsula Sportsmen’s Alliance, said in written testimony .

At the same time, it’s unclear whether Michigan’s law will convince more gun owners to lock their firearms away.

A growing body of research suggests that state safe storage laws are linked to a lower rate of unintentional child injuries and deaths. However, it’s not certain whether the laws themselves are driving the change, or whether states that pass them are seeing other shifts making these shootings less likely, said David Hemenway , director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

“The evidence is suggestive that maybe this works, but there are these caveats,” he said.

The gun industry argues that the better and less intrusive approach is to educate more gun owners about safety measures, including gun safes and gun locks and keeping their weapons separate from ammunition. Other groups encourage parents to ask friends and family if they have unsecured weapons before letting their children visit.

Michael Anestis, executive director of the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center at Rutgers University, has found evidence that gun owners are more likely to support safe storage practices if they hear the message from those they trust.

But ultimately, Anestis said, the only realistic goal is reducing the risk — not eliminating it.

“We have more firearms than we have people in the country,” he said. “The only path to better outcomes is harm reduction because there’s no way that there aren’t firearms.”

It took Skye just over three weeks to start talking again.

Her name. Her age. And now, what color did she want her nails to be?

“Pink,” she whispered, as a speech therapist covered the opening where the breathing tube was still inserted in her trachea.

After undergoing another surgery to remove the remains of her right eye — which doctors said could be replaced with a prosthetic, painted hazel to match the left one — Skye moved to a rehab facility at Children’s Hospital of Michigan in Detroit, an hour away from Flint. The nurses, doctors and therapists there all said the same thing when they stepped out of the room. “A miracle,” they told her family.

About a month after the shooting, she was speaking full sentences and eagerly reaching for solid food. “Yummy in my tummy,” she told Williams as she nibbled on a cinnamon roll.

By Easter, Skye was trying to push her own wheelchair. She squealed with joy whenever a loved one came to visit. The moment they stepped out of view, she craned her neck around. “Nana, where you at?”

It was the Skye they all knew: bubbly, funny, endless energy. “You comin’ back, girl!” Griggs exclaimed during a video call, watching Skye shimmying on her hospital bed, trying to dance.

Three-year-old Skye McBride smiles while being discharged from Children’s Hospital of Michigan

“The younger the children are, the better they do,” said Bowers, the neurosurgeon who operated on Skye. “She can rewire the brain in a lot of ways.”

Skye’s rapid progress meant that she was released to go home months earlier than expected — at the end of April instead of July — after yet another surgery to replace the piece of skull that had been removed. She is learning to walk again, and her family says she is largely still herself, acting silly and giggling constantly.

No one knows, though, what the long-term damage will be to her brain or body, if she’ll be able to walk or run the way she used to, or use her left hand.

Then there are all the follow-up doctor’s appointments, hospital visits and therapy sessions — rehab work that Williams tries to continue in their living room.

Skye McBride’s grandmother, Pam Williams encourages her to use her left hand, referred to as “lefty"

“Pick up lefty,” her grandmother said, coaxing Skye to move her weak hand on its own, while they sat together in early May. “Good job, lefty.” Skye gave her own hand a kiss.

Her father is still in jail. He has pleaded not guilty to charges that include first-degree child abuse, illegal weapons possession, and lying to a peace officer, in addition to violating the safe storage law.

At a custody hearing in early April, Tolbert sat down and couldn’t stop weeping, according to Williams. No trial date has been set on the charges linked to Skye’s shooting, and he is still awaiting sentencing on the 2022 charges.

Meanwhile, the shootings keep happening.

Skye McBride remains active as she regains function in her leg

In mid-April, an 8-year-old in Warren, Michigan, outside of Detroit, climbed up to get his father’s handgun from the top of a kitchen cabinet and unintentionally shot himself in the head, police said, sending him to the hospital in critical condition; he is recovering.

A month later, another Flint toddler found a loaded gun and shot himself in the head, just a short drive from Tolbert’s house. The 2-year-old was rushed to the same hospital that treated Skye.

This time, the child didn’t survive.

Griggs knows she wants to do more to stop this from happening — talk to kids at school, pass a new law, something. She’s just not sure what.

Because Griggs knows America isn’t going to get rid of all the guns. She’s thinking of getting one herself to protect her family , feeling vulnerable as a woman living alone with young children. She’ll make a decision as soon as she has the bandwidth for safety training.

Regardless, she wants to ensure the kids know what to do if they see a gun — Skye included.

“I want to teach her now,” Griggs said. “Don’t touch another one.”

So far, Skye hasn’t shown any sign that she remembers what happened on Valentine’s Day.

Doctors have advised Skye’s family to follow her lead and let her ask questions when she’s ready. But it’s now been months, and still — nothing.

Skye McBride sits in a wheelchair outdoors

So in early May, Griggs worked up the courage to ask her, very gently, what happened to her eye.

“I went to the doctor,” Skye said. Griggs tried again, asking if she hurt herself at her father’s house.

“No,” Skye told her aunt.

But the local news keeps showing photos of Tolbert, resurfacing the case whenever another child fires another unsecured weapon.

“That’s my dad,” Skye told her grandmother in late May, then became even more excited when her own photo came up on the TV screen.

“Nana,” she said afterward. “Play me on the news again.”

CORRECTION (June 29, 2024, 12:54 p.m. ET): A previous version of this article incorrectly described the bullet that hit Skye. It was a .38 caliber round, not a 38 mm round.

Suzy Khimm is a national investigative reporter for NBC News based in Washington, D.C.

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

Impacts of the Expiration of Federal Child Care Stabilization Funding and the Mitigating Effects of State-Level Stopgap Funding

Introduction.

The March 2021 enactment of the American Rescue Plan provided historic federal funding to the child care industry. The unprecedented $24 billion in subsidies to providers helped to stabilize the industry during the COVID-19 pandemic, while also addressing preexisting challenges in the market for child care. The flexibility of the funds helped providers stabilize their businesses in one of the most tumultuous periods in recent history.

In November 2023, the CEA published a working paper that evaluated the impact of the child care stabilization funds allocated by the American Rescue Plan. The working paper largely focused on the onset of those funds and found that the child care stabilization funds accomplished their eponymous goal of stabilizing the industry, resulting in increases in wages and employment for child care workers, as well as increases in the labor force participation rate (LFPR) and employment for mothers of young children.

The end of June 2024 marks nine months since the child care stabilization funds formally expired. As the child care industry is one that often operates on slim margins and has historically been unable to provide enough affordable slots for families ( U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2021 ), the expiration of funds posed a threat to the positive progress made. Recognizing this threat, eleven states plus the District of Columbia have implemented some level of “ stopgap funding ” to fill the gaps left in child care funding when federal dollars from the American Rescue Plan ran out. We define “stopgap funding” as state-level (or district-level in the case of DC) funds —usually via state-level budgetary processes—for stabilization purposes, which often take the form of direct grants to child care providers. Figure 1 shows the level of state stabilization as defined by spending per child under the age of 5 (i.e., the age group most likely to benefit from the funding).

Given limited follow-up data on outcomes in the post-funding period at the time of publication, CEA’s original analysis could only examine preliminary impacts of the expiration of ARP child care stabilization funding—finding suggestive evidence of a slowing of the growth in maternal labor supply that started with the onset of ARP funds. This issue brief updates and extends that analysis with new outcomes and more data to examine the effect of the expiration of funds on child care prices, maternal labor supply, and survey-based measures of access to child care. We also leverage data on state efforts to stabilize child care, which helps us understand if, and how much, state-level funding supported the child care industry when federal funds expired.

Our results suggest an overall slowdown in progress on outcomes such as child care prices and labor force participation and employment for women who are likely to rely on child care. We also show early evidence that states that implemented stopgap funding after federal ARP dollars ran out may have been more resilient in the post-funding period (after October 2023). Survey evidence shows that families with young children are having a harder time finding child care after ARP expiration, but the effects are less pronounced in states that implemented stopgap funding. Moreover, we find suggestive evidence of relatively stronger labor market outcomes for families and parents with young children in these states. We conclude with a summary of actions taken and proposed—in the President’s FY 2025 Budget —by the Biden-Harris Administration to increase access to and affordability of child care for parents across the country.

T he Child Care Market and the ARP Stabilization Funds

The CEA has previously detailed the importance of access, affordability, and quality in the child care market. With roughly 60 percent of children under the age of six in the United States spending some time in nonparental care on a regular basis, the ability of parents to access affordable care has economic benefits for families and society as a whole. There is extensive research relating access to child care and maternal labor supply ( Blau and Tekin 2007 ; Gelbach 2002 ; Herbst 2017 ; CEA 2023 ). Consistent with this, employment in the child care industry (a proxy for the size of the industry) over the last three decades has largely grown in tandem with the female labor force participation rate among 25–54 year-olds. Figure 2 shows the rapid increase in both indicators up to the early 2000s. At this time, prime-age female LFPR stagnated and child care employment began to decline. Both began to see a resurgence in the later 2010s and have started to recover following the COVID-19 shock. Ultimately, the ability of mothers, and parents more broadly, to participate fully in the labor force is often dependent on the extent to which child care supply can meet families’ growing demand at a price they can afford.

The majority of child care in the United States is provided by the private market ( Child Care Aware, 2023) and the business model is fragile. Child care is very labor intensive and state and local regulations, seeking to provide high-quality care, often stipulate the required ratio of children per adult in a classroom ( Workman, 2018 ; Childcare.Gov ). The average child care center has 3 to 4 adults per classroom serving roughly 10 children under age 3, and 6 to 7 adults in classrooms serving about 17 children between ages 3 and 5 ( National Survey of Early Care and Education, 2023 ). As such, care providers must choose a wage at which they can attract enough teachers to be in compliance with state standards while also charging a price that families can afford to pay. This often results in a gap between what families can afford and the cost of providing quality care ( US Department of the Treasury 2021 ; CAP 2023 ). In other words, there is a fundamental imbalance in the child care market, where the structure of the market is such that, left to itself, the market will invariably provide too few affordable, quality slots to enable families with low or even middle incomes to be able to access it.

On top of these pre-existing structural challenges, the COVID-19 pandemic took a particularly high toll on the industry. While the pandemic kept parents and children at home, many child care providers lost the entirety of the revenue base that helped them stay afloat: between February 2020 and April 2020, child care employment fell more than 30 percent. This is more than double the economy as a whole, which saw a 13 percent decline in employment.

Recognizing the persistent disruptions of the care infrastructure wrought by the pandemic, the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act allocated additional funds to stabilize the supply side of child care, including $24 billion in funding for the new Child Care Stabilization Program—roughly $12 billion per year. For comparison, the child care and development fund ( CCDF )—the country’s largest federal funding stream dedicated to affordable child care—was funded at just over $8 billion in 2019 and $9.5 billion in 2022 (after upwards adjustments in response to the pandemic) ( Bipartisan Policy Center 2023 ). Supply side interventions are important in an industry where capacity constraints are binding. Although many lower-income households would likely qualify for subsidized care, these constraints contribute to low participation rates among eligible families. [1] The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that in 2019, roughly one in six children eligible for care benefits received them.

Data indicate that more than 225,000 child care programs in the United States, with total capacity to serve as many as 10 million children, received funding through stabilization grants intended to help the industry recover by providing funds to child care programs to help cover operational costs such as wages and benefits, rent and utilities, and program materials and supplies ( White House 2023 ). Many states report that these funds went towards personnel costs at centers, and rent and utilities at family child care homes. In short, these funds went towards reducing the direct cost to families as well as increasing the capacity of child care centers to meet demand for care.

Summary of Previous Results

The original 2023 CEA analysis relied on carefully chosen comparison groups to isolate the causal effect of stabilization funds on outcomes of interest. The first part of the analysis provided evidence that the stabilization funds were effective at increasing child care access. Specifically, it showed that the stabilization funds led to lower relative price growth in the child care industry, more child care workers (a proxy for increased supply), and higher wages for child care workers.

The second part of the 2023 analysis, sought to identity the causal effect of this stabilization on maternal labor supply. Using mothers with children over age 6 or women without children (those less likely to benefit directly from the funds) as a basis for comparison, the labor force participation of mothers of young children (under 6 years old) increased by between 2 and 3 percentage points after stabilization funds were made available. Because (a) all women would have been affected by underlying trends such as working from home and (b) these relative changes occur right after ARP stabilization, these patterns likely reflect the effect of ARP child care stabilization net of other potentially confounding factors.

Results Part 1: Exhaustion of Federal Funds

The expiration of the stabilization funds on September 30, 2023 potentially led to an unravelling of the gains documented in the original CEA analysis. Here we examine some of these effects.

Impact of ARP Expiration on Prices

Looking at prices, Figure 3 shows the difference between predicted child care prices and actual prices faced by families during this time. To estimate the predicted versus actual prices, we use a similar bundle of service prices between 2016 and 2019 to estimate the trend of child care prices in normal times. This prediction represents our best guess of what child care prices would have been given the evolution of other prices at the same time. Even during a time characterized by price turbulence during the COVID-19 pandemic, this prediction methods succeeds in accurately predicting child care prices; Figure 3 sets the difference between actual and predicted prices equal to zero in January 2019 and the difference stays largely stable until early 2021. After the onset of ARP funds, the relative price of child care declines significantly. Despite significant changes to care arrangements over the course of 2020 and 2021, with the popularization of work from home and hybrid work, we would not expect to see such a sharp decline in prices due to depressed demand for care specifically in the months when ARP stabilization funds onset. The timing of the funds coinciding with price changes is strong evidence of a relationship between prices and the distribution of stabilization funds. [2]

With several months of follow-up data after the expiration of ARP funds, we can now see that after these funds expire, we begin to see a stagnation of price declines. In late 2023 the difference in predicted versus actual child care prices reverses course and the gap between child care prices and the similar bundle of services began to shrink. Despite a short follow-up period, this indicates stalled progress on child care pricing in the wake of ARP funding expiration. This stagnation could restrict access to child care for low-to-middle-income families.

Impact of ARP Expiration on Maternal Labor Supply

We now turn to maternal labor supply. The original CEA analysis shows that these original price declines coincided with an increase in the labor force participation rate of mothers of young children (relative to mothers of older children). The analysis, which we extend in this brief, relies on several facts to inform the empirical strategy: mainly that the child care industry primarily serves children under the age of 6, while most children 6 and older attend primary and secondary school. If parents and families are constrained in their ability to participate in the labor force by their inability to find and/or pay for child care, then the increased supply of child care enrollment slots and lower prices resulting from an influx of federal funds such as the ARP stabilization funds should have a positive impact on the labor market outcomes of mothers with young children (under the age of 6).

In the results that follow, we identify three groups for comparison. The “treated” group, or the group that should be most directly and significantly affected by the stabilization funds, are women with children under the age of six. We identify two relevant comparison groups: first, mothers of older, school-aged kids, and second, women with no children. To the extent that we think all three of these groups would be similarly affected by underlying labor market or macroeconomic shifts (such as general trends toward work from home or shifts in the macroeconomy), any divergence in outcome trends between women with young kids and women with older or no children around the time that child care stabilization funds are exhausted can plausibly be attributed to the expiration of funds.

Figure 4 shows how the labor force participation rate (LFPR) among mothers with young kids (our treated group) evolved in relation to mothers of older children and other women. We use a similar, prediction approach in this analysis to show that, in comparison to the LFPR trends of our comparison groups, labor force participation among mothers of kids under 6 showed significant growth after the onset of ARP stabilization funds (the topic of our original work) and has slowed significantly compared to control group LFPR since the exhaustion of these funds. Similar to the price comparison in Figure 3, we use LFPR from 2016 through the end of 2018 to predict how LFPR would have evolved in the absence of the onset of ARP funds. Like Figure 3, the prediction does a reasonable job of predicting LFPR before the pandemic. In 2020 we see a modest increase in LFPR soon after the CARES funding is distributed, before the LFPR of mothers of young kids drops precipitously in the middle of 2020 (relative to other women). However, only after ARP funds are distributed does actual LFPR start to increase and exceed the prediction range — indicating that, at the onset of ARP stabilization, women with children under the age of 6 participated in the labor force at a higher rate than predicted (based on the behavior of mothers of older children and women without children). By late 2023, the actual LFPR of this group is well above what would have been predicted–compelling evidence that the ARP stabilization funds allowed mothers of young children to participate in the labor force at a higher rate. At the point of funds expiration (the third dashed green line), however, this overall trend changes and we see an actual decline in LFPR. While not conclusive evidence of a slowdown or reversal of progress, this is the longest sustained period of slowdown since the onset of ARP funds and may portend what is to come.

While the national trends are compelling, we also examine county-level data to see if the timing of the relative slowdown at the county level coincides with the timing of when funds ran out. We use data from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to estimate LFPR impacts at the county level which allows us to identify when individual states and counties liquidated all ARP funds: some states may have spent down the funds earlier than others. The ARP stabilization funds had a liquidation date of September 30, 2023, meaning that all funds needed to be spent-down or distributed by states before the September deadline. Spending data from the HHS allows us to see when states distributed funds at the county level. Unlike the onset of funds, which was highly concentrated in the first few months of the program, the final distribution of funds at the county level varied widely. Our analysis isolates the effect of the expiration of funds by comparing the labor force participation of mothers of young children to that of women in counties that reached final spend-down before and after the point of exhaustion of funds. The resulting estimates have a causal interpretation so long as labor force participation among our treated group (mothers of children with young kids) and our comparison groups would have trended in parallel in the absence of ARP stabilization funds, and that there weren’t any coincident changes that affected mothers of children under six when ARP funds were exhausted.

Figure 5 plots the trend in relative LFPR for mothers of young children over time. The x-axis is the month relative to the last distribution of ARP funds to a given county; we use this payout date to roughly approximate when the county will have spent down all their ARP stabilization funds. Negative values indicate months before fund expiration and positive value are the months after. Figure 5 shows that the relative increase in labor force participation shown in the original analysis slows to a halt around the time of expiration of funds. While we do not see a significant decline in labor market outcomes as the result of exhaustion of funds, any significant progress for women of young children can be seen to stall as the child care market slows its expansion. As in the onset of funds analysis, these results are robust to using either the combined control group (mothers of older children and women with no children) or the comparison of mothers with younger children to mothers with older children. It should be noted that the results presented in Figure 5 show that labor market outcomes appear to stall before the final payout of funds from states to counties. This early effect could be attributed to the possibility that payments made are for services rendered and any expansion of the market stalls before the final official payment.

Impact of ARP Expiration on Access to Care

As a final piece of corroborating evidence that the expiration of funds affected the supply of child care, we use data from the 2023 and 2024 Census Household Pulse survey (referred to as “the pulse survey”) to understand the extent to which demand for child care is being met across the country. Albeit suggestive, insofar as the expiration of funds led to a contraction or slowing of the growth of the child care sector, one would see more families reporting difficulty finding child care after October 2023 than before. The survey data, summarized in Figure 6, show exactly this. Figure 6 represent the share of respondents (households with children under the age of 5) who report being unable to find child care in the last four months due to issues with cost, distance, safety, or supply. Figure 6 shows that across the country, the share of households who could not access care increased from 24% to 31% after the expiration of ARP funds (between Q3:2023 and Q1:2024). [3]

Results Part 2: Difference By Stopgap Funding

State-Level Funding Initiatives

Anticipating these potential, negative effects, many states have implemented some form of what we refer to as “stopgap” funding: state-level funding that fills the role of the expired federal funding. Eleven states plus the District of Columbia have made significant state investments in child care programs and providers. In this section of the brief, we focus on states that have, through their state legislature, dedicated funding specifically for “stabilization” purposes, meaning that these are direct grants or solutions for providers similar to the structure of ARP funds. [4]

Table 1 outlines the level of spending across states that implemented stopgap funding. The second and third columns show the level of per-capita spending where per capita is limited to the under age 5 population—i.e., the group that the funds will most likely be spent on. The District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Minnesota allocate the most, per-capita. All three spend upwards of $1,000 per child under five, with DC topping the list at nearly $1,800 per child. [5] These are also the three states in which the state-level funding exceeds that allocated by the federal ARP funding scheme. DC spends nearly twice as much, per capita, as the ARP funding whereas other states, such as Alaska, Illinois, and Kentucky have implemented lower levels of funding that amount to less than 20% of ARP funding. These funding discrepancies across states mean that stopgap funding will likely have varying effects based on how much of the budget holes left by the ARP funds expiration these state funds account for. Indeed, we find that states that provided at least a one-to-one match of federal ARP funds saw limited disruption to progress made following the original inflow of federal funds to providers.

As mentioned above, eleven states plus the District of Columbia have taken legislative action to introduce comparable, state-level funding in place of federal ARP dollars. These funds are meant to be similarly utilized as “stabilization” funding, i.e., directly supporting child care providers in meeting demand for care. [6]

Impact of State Stopgap Funding on Access to Care

To shed light on whether the stop gap funding made states more resilient, we first examine change in the reposes to the pulse survey for stopgap and non-stopgap states. That is, Figure 7 shows the difference in access to care before and after the expiration of funds between states that implemented stopgap stabilization funding and those did not. In the pre-period (when federal ARP funds were being distributed), states with and without state-level stabilization funds, nearly identical shares of households reported that they were unable to access child care. After federal funds ran out, families in states that failed to implement stopgap funding were nearly 3 percentage points more likely to report having trouble accessing care. If we believe that, in the absence of stopgap funding, states that introduced funding would have trended similarly to those that did not, we can conclude that the stopgap funding aided in mitigating the loss of access to care. While this relationship is not dispositive, it shows that stopgap funding has likely helped maintain access to affordable care.

Impact of State Stopgap Funding on Maternal Labor Supply

Now we turn to labor supply. We provide early suggestive evidence that these differences in access to child care between stopgap and non-stopgap states may be leading to differences in maternal labor supply. To assess this, as before, we rely on the difference in outcomes between mothers of young children (treated) and mothers of older children. If the stopgap funding led to increased ability to access care, which in turn increased the labor supply of mother of young children, one should observe that the LFPR of mothers of younger children (the treated group) relative to that of mothers of older children (the comparison group) would increase in stopgap states relative to non-stop-gap states at the expiration of ARP funds. Moreover, this relationship should be more pronounced in state that had larger stop gap amounts. We test this notion using a regression model and find evidence of this.

Consistent with stopgap funding continuing the relative gains from ARP funding, our regression model indicates that in states that replaced about 50 percent of ARP funding, the change in LFPR for mothers of young kids was 1 percentage point higher than that is areas with no stopgap funding, and in areas that replace the ARP funding level fully, the change in LFPR for mothers of young kids was nearly 2.5 percentage point higher than that in areas with no state funding (Figure 8). These results are nearly identical for the employment rate. Coincidentally, the effect of fully replacing the ARP funding level is very similar to the effect of the onset of these funds. Although these results are only marginally statistically significant, they are suggestive that the access issues highlighted in the Household Pulse survey are bearing out in the labor market, putting mothers and families with young children at elevated risk compared to other women. It is important to note that these results should be taken as simply suggestive evidence of slowing progress in the post-federal funding period. We use only states that implemented state-level stopgap funding that accounts for at least 50% of federal ARP funding. There are also states that could be implementing other family-friendly policies to aid families in accessing affordable child care.

Discussion and Conclusions

The American Rescue Plan made a historic investment in the child care industry. The funds were allocated to stabilize a critical industry during unprecedented times. This investment, however, was always meant to be temporary, and there was broad-based concern about the impact of the expiration of funds on child care providers, parents, and children. This brief highlights the stalled progress as a result of expiring ARP funds, which evidence suggests is leading to higher prices and depressed access to child care for families who need it most. The Biden-Harris Administration has called on Congress to provide $16 billion in supplemental funding to extend the ARP funding and provide relief to child care workers and the families that depend on them.

The findings underscore the need for sustained, transformative federal investments to ensure affordable child care is available to all families that need it. The Biden Administration has proposed such a program in the President’s most recent budget , which would create a historic program offering guaranteed, affordable, high-quality care from birth to kindergarten for families making up to $200,000 per year: most families would pay no more than $10 per day and the lowest income families would pay nothing. The Administration stands ready to work with Congress on a long-term solution that ensures all families can access affordable, high-quality care and education.

In the absence of action from Congress towards this proposal, several states have stepped up funding to providers at the state-level, which—as this brief shows—has had significant, positive effects on families and parents. Despite positive effects of these state efforts, it is not sufficient. As such, federal investment is necessary to aid a market that has long been plagued by staffing, cost, and access issues for providers and families. This brief shows that the ill-effects of expiring ARP funds will stall progress without further action, and underscores the importance of child care providers, not only for children and families, but for the economy at-large.

[1] Other factors contributing to low participation include limited funding for subsidies and high family copayment rates.

[2] It should be noted that, although the national expiration date occurs between September and October 2023, our later analysis highlights that counties and states spent down their funds in various months before the deadline. The expiration of funds date should be seen as fuzzy in Figures 3 and 4, which may contribute some noise to the estimates provided.

[3] Ideally, we would test that this relationship only holds in the pre- and post-ARP stabilization funds period. As the question of access to child care was only posed to households over the given dates, however, we are unable to run this falsification test.

[4] This definition is consistent with recent research from the National Women’s Law Center.

[5] It should be noted that DC represents a unique case in that not all children participating in child care in DC may represent DC residents. Considering the considerable labor spillover into the District from surrounding states such as Maryland and Virginia, this may be an overestimation of per capita dollars.

[6] It should be noted that, similar to the ARP stabilization funds, not all state funding is ongoing. Some states will see a significant shift away from state funding in the next fiscal year.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

The Satire as a Social Mirror: Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal in Context. BA thesis in English.

Related Papers

Irish Studies Review

Richard Holmes

The Review of English Studies

Ashley Marshall

Dieter Fuchs

Jordan Richman

Henna Sniggu

Modern novel began to develop during the 18 th century. The term novel derives from the Latin 'novus' and from the Italian 'novella'. It was in opposition to the term 'romance', referring to a chivalric story in verse. It was used to refer to a prose fiction which was new because it told stories about recent events. There were many causes which brought to the development of the Novel: expansion of the reading public, growth of a new middle class,different position of women, economic reasons. People, who were richer than before, could afford buying books and women had more time for reading because, after the industrial revolution, they had much free time at home: they could buy in shops the products which before were handmade in the houses. Publishing became a profitable business thanks to the spread of literacy and of reading as a form of entertainment among the wealthy middle class. The professional writers began to appear. They did not have rich patrons but earned their living by writing essays and books. This new situation, together with the creation of the circulating libraries which borrowed books in return of a small subscription fee, increased the numbers of readers. Yet the number of those who could afford buying books was very small and there was still widespread illiteracy. The masses gained a low salary and books were still very expensive to buy. There was no real public education system yet. Poor children had little opportunities to study since they were used as industrial labourers and a huge number of people could neither read nor write. The 18 th century novel was labelled as realistic novel: the characters were real people with ordinary names and surnames; they were described in their daily routines; the settings were real geographical places and the contents were taken from real stories. Unlike the early Augustans, the novelists liked to write about ordinary people acting in real-life situations. The novelists tried to meet their middle-class readers who wanted to read about ordinary people because they enjoyed seeing themselves as protagonists of the stories. They were the ones who bought the books and consequently the authors' point of view was the same as the readers' one.

Masonic Rivalries and Literary Politics: From Jonathan Swift to Henry Fielding

marsha schuchard

Chapter 13 of my book, which provides new information on Jonathan Swift, Sir Charles Wogan, and the Duke of Wharton, based on archival material in Galway, Ireland.

mc130403035 Zonish Arif

The Imaginative Conservative

Paul Krause

John Stubbs should be commended for his biography of the great Anglo-Irish satirist and clergyman. The work is not merely a biography; it is also an account that details the turbulence of the times in which Jonathan Swift lived, painting lively portraits of the many figures and personalities with whom he interacted.

Kevin Joel Berland

Katarzyna Bartoszynska

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government.

Legal Status

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Proposed Rule

Political programming and online public file requirements for low power television stations; rules to advance the low power television, tv translator and class a television service.

A Proposed Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 06/27/2024

This document has a comment period that ends in 29 days. (07/29/2024) Submit a formal comment

Thank you for taking the time to create a comment. Your input is important.

Once you have filled in the required fields below you can preview and/or submit your comment to the Federal Communications Commission for review. All comments are considered public and will be posted online once the Federal Communications Commission has reviewed them.

You can view alternative ways to comment or you may also comment via Regulations.gov at /documents/2024/06/27/2024-13812/political-programming-and-online-public-file-requirements-for-low-power-television-stations-rules-to .

What is your comment about?

Note: You can attach your comment as a file and/or attach supporting documents to your comment. Attachment Requirements .

this will NOT be posted on regulations.gov

Opt to receive email confirmation of submission and tracking number?
Tell us about yourself! I am... *
First Name *
Last Name *
State Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Country Afghanistan Åland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine, State of Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Réunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
Organization Type * Company Organization Federal State Local Tribal Regional Foreign U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate
Organization Name *
You are filing a document into an official docket. Any personal information included in your comment text and/or uploaded attachment(s) may be publicly viewable on the web.
I read and understand the statement above.
Preview Comment

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register .

Document Statistics

Published document.

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Enhanced Content - Table of Contents

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information:, i. background, ii. discussion, a. requiring certain lptv stations to maintain an online public inspection file, 1. existing public file requirements, 2. application of public file to certain lptv stations, 3. public file statutory authority, b. procedures for lptv stations to establish an opif, c. recordkeeping and political broadcasting obligations applicable to all lptv stations, d. other proposed changes to § 73.3526, e. revision to rules regarding relocation of facilities, 1. calculating distance for displaced and channel sharing stations, 2. the 30-mile distance limit, 3. establishing community of license designations and coverage requirements, f. establishing minimum operating hours for lptv stations, g. defining minimum programming requirements, h. class a, lptv and tv translator station designations and call signs, 1. changes between lptv and tv translator station designations, 2. call sign assignments, i. channel 14 emission masks, j. prohibition on operations above channel 36, k. additional class a, lptv, and tv translator rule clarifications, 1. dts emission masks, 2. interference allowance, 3. maximum grid resolution, 4. displacement rule revisions, 5. program test authority rule for lptv/tv translators, l. part 73 and 74 ministerial rule corrections, m. cost/benefit analysis, n. digital equity and inclusion, iii. procedural matters, iv. initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a. need for, and objectives of, the proposed rules, b. legal basis, c. description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rules will apply, d. description of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for small entities, e. steps taken to minimize significant economic impact on small entities and significant alternatives considered, f. federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule, v. ordering clauses, list of subjects, 47 cfr part 11, 47 cfr parts 73 and 74, proposed rules, part 11—emergency alert system (eas), part 73—radio broadcast services, part 74—experimental radio, auxiliary, special broadcast and other program distributional services, enhanced content - submit public comment.

Submit a public comment on this document

Enhanced Content - Read Public Comments

This feature is not available for this document.

Enhanced Content - Sharing

Email this document to a friend

Enhanced Content - Document Print View

Print this document

Enhanced Content - Document Tools

These tools are designed to help you understand the official document better and aid in comparing the online edition to the print edition.

These markup elements allow the user to see how the document follows the Document Drafting Handbook that agencies use to create their documents. These can be useful for better understanding how a document is structured but are not part of the published document itself.

Enhanced Content - Developer Tools

This document is available in the following developer friendly formats:.

JSON: Normalized attributes and metadata
XML: Original full text XML
MODS: Government Publishing Office metadata

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

Official Content

View printed version (PDF)

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 06/26/2024 at 8:45 am. It was viewed 0 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Federal Communications Commission.

Proposed rule.

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on revisions to our rules relating to the Low Power Television service (LPTV Service). The LPTV Service includes low power television (LPTV) stations as well as television translator (TV translator) stations and Class A TV stations (Class A). The Commission created the LPTV Service in 1982 to bring local television service to viewers “otherwise unserved or underserved” by existing full power service providers. Today, these stations are an established component of the nation's television system, delivering free over-the-air TV service, including locally produced programming, to millions of viewers in rural and discrete urban communities. In light of changes to the LPTV Service over the last forty years, we invite comment on changes to our rules and policies to ensure that LPTV Service continues to flourish and serve the public interest.

Comments may be filed on or before July 29, 2024, and reply comments may be filed on or before August 26, 2024.

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 , 1.419 ,] interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). You may submit comments and reply comments, identified by MB Docket Nos. 24-147 and 24-148, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/ .
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People With Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.

Kim Matthews, Media Bureau, Policy Division, at (202) 418-2154, or by email at [email protected] ; Shaun Maher, Video Division, Media Bureau at (202) 418-2324, or by email at [email protected] ; Mark Colombo, Video Division, Media Bureau at (202) 418-7611, or by email at [email protected] .

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 24-65, adopted on June 5, 2024 and released on June 10, 2024. The full text of this document is available for download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-65A1.pdf . To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Paperwork Reduction Act. This document proposes new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens and pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 , invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on these information collection requirements. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198 , see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4) , we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9 , a summary of this document will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings .

1. The LPTV Service was established over forty years ago as a secondary, niche service. At the time of its creation, the viability of the LPTV Service was not established and it was exempted from certain obligations applicable to other broadcasters, including certain recordkeeping and operating obligations. As the name suggests, stations in the LPTV Service have lower authorized power levels than full power TV stations. Because the LPTV Service operates at reduced power levels, the stations serve a much smaller geographic region than full power stations and can be fit into areas where a higher power station cannot be accommodated in the Table of TV Allotments or in accordance with section 307(b) of the Act. TV translator and Class A stations are technically equivalent to LPTV stations in most respects. While LPTV, TV translator, and Class A stations have many similarities under our rules, they are each a distinct class of broadcast television station, with differing rights and responsibilities.

2. Currently, there are approximately 1,829 licensed LPTV stations. These stations operate in all states and territories. LPTV stations are permitted to both originate programming or retransmit, with permission, the signal of another TV station. LPTV stations are not limited in the amount of programming they may originate or rebroadcast, and have fewer operating obligations than full power television stations. LPTV stations completed the transition from analog to digital operations in 2021.

3. There are approximately 3,118 licensed TV translators, most operating in the western regions of the United States. With limited exception, TV translators are not permitted to originate programming and may only simultaneously retransmit the signal of another TV station, with permission. TV translator stations are intended to provide service to areas where direct reception of full-service broadcast stations is either not possible or unsatisfactory because of distance or intervening terrain obstructions. Start Printed Page 53538 Although TV translators are not limited to operation within the contour of the station or stations they rebroadcast, they may be used to provide service to terrain-obstructed areas within a full-service station's service area. TV translators are often used to deliver the only over-the-air television service available to rural communities.

4. In addition, there are approximately 379 licensed Class A stations. In 2000, as instructed by Congress in the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (CBPA), the Commission established the Class A television service. Class A stations are stations that operate at low power, like LPTV/TV translator stations, but are afforded primary interference protection status. The CBPA allowed certain qualifying LPTV stations to apply for Class A status. Class A stations completed a transition from analog to digital operations in 2015. Although they are not a secondary service, Class A stations are still subject to the various LPTV/TV translator licensing and technical requirements found in part 74 of our rules.

5. The LPTV Service has thrived since its creation in providing service to millions in local communities of all kinds across the nation. All such stations are currently required to operate in digital format. While some LPTV stations air “niche” programming, sometimes locally produced, to residents of specific ethnic, racial, or special interest communities, sometimes in foreign languages, others are affiliated with a television network, including the top four networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC). In addition, while some LPTV stations remain small, independently owned stations, others are part of large station groups. In some areas unserved by any other television station, an LPTV station may be the only television station providing local news, weather, and public affairs programming. Even in some well-served markets, LPTV stations may provide the only service targeted to the specific interests of residents of discrete geographical communities within those markets. In many instances, these stations are significant enough voices in their communities to attract requests to carry political advertising and may also carry sponsored programming pursuant to time brokerage, local marketing agreements, or other agreements.

6. Given the maturation of the LPTV Service since its initiation, we seek comment in this proceeding about comprehensive updates to the regulations of the service. In sections A through C below we invite comment on whether we should require certain LPTV stations to maintain an online public inspection file (OPIF). In sections D through L we propose updates and amendments to our rules to address advances in the LPTV Service, update our existing rules to provide clarifications and resolve inconsistencies in our rules, prevent abuse of our licensing processes, create an equal playing field, and ensure that LPTV/TV translator stations are able to fully utilize the country's limited spectral resources to provide television services. Specifically, we propose and/or seek comment on whether to:

Require certain LPTV stations to maintain an online public inspection file.
Adopt procedures for certain LPTV stations to establish an online public inspection file.
Specify in our rules that public inspection and political broadcasting requirements are applicable to all LPTV stations.
Make other changes to § 73.3526 of our rules to correct cross references and other inaccuracies relating to stations in the LPTV Service and commercial radio and TV stations and establish new reporting requirements for Class A and LPTV stations.
Amend the method for calculating the maximum distance that a displaced or channel sharing station may move under the LPTV/TV translator displacement rule.
Revise the LPTV/TV translator minor change rule to clarify the maximum distance that Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations may move.
Require that Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations specify a community of license (COL) within their station's contour.
Adopt minimum operating and defined minimum video program requirements for LPTV stations.
Require that LPTV/TV translator stations seek authority to change designation between LPTV and TV translator status and require Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations to maintain a call sign consistent with their class of service.
Require use of a “stringent” or “full-service” emission mask for channel 14 Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations to prevent interference to Land Mobile Radio (LMR) stations.
Prohibit LPTV/TV translator station operations above TV channel 36.
Remove the 30 day public notice comment period for displacement applications and clarify when an LPTV/TV translator station displaced by a full power station's channel substitution may apply for displacement.
Clarify the existing displacement rule and interference thresholds for actual and predicted interference, and amend the definition of displacement to include displacement by LMR stations; by protected television facilities in Canada and Mexico; and due to interference to TV translator input channels.
Codify other rule clarifications consistent with precedent, including the use of emission masks at Distributed Transmission System (DTS) transmitter sites; the maximum grid resolution permitted with interference analyses; and application of the part 73 “program test authority” rule to LPTV/TV translator stations.
Remove duplicate definitions and re-letter the definitions remaining in the part 74 rules, and make other editorial, non-substantive corrections to the part 11, 73, and 74 rules.

7. To provide the public with access to information about station operations, the Commission's rules have long required broadcast television and radio stations to maintain a physical public inspection file, including a political file, at their respective stations or headquarters and to place in the file records that provide information about station operations. The purpose of the public inspection file requirement is to “make information to which the public already has a right more readily available, so that the public will be encouraged to play a more active part in dialogue with broadcast licensees.”

8. The Commission promulgated its first political file rule in 1938. That initial rule was essentially identical to our current political file regulation in its requirement that the file be available for public inspection and include both candidate requests for time and the disposition of those requests, including the “charges made” for the broadcast time. In 1965, following action by Congress to allow greater public participation in the broadcast licensing process, the Commission adopted a broader public inspection file rule to enable inspection of broadcast applications, reports, and related documents at a station's main studio. The Commission noted that Congress' actions “zealously guarded the rights of the general public to be informed” and that the Commission's goal was to make Start Printed Page 53539 “practically accessible to the public information to which it is entitled.”

9. In 2012, the Commission replaced the decades-old requirement that commercial and noncommercial television stations maintain public files at their main studios with a requirement to post most of the documents in those files to a central, online public file hosted by the Commission. In 2016, the Commission expanded the online public inspection file (OPIF) to include cable operators, Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers, broadcast radio licensees, and satellite radio (also referred to as “Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service” or “SDARS”) licensees. The Commission's goals were to modernize the procedures television broadcasters and other media entities use to inform the public about how they are serving their communities, make information concerning service more accessible to the public, and reduce the cost of compliance.

10. Section 73.3526, the online public inspection file rule for commercial television and radio stations, requires “[e]very permittee or licensee of an AM, FM, TV, or Class A TV station in the commercial broadcast services” to maintain a public inspection file with material identified in the rule. LPTV stations are not currently subject to § 73.3526. Among other required content, § 73.3526(e) specifies that the public inspection file must include a copy of the station's current authorization, any application tendered for filing with the Commission together with related material, citizen agreements, contour maps, ownership reports and related materials, the political file, the Equal Employment Opportunity file, radio and television time brokerage agreements, must-carry or retransmission consent elections, radio and television joint sales agreements, shared service agreements, and foreign sponsorship disclosures. Section 73.3526(b) requires that television and radio station licensees or applicants subject to the rule place the contents of their public inspection file “in the online public file hosted by the Commission.”

11. When the Commission created the LPTV category of service in the LPTV Order, the Commission concluded that because the service was of undetermined viability and the stations are secondary, have small coverage areas, and are not required to serve a particular community or a specified coverage area, “minimal regulation of low power television is in the public interest notwithstanding the fact that it is a broadcast service.” Nevertheless, the Commission concluded that sections 312(a)(7) and (f) and 315 of the Act apply to LPTV stations. Section 312(a)(7) grants candidates for Federal office reasonable access to broadcasting stations. Section 315(a) states that, if a licensee permits one candidate for a public office to use its station, it must afford “equal opportunities” to all other candidates for that office to use the station. Section 315(b) provides that, during certain periods before an election, political candidates are entitled to “the lowest unit charge of the station for the same class and amount of time for the same period.” In addition, section 315(e) requires broadcast licensees to maintain and make available for public inspection certain records of requests to purchase broadcast time on the station. While LPTV stations must comply with the statutory requirements of sections 312(a)(7) and 315, the Commission did not amend the political programming and political file rules that apply to LPTV when it last amended the political programming and political file rules that apply to full power and Class A stations.

12. LPTV stations do have certain recordkeeping obligations aside from the political programming requirements described above. Section 74.781 requires LPTV stations to “maintain adequate station records” and make them available to the Commission upon request. Section 74.781(c) also requires that records “shall be maintained for inspection,” although that sentence mentions only translator stations. The records required to be maintained include the station authorization, official correspondence with the Commission, contracts, and “other pertinent documents.” In addition, § 74.780 of the rules also contains some recordkeeping obligations. For example, LPTV stations must retain records of programming that is a “political matter or matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public importance” pursuant to Commission's sponsorship identification rules. In addition, LPTV stations must provide to the Commission upon request a copy of any network affiliation contract between the station and a national network.

13. The implementation of the online file was a significant achievement in the Commission's ongoing efforts to improve public access to important station information. Since it was launched in 2012, more than 19,875,413 documents have been successfully uploaded into the online file, and the site receives 108,583 unique visitors every two weeks. Today, all full power and Class A television broadcast stations, cable operators, full-service radio broadcasters, DBS providers, and SDARS licensees have fully transitioned to OPIF. Despite initial concerns, NAB characterized the initial implementation of the online file as “uneventful.” The benefits of the online public file, versus maintaining files in main studios or other station offices, are clear. The evolution of the internet and the spread of broadband infrastructure have transformed the way society accesses information today. Prior to OPIF, reviewing a local public inspection file typically involved the substantial expense and inconvenience of traveling to the station. Maintaining station records instead in a centralized, online file permits review with a quick and essentially costless internet search and increases transparency to the public. OPIF also is consistent with the online document retention procedures used by most businesses today to increase efficiency, reduce storage costs, and improve access.

14. As noted above, to “zealously guard[ ] the rights of the general public to be informed” and to make “practically accessible to the public information to which it is entitled,” full power and Class A television stations must comply with the public file rule. Yet LPTV stations, including stations that are leaders in their local markets and provide services comparable to those of full power and Class A stations, are currently required to make only certain records, including political file materials, available to the public and to provide certain records to the Commission upon request. We believe that the benefits of OPIF described above also would support requiring certain LPTV stations to comply with the same OPIF obligations as full power and Class A stations, and we seek comment on this issue. We seek comment on how, specifically, the public uses the public file to safeguard the value of the public airways. For instance, what information from broadcasters' public files does the public routinely seek? Has the trend toward consumption of video media not transmitted by broadcast licensees changed the informational or civic value of the public file—and, if so, how? Have any studies or other information-gathering activity utilizing public file information been completed by civil society or public interest groups, and what do those studies or analyses reveal, if anything? Given the fact that LPTV is now an established service, the increased relevance of the LPTV Service generally, and the category of LPTV stations with top-four network Start Printed Page 53540 affiliations specifically, we seek comment on whether to require certain LPTV stations to comply with the online public inspection file requirements of § 73.3526 of our rules. We invite comment on whether, for the reasons described below, we should modify our rules to extend the same OPIF requirements applicable to full power and Class A television stations to top-four network affiliated LPTV stations. We also invite comment on whether we should include LPTV stations affiliated with other national TV networks in the requirement to maintain an OPIF or, rather than tying any OPIF requirement for LPTV stations to network affiliation, if we should instead apply the OPIF requirement to LPTV stations that are among the top-four TV stations in each market based on the Nielsen ratings. Are there any other ways of differentiating among LPTV stations for purposes of imposing OPIF requirements?

15. It has been over 40 years since the implementation of the LPTV Service. Today, there are almost 1,900 LPTV stations currently operating and providing important programming to the communities they serve. Many LPTV stations now serve as a significant source of programming in their communities, especially those that are network affiliates. Given these developments, has the LPTV Service become sufficiently well-established at this point in time to require that certain LPTV stations comply with the same or similar public file requirements that apply to full power and Class A TV stations? As LPTV stations have evolved to become, in some cases, a significant presence in their local markets, should such stations have a similar public inspection file obligation to ensure that this information is readily available to the public and the Commission? Is the Commission's prior justification for imposing minimal obligations on all LPTV stations now less compelling for certain categories of stations? Is there any reason not to extend OPIF obligations to at least some LPTV stations? Would the burden of requiring any category of LPTV station to comply with the same OPIF obligations as full power and Class A stations outweigh the benefits to the public? What are the costs associated with differentiating among LPTV stations for these purposes?

16. Should stations with a top-four television network affiliation be subject to the OPIF requirements for the same reasons as full power and Class A stations—to zealously guard the rights of the general public to be informed and to make practically accessible to the public information to which it is entitled? Would expansion of the online public file to this category of LPTV stations improve public access to the files of affiliated stations by clearly identifying the records LPTV stations are required to make available to the public in the centralized, online file? In proposing to focus only on LPTV stations that are affiliated with a top-four television network, our goal is to limit the OPIF obligation to those LPTV stations that carry programming that is more likely to be widely viewed. Such stations have greater resources and thus can more easily address any implementation issues that may arise. Top-four network affiliates are generally the top-rated stations in their local markets. In addition, LPTV stations affiliated with a top-four network are more likely to be carried by multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) despite their status as low power stations, thereby extending their reach. We seek comment on the current extent of such MVPD carriage of non-class A LPTV stations. We note that the Commission has previously imposed different requirements on top-four network affiliates in light of the greater resources at their disposal and in recognition of the important role these stations play in providing local news and public affairs programming to their communities. We also believe that top-four network affiliated LPTV stations are more likely to have the kinds of materials required to be retained in OPIF, such as political file material, than LPTV stations that are not network affiliates. Thus, we believe that requiring these stations to comply with OPIF would make important information about the stations more easily accessible and provide the public the opportunity to ensure that these stations are properly discharging their duty to operate in the public interest. We seek comment on these issues.

17. We also seek comment on what burdens the obligation to maintain an online public file would impose on LPTV stations with a top-four television network affiliation. Since LPTV stations currently must maintain certain records and provide these records to the Commission upon request, would there be a significant additional burden for LPTV stations with a top-four affiliation to maintain these same records in an OPIF file? We believe our proposal to use the online public file rather than paper files may result in modest costs upfront but will ultimately allow these stations to realize savings by no longer having to keep a local file on a going-forward basis. We note, as described above, that the OPIF for full power and Class A stations has been a significant achievement that improves transparency and defied initial concerns. We also believe that LPTV stations affiliated with a top-four television network can more easily address any implementation issues that may arise than other LPTV stations. We invite comment on these views.

18. Should we extend OPIF requirements to LPTV stations that are affiliated with TV networks other than the top-four? If so, what other LPTV network affiliates should be included in the OPIF requirement? Is there any reason to exclude any LPTV network affiliate from OPIF obligations and, if so, what are those? As noted above, approximately 15% of LPTV stations are affiliated with any network. How would inclusion of LPTV stations with other network affiliations alter the benefits and burdens of requiring certain LPTV stations to maintain an OPIF?

19. Should we instead extend OPIF requirements to LPTV stations that are among the top-four television stations in each television market (Designated Market Area) based on ratings regardless of the station's network affiliation? If we were to adopt this approach, we propose to calculate whether a station is rated among the Top 4 by cross-reference to the Commission's media ownership rules defining the Top 4 criteria in § 73.3555(b)(1) of our rules. We invite comment on this proposal and on any alternative methods of calculating whether a station is among the Top 4 rated stations in the market.

20. Should we adopt some other measure for identifying those LPTV stations to which we should extend OPIF requirements? If we were to use an approach based on ratings rather than network affiliation, should we account for instances in which the LPTV station makes use of multicast streams, satellite stations, or translators? Should the ratings of these stations or streams be combined with the ratings of the primary station or stream to determine the station's ratings in the DMA? The Commission has previously expressed concern about using rankings or ratings, noting that those thresholds are subject to change and “would be difficult to measure and administer, and would provide uncertainty to broadcasters, as they are not as able to predict or control ratings.” Do those same concerns apply if we were to use rankings for purposes of determining which LPTV stations are subject to OPIF?

21. If we focused on ratings, how would we account for stations that over time moved in or out of the top-four rating category? For instance, should we require any station that was rated within Start Printed Page 53541 the top-four in the market within a specific period of time, such as a two year period, to maintain an online public file? If a station is in the top-four for one month during a two-year period, should the station be required to maintain an OPIF for the entire two-year period? Should a different period of time apply and why? Should we recalculate the ratings/rankings at an established time each year for purposes of determining which LPTV stations are covered? Once a station achieves top-four status, should it be required to maintain an OPIF in perpetuity? That is, should we have a no backsliding requirement, such that once a station is covered under our OPIF requirements, it would remain covered? Would the fact that an LPTV station already incurred the modest cost of establishing an OPIF file, and the likely savings that would result from no longer having to maintain a local file, justify such a requirement? How would focusing on the top-four television stations in each television market alter the benefits and burdens of requiring a certain specified category of LPTV stations to maintain an OPIF?

22. If we require certain LPTV stations to comply with the OPIF obligations in § 73.3526 of our rules, we intend to implement efficiencies used in prior transition phases to OPIF in order to reduce the burden on these stations. Specifically, we propose to require that LPTV stations upload only those OPIF documents not otherwise filed with the Commission or available on the Commission's website. Any document or information required to be kept in the public file and that is required to be filed with the Commission electronically would be imported to the online public file and updated by the Commission. Given these measures to minimize the burdens, would the benefits of imposing an OPIF requirement on top-four network affiliated LPTV stations or any other category of LPTV stations, including improving public access to information about LPTV station operations, outweigh any costs?

23. In addition, if we were to require certain LPTV stations to post political file information in OPIF, we propose to do so consistent with prior transitions. Specifically, we propose that LPTV licensees required to comply with OPIF must upload documents to the online political file only on a going-forward basis, and will not be required to upload their existing political files. Under this proposal, LPTV licensees could continue to maintain at the station those documents already in place in their political file at the time any new rules in this proceeding become effective, and in that way decrease the burden on LPTV licensees. We seek comment on this proposal. Should we permit LPTV stations that are not required to maintain an OPIF to voluntarily maintain an OPIF? Should we permit LPTV stations that will be obligated to maintain an OPIF to elect voluntarily to upload to OPIF existing political file material ( i.e., material that they would otherwise not be required to upload under the proposed rules)?

24. If we require certain LPTV stations to comply with the online public inspection file requirements of § 73.3526 of our rules, those LPTV stations would be required to maintain in their OPIF, and thus make available for public inspection, the material identified in that rule, including a copy of the station's current authorization, any application tendered for filing with the Commission together with related material, citizen agreements, contour maps, ownership reports and related materials, the political file, the Equal Employment Opportunity file, must-carry or retransmission consent elections and foreign sponsorship disclosures. Pursuant to § 73.3526(b), LPTV station licensees and applicants subject to the rule would be required to place the contents of their public inspection file “in the online public file hosted by the Commission.” Under our current rules, as discussed above, LPTV stations currently must maintain certain materials, including the current instrument of authorization, official correspondence with the FCC, contracts, permission for rebroadcasts, and “other pertinent documents,” and make them available to the Commission upon request. If certain LPTV stations are covered by OPIF, we also propose that those stations include in their online file the list required to be “available for public inspection” pursuant to § 73.1212(e). Stations not required to maintain an OPIF would maintain the list as specified in § 74.781(c). Is there any reason LPTV stations should be exempt from making the documents identified in § 73.3526 available for public inspection in OPIF?

25. We note that we have broad authority under Title III of the Act to regulate radio communications, including classification of stations, prescription of the nature of services to be rendered, and the authority to establish the licensing procedures for broadcast stations when the public interest is found to be served. Section 303(b) provides that we have authority to “prescribe the nature of the service” offered by licensed stations. And 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.” We tentatively conclude that the OPIF obligations for LPTV stations on which we seek comment herein fall within this broad grant of authority because they would promote public understanding of various issues concerning the operation of the station and better inform the public about how the station is serving the community. Improving public access to information about certain LPTV stations also is consistent with the goal of sections 309 and 311 of the Act to permit public participation in broadcast licensing. In addition, section 315(e) of the Act requires licensees to make their political files available for public inspection. We believe that requiring LPTV licensees to make certain records available for public inspection in OPIF would further the Act's goal of ensuring that the public can access important information about the station and, with respect to political files, assist candidates and others seeking information about political advertisements being carried on the station. We invite comment on these views.

26. If we were to require that certain LPTV stations comply with the OPIF requirements in § 73.3526, such as those affiliated with a top-four TV network or those rated in the top four in a DMA or otherwise, we propose that the Media Bureau issue a Public Notice with an initial/draft list of those LPTV stations that fall within the affected group, based on generally accepted industry data. Licensees and other interested parties would be given a period of time to file comments on the initial/draft list in order to ensure it correctly identifies those LPTV stations subject to the OPIF requirement. The Media Bureau would subsequently issue a Public Notice including a final list of LPTV stations subject to the OPIF requirement in accordance with our rules and set a deadline by which each such LPTV station must begin to maintain the OPIF on the Commission's OPIF platform. Upon release of the Public Notice, the Commission would also send a copy of the public notice to the authorized representative of each station as reflected in the Commission's Licensing and Management System (LMS). We invite comment on this approach. We also seek comment on whether these Start Printed Page 53542 proposals appropriately accommodate small entities.

27. If, after the Media Bureau issues a final list of LPTV stations that are subject to the OPIF requirement, an LPTV station's network affiliation or ratings ranking changes such that it would either become or no longer be covered by the OPIF rule, we propose that the LPTV station must notify the Commission within 10 days of the change in their affiliation or ranking. If we tie the OPIF requirement to LPTV stations ranked in the top-four in the market, such a change would be calculated based on rankings averaged over a 12-month period. Specifically, we propose that LPTV stations be required to send written notice to the Commission at an email address to be provided by the Media Bureau in the Public Notice that includes the final list of LPTV stations. The email would request either that an OPIF be created for the station or that the station be deleted from the list of LPTV stations with an OPIF requirement. The LPTV station would also be required to include the date the station's affiliation or ranking changed, and details of the station's change in circumstance ( i.e., its new affiliation or ranking information). For LPTV stations with a new OPIF requirement, this filing would initiate the process of the Commission creating an OPIF for that LPTV station. The Media Bureau would by letter inform the station of the deadline by which the LPTV station must upload documents to its OPIF. We propose that stations with a new OPIF requirement be required to begin uploading all required OPIF documents within 60 days of the date of the letter. For LPTV stations that notify the Commission that they are no longer subject to the OPIF rule, the Media Bureau would provide written confirmation to the licensee by letter verifying they are no longer subject to the rule. The station would be required to upload a copy of the letter to its OPIF to ensure members of the public are aware it is no longer subject to the OPIF rule. The OPIF would remain publicly accessible for historical and investigatory purposes. We seek comment on these proposed procedures. How should the procedures change if we were to require stations to maintain an OPIF in perpetuity once they are required to do so? For example, in such a situation, would the LPTV station still have to notify the Commission about its change in rank/affiliation? Would there be other requirements that would no longer be needed ( e.g., no need to upload a letter discussing the station's change in rank/affiliation)?

28. If we were to base an OPIF requirement on a station's market ranking should we adopt a waiting period before we impose an OPIF requirement on a station that becomes a top-four ranked station or drops out of the top-four to ensure that the change in market ranking is not short-lived? If so, how long should the waiting period be? As noted above, if we use an approach based on station ratings, that calculation is averaged over a 12-month period. If we adopt a waiting period, what should the waiting period be if we used an approach based on ratings? Should other procedures apply if we adopt a requirement based on a top-four market rating? If so why? We seek comment on these issues.

29. As discussed above, LPTV stations are currently required by § 74.781(a) of the rules to “maintain adequate station records, including the current instrument of authorization, official correspondence with the FCC, contracts, permission for rebroadcasts, and other pertinent documents.” Section 74.781(b) also requires LPTV stations to retain certain information about tower lighting. Section 74.781(c) specifies a location where records must be “maintained for inspection,” but that sentence appears to refer only to translators, not LPTV stations. If we were to require a subset of LPTV stations to comply with § 73.3526, we propose to revise § 74.781(c) to reference the requirement that certain LPTV stations maintain an OPIF and to specify where LPTV stations must retain records not included in OPIF. Our proposed revisions to § 74.781 would specify where records for LPTV stations, including the political file, can be accessed by the Commission and the public.

30. In addition, we believe it is appropriate to require that all LPTV stations maintain records for public inspection, including those that do not have an OPIF requirement as a result of this proceeding. We interpret the requirement in § 74.781(c) that station records be “maintained for inspection” as mandating that such records be maintained for public inspection, as that paragraph separately mandates that station records also be made available to the Commission. While the inspection requirement in § 74.781(c) could be read to apply only to translators, we note that requirement was adopted in 1975, prior to the establishment of the LPTV Service. As both § 74.781(a) and (b) clearly apply to both translators and LPTV stations, we believe § 74.781(c) is best read as not intended to limit the application of the inspection requirement solely to translators. Nothing in the Commission's order adding LPTV stations to § 74.781 suggests that the Commission intended to carve out LPTV stations from the inspection requirement. Moreover, we tentatively conclude that it would serve the public interest to require LPTV stations maintain records for public inspection. Accordingly, we propose to revise the inspection requirement in § 74.781(c) to clarify that the rule applies to both translators and LPTV stations. We seek comment on these proposed changes to § 74.781(c). Is there any reason to exempt LPTV stations not subject to an OPIF requirement from a public inspection requirement? Is there any reason translators should be subject to a public inspection requirement and not LPTV stations?

31. We also propose to update the list of political programming rules applicable to LPTV stations to align that list with existing and longstanding statutory requirements pursuant to sections 312 and 315 of the Act. Should we specify that LPTV stations are subject to §§ 73.1941 through 73.1944 of the Commission's rules, in addition to 73.1940? These rules codify the statutory requirements of sections 312(a)(7) and 315 of the Act, which apply to LPTV stations. The Commission originally adopted the rules in their current format in 1991, and said that the rules were intended to “accurately and closely reflect the language, intent, and requirements of the broadcasting portions” of the Act and to provide “detailed and practical advice” to broadcasters, candidates, and the public regarding broadcasters' requirements and the rights afforded to candidates by the Act. The rules were also adopted “to promote achievement of the Act's objectives while being responsive to the evolving sales practices of broadcast stations.” We tentatively conclude that revising our rules to specify that the current versions of §§ 73.1940 through 73.1944 are applicable to LPTV stations would more accurately reflect the statutory obligations of LPTV stations and conform our requirements regarding LPTV stations to the requirements contained in sections 312(a)(7) and 315 of the Act. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

32. Finally, we propose to make other changes to § 73.3526 of our rules to correct cross references and other inaccuracies, clarify existing Start Printed Page 53543 requirements, establish a filing frequency for Class A stations to certify they have met their ongoing eligibility requirements, and require Class A and LPTV stations to disclose time brokerage agreements (TBAs) and joint service agreements (JSAs).

33. First, we propose to add to § 73.3526(e)(11)(iii), which addresses the requirement to file an annual Children's Television Programming Report, a reference to Class A television stations. Class A stations have been required to prepare and file such reports since the Class A service was first established, but a reference to Class A was inadvertently omitted from this provision of the rules. Further, § 73.3526(a)(2) specifically requires Class A stations to comply with § 73.3526(e)(11). Second, we propose to correct § 73.3526(a)(2) to indicate that all commercial radio and television stations must comply with § 73.3526(e)(19), which requires stations to retain in OPIF documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the station is in compliance with the requirements set forth in § 73.1212(j)(7) of the Commission's rules. Third, we propose to correct § 73.3526(a)(2) to indicate that commercial radio and television stations must comply with § 73.3526(e)(14) and (16). These provisions expressly apply to commercial radio and TV stations, but § 73.3526(a)(2) does not include a cross reference to both those provisions with respect to these stations. We seek comment on these rule clarifications.

34. Third, we propose to correct § 73.3526(a)(2) to indicate that Class A stations (including those established pursuant to the LPPA) must comply with § 73.3526(e)(17), which requires that Class A stations include in OPIF documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the station is continuing to meet the ongoing Class A eligibility and service requirements set forth in § 73.6001. In addition, we propose to establish how often Class A stations must provide such documentation and what type of documentation is required. As part of a Class A station's continuing eligibility obligation, it must broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per day and air an average of at least three hours per week of locally produced programming each quarter. Based on these ongoing eligibility requirements, we tentatively conclude that a quarterly filing is appropriate. All documentation would be required to be filed in a station's OPIF by the tenth day of the succeeding calendar quarter ( e.g., January 10 for the quarter October-December; April 10 for the quarter January-March, etc.) and must be retained in the OPIF until final action has been taken on the station's next license renewal application. As to the type of documentation Class A stations may provide, the Media Bureau has generally accepted a certification of compliance as sufficient documentation. We propose to codify this requirement. However, given Congress' clear focus on locally produced programming, we seek comment on whether to require that Class A stations also include a list of locally produced programing sufficient to demonstrate that the station aired an average of three hours per week of locally produced programing each quarter. How burdensome would providing such a list be and what would that burden consist of? If we were to adopt such a requirement, what information should be included ( e.g., time, date, duration, and title of each program aired)? We also propose that, like issue/programs lists, Class A stations be able to choose the format of the information. We seek comment on these clarifications and proposals.

35. Finally, we propose to amend § 73.3526(a)(2) to indicate that Class A and LPTV stations must retain in their OPIF any TBA or JSA relating to the station. Full power commercial TV stations and commercial radio stations are currently subject to this requirement, but our rules do not clearly apply this requirement to Class A stations. We propose to amend our rules to apply this requirement to both Class A and LPTV stations. The obligation to retain TBAs in particular was adopted to “make it easier for the Commission and others to properly monitor time brokerage to ensure that licensees retain control of their stations and adhere to the Communications Act, Commission Rules and policies and the antitrust laws.” The Commission has noted that this requirement would impose “only a minimal burden on licensees.” For similar reasons, the Commission also requires radio and television licensees to place copies of any JSAs in the public inspection file. The obligation to disclose these agreements in a station's public inspection file applies even if the agreement would not result in the arrangement being counted in determining the brokering licensee's compliance with local and national multiple ownership rules. We tentatively conclude that Class A and LPTV stations, like commercial television and radio stations, should also disclose such agreements for the same reasons disclosure is required for the commercial television and radio stations, and seek comment on this view. Is there any reason to exempt Class A and LPTV stations from this requirement? We seek comment on these proposals.

36. We next propose to modify our rules to resolve an inconsistency in calculating the distance a displaced or channel sharing station may relocate its facilities. The LPTV/TV translator rules contain limits on how far a station may relocate its transmission facilities. These limits were established to ensure that LPTV/TV translator modification applications for “minor change” remained just that. This was intended to ensure that stations continue to provide coverage to viewers that rely on their service, so that their viewers were not left behind when a station is displaced or chooses to relocate. Currently, a displaced LPTV/TV translator station may propose a change in transmitter site of not more than “30 miles from the reference coordinates of the existing station's community of license.” Further, the Commission's channel sharing rules apply this rule to Class A and LPTV/TV translator station relocations resulting from a proposed channel sharing arrangement. In contrast, a Class A or LPTV/TV translator station that is seeking to relocate its facility through a minor modification is limited to moving not greater than “30 miles (48 kilometers) from the reference coordinates of the existing station's antenna location.”

37. Thus, there is an inconsistency between the manner in which these rules calculate the distance of a proposed relocation. Furthermore, because Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations are not included in the Table of TV Allotments and not assigned a COL when licensed, using a station's COL as a reference point can be subject to abuse. As outlined later in this NPRM, although licensees may input a COL for their station in LMS, our rules do not currently have a procedure governing how Class A and LPTV/TV translator station may select a COL. As a result, a licensee can change the COL for their station in LMS at any time, and theoretically could specify a COL that has no association with the actual location of the station's facilities. This could undermine the purpose of the existing rule, to limit displacement and channel sharing relocations to 30 miles, if a station was to first modify its COL to designate a location that is within 30 miles of the location where a station wants to relocate the facility or channel Start Printed Page 53544 share, and then files a channel sharing or displacement application thereafter.

38. To resolve the inconsistency, close a possible loophole in our rules, and harmonize our rules with respect to all Class A and LPTV/TV translator facility relocations, we propose to amend our displacement and channel sharing rules to eliminate the reference to a station's COL and incorporate the language of the minor change rule that measures distance from the reference coordinates of the “existing station's antenna location.” Even though later in this item we propose a process for Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations to designate a COL, we believe that use of the COL as a reference point for displacement could continue to undermine the purpose of our displacement rule. Given the contour size and the hyper local nature of the LPTV Service, precision is necessary in order to stand by the original intent of the rule, which is to ensure minimized disruption to the existing audience when station facilities are relocated. Therefore, changing our rules to measure a station's proposed relocation based on the reference coordinates of its antenna location provides a better reference point for the station's service area. Conversely, measuring relocations based on the reference coordinates of a station's entire COL could continue to allow stations to potentially thwart the intent of the 30-mile relocation distance limit. We seek comment on this proposal.

39. We also seek comment on clarifying the distance that Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations are allowed to move in a single minor modification application or a displacement application. As noted above, moves in either situation are currently limited to “30 miles (48 kilometers)” in order to ensure continuity of service. For purposes of consistency and clarity, we propose to revise the rules that currently reference the 30-mile limit to state that a facility may not be relocated greater than 48.3 kilometers and to make clear that the distance calculation may not be “rounded down.” We understand that Media Bureau staff permitted stations proposing a relocation of up to 30.49 miles to “round-down” the distance calculation to 30 miles to comply with the distance limitation. We propose to prohibit rounding of the distance calculation. Additionally, we propose to revise our rules to remove the imprecise miles-to-kilometers conversion and instead solely state that facility relocations may be not greater than 48.3 kilometers. Any value over 48.3 kilometers, even by less than a tenth of a kilometer, will not be considered rule compliant. We seek comment on these proposals. While there exists the possibility of a waiver of our rules, should we establish exceptions in certain circumstances to allow stations to relocate their facility to a location more than 48.3 kilometers from their reference coordinate. We seek comment on what exceptions, if any, should be set forth in our rules. Finally, we seek comment on whether to adopt a different distance limit for transmitter site relocations that are proposed in minor modification applications. Commenters proposing a different distance limit should explain why their proposed limit is more appropriate than the current 30-mile limit and how it aligns with our goal of ensuring existing viewers are not harmed.

40. We next propose to require that Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations specify a COL that is associated with their station's actual service area. As noted above, Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations are not allotted in the Table of TV Allotments. As a “fill-in” type service, their facilities can be authorized at any location so long as they do not cause interference to any other authorized television stations and as a secondary service their facilities can be easily displaced. As a result, the Commission has not previously imposed a rule or methodology for Class A or LPTV/TV translator stations to be formally assigned a COL. Because our existing rules do not provide a clear rule or methodology, the Media Bureau has been processing requests for changes in a Class A and LPTV/TV translator station's COL only when at least a portion of the proposed community is located within the station's protected contour.

41. Formalizing the COL designation process and providing set standards for how a Class A and LPTV/TV translator station can select a COL will ensure that COL's listed in LMS and used by Stations actually reflects their service area. Although we believe that Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations should continue to possess the flexibility to determine where best to locate their stations' facilities, we believe that stations should be required to designate a COL that has a connection with its station's operations. Further, this will also ensure that Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations continue to utilize their COL to create a connection with the communities they in fact serve and allow viewers and the Commission to fully evaluate whether a station has been operating in the public interest convenience and necessity. We propose the following criteria be applied for all Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations when designating a COL. First, we tentatively conclude that all Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations should be required to designate a COL whose boundary at least partially overlaps with the station's “protected service contour.” We propose defining “protected service contour” as the protected contour provided for in § 74.792 of our rules for LPTV/TV translator stations and § 73.6010 of our rules for Class A stations. For purposes of determining whether a COL's boundary “overlaps with a station's protected service contour,” we propose to examine the legal boundary of the community that has been designated by any Federal, state, local, or tribal governmental entity. In designating a COL, a station would be required to provide a map demonstrating that the contour overlaps with the COL's legal boundary. Second, we tentatively conclude that any amount of overlap between the Station's protected service contour and legal boundary of its COL will be deemed sufficient for a station to designate a community as its COL. We tentatively find that this standard is appropriate given the relatively small size of the coverage area of many Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations. For that reason, we tentatively conclude a more stringent coverage requirement, such as a percentage of population or land area, may be unworkable and limit a station's COL options. We seek comment on our tentative conclusions and invite alternative proposals and standards by which Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations may select a COL.

42. We also seek comment on whether we should require that a station serve the COL it has selected for a minimum period of time prior to being permitted to voluntarily change it. We propose to require Class A and LPTV/TV translator to serve their designated COL for at least one year before allowing them to change it. This will help ensure that when a station is licensed, it is not only intending to provide service to its community, but it in fact does so. Further, because a public interest benefit of designating a COL is to foster a connection between the station and the community it serves, we believe that such a restriction on community of license changes is justified. While stations in the LPTV Service are not in the Table of TV Allotments and are not held to our analysis under section 307(b) of the Act, we find that they still Start Printed Page 53545 must operate in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. As result, by designating a COL stations are committing to provide service to that area, in many cases unserved and underserved areas, for at least a certain period of time. We seek comment on this proposal and whether there should be any exceptions to the rule. For example, we tentatively find it would be appropriate to allow stations to modify their COL prior to the one year if the station is displaced or for circumstances beyond a station's control, such as natural disaster or other act of God, that cause the station to no longer be able to cover its COL. We propose not to consider independent business decisions or finances, as a basis for changing a COL within the one year period. What are other exceptions we should consider as a basis for a change in COL sooner than one year? Should exceptions be enumerated in our rules or, given the unique facts and circumstances that may be present in such cases, should we rely exclusively on our existing waiver standard?

43. Finally, we propose that within six months of the effective date of any new COL rule we adopt in this proceeding, all Class A and LPTV/TV translators must designate a COL that is rule compliant. We propose to require all Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations designate a COL by filing an application for modification of license and pay the appropriate filing fee. Stations whose current COL meets the requirement of the new rule, should it be adopted, do not need to take any action. To help ease the initial transition, we propose to waive any application filing fee during this six month period for requests that solely seeking to designate a COL that is rule compliant. We seek comment on these proposals.

44. We propose adopting minimum operating hours for LPTV stations and seek comment on whether LPTV/TV translator stations should be required to certify with regard to their minimum operating hours on certain applications. Currently, LPTV stations are not subject to minimum required hours of operation and are not required to adhere to any regular schedule of operation. When the service was originally created, the Commission decided to not adopt such requirements given the undetermined viability of the service and because LPTV stations are low power, serve a small service area, have secondary interference protection status, and are not allotted in the Table of TV Allotments to serve a particular community or a specified coverage area. As a result, the Commission, at that time, concluded that “minimal regulation of low power television is in the public interest, notwithstanding the fact that it is a broadcast service.”

45. While there are no set minimum operating hours for LPTV stations, they are subject to specific rules if they discontinue operations for certain periods of time and remain silent for extended periods. Like all broadcast stations, an LPTV station that fails to operate for more than 10 days must notify the Commission that it is silent. If a station remains silent for more than 30 days, it must seek authority to remain silent. Unlike full power stations, failure of an LPTV station to operate for a period of 30 days or more, except for causes beyond the control of the licensee, shall be deemed evidence of discontinuation of operation and the license of the station may be cancelled at the discretion of the Commission. Finally, as with all broadcast stations, an LPTV station's license will automatically expire, as a matter of law, if the station fails to transmit a broadcast signal for any consecutive twelve- month period, notwithstanding any provision, term, or condition of the license to the contrary. Therefore, an LPTV station can operate briefly (for a few minutes or hours) every 30 days and avoid being deemed as having permanently discounted operations under § 74.763(c) of our rules, or do the same once per year and avoid automatic expiration of its license under section 312(g) of the Act. In either instance, however, we tentatively find that the extremely minimal nature of those operations and the inherent lack of benefit to viewers from such minimal operations undermines the public interest benefit of the station and results in the underutilization of finite TV band spectrum. We tentatively find that these practices also threaten to undermine the value of the LPTV Service generally. We believe that adoption of minimum operating hours for LPTV stations will ensure that stations have a clear awareness of their public interest obligations to the viewers they have been licensed to serve, and prevent warehousing and underutilization of spectrum. We seek comment on this analysis.

46. We propose that all LPTV stations be required to operate not less than 14 hours per calendar week. We tentatively conclude that requiring LPTV stations to operate a minimum of 14 hours per calendar week will not be a burdensome requirement. We seek comment on this proposal. While the Commission felt such a requirement was not necessary when the service was originally created, 40 years later we tentatively conclude that additional requirements are needed to ensure that all licensed stations are operating in the public interest by serving their viewers as intended. Other broadcast services have minimum operating requirements, including other low power, secondary services. For example, when the Commission was considering rules for its new Low Power FM (LPFM) radio service it noted that while it was “sympathetic with the position of some commenters that the market, not the Commission, should determine the hours a station operates,” it ultimately concluded that adoption of a minimum operating requirement for LPFM stations would ensure effective utilization of channels. Despite LPFM being a secondary service, the Commission went on to find that such a requirement was not excessive and should not impose an inordinate burden on LPFM licensees. Similarly, we tentatively conclude that adopting a minimum operating requirement will achieve similar benefits to ensure the spectrum is being properly utilized without imposing significant costs or burdens on LPTV licensees. We seek comment on our tentative findings and conclusions.

47. Commercial full power television stations are required to operate not less than 2 hours in each day of the week and not less than a total of 28 hours per calendar week. In addition, Class A stations are required to operate a minimum of 18 hours per day in order to maintain their Class A status. Our proposed minimum operating requirement for LPTV reflects half of the hours that commercial full power television stations are required to operate and a fraction of what Class A stations are required to broadcast. Our proposal also does not subject LPTV stations to a daily operational requirement in order to allow LPTV stations with non-traditional business hours, such as schools and religious institutions, more flexibility to operate their stations and serve their viewers. As a result, we propose to permit LPTV stations to operate at any time over the course of a seven day calendar week in order to provide flexibility and tailor their broadcast schedule to their local community as long as they operate not less than 14 hours per calendar week. We seek comment on this proposal.

48. We also seek comment on whether alternative minimum operating hours or requirements would accomplish the same goals of ensuring stations serve the public interest and prevent limited spectral resources to lie fallow for all Start Printed Page 53546 but a few hours or days a year. For example, should we instead adopt a different weekly hourly requirement or instead a daily, monthly, or quarterly minimum operating requirement? If so, what is the appropriate amount of time we should require for any interval?

49. Finally, we propose to require that all LPTV/TV translator licensees certify in any application for minor or major modification of a licensed facility and its license renewal application whether the station has complied with its minimum operating requirement over the course of the current license term, and if not provide an explanation for its failure and why grant of the pending application is in the public interest. We believe such a requirement will help ensure, in a minimally burdensome manner, that stations are complying with their minimum operating requirements and utilizing their licensed spectrum in the public interest We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on what evidence (written or otherwise) should be deemed sufficient to support a license's operational certification if such certification is challenged. Should licensees be required to retain certain documents, such as written program logs to be made available at the request of the Commission or members of the public? And if so how long should licensees be required to retain such documentation?

50. To ensure that LPTV/TV translator stations are fully utilizing their spectrum to provide free over-the-air television service for their viewers, as intended by our rules and the Act, we propose to make LPTV/TV translator stations subject to the requirement currently in our part 73 rules that visual transmissions of test patterns, slides, or still pictures accompanied by unrelated aural transmissions may not be counted for purposes of complying with any minimum operating requirement. This part 73 requirement currently applies to both full power and Class A stations. We tentatively find that extending this requirement to LPTV/TV translator stations is consistent with the primary purpose of licensing broadcast television spectrum—the provision of video programming services to viewers. Adopting a requirement in our rules will provide clear guidance that LPTV/TV translator stations must provide video programming service to the public and utilize the spectrum for that purpose. We propose to apply this requirement only to programming aired on the station's primary stream and not apply it to a station's multicast stream. We seek comment on this proposal.

51. We propose to require that stations in the LPTV Service that seek to change their designation from LPTV to TV translator and vice versa, be required to seek Commission authority by way of a license modification application to make such a change. We further propose that stations in the LPTV service be allowed to change their station designation not more than once every 12 months. By proposing these rules, we aim to provide clarity to viewers and broadcasters concerning the station's service classification and what Commission rules and service obligations apply.

52. Currently, if a station in the LPTV Service desires to change its designation between LPTV and TV translator (or vice versa), it requests this change by informally writing (by email or letter) Media Bureau staff, who in turn makes the classification change in the Commission's database. Stations in the LPTV Service can change their designation without limit and without any justification. For many years after the creation of the LPTV Service, the distinction between LPTV and TV translator stations was minimal and, therefore, no formal change process or standards were necessary. However, over the years the LPTV Service has changed and the Commission has adopted a number of regulations that have expanded the distinction between LPTV and TV translator stations. For example, beginning in 1994, the Commission created the Emergency Alert System (EAS), whereby broadcasters are required to transmit Presidential and other national alerts to the general public (and may transmit alerts originating at the state and local levels to the general public on a voluntary basis). EAS participants are required to submit EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS) filings in response to nationwide tests of the EAS (sometimes referred to as National Periodic Tests). LPTV stations are EAS participants and must submit the required ETRS filings; however, TV translator stations are not required to file them. In addition, in 2009, the Commission mandated that LPTV stations be subject to its rules requiring the filing of ownership reports. Because they do not originate programming, TV translator stations are not required to submit ownership reports.

53. To enable the Commission and public to better track station classification changes and to provide rule compliance clarity for stations in the LPTV Service, we propose to formalize the redesignation process by requiring that LPTV Service designation changes be made through an application for license modification and that applicants be required to pay the requisite application filing fee. We also propose to limit LPTV Service designation changes to not more than once every 12 months. We tentatively conclude such a limit would help ensure that stations are not attempting to switch classification from an LPTV to a TV translator in order to avoid regulatory burdens ( i.e., ETRS filings or ownership reports) and then quickly switching back to obtain the benefits of being classified as an LPTV station ( i.e., greater program origination ability). Are there any circumstances that stations should be permitted to change their designation more than once every 12 months and what type of showing should be required? We seek comment on these proposals.

54. Furthermore, we propose to amend our rules to require that all stations with the LPTV designation, regardless of how the station is operated, must comply with our EAS rules. We also propose to clarify that a station formally designated in the Commission's database as a TV translator is not required to comply with our Part 11 requirements, such as installing EAS equipment or meeting related obligations like filing in ETRS, if it entirely rebroadcasts the programming—including all EAS—of a Primary Station. The EAS rules currently provide that “LPTV stations that operate as television broadcast translator stations, as defined in § 74.701(b) of this chapter, are not required to comply with the requirements of this part.” In light of our proposal to formalize the designation process and given the distinctions between LPTV and TV translator stations that have developed over the years, we believe it is appropriate to require any station that has chosen to be designated as an “LPTV” to comply with our existing EAS rules for LPTV stations. We believe that this change will also help ensure that all LPTV stations, when constructed, install the necessary EAS equipment as required and further the public interest by ensuring alerts are properly disseminated. Further, this change should not create any additional burdens given that under our proposed rule change any LPTV station that Start Printed Page 53547 entirely rebroadcasts the programming of a Primary Station may change its designation from LPTV to TV translator status to remain exempt from our EAS rules as they may be today. We seek comment on whether there is any practical reason to maintain the existing exception to the EAS rule for LPTV stations that operate as translator stations.

55. TV Translator Stations. We propose to clarify in our rules that all TV translator stations must have an alphanumeric call sign comprised of a prefix consisting of the initial letter “K” or “W “(based on the station's geographic location in relation to the Mississippi River), followed by the channel number assigned to the station and two additional letters, and a suffix consisting of the letter “-D.” Further, we propose that a station that converts from LPTV to TV translator status would have its four-letter LPTV call sign automatically modified by the Commission to an alphanumeric one that is consistent with our TV translator call sign rule. We tentatively conclude that this proposal is consistent with our existing rule which requires that TV translator stations maintain a uniform call sign methodology and will help viewers distinguish between TV translator stations and other classes of the TV service. We propose to automatically modify any call signs that do not comply with the proposed rule 30 days after the effective date of any Report and Order adopted in this proceeding. The 30-day period will allow licensees to inform their viewers of the impending call sign change. Given that TV translator stations are, with limited exception, restricted to rebroadcasting other station's programing we tentatively find TV translators do not have their own unique identity and “grandfathering” existing call signs has no cognizable public interest benefit. We seek comment on this proposal and our tentative findings and conclusion.

56. Class A and LPTV Stations. Further, we propose to require that all Class A and LPTV stations must have a four-letter call sign, with the suffix “-LD” for LPTV stations and “-CD” for Class A stations. Our current rule is permissive and states that “[l]ow power television and Class A television stations may be assigned a four-letter prefix.” It also permits LPTV stations to be assigned alphanumeric call signs just like TV translators. We tentatively conclude that in light of the regulatory and service distinctions between TV translator, LPTV, and Class A stations that it is appropriate to require that each service conform to its own call sign prefix and suffix. As an initial matter, we propose that any station that modifies its status from a TV translator to LPTV after the effective date of our proposed rule must submit a request for a new four-letter call sign prefix with the “-LD” suffix in the Commission's call sign reservation system and pay the applicable fee. Further, we propose that the Commission will modify a Class A station's call sign that reverts from Class A status to LPTV to reflect its LPTV status by automatically changing its call sign suffix from “-CD” to “-LD.” The station will retain its current four-letter call sign prefix unless it conflicts with that of an existing LPTV station. In such a circumstance, the former Class A station will be required to modify its four-letter call sign prefix in the Commission's call sign reservation system. We also propose to provide all Class A and LPTV stations a period of 90 days from the effective date of our proposed rule to designate a four-letter call sign with the correct suffix. During this 90-day period, we propose to waive the fee associated with an initial call sign request by a station to modify its call sign in order to come into compliance with the proposed rule. We seek comment on this proposal.

57. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether the Commission should “grandfather” existing LPTV and Class A call signs that are not in compliance with our proposed new rule. As stations that originate programming, some LPTV and Class A stations may have developed an identity with viewers that involves their call sign. What are the specific public interest benefits we should consider when determining if existing Class A or LPTV stations should be permitted to retain their existing “non-compliant” call signs? Should stations be permitted to keep both their existing prefix and suffix? Should grandfathered call signs be transferrable and assignable? If we grandfather existing LPTV and Class A call signs, we tentatively conclude that only call signs of licensed stations on the release date of any Report and Order adopted in this proceeding will be eligible to be grandfathered. Further, we propose that any station with a grandfathered call sign will be required to bring its call sign into compliance with our proposed rule in the event it subsequently changes its classification ( i.e., LPTV to TV translator or vice versa). We seek comment on these proposals and tentative conclusions.

58. In an effort to further reduce the potential for interference to LMR facilities in the 460-470 MHz band from Class A and LPTV/TV translator facilities operating on channel 14, we propose that new and modified channel 14 Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations (Channel 14 LPTV Stations) must use a “full service” or “stringent” emission mask—a “simple” emission mask would be prohibited. We propose that a currently licensed Channel 14 LPTV Station would not be required to make a change to its existing licensed facility, and would only be required to implement filtering with a superior emission mask when proposing modifications to its facility that would change the station's current service contour or to address interference caused to an LMR facility.

59. Interference to LMR facilities from adjacent channel 14 television facilities (full power and low power) has long been a concern of the Commission, including most recently when Class A and LPTV/TV translator television stations converted to digital operations. The Commission's rules currently require that all Class A and LPTV/TV translators stations seeking new or modified facilities specify in their application for construction permit that the station will be constructed to confine out-of-channel emissions using one of the following emission masks: simple, stringent, or full-service. As the Commission pointed out in its Land Mobile Interference Order, instances of interference to LMR facilities from channel 14 television facilities “have been readily resolved by the installation of appropriate filters.” So-called “mask filters” decrease out-of-band emissions to operations on adjacent channels, and in 2011, the Commission amended its rules to permit Class A and LPTV/translator stations to specify the use of masks previously implemented by full power television stations to prevent interference (“full-service masks”). Because of the potential for interference to LMR facilities, construction permits for Channel 14 LPTV Stations also contain a condition requiring permittees, to take measures during equipment tests to identify and substantially eliminate interference which may be caused to existing LMR facilities in the 460 to 470 MHz band. Further, Channel 14 LPTV Stations must provide documentation before operation that interference will not be caused to existing LMR facilities. A similar requirement applies to full power television stations and restrictions on a Start Printed Page 53548 channel 14 station's ability to commence program test authority.

60. Although the three standard mask filters found in our rules do not always resolve LMR interference issues, we believe they remain the most effective means to prevent out-of-band emissions and interference to LMR facilities on 460-470 MHz. Because the stringent and full-service masks are more restrictive than the simple mask and better decrease out-of-band emissions, their use for channel 14 stations would be expected to minimize potential interference to land mobile operations. Therefore, we propose to require all new or modified Channel 14 LPTV Stations to include the use of either stringent or full-service mask filtering unless the station is decreasing power or making a modification to its facilities that does not change its service contour. Based on our prior review, the cost difference between simple, stringent, and full-service mask filters is not substantial and because the filters are generally of similar physical size they should have similar installation costs. Specifically, we estimated in 2018 that the cost of any given mask filter would be similar, with any cost difference being more heavily dependent on the power of the proposed facilities than on the specific type of emission mask. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that any increased cost of requiring Channel 14 LPTV stations to include stringent or full-service mask filters would not be unduly burdensome. Further, we tentatively conclude that the burden caused by any potential slight increase in cost to Channel 14 LPTV Stations would be outweighed by the benefits of reducing complaints from LMR stations, better protecting LMR stations from interference, and preventing wasted investments by Channel 14 LPTV Stations that, for example, install one type of mask filter and then determine that stricter mask filter is needed. We seek comment on this proposal and the burdens and benefits, including our cost assumptions, of requiring stringent or full-service mask filtering by Channel 14 LPTV Stations.

61. We propose to prohibit any LPTV/TV translator stations from operating above channel 36 (out-of-core channels). As part of the Incentive Auction and repacking process, the Commission reallocated TV spectrum above channel 37 (614-698 MHz, the so-called “600 MHz Band”) for use by wireless broadband providers and provided LPTV/TV translator stations that were displaced with an opportunity to file a displacement application to move their facilities to a new in-core channel. Further, the Commission prohibited new operations on out-of-core channels ( i.e., above channel 36). However, in order to provide flexibility for out-of-core stations to construct in-core channel displacement facilities, the Commission allowed out-of-core LPTV/TV translator stations to continue operating on their pre-auction channels until they were notified of likely interference by a new 600 MHz Band licensee.

62. The Incentive Auction closed in 2017 and according to the Commission's records there are currently no LPTV/TV translator stations operating on out-of-core channel. Because all out-of-core stations appear to have received notice from a 600 MHz licensee, they are no longer able to operate on their licensed channels and are currently silent. Accordingly, we find that the flexibility previously afforded out-of-core stations is no longer necessary and we propose to amend our rules to prohibit television operation on all out-of-core channels. We propose that this prohibition would be effective upon publication in the Federal Register of a Report and Order adopting this proposed rule. Any license authorizing operation above channel 36 will be automatically canceled, without affirmative action by the Commission upon the effective date of our proposed rule. We seek comment on these proposals and tentative findings.

63. To further clarify certain Class A and LPTV/TV translator technical rules and policies, we propose changes to our rules as further described below. We propose these changes to promote clarity and ensure that all applicants are treated equally.

64. We propose to require that all transmitters in a Class A or LPTV/TV translator station DTS facility must utilize the same emission mask and we tentatively conclude that all three emission masks found in our rules are permissible. A DTS network employs two or more transmission sites located within a station's service area, each using the same RF channel and synchronized to manage self-interference. To prevent interference to other facilities, all stations must specify an emission mask to be implemented with their DTS facilities. However, unlike full power television stations that may only use “full service” emission masks at each DTS site, the DTS rules adopted for Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations rules do not address whether a different type of emission mask could be employed or whether the same emission mask must be used at each DTS site. We tentatively conclude that allowing Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations to specify different emission masks at each site prevents determination of the proper interference threshold. In order to ensure accurate interference calculations and reduce the potential for interference from Class A and LPTV/TV translator DTS facilities, we tentatively conclude that we should amend our rules to require that all Class A and LPTV DTS sites must utilize the same emission mask. We also tentatively conclude that we should clarify our rules to require that Class A and LPTV/TV translator DTS stations may use any of the emission masks permitted by our rules, so long as the same emission mask is used at all of their DTS transmitter sites. We seek comment on these proposals.

65. We next propose to amend our rules to apply the same requirements to LPTV/TV translator stations as full-power and Class A TV stations when entering into an interference agreement. We also propose to allow stations operating pursuant to interference agreements or that are unilaterally accepting interference from another station, to maintain those agreed upon interference amounts when modifying a facility so long as applications involving stations with agreements remain compliant with those agreements. Currently, Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations are permitted to enter into interference agreements that supersede compliance with our interference protection standards, or to unilaterally accept incoming interference in excess of our 2% interference threshold. However, as our part 74 rules are currently written, when a Class A or LPTV/TV translator station agrees to accept interference above the 2% threshold (accepting station) from another Class A or LPTV/TV translator station (interfering station) and the interfering station subsequently modifies its facilities, the interfering station must reduce the level of interference to the accepting station to less than 2%. We tentatively conclude that this result is not justified when stations have either mutually agreed to, or a station has unilaterally agreed to accept, a certain level of interference.

66. We tentatively conclude that LPTV/TV translator stations seeking to enter into an agreement to resolve interference concerns should be subject Start Printed Page 53549 to the same rules as Class A and full power stations. This includes entering into a signed written agreement that is submitted with the application and making clear that agreements may include the exchange of money or other consideration between entities. We believe codifying these parameters in our rules for LPTV/TV translators is appropriate to provide clarity to licensees and transparency to all. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion.

67. We propose that a Class A and LPTV/TV translator station that has unilaterally agreed to accept interference from another station above the 2% interference threshold in our rules, will have the higher interference percentage taken into account when an application to modify a facility is considered. We also propose that stations subject to written interference agreements may also have the higher interference percentage taken into account, so long as doing so is consistent with the agreement. We propose that a station seeking to modify its facility would be required to demonstrate that no additional interference beyond what was previously caused or accepted will occur as a result of the proposed modification. We tentatively find that this revision will help maintain the status quo and preserve existing service based on agreed upon or unilaterally accepted interference levels. We seek comment on this proposal and our tentative conclusions.

68. We propose to codify that a one square kilometer grid resolution should be the maximum permitted in evaluating the interference to Class A and LPTV/TV translator facilities. In the LPTV DTV First R&O, the Commission concluded that setting a one square kilometer maximum grid resolution was appropriate given that Class A and LPTV/TV translator facilities had smaller service areas and therefore required a finer grid resolution analysis. While the Commission announced this policy in the LPTV DTV First R&O, it was not codified. We note that many Class A and LPTV/TV translator applicants have been required to amend their showings after instead using a grid resolution of two square kilometers in their interference studies. For additional clarity, we propose to retain the one square kilometer maximum grid resolution adopted by the Commission in the LPTV DTV First R&O, and codify the requirement in our rules. We continue to believe that one square kilometer is the appropriate maximum grid resolution given Class A and LPTV/TV translators facilities' smaller service areas. We seek comment on this proposal and, if commenters believe that a different maximum grid resolution should be utilized, they should explain why it will provide a better basis for evaluating interference involving LPTV/TV translator stations.

69. Displacement Public Notice Period. We propose updates to our displacement rule in order to minimize service disruptions. The displacement rule states that displacement applications: “will be placed on public notice for a period of not less than 30 days to permit the filing of petitions to deny.” This comment period was implemented because displacements require channel changes, which create a greater concern for interference. Yet, displacements are considered applications for minor change, and minor change applications are not subject to the 30-day period for interested parties to file a petition to deny. In practice, requiring a displaced LPTV/TV translator station to wait a full 30 days to receive action on its displacement application may result in loss of service to viewers or continued loss of service to viewers by delaying Commission action and thereby a station's ability to construct and commence operating from its displacement facility. To minimize service disruptions to the public, and expedite processing and construction, we propose eliminating the 30 day public notice period for displacement applications found in § 74.787(a)(4) of our rules. While stations could seek special temporary authority in order to resume operation during the pendency of their displacement application, we aim to streamline this process in order to prevent as much disruption in service to the public as possible and provide certainty to stations to plan and make the necessary investments in their new facilities. We do not anticipate that this change will negatively impact the Commission's evaluation of objections to an application. Affected parties that want to oppose grant of a displacement application may still file an objection prior to Commission action and seek reconsideration up to 30 days after the grant. In addition, affected parties may report interference concerns raised by the displacement application at any time. We seek comment on these assumptions and the elimination of the 30-day public notice comment period for displacement applications.

70. Displacements Caused by Full Power Channel Substitutions. We propose to define when an LPTV/TV translator station displaced by a full power station's channel substitution may apply for displacement. A full power television station seeking to change its operating channel must first submit a petition for rulemaking requesting that the Media Bureau change the Table of TV Allotments to reflect the new channel. If approved, the Media Bureau issues a Report and Order making the channel substitution and amending the Table of TV Allotments. It also orders the station to file an application for minor change in order to modify its facilities to the new channel. The Report and Order also includes a date upon which the channel change is effective, typically upon the date of publication of the Report and Order in the Federal Register .

71. An LPTV/TV translator station that is displaced by a full power station's channel substitution must file a displacement application to move its channel. At the same time, the Commission's rules prohibit “contingent applications,” meaning that we will not entertain applications that rely upon action on another pending application. Therefore, despite attempts by some LPTV/TV translator stations to file a displacement application prior to approval of the request to amend the Table of TV Allotments to reflect the channel substitution, Commission staff has declined to consider displacement applications that are based on a full power television station channel substitution until after the Report and Order granting the channel substitution and amending the Table of TV Allotments is effective. To provide clarity, we propose to amend our rules to specify that such displacement applications cannot be filed until the Report and Order granting the channel substitution and amending the Table of TV Allotments is effective. This will ensure that the station is in fact qualified for displacement and prevent stations from prematurely reserving spectrum on a contingent basis. We do not anticipate that this will unduly delay construction of the displacement facility or result in service interruptions as a station granted a channel substitution needs time to construct their new facility, thus providing a displaced station ample time to construct its own facility. Under our proposal, displacement applications that are filed before the Report and Order granting the channel substitution and amending the Table of TV Allotments is effective will be dismissed without prejudice. We seek comment on this proposal. Start Printed Page 53550

72. Displacement Eligibility. We propose to enumerate in the displacement rule the precise circumstances that qualify LPTV/TV translator stations to seek a displacement channel. We also propose to permit displacement based on interference caused to a TV translator's input channel. Our current displacement rule states in part, that an LPTV/TV translator station “which is causing or receiving interference or is predicted to cause or receive interference to or from an authorized TV broadcast station or allotment or other protected station or service, may at any time file a displacement relief application for change in channel . . . .” We believe enumerating the circumstances where displacement applies will make it easier for licensees to determine if their station has in fact been displaced. Further, we propose revising the displacement rule to make clear that applicants must include an exhibit describing the specific cause of displacement in order to allow the Commission to more efficiently review displacement applications.

73. First, we propose to clarify what is meant by “causing or receiving interference.” Under our proposal, this basis for displacement refers to actual interference received by a TV broadcast station ( i.e., a full power television station) from an LPTV or TV translator station. While LPTV/TV translator stations are permitted to cause up to .5% predicted interference to a full power station, as a primary service full power stations are protected from actual interference within their noise limited service contour, even if the predicted interference is within the .5% threshold. In order for an LPTV/TV translator station to qualify for displacement relief based on actual interference caused to a TV broadcast station, we propose that there must be at least (1) a single report of actual interference received by a TV broadcast station within its community of license, or (2) multiple reports of actual interference to a TV broadcast station within its protected contour. We seek comment on how many reports of actual interference should be required in each instance and what information should be provided to validate such claims. For example, the Commission has established a set of criteria that includes a requirement for a minimum number of listener complaints that must be provided to demonstrate actual interference caused by FM translators, ranging from at least 6 to a cap of 25 depending on the population served. To provide certainty and clarity should a similar standard be adopted here? If so, what would be the appropriate threshold of viewer complaints? Should population within an impacted station's protected contour inform the number of complaints required? Is it appropriate for the threshold to be different if the interference is occurring within a TV broadcast station's community of license as opposed to elsewhere within its protected contour? What documentation should stations that claim they are displaced as a result of actual interference be required to file with their displacement application?

74. Second, we propose to revise the displacement rule to clarify the levels of “predicted” interference that would qualify a station for a displacement channel. Under our revised rule, we propose that with respect to predicted interference “caused” to a TV broadcast station, the predicted interference would have to exceed the 0.5% de minimis interference threshold specified in § 74.793(e) of our rules to qualify the station to file a displacement application. With respect to predicted interference “received” from a TV broadcast station, we propose that the predicted interference would have to exceed the 2% interference threshold specified in § 74.793(h) of our rules to qualify the station to file a displacement application. We do not anticipate that this clarification of what is meant by “predicted” interference will materially alter the scope and application of the existing displacement rule. We seek comment on this assumption. This proposal is not intended to expand or restrict displacement eligibility for predicted interference beyond the scope of the current rule. It is also not intended to modify our current interference thresholds ( i.e., 0.5% or 2%). Instead, this proposal is intended to clarify what is meant by the word “predicted” in the context of our current interference thresholds. We seek comment on this proposal.

75. Third, we propose to revise the displacement rule to make clear what “other protected station or service” means by adding two specific situations beyond interference to/from an authorized TV broadcast station that would qualify an LPTV/TV translator station to seek a displacement channel: (1) interference to LMR facilities; (2) interference to/from protected television facilities in Canada and Mexico. We tentatively find that it would be helpful to memorialize in our rules that such circumstances involving “protected” services would qualify an LPTV/TV translator station for displacement.

76. Finally, we propose to add interference caused to a TV translator input channel as a basis for displacement. TV translators serve areas that would otherwise be unable to receive television service and are often found in rural and mountainous areas. Translator input channels provide TV translators a means to receive the programming that they are translating and would otherwise likely not be available over-the-air to the viewers they serve. While translator inputs are not “protected services,” we tentatively conclude it is in the public interest to protect these channels from interference given their often critical role in enabling TV translators to serve their viewers.

77. Enumerating these circumstances within the displacement rule will make it clearer for licensees to know when displacement relief is warranted. We seek comment on these proposals and whether there are other situations involving interference being caused or received by LPTV/TV translator stations to “other protected services,” or that otherwise would serve the public interest, that we should consider permitting as a basis for displacement.

78. We propose to make the Commission's part 73 “program test authority” (PTA) rule applicable to LPTV/TV translator stations. Currently, full power and Class A stations, with certain exceptions, may begin operating under PTA after completion of a facility provided that an application for license to cover is filed within ten days of commencing operations. A similar rule does not exist in the part 74 rules for LPTV/TV translator stations. The purpose of this change is to make clear that LPTV/TV translator stations, with limited exception, have the same flexibility to begin operating automatically pursuant to program authority, while also making clear that they are required to submit an application for license after completing construction and within ten days of commencing PTA. We seek comment on this proposed revision.

79. We propose a few minor editorial changes to our rules as a result of inadvertent oversights in in the 2022 Part 74 Order and 2023 Part 73 Order. We also propose to reorganize § 74.780 to better reflect which part 73 rules are applicable to both LPTV and TV translator stations and which are applicable only to LPTV stations. We seek comment on these proposed minor revisions.

80. Part 74 Rule Corrections. In the Commission's 2022 Part 74 Order, the Start Printed Page 53551 Commission updated its part 74 rules for LPTV/TV translator stations to reflect the current operating environment, including the termination of analog operations. However, the 2022 Part 74 Order inadvertently left in place a duplicate definition of low power TV station that exists in both § 74.701(f) and (k) and a duplicate definition of television broadcast translator station that exists in both § 74.701(a) and (j). We propose to remove the respective duplicate definitions in § 74.701 and re-lettering the remaining paragraphs as (a) through (g). Additionally, the Commission concluded that because LPTV/TV translators have completed their transition from analog to digital operations, there is no need to differentiate between digital and analog in the rules. Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, we propose to remove the remaining instances of the word “digital” from § 74.720, a rule which was added in a rulemaking that had not yet taken effect at the time the 2022 Part 74 Order was adopted. Finally, we propose to eliminate the words “analog” and “digital” as they relate to LPTV operation from §§ 11.11(a) and (b), 11.51(e), and 11.61 in accordance with actions taken in the 2022 Part 74 Order removing such references.

81. Reorganization of Section 74.780. Throughout this item, we propose to add requirements applicable to LPTV stations. Section 74.780 contains a list of broadcast regulations applicable to both TV translators and LPTV stations. In order to make those requirements easier to locate, we propose to reorganize the requirements into paragraphs of the rule and group them based on the service(s) each paragraph is applicable to, separating those rules that are applicable to TV translators and LPTVs from those rules that are applicable to LPTV stations only. In addition, we propose to remove the cross-reference to § 73.1692 found in the current § 74.780 since that section was previously removed from the rules. We seek comment on these proposals.

82. Part 73 Rule Corrections. In the Commission's 2023 Part 73 Report and Order, the Commission reorganized and streamlined its rules in recognition of the completion of the digital television transition and subsequent Incentive Auction and repack. However, a cross-reference to § 73.685 in § 73.7003 was inadvertently overlooked and not updated to reflect the new location of the rule, which is § 73.618. We propose to update this cross-reference to point to the new location of the cross-referenced rule. We also propose to correct two other oversights in § 73.7003. The reference in paragraph (b)(4) to the “Grade B” contour should be replaced with a reference to the “NLSC” because Grade B refers to analog service, which no longer exists and NLSC is the correct contour. Also an internal cross-reference in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) incorrectly refers to a non-existent paragraph and should instead reference paragraph (c)(5)(i) and we propose that correction. We also propose to replace a reference to “DTV” in § 73.619(b)(1) with “TV” consistent with other similar replacements in the 2023 Part 73 Report and Order. The Commission also updated the part 73 rules to provide accurate information about current Commission forms and filing procedures, but did not update the reference to Forms 301 and 340 in § 73.625(c)(4)(i) or Form 302-CA in § 73.6002(a)(2). We propose to update these references to indicate the correct forms—Form 2100 Schedule 301-AM and Form 2100 Schedule F, respectively. Finally, after Federal Register publication, a few minor typographical mistakes were found in the updated part 73 rules, as adopted. In § 73.2080(f)(3), there are four instances of a struck “s” at the end of the word “Form” which was inadvertent and should be removed, and in § 73.4060(a), the citation has a struck “4” in it which should be removed. We seek comment on these proposals.

83. We seek comment on the benefits and costs associated with adopting the proposals set forth in this NPRM. We seek comment on any benefits to the public and to industry through adoption of our proposals. We also seek comment on any potential costs that would be imposed on licensees, regulatees, and the public if we adopt the proposals contained in this NPRM. Comments should be accompanied by specific data and analysis supporting claimed costs and benefits.

84. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.

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

86. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, we have prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible/ Start Printed Page 53552 potential impact of the rule and policy changes contained in this NPRM. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. The Commission invites the general public, in particular small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM indicated on the first page of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

87. OPEN Government Data Act. The OPEN Government Data Act, requires agencies to make “public data assets” available under an open license and as “open Government data assets,” i.e., in machine-readable, open format, unencumbered by use restrictions other than intellectual property rights, and based on an open standard that is maintained by a standards organization. This requirement is to be implemented “in accordance with guidance by the Director” of the OMB.

88. We tentatively conclude that requiring certain LPTV licensees to maintain an OPIF would not create “data assets” as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(17) . A “data asset” is “a collection of data elements or data sets that may be grouped together,” and “data” as “recorded information, regardless of form or the media on which the data is recorded.” The documents required to be maintained in an OPIF reflect unstructured information that is generally not systematically arranged in a table or database, and as such cannot readily be meaningfully grouped together. We tentatively conclude, therefore, that, in the absence of a standardized collection form, our requirement to maintain an OPIF is not subject to the requirements of the OPEN Government Data Act. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

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

90. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on a number of proposals concerning changes to its rules and policies for the Low Power Television Service (LPTV Service). The LPTV Service includes low power television (LPTV), television translator (TV translator) and Class A television stations. The Commission believes now is an appropriate time to evaluate changes to its rules and policies in order to ensure that stations in the LPTV Service continue to flourish and serve the public interest of providing local television service to unserved or underserved viewers.

91. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should update its recordkeeping requirements to require LPTV stations affiliated with a top-four national television network (ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox) to comply with the same online public inspection file (OPIF) requirements that apply to full power and Class A television stations. The Commission seeks comment on whether to include other LPTV network affiliates in the requirement to maintain an OPIF or, rather than tying any OPIF requirement for LPTV stations to network affiliation, or whether we should instead apply the OPIF requirement to the top-four LPTV stations in each market based on the Nielsen ratings. The Commission propose to update certain broadcasting rules that are applicable to all LPTV stations to identify more clearly where records can be accessed.

92. The NPRM also proposes changes to the Commission's rules and policies to help stations in the LPTV Service to be better prepared for future operations and enhance the LPTV Service overall. Many of the proposals would also affect Class A television (Class A) stations, therefore, comment is also sought from these stations. To resolve certain rule uncertainties and ensure that Class A and LPTV/TV translator stations are operating to their fullest potential and that licensees are not warehousing spectrum, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on a number of proposals including whether to:

Remove duplicate definitions and re-letter the definitions remaining in the part 74 rules, and make other editorial, non-substantive corrections to the part 11, 73, and 74 rules. Start Printed Page 53553

93. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 303, 307, 309, 311, 312, and 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 , 152 , 154(i) , 154(j) , 303 , 307 , 309 , 311 , 312 , 315 .

94. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.

95. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses.

96. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.

97. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

98. Television Broadcasting. This industry is comprised of “establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” These establishments operate television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts as small. 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 744 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of that number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000. Based on this data we estimate that the majority of television broadcasters are small entities under the SBA small business size standard.

99. As of March 31, 2024, there were 1,382 licensed commercial television stations. Of this total, 1,263 stations (or 91.4%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2022, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on April 4, 2024, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission estimates as of March 31, 2024, there were 383 licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 379 Class A TV stations, 1,829 LPTV stations and 3,118 TV translator stations. The Commission, however, does not compile and otherwise does not have access to financial information for these television broadcast stations that would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard. Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of these television station licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

100. The NPRM proposes new reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for Class A, LPTV and TV translator stations, many of which include small entities. Although, the Commission cannot, at present, determine whether small entities will have to hire professionals to implement and comply with the NPRM's proposed requirements, nor can it quantify the cost of compliance for small entities, we expect that the approaches we propose will have minimal cost implications for impacted entities because many of these requirements are part of existing reporting processes for these entities.

101. The proposed changes to our rules and policies are designed to ensure that LPTV service continues to serve the public interest. This includes updates to our recordkeeping requirements for LPTV stations that will centralize those records in an online public inspection file (OPIF) to make that information more easily accessible to the public while, at the same time, minimizing existing burdens associated with compliance. The NPRM seeks comment on whether to require that licensees of LPTV stations affiliated with a top-four TV network comply with § 73.3526 of the Commission's rules, which would require them to maintain certain records in the Commission's OPIF. We also invite comment on whether we should include other LPTV network affiliates in the requirement to maintain an OPIF. In addition, rather than tying any OPIF requirement for LPTV stations to network affiliation, we invite comment on whether we should instead apply the OPIF requirement to the top-four LPTV stations in each market based on the Nielsen ratings. Transitioning these LPTV stations to the online public file would improve public access to certain station records. Start Printed Page 53554

102. The NPRM also proposes to update the list of political programming rules applicable to LPTV stations to align with existing and longstanding statutory requirements, and to revise § 74.781 of our rules to require that LPTV stations without an OPIF requirement maintain documents for public inspection. In addition, we propose to make other changes to § 73.3526 of our rules to correct cross references and other inaccuracies, clarify existing requirements, establish a filing frequency for Class A stations to certify they have met their ongoing eligibility requirements, and require Class A and LPTV stations to disclose time brokerage agreements (TBAs) and joint service agreements (JSAs).

103. We propose requiring that LPTV and TV translator stations file an application for modification of license in order to change their community of license. Existing FCC Forms 2100 Schedule D (LPTV/TV translator) and F (Class A) will be used for this proposed requirement and no changes to the Forms are anticipated except for the burden estimates for the existing collections for these Forms. We also propose that LPTV/TV translator stations certify in applications for minor change or license that they are in compliance with any minimum operating requirements adopted in this proceeding. Existing FCC Form 2100 Schedule C and D would be modified and used for this requirement.

104. The NPRM proposes to require that LPTV/TV translator stations that seek to change their designation from LPTV to TV translator and vice versa, be required to seek formal authority to make this change. Existing FCC Form 2100 Schedule D would be used for this proposed requirement and no changes to the Form are anticipated except for the burden estimates for the existing collection for this Form. Finally, the NPRM proposes minimum operating hours of no less than 14 hours per week for LPTV stations.

105. The NPRM also proposes minimum operating hours of no less than 14 hours per week for LPTV stations. We anticipate the information we receive in comments including where requested, cost and benefit analyses, will help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters for small entities, including compliance costs and other burdens that may result from the proposals and inquiries we make in the NPRM.

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

107. The Commission proposes a number of alternatives that may have a significant impact on small entities. The NPRM seeks comment on whether to require LPTV stations affiliated with a top-four TV network to comply with section 73.3526 of the Commission's rules, which requires stations to maintain certain records for public inspection in the Commission's OPIF database. By limiting the proposal to LPTV stations affiliated with a top-four TV network, this approach would limit this obligation to a smaller number of LPTV stations that have widely-viewed programming and are therefore likely to have greater resources. Alternatively, the NPRM asks whether we should include other LPTV network affiliates in the requirement to maintain an OPIF or, rather than tying any OPIF requirement for LPTV stations to network affiliation, whether we should instead apply the OPIF requirement to the top-four LPTV stations in each market based on the Nielsen ratings.

108. If we were to require certain LPTV stations to comply with § 73.3526, the NPRM proposes to take similar measures to reduce the burden on these LPTV stations that the Commission took when it transitioned full power and Class A TV stations and other media entities to OPIF. Specifically, we propose to require LPTV stations to upload only those items required to be in the public file but not otherwise filed with the Commission or available on the Commission's website. Any document or information required to be kept in the public file and that is required to be filed with the Commission electronically would be imported to the online public file and updated by the Commission. In addition, if we require certain LPTV stations to maintain records in OPIF, instead of paper file, LPTV stations may have initial costs, but the effort by small stations and their related costs over time will be minimized by exempting existing political file material from the online file requirement and by requiring only that political file documents be uploaded on a going-forward basis, similar to our approach with respect to other entities that have already transitioned to OPIF. Additionally, the NPRM recommends that LPTV stations be required to operate not less than 14 hours per calendar week instead of requiring the daily operational requirements of commercial full power stations, thereby allowing the flexibility needed for LPTV stations without traditional hours to serve their viewers.

109. The remaining alternatives proposed by the Commission in the NPRM were considered to be the least costly and/or minimally burdensome for small and other entities impacted by the rules. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic impact and alternatives for small entities following the review of comments filed in response to the NPRM.

111. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 303, 307, 309, 311, 312, and 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 , 152 , 154(i) , 154(j) , 303 , 307 , 309 , 311 , 312 , 315 this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted .

112. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

Katura Jackson,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Start Printed Page 53555 Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 11 , 73 , and 74 to read as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151 , 154(i) and (o) , 303(r) , 544(g) , 606 , 1201 , 1206 .

2. Section 11.11 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text, table 1 to paragraph (a), and paragraph (b) to read as follows:

(a) The EAS is composed of analog radio broadcast stations including AM, FM, and Low-power FM (LPFM) stations; digital audio broadcasting (DAB) stations, including digital AM, FM, and Low-power FM stations; television (TV) broadcast stations, including Class A and low-power TV (LPTV) stations; analog cable systems; digital cable systems which are defined for purposes of this part only as the portion of a cable system that delivers channels in digital format to subscribers at the input of a Unidirectional Digital Cable Product or other navigation device; wireline video systems; wireless cable systems which may consist of Broadband Radio Service (BRS), or Educational Broadband Service (EBS) stations; DBS services, as defined in § 25.701(a) of this chapter (including certain Ku-band Fixed-Satellite Service Direct to Home providers); and SDARS, as defined in § 25.201 of this chapter. These entities are referred to collectively as EAS Participants in this part, and are subject to this part, except as otherwise provided herein. At a minimum EAS Participants must use a common EAS protocol, as defined in § 11.31, to send and receive emergency alerts, and comply with the requirements set forth in § 11.56, in accordance with the following tables:

Table 1—Analog and Digital Broadcast Station Equipment Deployment Requirements

EAS equipment requirementAM & FMDigital AM & FMAnalog & digital FM class DAnalog & digital LPFMTVClass A TVLPTVEAS decoder YYYYYYYEAS encoderYYNNYYNAudio messageYYYYYYYVideo messageN/AN/AN/AN/AYYY EAS Participants may comply with the obligations set forth in § 11.56 to decode and convert CAP-formatted messages into EAS Protocol-compliant messages by deploying an Intermediary Device, as specified in § 11.56(b).

(b) Analog class D non-commercial educational FM stations as defined in § 73.506 of this chapter, digital class D non-commercial educational FM stations, analog LPFM stations as defined in §§ 73.811 and 73.853 of this chapter, digital LPFM stations, and LPTV stations as defined in § 74.701(b) of this chapter are not required to comply with § 11.32. Television broadcast translator stations, as defined in § 74.701(a) of this chapter, which entirely rebroadcast the programming of other broadcast televisions stations are not required to comply with the requirements of this part. FM broadcast booster stations as defined in § 74.1201(f) of this chapter and FM translator stations as defined in § 74.1201(a) of this chapter which entirely rebroadcast the programming of other local FM broadcast stations are not required to comply with the requirements of this part. International broadcast stations as defined in § 73.701 of this chapter are not required to comply with the requirements of this part. Analog and digital broadcast stations that operate as satellites or repeaters of a hub station (or common studio or control point if there is no hub station) and rebroadcast 100 percent of the programming of the hub station (or common studio or control point) may satisfy the requirements of this part through the use of a single set of EAS equipment at the hub station (or common studio or control point) which complies with §§ 11.32 and 11.33.

3. Section 11.51 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

(e) Analog class D non-commercial educational FM stations as defined in § 73.506 of this chapter, digital class D non-commercial educational FM stations, analog Low Power FM (LPFM) stations as defined in §§ 73.811 and 73.853 of this chapter, digital LPFM stations, and LPTV stations as defined in § 74.701(b) of this chapter are not required to have equipment capable of generating the EAS codes and Attention Signal specified in § 11.31.

4. Section 11.61 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(A), and (a)(2)(ii) to read as follows:

(i) Tests in odd numbered months shall occur between 8:30 a.m. and local sunset. Tests in even numbered months shall occur between local sunset and 8:30 a.m. They will originate from Local or State Primary sources. The time and script content will be developed by State Emergency Communications Committees in cooperation with affected EAS Participants. Script content may be in the primary language of the EAS Participant. These monthly tests must be transmitted within 60 minutes of receipt by EAS Participants in an EAS Local Area or State. Analog and digital class D non-commercial educational FM, analog and digital LPFM stations, and LPTV stations are required to transmit only the test script.

(A) Analog and digital AM, FM, and TV broadcast stations must conduct tests of the EAS header and EOM codes at least once a week at random days and times. DAB and TV stations must conduct these tests on all program streams.

(ii) DBS providers, SDARS providers, analog and digital class D non-commercial educational FM stations, analog and digital LPFM stations, and LPTV stations are not required to transmit this test but must log receipt, as specified in § 11.35(a) and 11.54(a)(3).

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

Start Printed Page 53556 Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154 , 155 , 301 , 303 , 307 , 309 , 310 , 334 , 336 , 339 .

6. Section 73.619 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

(1) In predicting the distance to the field strength contours, the F (50,50) field strength charts (Figures 9, 10 and 10b of § 73.699) and the F (50,10) field strength charts (Figures 9a, 10a and 10c of § 73.699) shall be used. To use the charts to predict the distance to a given F (50,90) contour, the following procedure is used: Convert the effective radiated power in kilowatts for the appropriate azimuth into decibel value referenced to 1 kW (dBk). Subtract the power value in dBk from the contour value in dBu. Note that for power less than 1 kW, the difference value will be greater than the contour value because the power in dBk is negative. Locate the difference value obtained on the vertical scale at the left edge of the appropriate F (50,50) chart for the TV station's channel. Follow the horizontal line for that value into the chart to the point of intersection with the vertical line above the height of the antenna above average terrain for the appropriate azimuth located on the scale at the bottom of the chart. If the point of intersection does not fall exactly on a distance curve, interpolate between the distance curves below and above the intersection point. The distance values for the curves are located along the right edge of the chart. Using the appropriate F (50,10) chart for the TV station's channel, locate the point where the distance coincides with the vertical line above the height of the antenna above average terrain for the appropriate azimuth located on the scale at the bottom of the chart. Follow a horizontal line from that point to the left edge of the chart to determine the F (50,10) difference value. Add the power value in dBk to this difference value to determine the F (50,10) contour value in dBu. Subtract the F (50,50) contour value in dBu from this F (50,10) contour value in dBu. Subtract this difference from the F (50,50) contour value in dBu to determine the F (50,90) contour value in dBu at the pertinent distance along the pertinent radial.

7. Section 73.625 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(4)(i) to read as follows:

(i) In cases where it is proposed to use a tower of an AM broadcast station as a supporting structure for a TV broadcast antenna, an appropriate application for changes in the radiating system of the AM broadcast station must be filed by the licensee thereof. A formal application (FCC Form 2100 Schedule 301-AM) will be required if the proposal involves substantial change in the physical height or radiation characteristics of the AM broadcast antennas; otherwise an informal application will be acceptable. (In case of doubt, an informal application (letter) together with complete engineering data should be submitted.) An application may be required for other classes of stations when the tower is to be used in connection with a TV station.

8. Section 73.2080 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:

(3) If a station is subject to a time brokerage agreement, the licensee shall file Form 2100 Schedule 396 and EEO public file reports concerning only its own recruitment activity. If a licensee is a broker of another station or stations, the licensee-broker shall include its recruitment activity for the brokered station(s) in determining the bases of Form 2100 Schedule 396 and the EEO public file reports for its own station. If a licensee-broker owns more than one station, it shall include its recruitment activity for the brokered station in the Form 2100 Schedule 396 and EEO public file reports filed for its own station that is most closely affiliated with, and in the same market as, the brokered station. If a licensee-broker does not own a station in the same market as the brokered station, then it shall include its recruitment activity for the brokered station in the Form 2100 Schedule 396 and EEO public file reports filed for its own station that is geographically closest to the brokered station.

9. Section 73.3526 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (e)(11)(iii), and (e)(14) through (17) to read as follows:

(2) Every permittee or licensee of an AM, FM, TV, or Class A TV station in the commercial broadcast services, and every permittee or licensee of an LPTV station affiliated with a top-four TV network (ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox), shall maintain a public inspection file containing the material, relating to that station, described in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(10) and paragraphs (e)(13) and (e)(19) of this section. In addition, every permittee or licensee of a commercial TV station shall maintain for public inspection a file containing material, relating to that station, described in paragraphs (e)(11) and (e)(14), (e)(15), (e)(16), and (e)(18) of this section, every permittee or licensee of a Class A TV station shall maintain for public inspection a file containing material, relating to that station, described in paragraphs (e)(11), (e)(14), (e)(15), (e)(16) and (e)(17)of this section, every permittee or licensee of an LPTV station affiliated with a top-four TV network shall maintain for public inspection a file containing material, relating to that station, described in paragraphs (e)(14), (e)(15), and (e)(16) of this section, and every permittee or licensee of a commercial AM or FM station shall maintain for public inspection a file containing the material, relating to that station, described in paragraphs (e)(12), (e)(14), and (e)(16) of this section. A separate file shall be maintained for each station for which an authorization is outstanding, and the file shall be maintained so long as an authorization to operate the station is outstanding.

(iii) Children's television programming reports. For commercial TV and Class A broadcast stations on an annual basis, a completed Children's Television Programming Report (“Report”), on FCC Form 2100 Schedule H, reflecting efforts made by the licensee during the preceding year to serve the educational and informational needs of children. The Report is to be electronically filed with the Commission by the thirtieth (30) day of the succeeding calendar year. A copy of the Report will also be linked to the station's online public inspection file by the FCC. The Report shall identify the licensee's educational and informational programming efforts, including programs aired by the station that are specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children. 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. These Reports Start Printed Page 53557 shall be retained in the public inspection file until final action has been taken on the station's next license renewal application.

(14) Radio and television time brokerage agreements. For commercial radio and television stations, and LPTV stations affiliated with a top-four TV network, a copy of every agreement or contract involving time brokerage of the licensee's station or of another station by the licensee, whether the agreement involves stations in the same markets or in differing markets, with confidential or proprietary information redacted where appropriate. These agreements shall be placed in the public file within 30 days of execution and retained in the file as long as the contract or agreement is in force.

(15) Must-carry or retransmission consent election. Statements of a commercial television or Class A television station's election, or the election of an LPTV station affiliated with a top-four TV network, with respect to either must-carry or re-transmission consent, as defined in §§ 76.64 and 76.1608 of this chapter. These records shall be retained for the duration of the three year election period to which the statement applies. Commercial television stations shall, no later than July 31, 2020, provide an up-to-date email address and phone number for carriage-related questions and respond as soon as is reasonably possible to messages or calls from multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs). Each commercial television station is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of the information furnished.

(16) Radio and television joint sales agreements. For commercial radio and commercial television stations, and for LPTV stations affiliated with a top-four TV network, a copy of agreement for the joint sale of advertising time involving the station, whether the agreement involves stations in the same markets or in differing markets, with confidential or proprietary information redacted where appropriate. These agreements shall be placed in the public file within 30 days of execution and retained in the file as long as the contract or agreement is in force.

(17) Class A TV continuing eligibility. Documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the Class A television station is continuing to meet the eligibility requirements set forth at § 73.6001. Such documentation must be filed every calendar quarter by the tenth day of the succeeding calendar quarter ( e.g., January 10 for the quarter October-December, April 10 for the quarter January-March, etc.). The documentation shall include a certification that the Class A television station is continuing to meet the eligibility requirements set forth at § 73.6001 and shall include, but shall not be limited to, the time, date, duration, and title of each locally produced program that was aired during that calendar quarter. The documentation described in this paragraph shall be retained in the public inspection file until final action has been taken on the station's next license renewal application.

10. Section 73.3572 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

(2) In the case of Class A TV stations authorized under subpart J of this part and low power TV and TV translator stations authorized under part 74 of this chapter, major or minor changes are defined in § 74.787(b).

11. Section 73.3580 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

(3) Locally originating programming. Programming from a low power television (LPTV) or television translator station as defined in § 74.701(g) of this chapter.

12. Section 73.4060 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

(a) See Report and Order, Docket 20495, FCC 75-1359, adopted December 10, 1975. 57 F.C.C. 2d 42; 40 FR 59730 , December 30, 1975.

13. Section 73.6001 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

(d) Licensees unable to continue to meet the minimum operating requirements for Class A television stations, or which elect to revert to low power television status, shall promptly notify the Commission, in writing, and request a change in status. The station's call sign will be modified to one consistent with the requirements of § 74.791(c) following reversion to low power television status.

14. Amend § 73.6002 by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

(2) Files an acceptable application for a Class A Television license (FCC Form 2100 Schedule F).

(b) Community coverage requirements.

(1) A Class A station's protected contour (see § 73.6010 of this subpart) is required to overlap with at least a portion of its community of license.

(2) To change a Class A station's community of license, a modification of license must be filed specifying the new community and including an exhibit indicating that the protected contour of the facility specified in the license to cover overlaps with at least a portion of the proposed community of license. A station may change its community of license no more than once every 12 months.

(3) For purposes of determining whether a community of license's boundary overlaps with a station's protected service contour, an applicant shall use the legal boundary of the community as may be designated by any Federal, state, local, or tribal governmental entity.

15. Section 73.6017 is revised to read as follows:

An application to change the facilities of a Class A TV station will not be accepted if it fails to protect authorized Class A stations in accordance with the requirements of § 74.793 (b) through (d), (g), and (j) of this chapter. This protection must be afforded to applications for changes in other authorized Class A stations filed prior to the date the Class A application is filed.

16. Section 73.6019 is revised to read as follows:

An application to change the facilities of a Class A TV station will not be accepted if it fails to protect authorized low power TV and TV translator stations in accordance with the requirements of § 74.793(b) through (d), (h), and (j) of this chapter. This protection must be afforded to applications for changes filed prior to the date the Class A station is filed. Start Printed Page 53558

17. Section 73.6023 is amended by adding paragraph (f)(6) to read as follows:

(6) All DTS transmitters must use the same emission mask. See § 73.6024(d) of this subpart regarding permissible emission masks.

18. Section 73.7003 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4), and (c)(5)(ii) to read as follows:

(2) Local diversity of ownership. Two points for applicants with no attributable interests, as defined in § 73.7000, in any other broadcast station or authorized construction permit (comparing radio to radio and television to television) whose principal community (city grade) contour overlaps that of the proposed station. The principal community (city grade) contour is the 5 mV/m for AM stations, the 3.16 mV/m for FM stations calculated in accordance with § 73.313(c), and the contour identified in § 73.618(a) for TV. Radio applicants will count commercial and noncommercial AM, FM, and FM translator stations other than fill-in stations. Television applicants will count UHF, VHF, and Class A stations.

(4) Technical parameters. One point to the applicant covering the largest geographic area and population with its relevant contour (60 dBu for FM and NLSC for TV), provided that the applicant covers both a ten percent greater area and a ten percent greater population than the applicant with the next best technical proposal. The top applicant will receive two points instead of one point if its technical proposal covers both a 25 percent greater area and 25 percent greater population than the next best technical proposal.)

(ii) Groups of more than three tied, grantable applications will not be eligible for licensing under this section. Where such groups exist, the Commission will dismiss all but the applications of the three applicants that have been local, as defined in § 73.7000, for the longest uninterrupted periods of time. The Commission will then process the remaining applications as set forth in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section.

19. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154 , 302a , 303 , 307 , 309 , 310 , 325 , 336 and 554 .

20. Section 74.701 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) through (g), and removing paragraphs (h) through (m) to read as follows:

(a) Television broadcast translator station (TV translator). A station operated for the purpose of retransmitting the programs and signals of a television broadcast station, without significantly altering any characteristic of the original signal other than its frequency, for the purpose of providing television reception to the general public.

(b) Low power TV station (LPTV). A station authorized under the provisions of this subpart that may retransmit the programs and signals of a television broadcast station, may originate programming in any amount greater than 30 seconds per hour for the purpose of providing television reception to the general public and, subject to a minimum video program service requirement, may offer services of an ancillary or supplementary nature, including subscription-based services. (See § 74.790.)

(e) Primary station. The television station which provides the programs and signals being retransmitted by a television broadcast translator station.

(f) Existing low power television or television translator station. When used in this subpart, the terms existing low power television and existing television translator station refer to a low power television station or television translator station that is either licensed or has a valid construction permit.

(g) Local origination. For purposes of this part, local origination shall be any transmissions other than the simultaneous retransmission of the programs and signals of a TV broadcast station or transmissions related to service offerings of an ancillary or supplementary nature. Origination shall include locally generated television program signals and program signals obtained via video recordings (tapes and discs), microwave, common carrier circuits, or other sources.

21. Section 74.720 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a) and (b), adding paragraph (e)(6), and revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

(a) A low power TV or TV translator (LPTV) station may be authorized to operate multiple synchronized transmitters on its assigned channel to provide service consistent with the requirements of this section. Such operation is called a distributed transmission system (DTS). Except as expressly provided in this section, LPTV stations operating a DTS facility must comply with all rules in this part applicable to LPTV single-transmitter stations.

(b) For purposes of compliance with this section, a LPTV station's “authorized facility” is the facility authorized for the station in a license or construction permit for non-DTS, single-transmitter-location operation. An LPTV station's “authorized service area” is defined as the area within its protected contour (described by § 74.792) as determined using the authorized facility.

(6) All DTS transmitters must use the same emission mask. See § 74.794 of this subpart regarding permissible emission masks.

(f) All transmitters operating under a single LPTV DTS license must follow the same broadcast television transmission standard.

22. Section 74.732 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:

(d) The FCC will not act on applications for new low power TV or TV translator stations, or for changes in facilities of existing stations, when such changes will result in a major change, until the applicable time for filing a petition to deny has passed pursuant to section 73.3584(c) of this subpart.

(e) A proposal to change the primary TV station(s) being retransmitted will be subject only to a notification requirement.

23. Section 74.763 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

(a) Stations authorized subject to this subpart are required to operate with the following schedules: Start Printed Page 53559

(1) The licensee of a low power TV station is required to air a minimum of 14 hours per calendar week of programming. Such operation must be consistent with § 73.1740(a)(2)(iii).

(2) The licensee of a TV translator, DRT, or DTDRT station is required to provide service to the extent that such is within its control and to avoid unwarranted interruptions in the service provided.

(3) All LPTV or TV translator station applicants for construction permits for minor or major modification of a licensed facility or applicants for renewal of a license must certify that the station has complied with the minimum operating requirement for its class of service set forth in this section. If an applicant cannot make such a certification, it must explain why and demonstrate that grant of such application is in the public interest.

24. Section 74.780 is revised to read as follows:

(a) The following rules are applicable to TV translator and low power TV stations:

(1) 47 CFR part 5 —Experimental authorizations.

(2) 47 CFR 73.658 —Affiliation agreements and network program practices; territorial exclusivity in non-network program arrangements.

(3) 47 CFR 73.1030 —Notifications concerning interference to radio astronomy, research, and receiving installations.

(4) 47 CFR 73.1206 —Broadcast of telephone conversations.

(5) 47 CFR 73.1207 —Rebroadcasts.

(6) 47 CFR 73.1208 —Broadcast of taped, filmed, or recorded material.

(7) 47 CFR 73.1211 —Broadcast of lottery information.

(8) 47 CFR 73.1212 —Sponsorship identifications; list retention; related requirements.

(9) 47 CFR 73.1216 —Licensee-conducted contests.

(10) 47 CFR 73.1515 —Special field test authorizations.

(11) 47 CFR 73.1615 —Operation during modification of facilities.

(12) 47 CFR 73.1620 —Program tests.

(13) 47 CFR 73.1635 —Special temporary authorizations (STA).

(14) 47 CFR 73.1650 —International agreements.

(15) 47 CFR 73.1680 —Emergency antennas.

(16) 47 CFR 73.1740(a)(2)(iii) —Minimum operating schedule.

(17) 47 CFR 73.1940 —Legally qualified candidates for public office.

(18) 47 CFR 73.3500 —Application and report forms.

(19) 47 CFR 73.3511 —Applications required.

(20) 47 CFR 73.3512 —Where to file; number of copies.

(21) 47 CFR 73.3513 —Signing of applications.

(22) 47 CFR 73.3514 —Content of applications.

(23) 47 CFR 73.3516 —Specification of facilities.

(24) 47 CFR 73.3517 —Contingent applications.

(25) 47 CFR 73.3518 —Inconsistent or conflicting applications.

(26) 47 CFR 73.3519 —Repetitious applications.

(27) 47 CFR 73.3521 —Mutually exclusive applications for low power TV and TV translator stations.

(28) 47 CFR 73.3522 —Amendment of applications.

(29) 47 CFR 73.3525 —Agreements for removing application conflicts.

(30) 47 CFR 73.3533 —Application for construction permit or modification of construction permit.

(31) 47 CFR 73.3536 —Application for license to cover construction permit.

(32) 47 CFR 73.3538(a)(1) , (3) , and (4) and (b) —Application to make changes in an existing station.

(33) 47 CFR 73.3539 —Application for renewal of license.

(34) 47 CFR 73.3540 —Application for voluntary assignment or transfer of control.

(35) 47 CFR 73.3541 —Application for involuntary assignment of license or transfer of control.

(36) 47 CFR 73.3542 —Application for emergency authorization.

(37) 47 CFR 73.3544 —Application to obtain a modified station license.

(38) 47 CFR 73.3545 —Application for permit to deliver programs to foreign stations.

(39) 47 CFR 73.3550 —Requests for new or modified call sign assignments.

(40) 47 CFR 73.3561 —Staff consideration of applications requiring Commission action.

(41) 47 CFR 73.3562 —Staff consideration of applications not requiring action by the Commission.

(42) 47 CFR 73.3564 —Acceptance of applications.

(43) 47 CFR 73.3566 —Defective applications.

(44) 47 CFR 73.3568 —Dismissal of applications.

(45) 47 CFR 73.3572 —Processing of TV broadcast, low power TV, and TV translator station applications.

(46) 47 CFR 73.3580 —Local public notice of filing of broadcast applications.

(47) 47 CFR 73.3584 —Petitions to deny.

(48) 47 CFR 73.3587 —Informal objections.

(49) 47 CFR 73.3591 —Grants without hearing.

(50) 47 CFR 73.3593 —Designation for hearing.

(51) 47 CFR 73.3594 —Local public notice of designation for hearing.

(52) 47 CFR 73.3597 —Procedures on transfer and assignment applications.

(53) 47 CFR 73.3598 —Period of construction.

(54) 47 CFR 73.3601 —Simultaneous modification and renewal of license.

(55) 47 CFR 73.3603 —Special waiver procedure relative to applications.

(b) The following rules are applicable to low power TV stations only:

(1) 47 CFR part 11 —Emergency Alert System.

(2) 47 CFR 73.1941 —Equal opportunities.

(3) 47 CFR 73.1942 —Candidate rates.

(4) 47 CFR 73.1943 —Political file.

(5) 47 CFR 73.1944 —Reasonable access.

(6) 47 CFR 73.2080 —Equal employment opportunities.

(7) 47 CFR 73.3526 —Online public inspection file of commercial stations.

(8) 47 CFR 73.3612 —Annual employment report.

(9) 47 CFR 73.3613 —Availability to FCC of station contracts (network affiliation contracts only).

25. Section 74.781 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

(c) LPTV stations affiliated with a top-four TV network (ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox) must maintain an OPIF consistent with § 73.3526 of this Chapter. For LPTV records in this section not required to be included in OPIF and for translator stations, the station records shall be maintained for public inspection at a residence, office, or public building, place of business, or other suitable place, in one of the communities of license of the LPTV or translator, except that the station records of a translator licensed to the licensee of the primary station may be kept at the same place where the primary station records are kept. The station records shall also be made available upon request to any authorized representative of the Commission.

26. Section 74.783 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) to read as follows:

(a) Each low power TV station as defined by § 74.701(b) must transmit its Start Printed Page 53560 station identification using one of the following methods:

(1) When originating programming, as defined by § 74.701(g), a low power TV station may use the station identification procedures given in § 73.1201 of this chapter on its primary stream. Other streams may use the method in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The identification procedures given in the remainder of this paragraph are to be used at any time the station is not originating programming; or

27. Section 74.784 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

(e) The provisions of § 73.1207 of part 73 of this chapter apply to low power TV stations in transmitting any material during periods of local origination obtained from the transmissions of any other type of station.

28. Section 74.787 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(1)(iii) to read as follows:

(1) Community coverage requirements. (i) A low power TV or TV translator station's protected contour (see § 74.792) is required to overlap with at least a portion of its community of license.

(ii) To change a low power TV or TV translator station's community of license, a modification of license must be filed specifying the new community and including an exhibit indicating that the protected contour of the facility specified in the license to cover overlaps with at least a portion of the proposed community of license. A station may change its community of license no more than once every 12 months.

(iii) For purposes of determining whether a community of license's boundary overlaps with a station's protected service contour, an applicant shall use the legal boundary of the community as may be designated by any Federal, state, local, or tribal governmental entity.

(2) Conversion between low power TV and TV translator.

(i) A TV translator station may convert to a low power TV station by filing a modification of license requesting the conversion. The station's call sign must be modified to one consistent with § 74.791(c) after converting to a low power TV station.

(ii) A low power TV station may convert to a TV translator station by filing a modification of license requesting the conversion. It shall specify the facility ID and call sign of the station(s) to be translated in its filing. The station's call sign will be modified to one consistent with § 74.791(b) after converting to a TV translator station.

(4) Displacement applications. (i) Stations eligible to file displacement applications must meet at least one of the following requirements:

(A) Cause actual interference at multiple locations within a TV broadcast station's noise-limited service contour (See § 73.619(c)). If the interference is within the community of license of the TV broadcast station, then a single report of interference is sufficient for displacement.

(B) Cause predicted interference beyond the amount specified in § 74.792(e) with respect to a TV broadcast station, allotment, or other protected station or service, except if such interference has been previously accepted.

(C) Receive predicted interference beyond the amount specified in § 74.792(h) with respect to a TV broadcast station, allotment, or other protected station or service, except if such interference has been previously accepted.

(D) Cause interference to the input channel of a TV translator, DRT, or DTDRT station either located at the same or a nearby location as the existing low power TV, TV translator, DRT, or DTDRT operation.

(E) Cause interference to land mobile operations such that it must otherwise cease operations consistent with § 74.703(e).

(F) Is predicted to cause or receive interference to or from an authorized TV broadcast station or allotment with respect to protected foreign stations.

(ii) In the event a channel substitution in the Table of TV Allotments is the cause of a station's displacement, the displacement permit may not be granted prior to the grant of the construction permit of the station which requested the channel substitution. Further, a displaced station may only file an application for displacement relief after the channel substitution is final.

(iii) Eligible stations may file a displacement relief application on FCC Form 2100, Schedule C for change in channel at any time, together with technical modifications that are necessary to avoid interference or continue serving the station's protected service area. The application should indicate the specific cause of displacement from paragraph (i) of this section. Such applications are treated as minor modifications and must be consistent with paragraph (b) of this section.

(iv) Displacement relief applications will not be subject to the filing of competing applications.

(v) Where a displacement relief application for a low power television or television translator station becomes mutually exclusive with the application(s) for new low power television or television translator stations, or with other non-displacement relief applications for facilities modifications of low power television or television translator stations, priority will be afforded to the displacement application for the low power television or television translator station to the exclusion of other applications, except as otherwise specified with respect to DRTs and DTDRTs in paragraph (a)(5)(iii).

(vi) Mutually exclusive displacement relief applications for low power television and television translator stations shall be resolved via the Commission's part 1 and broadcast competitive bidding rules, §§ 1.2100 through 1.2199, and 73.5000 through 73.5009 of this chapter. Such applicants shall be afforded an opportunity to submit settlements and engineering solutions to resolve mutual exclusivity pursuant to § 73.5002(d) of this chapter.

(iii) Any change in transmitting antenna location of greater than 48.3 kilometers from the coordinates of the existing antenna location.

29. Section 74.790 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(2) and adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:

(2) For the origination of programming and commercial matter as defined in § 74.701(g).

(p) No broadcast television stations are permitted to operate on channels above 36.

30. Section 74.791 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (c) to read as follows:

(a) New low power and television translator stations. Call signs for new Start Printed Page 53561 low power television and television translator stations will be made up of a prefix consisting of the initial letter K or W followed by the channel number assigned to the station and two additional letters and a suffix consisting of the letters -D, consistent with paragraph (d) of this section. Prior to filing a license to cover, a new low power television station must modify its call sign to be consistent with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Television translator stations. Call signs for television translator stations will be made up of a prefix consisting of the initial letter K or W followed by the channel number assigned to the station and two additional letters and a suffix consisting of the letter -D, consistent with paragraph (d) of this section.

(c) Low power television stations and Class A television stations. Low power television and Class A television stations will be made up of a call sign with a four-letter prefix pursuant to § 73.3550 of this chapter along with a two-letter suffix. Low power stations will be assigned the suffix -LD and Class A stations will be assigned the suffix -CD.

31. Section 74.793 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows:

(b) Except as provided in this section, interference prediction analysis is based on the interference thresholds (D/U signal strength ratios) and other criteria and methods specified in § 73.620 of this chapter. The 2 km cell size specified in § 73.620(b) is not permitted for Class A, LPTV, TV translator, DRT, and DTDRT stations, and if not specified in the application, the 1 km cell size will be assumed.

(i) LPTV, TV translator, DRT, and DTDRT stations may negotiate interference consent agreements consistent with §§ 73.620(e) and 73.6022.

(j) If an existing authorization exceeds the interference thresholds consistent with paragraphs (g) or (h) of this section, when filing a non-displacement minor modification it may create interference up to but not exceeding the level previously authorized. In determining this level, the proposal shall use the same cell size and path profile increment in showing both the existing and proposed interference. If the proposal is subject to a formal interference agreement, that agreement must be included as an exhibit to the application.

32. Section 74.794 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

(a)(1) An applicant for an LPTV or TV translator station construction permit shall specify that the station will be constructed to confine out-of-channel emissions within one of the following emission masks: Simple, stringent, or full service. Stations proposing new or modified operation on channel 14 shall specify either the stringent or full service emission mask.

[ FR Doc. 2024-13812 Filed 6-26-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

About This Site
Accessibility
No Fear Act
Continuity Information

COMMENTS

PDF Jonathan Swift. A Modest Proposal
A MODEST PROPOSAL. FOR PREVENTING THE CHILDREN OF POOR PEOPLE IN IRELAND FROM BEING A BURDEN TO THEIR PARENTS OR COUNTRY, AND FOR MAKING THEM BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC. It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars of the ...
A Modest Proposal
A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick, commonly referred to as A Modest Proposal, is a Juvenalian satirical essay written and published anonymously by Anglo-Irish writer and clergyman Jonathan Swift in 1729. The essay suggests that poor people in Ireland could ease their ...
A Modest Proposal
A Modest Proposal is an essay written by Jonathan Swift. The full title of the essay is 'For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick' and is commonly known as 'A Modest Proposal' in its short form. It was published in 1729 anonymously.
Literary analysis of Swift's Modest Proposal
This research paper aims to explore some common examples of Seventeenth and Eighteenth century British satire as presented in John Wilmot's poem "A Satire Against Reason and Mankind" (1679) and Jonathan Swift's book Gulliver's Travels (1726/1735) and essay "A Modest Proposal" (1729). It is well known that the political, religious ...
A Modest Proposal Critical Essays
This entry presents criticism of Swift's 1729 satire A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of the Poor People from Being a Burthen to Their Parents, or the Country, and for Making Them ...
(DOC) A Modest Proposal analysis
The present paper is an attempt to analyze "A Modest Proposal" by J. Swift in the light of the Pretense Theory of Irony suggested by H. P. Grice. In his pamphlet Swift uses irony and satire to raise alarming problems concerning the low class people in Ireland in the 18th century and the indifference of British political system.
A Modest Proposal Analysis
The full title of the essay is A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burthen to their Parents, ... Papers on Language and Literature 40, no. 3 (Summer, 2004 ...
A Modest Proposal Research Papers
The pamphlet by Jonathan Swift, originally titled, "A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public," starts out as an absurd attempt at solving the poverty and famine problem in Ireland.
PDF A Modest Proposal on Writing That Is Not Modest Enough
From my vantage point, their proposal, while being a brilliant first step, is not "modest" enough. It needs to be far more disruptive if we want to stay relevant to scholarship and society as we enter the third decade of the 21st century. They accurately observe that the ecosystem hosting the evolving modes and venues for writing is in the ...
A Modest Proposal
A Modest Proposal, satiric essay by Jonathan Swift, published in pamphlet form in 1729. Presented in the guise of an economic treatise, the essay proposes that the country ameliorate poverty in Ireland by butchering the children of the Irish poor and selling them as food to wealthy English landlords.
PDF a modest proposal
A MODEST PROPOSAL. For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their. parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the public. by. Dr. Jonathan Swift. 1729. It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through this great town1, or travel in. the country, when they see the streets, the roads and cabin ...
A Modest Proposal
Semantic Scholar extracted view of "A Modest Proposal" by R. Cooper. ... Search 218,036,618 papers from all fields of science. Search. Sign In Create Free Account. DOI: 10.1353/ppp.2017.0026; Corpus ID: 201717956; A Modest Proposal ... AI-powered research tool for scientific literature, based at the Allen Institute for AI. Learn More.
Issues in "The Rape of the Lock" and "Modest Proposal" Research Paper
In Pope's The Rape of the Lock and Swift's Modest Proposal satire is used to highlight some of the societal problems that people under the British protectorate faced in the 18th century. Pope's satire is characterized by humor, gentleness, wittiness, and tolerance, which underscore Horatian satire. However, Swift's satire is abrasive ...
Contemporary Reactions to A Modest Proposal
A MODEST PROPOSAL . Historical Context and Contemporary Reactions "A Modest Proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the public"-J. Swift read full text here. Swift's Ireland. Although Jonathan Swift was born in Ireland, he did not consider himself very Irish.
58 A Modest Proposal Essay Topic Ideas & Examples
Poverty in "A Modest Proposal" by Swift. The high number of children born to poor families presents significant problems for a country."A Modest Proposal" is a satirical essay by Jonathan Swift that proposes a solution to the challenge facing the kingdom. Jonathan Swift's Essay "A Modest Proposal".
A modest proposal
A modest proposal. S. Schulman. Published in My American History 24 September 2018. Computer Science. My American History. TLDR. Whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.
A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift
The title of Jonathan Swift's satire is, "A Modest Proposal For preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the ...
Literary Devices Used in "A Modest Proposal" of Jonathan Swift
On the Pretense Theory of Irony in Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". Hayk Danielyan. The present paper is an attempt to analyze "A Modest Proposal" by J. Swift in the light of the Pretense Theory of Irony suggested by H. P. Grice. In his pamphlet Swift uses irony and satire to raise alarming problems concerning the low class ...
27+ Outstanding A Modest Proposal Essay Topics For Students
A Modest Proposal was a daring and controversial work of literature. It combined ridiculous conclusions with compelling debate, creating the highest epitome of satire ever achieved in any other genre. In addition, the book led to hot discussions on how and whether you should solve by creating more problems or damages.
Comparative 'Research': A Modest Proposal concerning the Object of
Comparative "Research": A Modest Proposal concerning the Object of Ethics Regulation. Complementing the broader project of treating human subjects research regu. lation (including "informed consent") as an ethnographic object, this article. scrutinizes the category research: that about which research subjects may (in some way) be informed, to ...
PDF Biomedical Innovation Program Awardees
exhibit no disease symptoms, we are hopeful that even modest activity correction of one UBA5 variant will dramatically improve the quality of life for children with UBA5 disease, as well as their families. With funding from the Biomedical Innovation Program, we are poised to make a significant impact in understanding and treating UBA5 diseas e.
Call for White Papers and Workshop Participation: Supply Chain
The Center for Accelerating Operational Efficiency (CAOE) at Arizona State University, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Center of Excellence, will host a Workshop entitled SCRIPS: Supply Chain Resilience Issues, Problems and Solutions for the Homeland Security Enterprise in Washington D.C. October 1-2, 2024. SCRIPS will bring together leaders from academia, government and industry to […]
Statement on Trading and Markets Proposal to Move from Paper to
See, e.g., Electronic Submission of Certain Materials Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Amendments Regarding the FOCUS Report at 79-82 (describing proposal to rescind Form 19b-4(e) and instead requiring SROs to post information currently contained on such forms to their websites); id. at 89-94 (describing proposal to require clearing agencies to post supplementary materials to their ...
(DOC) Modest Proposal
This research paper aims to explore some common examples of Seventeenth and Eighteenth century British satire as presented in John Wilmot's poem "A Satire Against Reason and Mankind" (1679) and Jonathan Swift's book Gulliver's Travels (1726/1735) and essay "A Modest Proposal" (1729). It is well known that the political, religious ...
PDF Meeting Between Governor Kugler and Staff of the Federal Reserve Board
*FSF estimates are taken from the FSF comment letter, USNPR estimates are taken from the proposal, and estimates for the EU and UK are taken from the BoE. USNPR estimates reflect Category I and II banks. ** economic impact based on 13 academic research papers that quantify the economic cost of increased capital requirements.
A curious 3-year-old, a loaded gun: Inside America's gun ...
Gun control advocates have turned, instead, to more modest measures. Michigan is now one of 26 states with safe storage laws, holding gun owners criminally liable if children get ahold of their ...
Impacts of the Expiration of Federal Child Care Stabilization Funding
There is extensive research relating access to child care and maternal labor supply (Blau and Tekin 2007; Gelbach 2002; Herbst 2017; CEA 2023). Consistent with this, employment in the child care ...
The Satire as a Social Mirror: Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal in
Academia.edu is a platform for academics to share research papers. The Satire as a Social Mirror: Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal in Context. ... 2009 Háskóli Íslands Hugvísindasvið Enska The Satire as a Social Mirror: Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal in Context Bryndís Gunnarsdóttir Kt.: 310775-3399 Leiðbeinandi: Guðrún Björk ...
Federal Register :: Political Programming and Online Public File
If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. ... We believe our proposal to use the online public file rather than paper files may result in modest costs upfront but will ultimately allow these stations to realize ...

A Modest Proposal

A Modest Proposal

Contemporary Reactions to A Modest Proposal

read full text here

Literary Influences

A Contemporary Reaction

Works Cited

58 A Modest Proposal Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

A modest proposal

Related Papers

Top 100 A Modest Proposal Essay Topics for Students

Get Help from the Experts with A Modest Proposal Essay Topics Paper

People Also Read

Most Popular Articles

The smallest victims: Why does America keep allowing toddlers to shoot themselves?

How to store guns safely

Mobile Menu Overlay

Impacts of the Expiration of Federal Child Care Stabilization Funding and the Mitigating Effects of State-Level Stopgap Funding

T he Child Care Market and the ARP Stabilization Funds

Results Part 1: Exhaustion of Federal Funds

Results Part 2: Difference By Stopgap Funding

Discussion and Conclusions

Stay Connected

The Satire as a Social Mirror: Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal in Context. BA thesis in English.

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

The Federal Register

Proposed Rule

Document Details

Document Statistics

Enhanced Content - Table of Contents

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Enhanced Content - Read Public Comments

Enhanced Content - Sharing

Enhanced Content - Document Print View

Enhanced Content - Document Tools

Enhanced Content - Developer Tools

Official Content

Reader Aids

COMMENTS