# Appendix — Federal Communications Commission v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_1574%3A06 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1978 - **Citation:** 436 U.S. 775 ## Text APPENDIX IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1977 Nos. 76-1471, 76-1521, 76-1595, 76-1604, 76-1624, 76-1685 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; CHANNEL TWO TELEVISION COMPANY, et al. ; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS; AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION; ILLINOIS BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC.; and Post CoMPANY, et al, Petitioners, NATIONAL CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR BROADCASTING, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Volume I — Pages 1-444 | eee a TSS, 2 TIT Washington, 0.C. + THIEL PRESS + (202) 638-4521 PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI FILED April 22, 1977; May 2, 1977; May 13, 1977; May 16, 1977; May 20, 1977; and May 27, 1977; CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 3, 1977 (i) TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I: DOCKET ENTRIES IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT IN NOS. 75-1064, 75-1152, 75-1263, 75-1289, 75-1327, 75-1379, 75-1386, 75-1387, 75-1388, 75-1567, TE-2G14G, TE-1GIG ccc cc cccccccccccccees _ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, 47 U.S.C. §151 et seq. FIRST REPORT AND ORDER (Docket No. 18110), Roe Ff Til, Berererrerrerrrrerrrrrrre FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (Docket No. 18110), 22 FCC 2d 339 (1970) ........ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Docket No. 18110), 45 FCC 2d 768 (1974) ............- SECOND REPORT AND ORDER (Docket No. 18110), 50 FCC 2d 1046 (1975) (text of rules adopted by FCC appears at 50 FCC 2d 1099) ............-44.- MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (ON RE- CONSIDERATION) (Docket No. 18110), 53 FCC 2d 589 (1975) (modification of certain rules adopted by FCC appears at 53 FCC 2d 599) ...... seecueeces OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, 555 F.24 988 (1977) 2... cc cccccccces (1) JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REED LOE ILE OTE IO TT OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ON MOTION FOR STAY OF MAN- DATE, 555 F.26 967 (1977) oc. cece cece ene VOLUME II (Exhibits): LEGAL OPINION OF FCC GENERAL COUNSEL HAMPSON GARY SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE, January 25, 1937 ...........4-. M.H. SEIDEN & ASSOCIATES, INC., “MASS COMMUNICATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES — 1970,” SUMMARY VOLUME (1971) (RESEARCH CONDUCTED ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS) ........--.- ANDERSON, “BROADCAST STATIONS AND NEWSPAPERS: THE PROBLEM OF INFORMA- TION CONTROL: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF LOCAL NEWS PRESENTATIONS” (1971) (NAB EXHIBIT E), pp. 1-46.............-005: COMMENTS OF NAB (1971), pp. 11-24; 59-63 ...... STERLING, “OWNERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS OF BROADCASTING STATIONS AND NEWS- PAPERS IN THE TOP 100 MARKETS: 1922- 1967” (March 5, 1971) (NAB Exhibit C), ae 0) ROBBINS, “A STUDY OF PIONEER AM RADIO STATIONS AND PIONEER TELEVISION STA- TIONS” (April 1971) (NAB Exhibit D), pp. 1-21 .... COMMENTS OF ANPA (April 2, 1971), pp. 5458 .... COMMENTS OF THE HOUSTON POST COMPANY, CHANNEL TWO TELEVISION COMPANY, AND KPRC RADIO COMPANY (May 17, 1971), PP. 16-25 ... eee e cece cevees TTTTTITL Lt 432 435 445 466 -- 5938 659 Bo (ut) COMMENTS OF A.H. BELO CORPORATION a A: HI a os cues s COMMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY AND POST-NEWSWEEK STA- TIONS, CAPITOL AREA, INC. (May 17, 1971), Ss BS cc escecesecceseeseecncesoecececcs COMMENTS OF THE PULITZER PUBLISHING COMPANY (May 17, 1971) .............ee00- VOLUME III (Exhibits): NAB REPLY COMMENTS AND ARGUMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RULES, APPENDICES B, C, AND D (August 18,1971) ............eeeee REPLY COMMENTS OF STEPHEN R. BARNETT (August 19, 1971), pp. 17-22; 27-40; 73-81; 147-159; 190-194 COMMENTS OF POST-NEWSWEEK STATIONS, CAPITOL AREA, INC. (May 1974), pp. 6-17 FURTHER COMMENTS OF NCCB (May 15, 1974) SUPPLEMENT TO NAB EXHIBIT C REGARDING CROSS-OWNERSHIP OF BROADCAST STATIONS AND NEWSPAPERS (May 1974) SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF NAB AND EXHIBIT F REGARDING RECENT TRANSFERS OF BROADCASTING STATIONS (REVISED) (May 1974) FURTHER COMMENTS OF THE PULITZER PUBLISHING COMPANY AND KSD/KSD-TV, INC. (May 15, 1974) REPLY COMMENTS OF POST-NEWSWEEK STA- TIONS, CAPITOL AREA, INC. (June 17, 1974) FCC PUBLIC NOTICE 26054-B, “HEARING CALENDAR” (July 15, 1974) TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL ARGUMENT IN DOCKET 18110 (July 1974), pp. 130-145; 158-161; 179-181; 186-194; 380-385; 440-445 a me wees eeee ees "ee eeeeeeeeeCcerceCet@et@eeeee& 6 ee 6 8 734 743 774 (w) RAND CORPORATION STUDY, R-1585-MF, “NEWS- PAPER-TELEVISION STATION CROSS— OWNERSHIP: OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL ACTION: (September 1974), Tables 7-10 ....------ 967 LETTER TO CHAIRMAN WILEY AND COM- MISSIONER HOOKS AND EDWARD HAYES ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL BLACK MEDIA COALITION (September 9, 1974) ...------- 983 BARNETT, S., “CROSS-OWNERSHIP OF MASS MEDIA IN THE SAME CITY: A REPORT TO THE JOHN AND MARY MARKLE FOUNDATION: (Sept. 23, 1974), pp. 1-2; General Docket United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Nos. 75-1064, 75-1152, 75-1263, 75-1289, 75-1327, 75-1379, 75-1386, 75-1387, 75-1388, 75-1567, 75-1614, 75-1618* Date Filings — Proceedings 1975 Jan. 28 National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting (NCCB) petition for review of an order of the FCC [75-1064] 28 Certified copy of petition for review of an order of the FCC was mailed to FCC [75-1064] 31 NCCB’s motion for leave to amend Petition for Review [75-1064] Feb. 13 Certificate of Service for Petition for Review [75-1064] 18 Motion of Elyria-Lorain Broadcasting Com- pany for leave to intervene [75-1064] *Case numbers, listed in brackets, denote the Docket in which the pleading is recorded. As case Nos. 75-1152, 75-1263, 75-1289, 75-1327, 75-1379, 75-1386, 75-1387, 75-1388, 75-1567, 75-1614, and 75-1618 are consolidated with No. 75-1064, only No. 75-1064 is listed as a reference, when appropriate. 18 20 21 24 24 26 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 2 Motion of WEEU Broadcasting Company for leave to intervene [75-1064] Owosso Broadcasting Company’s, Inc. petition for review for an order of the FCC [75-1152] Certified copy of a petition for review of an order of the FCC was mailed to FCC U.S. Attorney General [75-1152] Order per CJ Bazelon granting NCCB’s motion for leave to amend petition for review [75-1064] Amended petition for review [75-1064] Motion of The Hearst Corp., for leave to intervene [75-1064] Motion of Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., et al., for leave to intervene [75-1064] Motion of Belo Broadcasting Corp., for leave to intervene [75-1064] Motion of Washington Post Co., et al., for leave to intervene [75-1064] Motion of WHAS, Inc., for leave to intervene [75-1064] Motion of the American Newspaper Publishers Assoc., for leave to intervene [75-1064] Motion of General Electric Broadcasting Company, Inc. for leave to intervene [75-1064] Motion of Forward Communications Corpora- tion, et al. for leave to intervene [75-1064] Motion of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. for leave to intervene [75-1064] 27 27 27 28 28 28 Mar. 6 10 12 14 3 Motion of Lee Enterprises, Inc., et al. for leave to intervene [75-1064] Motion of Illinois Broadcasting Company, Inc. et al., for leave to intervene [75-1064] Motion of Houston Post Company, et al. for leave to intervene [75-1064] Motion of Louisiana Television Broadcasting Corp. for leave to intervene [75-1064] Motion of KUTV, Inc. for leave to intervene [75-1064] Clerk’s order granting motions of Elyria- Lorain Broadcasting Co., WEEU Broadcasting Company, The Hearst Corp., Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., Belo Breadcasting Corp., Washington Post Co., et al., WHAS, Inc., and the American Newspaper Publishers Associ- ation for leave to intervene herein; counsel for the intervenors are encouraged to file joint briefs wherever practicable and may participate in oral argument only to the extent all are able under Rule 12 of the General Rules of this Court [75-1064] Certified index to record [75-1064] Clerk's order sua sponte, that the first paragraph of the order filed February 28, 1975 is amended by adding the words “and the W.E. Scripps Company” [75-1064] FCC’s and US’s motion to consolidate 75-1064 and 75-1152 [75-1064, 75-1152] Clerk’s order granting motions for General Electric Broadcasting Co., Inc.; Forward Communications Corp. et al.; American Apr. 18 18 21 24 24 28 31 4 Broadcasting Co. Inc.; Lee Enterprises, Inc.; Illinois Broadcasting Co. Inc.; Houston Post Co. et al.; Louisiana Television Broadcasting Corp., and KUTV Inc. for leave to intervene; counsel for the intervenors are encouraged to file joint briefs wherever practicable and may participate in oral argument only to the extent allowable under Rule 12 of the General Rules of this Court [75-1064! Gazette Printing Company’s petition for review of an order of the FCC [75-1263] Certified copy of a petition for review of an order of the FCC mailed to the FCC and the Attorney General [75-1263] FCC’s motion to hold in abeyance [75-1064, 75-1152] National Association of Broadcasters’ (NAB) petition for review of an order of the FCC [75-1289] Certified copy of the petition for review of an order of the FCC was mailed to the FCC and the U.S. Attorney General [75-1289] Clerk’s order granting FCC’s motion to consolidate and Nos. 75-1064 and 75-1152 are consolidated for consideration on the merits [75-1064, 75-1152] United States petition for review of an order of the FCC [75-1327] Response of U.S. to motion of FCC to hold in abeyance [75-1064] Certified copy of a petition for review of an order of the FCC was mailed to FCC and the U.S. Attorney General [75-1327] 10 5 Joint motion of Lee Enterprises, Inc. and WKY Television System, Inc. for leave to intervene [75-1327] NCCB’s motion for leave to file a response to motion to hold in abeyance [75-1064] Proceedings transferred from the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit 75-1386, 75-1387, 75-1388] Order granting motion of WHAS, Inc. for leave to intervene (filed in 4th Circuit) [ 75-1386, 75-1387, 75-1388] Order granting motion of Louisiana Television Broadcasting Corporation for leave to inter- vene (filed in 4th Circuit) [75-1386, 75-1387, 75-1388] Motion of the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting for leave to intervene (filed in 4th Circuit) [75-1386, 75-1387, 75-1388] Order granting consolidation of 75-1387, 75-1388 (filed in 4th Circuit) [75-1386, 75-1387, 75-1388] FCC’s and US’s motion to further consolidate case with Nos. 75-1263, 75-1289 and 75-1327 [75-1064, 75-1327, 75-1289, 75-1263] Order per Wright ACJ, that the time for filing NCCB’s brief in the consolidated cases is extended to June 8, 1975 [75-1064] Response of National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, to the FCC’s motion to hold in abeyance [75-1064] Clerk’s order granting NCCB’s motion to accept late filed response to FCC’s motion to 10 11 11 11 11 16 23 23 6 hold in abeyance and the Clerk is directed to file NCCB’s response to the motion to hold in abeyance [75-1064] Response of NCCB to the FCC’s motion to hold in abeyance [75-1064] Proceedings transferred from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th District [75-1379, 75-1064] Motion of WHAS, Inc. for leave to intervene (filed in 8th Circuit) [75-1379, 75-1064] Motion of Louisiana Television Broadcasting Corp. for leave to intervene (filed in 8th Circuit) [75-1379, 75-1064] FCC’s and US’s motion to transfer (filed in 8th Circuit) [75-1379, 75-1064] WJAG’s, Inc. opposition for motion to transfer (filed in 8th Circuit) [75-1379, 75-1064] Clerk’s order granting motion by WHAS, Inc. and Louisiana Television Corporation for leave to intervene in this case. Counsel for the intervenor may participate in oral argument only to the extent allowable under Rule 12 of the General Rules of the Court [75-1379, 75-1064] Motion of Chronicle Publishing Company, et al. for leave to intervene [75-1327] Clerk’s order granting FCC's and US’s motion to consolidate and Nos. 75-1064, 75-1152, 75-1263, 75-1289, and 75-1327 are consoli- dated for consideration on the merits [75-1064, 75-1327, 75-1289, 75-1263] 24 29 30 12 7 Motion of Houston Post Company and Channel Two Television Company for leave to intervene [75-1327] Motion of Pulitzer Publishing Company and KSD/KSD-TV Inc. for leave to intervene [75-1327] Motion of American Newspaper Publishers Association (ANPA) for leave to intervene [75-1327] Motion of KNUJ and Michelson Media Inc. for leave to intervene [75-1327] Motion of the Post Co. for leave to intervene [75-1327] Motion of KSL Inc. for leave to intervene [75-1327] Clerk’s Order granting motions of Lee Enter- prises, Inc. and WKY Television System, Inc., Chronicle Publishing Company, et al., Hous- ton Post Company, and Channel Two Tele- vision Company, Pulitzer Publishing Com- pany, and KSD/KSD-TV Inc., American Newspaper Publishers Association, KNUJ and Michelson Media Inc., Post Company and KSL, Inc. for leave to intervene herein. Counsel for the intervenors may participate in oral argument only to the extent allowable under Rule 12 of the general rules of this Court [75-1327] FCC’s and US’s motion to further consolidate cases with 75-1379, 75-1386, 75-1387 and 75-1388 [75-1064, 75-1386, 75-1379] Clerk’s order that FCC’s and US’s motions are granted and Nos. 75-1379, 75-1386, 75-1387 12 15 20 20 21 22 and 75-1388 are consolidated with Nos. 75-1064, 75-1152, 75-1263 and 75-1289 and 75-1327 for consideration on the merits; and the certified list of record filed in case No. 75-1064 be deemed filed in the consolidated cases as of the date of this order [75-1064, 75-1386, 75-1379] Certified index to record (originally filed in No. 75-1064) [75-1289, 75-1263, 75-1152, 75-1327, 75-1387, 75-1386, 75-1379, 75-1388] NAB’s motion for clarification of proceedings and establishment of briefing schedule [75-1289] FCC’s and US’s response to NAB’s motion of clarification of proceedings and establishment of briefing schedule (filed by FCC) [75-1289] Statement of Gazette Printing Company in 75-1263 in support of NAB’s motion for clarification proceedings and establishment of briefing schedule [75-1289] Gazette Printing Company’s statement in support of the motion for clarification of proceedings and establishment of briefing schedule filed in No. 75-1289 [75-1263] United States’ response to NAB’s motion for clarification of proceedings and establishment of briefing schedule [75-1289] Comments of Daily Telegraph Printing Com- pany in Nos. 75-1387, in support of NAB’s mo- tion for clarification of proceedings in establish- ment of briefing schedule [75-1289, 75-1387] June 27 27 30 11 9 Response of NCCB in No. 75-1064 to NAB’s motion for clarification on proceedings in establishment of briefing schedule [75-1289] NCCB’s response to motion of NAB in No. 75-1289 for clarification of proceedings and establishment of briefing schedule [75-1064] NAB’s motion to dismiss petition in No. 75-1327 and strike pleadings filed by Justice Department in all consolidated cases [75-1289, 75-1327] Response of US in No. 75-1327 to motion to dismiss petition and_ strike pleadings [ 75-1327, 75-1289] Order per CJ Bazelon that the time for filing petitioners briefs in the consolidated cases is extended to September 30th; no further extensions of time for filing petitioners briefs will be granted except for extraordinary cause shown [75-1386, 75-1379, 75-1064] ANPA’s petition for review of an order of the FCC [75-1567] Certified copy of petition for review of an order of the FCC was mailed to the FCC and the Attorney General of the United States by certified mail return receipt requested [75-1567] FCC’s response to the motion to dismiss petition and strike pleadings [75-1289] NAB’s reply to response of United States, in No. 75-1327 to motion to dismiss petition and strike pleadings [75-1289, 75-1327] 16 24 25 25 July 8 1] 15 10 Notice of Substitution of attorney for intervenor, WHAS, Inc. [75-1064, 75-1379] Brockway Company’s petition for review of an order of the FCC [75-1614] Certified copy of petition for review of an order of the FCC was mailed to FCC and the U.S. Attorney General; petition for review was sent by certified mail return receipt requested [75-1614, 75-1618] Gray Communications Systems, Inc. petition for review of an order of the FCC [75-1618, 75-1614] Return receipt for copy of petition for review of an order of the FCC from Attorney General of the U.S. and FCC [75-1614] FCC’s motion to consolidate case with Nos. 75-1567, 75-1614, and 75-1618 and motion to deem record filed [75-1064, 75-1614, 75-1567, 75-1618, 75-1386, 75-1379] Motion of WKY TV to change name to Gaylord Broadcasting Company on the court records [75-1064] Clerk’s order granting FCC’s and US’s motion to consolidate and Nos. 75-1064, 75-1152, 75-1263, 75-1289, 75-1327, 75-1379, 75-1386, 75-1387, and 75-1388 are hereby consolidated for consideration on the merits; the certified index to the record in 75-1064 is deemed to be the certified index to the record in 75-1567, 75-1614 and 75-1618 [75-1064, 75-1614, 75-1567, 75-1618, 75-1386, 75-1379] 16 18 28 31 31 Sept. 5 16 11 Clerk’s order, sua sponte, that this Court’s order of July 14, 1975 is amended by deleting the second paragraph thereof and substituting therefor the following: the mo- tion is granted and 75-1064, 75-1152, 75-1263, 75-1289, 75-1327, 75-1379, 75-1386, 75-1387, 75-1388, 75-1567, 75-1614, and 75-1618 are hereby consoli- dated for consideration on the merits (75-1064, 75-1614, 75-1618, 75-1567, 75-1379, 75-1386] Clerk’s order granting motion of WKY Television System Inc. to change name on Court records and the Clerk is directed to change the name of WKY Television System Inc. in case Nos. 75-1064 and 75-1327 to Gaylord Broadcasting Co. [75-1064] FCC’s motion to leave to supplement the record in Nos. 75-1567, 75-1614, and 75-1618 [75-1614, 75-1567, 75-1618] Clerk’s order granting FCC motion for leave to supplement the record in No. 75-1567, 75-1614, 75-1618 [75-1614, 75-1567, 75-1618] Supplement to certified index to record [75-1614, 75-1618, 75-1567] Brockway Company’s motion to correct the record in this case [75-1614] Clerk’s order granting NCCB’s motion to correct record in No, 75-1614 and counsel for the party shall make appropriate arrangements to include the Oct. 11, 1974 letter with attachments from James W. Higgins, General Oct. 19 30 12 Manager of the Brockway Company to Richard E. Wiley, Chairman of the FCC as a supplement item to the certified index to record in these cases [75-1064] Petitioner’s joint motion to proceed under Rule 30(c) [75-1289, 75-1387] Clerk’s order granting joint motion to proceed under Rule 30(c) and counsel for parties in the consolidated cases are granted leave to proceed under the provision of Rule 30(c) of the FRAP; in lieu of submitting one copy of the typewritten or page proof brief provided under Rule 30(c) of the FRAP, counsel for the parties shall submit seven copies thereof for filing; counsel for the parties are en- couraged to file joint briefs wherever prac- ticable [75-1064] Brockway Company’s brief [75-1614] Motion of Public Interest Research Group, et al. for leave to file brief as amicus curiae [75-1064] Gray Communications Systems brief [75-1618] Owosso Broadcasting Company’s Inc. brief [75-1152, 75-1289, 75-1263, 75-1387, 75-1614] WJAG’s Inc. brief [75-1379] US’s motion to dismiss petition for review [75-1327] NCCB’s motion for leave to file brief time having expired [75-1064] 14 14 14 16 16 17 20 20 20 13 Order per CJ Bazelon granting NCCB’s motion in No. 75-1064, for leave to file brief time having expired, conditioned upon the brief being brought into compliance with the rules of this Court [75-1064] NCCB’s brief [75-1064] FCC’s motion to revise briefing schedule [75-1064] Motion of The Post Company for leave to file motion for leave for change of intervention [75-1064] Motion of KNUJ, Inc. and Michelson Media, Inc. for leave to file motion for leave for change of intervention [75-1064] Motion of the Chronicle Publishing Company, et al. for leave to intervene, time having expired [75-1064] Clerk’s order granting FCC’s and US’s motion to revise briefing schedule and the followiug schedule shall apply; FCC’s and US’s brief - January 5, 1976; reply brief February 10, 1976 [75-1064] Per Curiam order that NCCB’s motion to dismiss its petition in No. 75-1327 granted, and the motion of NAB’s in No. 75-1289, to dismiss petition, and stay pleadings, is dis- missed as moot; Wright and McGowan, CJ [75-1064] Clerk’s order granting motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae of the Public Interest Research Group, et al. and the Clerk is directed to file the brief of the Public Interest Research Group, et al. [75-1064] Nov. 20 22 14 Brief for amicus curiae Public Interest Re- search Group, et al. [75-1064] Motion of KSL, Inc. for leave to file motion for leave to intervene [75-1064] Motion of Pulitzer Publishing Company and KSD/KSD-TV, Inc. for leave to file motion for leave to change intervention from #75-1327 to #75-1064 [75-1064] Clerk’s order directing the Clerk to file the motions for change of intervention of The Post Co. and KNUJ, Inc. and Mickelson Media, Inc. for leave to intervene [75-1064] Clerk’s order directing the Clerk to file the motions for change of intervention of The Post Co. and KNUJ, Inc. and Mickelson Media, Inc. and also Chronicle Publishing Co.; Chronicle Broadcasting Co.; Buffalo Evening News, Inc. and WBEN, Inc.; all aforesaid mo- tions for leave to intervene are granted; counsel for the intervenors may participate in oral argument only to the extent allowable under Rule 12 of the General Rules of this Court [75-1064] KNUJ, Inc. and Mickelson Media, Inc. motion for leave for change of intervention [75-1064] The Post Company motion for leave for change of intervention [75-1064] Order per CJ Bazelon directing the Clerk to file the motion of Pulitzer Publishing Co. and KSD/KSD-TV, Inc. for leave for change of interventior a No. 75-1064 and the motion of KSL, ! for leave to intervene in the Dec. 21 10 24 15 consolidated cases; the motions for interven- tion are granted and counsel for the inter- venors are encouraged to file joint briefs wherever practicable and may participate in oral argument only to the extent allowable under Rule 12 of the General Rules of this Court [75-1064] The Pulitzer Publishing Co. and KSD/KSD-TV Inc. motion for leave for change of interven- tion [75-1064] Motion of KSL Inc. for leave to intervene - granted [75-1064] FCC’s motion to revise briefing schedule [75-1064] Clerk’s order that the time for filing respon- sive briefs in the cases is extended to January 26, 1976; the time for filing reply briefs, if any, to US and FCC and supporting inter- venors; briefs are extended until 45 days after service of the brief [75-1064] Owosso Broadcasting Company’s Inc. brief [75-1152] FCC’s motion to revise briefing schedule [75-1064] 1976 Jan. 9 Clerk’s order granting FCC’s and US’s motion to revise briefing schedule and the times for filing the remaining papers in the consolidated cases are extended as follows: Respondent’s and supporting intervenors’ briefs shall be filed by February 17, 1976; and Petitioners’ and supporting intervenors’ reply briefs, if 13 30 Feb. 10 10 17 16 any, shall be filed within 45 days after service of respondents’ briefs [75-1064] Intervenors’ (Elyria-Lorain Broadcasting Co., WEEU Broadcasting Co., WHAS, Inc., Louisi- ana Television Broadcasting Corp., Belo Broadcasting Corp., Hearst Corp., Scripps- Howard Broadcasting Co., W.E. Scripps Co., Chronicle Broadcasting Co., Chronicle Publish- ing Co., Buffalo Evening News, Inc., WBEN, Inc., Lee Enterprises, Inc., Gaylord Broadcast- ing Co., Houston Post Co., Channel Two TV Co., KPRC Radio Co., Illinois Broadcasting Co., Inc., and Lindsay-Schaub Newspapers, Inc.) motion to adopt in toto brief of intervenor, American Newspaper Publishers Association [75-1618] FCC’s motion for an order prohibiting Gray Communications System’s Inc. and counsel from prosecuting inaction which is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the middle district of Georgia [75-1618] Gray Communications System’s response to motion for an order prohibiting further prosecution of the case pending in another court [75-1618] FCC’s reply to response to motion of an order prohibiting prosecution of the case pending in another court [75-1618] Clerk’s order, sua sponte, that the order filed November 6, 1975 is amended by adding the number 75-1379 and deleting the number 75-1329 [75-1064] 17 17 17 17 17 18 19 19 19 20 20 17 American Newspaper Publishers Association’s brief [75-1064] KNUJ’s Inc.; Michelson Media’s, Inc. and the Post Company’s joint brief [75-1064] WHAS'’s, Inc. brief [75-1064] Elyria-Lorain Broadcasting Company, WEEU Broadcasting Company, Louisiana Television Broadcasting Corp., to adopt in toto brief of intervenor, The Washington Post Company and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. [75-1064] KSL’s Inc. brief [75-1064] The Washington Post Company and Post- Newswee® Stations, Capital Area’s, Inc. brief [75-1064] FCC’s motion for leave to file supplement to reply filed February 10 [75-1618] Washington Post Company and Post- Newsweek Station’s et al. motion for leave to amend brief [75-1064] US’s brief [75-1064] FCC’s brief [75-1064] Clerk’s order granting intervenors’ Elyria- Lorain Broadcasting Co., WEEU Broadcasting Co., WHAS, Inc., and Louisiana Television Broadcasting Corp., et al. motion to adopt in toto brief of intervenor, American Newspaper Publishers Association and the Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of ANPA’s motion to the division of this Court assigned to consider the cases on the merits [75-1064] 23 23 25 25 27 Mar. 11 18 Clerk’s order granting intervenors’ Elyria- Lorain Broadcasting Company, et al. to adopt in toto brief of intervenors the Washington Post Company and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc.; the Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of the motion to the division of this Court assigned to consider the case on the merits [75-1064] FCC’s motion for leave to file reply brief to brief of US filed 2/17/76 [75-1064] Clerk’s order granting FCC’s motion for leave to file supplement to the reply [75-1618] FCC supplement to reply to respond to motion for an order prohibiting further prosecution of the case pending in another court [75-1618] Clerk’s order granting intervenor’s (The Wash- ington Post Company and Post-Newsweek Station, Inc. et al.) motion for leave to amend brief and counsel for the intervenors shall make appropriate arrangements to insert the substitute page [75-1064] Order per CJ Bazelon that respondent, FCC, is granted leave to file a reply brief the brief of the United States not to exceed 25 pages, and intervenors on its side are granted leave to file a joint reply brief not to exceed 35 pages on or before April 5, 1976; sua sponte, that the time for filing petitioners’ reply briefs is extended until 45 days from the date of service of the aforesaid reply briefs [75-1064] 11 16 26 29 30 19 ANPA in No. 75-1567 motion to extend time to file joint appendix to 21 days after service of all reply briefs [75-1064] Clerk’s order granting motion of American Newspaper Publishers Association motion on behalf of all petitioners to extend date for submission of joint appendix and the time for filing the joint appendix is extended to April 26th [75-1064] ANPA’s motion to extend time to file joint appendix to 21 days beyond filing petitioner’s reply brief [75-1567] NCCB’s motion to have this case and No. 75-1308 argued before the same _ panel [75-1064] Clerk’s order that the motion of ANPA’s supplemental to extend date for submission of joint appendix in case no. 75-1567 is granted and the time for filing the joint appendix of the parties in these consolidated proceedings is extended to June 10, 1976 [75-1064] FCC’s opposition to motion to have this case, and No. 75-1308 argued before the same panel (filed in No. 75-1308 only) [75-1064] Motion of Intervenors’ (Chronicle Broadcast- ing Co., The Chronicle Publishing Co., Buffalo Evening News, Inc., WBEN, Inc., Houston Post Co., Channel Two Television Co., KPRC Radio Co., Illinois Broadcasting Co., Inc., and Lindsay-Schaub Newspapers Inc.) to adopt in toto the reply brief of Respondent, FCC [75-1064] 13 21 20 Intervenors’ (Belo Broadcasting Corp., WHAS, Inc., The Washington Post Co., and Post- Newsweek Stations, Capital Area, Inc.) joint reply brief [75-1064] FCC’s brief (This is FCC reply brief) [75-1064] FCC’s opposition to motion to have this case and No. 75-1308 argued before the same panel [75-1064] Intervenors’ (Washington Post Co., Post- Newsweek Stations, Capital Area, Inc., Belo Broadcasting Corp., WHAS, Inc., Louisiana Television Broadcasting Corp.) motion to substitute pages in joint reply brief [75-1064] Clerk’s order granting intervenors’ (Washing- ton Post Co., Post-Newsweek Stations, Capital Area, Inc., Belo Broadcasting Corp., WHAS, Inc., Louisiana Television Broadcasting Corp.) motion filed April 7, 1976 to substitute pages in joint reply brief and counsel for inter- venors herein shall make appropriate arrange- ments to correct the joint reply brief [75-1064] Clerk’s order granting intervenors’ (Chronicle Broadcasting Co., et al.) motion to allow intervenors to adopt in toto reply brief of respondent FCC [75-1064] Order per CJ Bazelon denying appellant’s motion in No. 75-1308 for consecutive amendment with Nos. 75-1604 et al. [75-1064] 28 May 7 14 18 ae 21 28 21 Per Curiam order that US’s and FCC’s motion for an order prohibiting petitioners and counsel from prosecuting an action which is now pending in the US District Court for the middle district of Georgia is referred to the division of this Court assigned to hear this case on the merits for disposition Robinson and Wilkey [75-1618] NAB’s motion to strike brief of the Depart- ment of Justice and bar further participation of de facto petitioner [75-1289] Motion of the United States of America for extension of time within which to respond to motion of the National Association of Broadcasters to strike [75-1289] Clerk’s order granting motion of the United States of America to extend time to respond to NAB’s motion to strike to May 26, 1976 [75-1289] NAB’s reply brief [75-1289, 75-1567] The Brockway Company’s reply _ brief [75-1614, 75-i6i8] NCCB’s reply brief [75-1064] US’s and FCC’s motion for leave to file response to motion to strike brief of the Department of Justice and bar further participation of de facto petitioner [75-1289] Motion of Pulitzer Publishing Co., et al. for leave to withdraw intervention in consolidated proceedings for review of FCC order [75-1064] 10 21 22 23 23 23 24 24 24 22 Clerk’s order granting respondent (US) mo- tion for leave to file response to motion to strike brief of the Department of Justice and bar further participation as de facto petitioner [75-1289] Response of US to motion to strike brief of the Department of Justice and bar further participation of the de facto petitioner [75-1289] Joint appendix volumes 1 and 2 [75-1152, 75-1263, 75-1387, 75-1614, 75-1567, 75-1618, 75-1386, 75-1379, 75-1388] Clerk’s order that the motion of the Pulitzer Publishing Co. and KSD/KSD-TV, Inc. for leave to withdraw intervention in consolidated proceedings is granted and the Clerk is directed to remove the Pulitzer Publishing Co. and KSD/KSD-TV, Inc. from the dockets as an intervenor herein [75-1064] Interventor’s, (KNUJ, Inc., Michelson Media, Inc., and The Post Company) joint brief [75-1064] NAB’s brief [75-1289] NAB’s reply brief [75-1289] The Brockway Company’s brief [75-1614] Intervenor’s (American Newspaper Publishers Association) brief [75-1064] Intervenors’ (The Washington Post Company, Post-Newsweek Stations, Capital Area, Inc.) brief [75-1064] ANPA’s brief [75-1567] 24 24 25 25 28 July 13 22 22 Aug. 23 23 27 Sept. 9 14 23 ANPA’s reply brief [75-1567] Intervenors’ (Belo Broadcasting Corporation and WHAS, Inc., Louisiana Television Broad- casting Corporation and The Washington Post Co. and Post-Newsweek Stations, etc.) joint reply brief [75-1064] NCCB’s brief [75-1064] NCCB’s reply brief [75-1064] Respondent’s (FCC) brief [75-1064] Respondent’s (US) motion for leave to file printed brief late [75-1064] Clerk’s order granting respondent’s (US) motion for leave to file printed brief late [75-1064] Respondent’s (US) brief [75-1064] . Clerk’s order that Gray Communications System’s Inc. motion to strike brief of the Department of Justice and bar further participation as de facto petitioner is denied [75-1064] Clerk’s order that consideration of the motion of FCC’s and US’s for an order prohibiting further prosecution of the case pending in another court is deferred pending oral argu- ment on September 17, 1976 [75-1618] FCC’s consent motion to enlarge and allocate the time to present oral argument [75-1064] Joint motion to dismiss [75-1263] Clerk’s order that the FCC’s and US’s motion to extend and allocate time to present argument is granted and the following allot- 17 17 23 Nov. 26 24 ment of time shall control oral argument; 40 minutes to be allocated among: Petitioner ANPA,; Petitioner NAB: Counsel representing individual Petitioners subject to the Divesti- ture requirement; 40 minutes to be allocated among: Petitioner NCCB; Respondent U.S.A.; 40 minutes to be allocated among: Respon- dent FCC; Intervenors The Washington Post Co., Post-Newsweek Stations, Capital Area, Inc.; individual parties shall promptly notify the Court of the identity of counsel to present argument and the total time to be taken within each allotment [75-1064] Argued before CJ Bazelon; Wright and Robinson, CJ; The Court granted counsel for the petitioner in No. 75-1289 to lodge 4 volumes of Mass Communications in the U.S. - 1970 with the Clerk [75-1064] Volumes of Mass Communications of the US - lodged in File Room [75-1064] Per Curiam order granting joint motion to dismiss and the petition for review is dismissed. CJ] Bazelon; Wright and Robinson, CJ [75-1263] Per Curiam order that the motion of the respondent, FCC, for an order restraining further prosecution by petitioner, Gray Com- munications Systems, Inc. is hereby denied without prejudice, however, to renewal as warranted by any change in present circum- stances [75-1618] Mar. 25 1977 l Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Bazelon [75-1064] Judgment that the rulemaking order under review herein is affirmed only insofar as it operates prospectively; those portions of said order that have a retroactive effect and those portions dealing with existing combinations are vacated; and the record is remanded to the commission for adoption of rules not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court filed herein this date [75-1064] FCC’s motion for stay of mandate [75-1064] NAB’s statement in support of motion for stay of mandate [75-1289] NCCB’s partial opposition to motion for stay of mandate [75-1064] FCC’s reply to partial opposition to motion for stay of mandate [75-1064] Respondent’s (US) response to motion for stay of mandate [75-1064] Motion of San Joaquin Communications Corp. for leave to submit opposition to motion for stay of mandate as an’ amicus curiae [75-1064] FCC’s opposition to motion of San Joaquin Communications Corp. for leave to submit Opposition to motion for stay of mandate as an amicus curiae [75-1064] 11 11 17 18 25 June 6 26 Opinion per cunam on motion to stay mandate. (ISSUED IN XEROX FORM BUT TO BE PRINTED AT A LATER DATE.) [75-1064] Per Curiam order that the motion of the FCC is granted and the Clerk is directed not to issue the mandate in these cases prior to April 23, 1977 for the reasons set forth in the opinion of this Court released this day in xeroxed form, and in accordance therewith CJ Bazelon; Wright and Robinson [75-1064] Per Curiam order amending opinion of April 5, 1977 [75-1064] Printed copies of opinion of April 5, 1977 released this date [75-1064] Certified copy of notice from Clerk, S.C., that writ of certiorari was filed on 4-22-77 in S.C. No. 76-1471 [75-1064] Notice of filing petition for writ of certiorari in S.C. No. 76-1521 on May 2, 1977 [75-1064] Notice of filing petition for writ of certiorari in S.C. No. 76-1595 on May 13, 1977 [75-1289] Notice of filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in S.C. No. 76-1604 on May 16, 1977 [75-1064] Notice of filing petition of writ of certiorari in S.C. No. 76-1624 on May 20, 1977 [75-1064] . Certified copy of notice from Clerk, Supreme Court that writ of certiorari was filed on May 27, 1977 in S.C. No. 76-1685 [75-1064] 27 Communications Act of 1934, .48 Stat. 1064, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. § 152. Application of chapter. (a) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio and all interstate and foreign transmission of energy by radio, which originates and/or is received within the United States, and to all persons engaged within the United States in such communication or such transmission of energy by radio, and to the licensing and regulating of all radio stations as here- inafter provided; but it shall not apply to persons engaged in wire or radio communication or trans- mission in the Canal Zone, or to wire or radio com- ~ ene, or transmission wholly within the Canal one. § 154. Federal Communications Commission. * * * * & & (i) Duties and powers. The Commission may perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions. (j) Conduct of proceedings; hearings. The Commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best conduct to the proper dispatch of business and to the end of justice. No commissioner shall participate in any hearing or proceedings in which he has a pecuniary interest. Any party may appear before the Commission and be heard im person or by attorney. Every vote and official act of the Commission shall be entered of record, and its proceedings shall be public upon the 28 request of any party interested. The Commission is authorized to withhold publication of records or proceedings containing secret information affecting the national defense. § 301. License for radio communication or transmis- sion of energy. It is the purpose of this chapter, among other things, to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of interstate and foreign radio transmission; and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof, by persons for limited periods of time, under licenses granted by Federal authority, and no such license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license. No person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmis- sion of energy or communications or signals by radio (a) from one place in any Territory or pos- session of the United States or in the District of Columbia to another place in the same Territory, possession, or Distnct; or (b) from any State, Ter- ritory, or possession of the United States, or from the District of Columbia to any other State, Termi- tory, or possession of the United States: or (c) from any place in any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, to any place in any foreign country or to any ves- sel; or (d) within any State when the effects of such use extend beyond the borders of said State, or when interference is caused by such use or opera- tion with the transmission of such energy, commu- nications, or signals from within said State to any place beyond its borders, or from any place beyond its borders to any place within said State, or with the transmission or reception of such energy, com- 29 munications, or signals from and/or to places beyond the borders of said State; or (ec) upon any vessel or aircraft of the United States; or (f) upon any other mobile stations within the jurisdiction of the United States, except under and in accordance with this chapter and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this chapter. § 303. Powers and duties of Commission. Except as other wise provided in this chapter, the Commission from time to time, as public conven- lence, interest, or necessity requires, shall— i a ee (g) Study new uses for radio, provide for experi- mental uses of frequencies, and generally encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest; n @¢.8 8 6 (r) Make such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the pro- visions of this chapter, or any international radio or wire communications treaty or convention, or regu- lations annexed thereto, including any treaty or con- vention insofar as it relates to the use of radio, to which the United States is or may hereafter become a party. §307. Licenses; allocation of facilities; terms; renewals. (a) The Commission, if public convenience, interest, or necessity will be served thereby, subject to ro nigrewe of this chapter, shall sre to ras applicant therefor a station license i aun provided for by i Sa a i 30 (d) No license granted for the operation of a broadcasting station shall be for a longer term than threee years and no license so granted for any other class of station shall be for a longer term than five years, and any license granted may be revoked as hereinafter provided. Upon the expiration of any license, upon application therefor, a renewal of such license may be granted from time to time for a term of not to exceed three years in the case of broadcasting licenses, and not to exceed five years in the case of other licenses, if the Commission finds that public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served thereby. In order to expedite action on applications for renewal of broadcasting station licenses and in order to avoid needless expense to applicants for such renewals, the Commission shall not require any such applicant to file any informa- tion which previously has been furnished to the Commission or which is not directly material to the considerations that affect the granting or denial of such application, but the Commission may require any new or additional facts it deems neces- sary to make its findings. Pending any hearing and final decision on such an application and the dispo- sition of any petition for rehearing pursuant to sec- tion 405 of this title, the Commission shall continue such license in effect. Consistently with the forego- ing provisions of this subsection, the commission may by rule prescribe the period or periods for which licenses shall be granted and renewed for par- ticular classes of stations, but the commission may not adopt or follow any rule which would preclude it, in any case involving a station of a particular class, from granting or renewing a license for a shorter period than that prescribed for stations of such class if, in its judgment, public interest, conven- ience, or necessity would be served by such action. 31 § 309. Application for license. (a) Considerations in granting application. Subject to the provisions of this section, the Commission shall determine, in the case of each application filed with it to which section 308 of this title applies, whether the public interest, conven- lence and necessity will be served by the granting of such application, and, if the Commission, upon examination of such application and upon consid- eration of such other matters as the Commission may officially notice, shall find that public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by the granting thereof, it shall grant such application. ia he es (d) Petition to deny application; time; contents; reply ; findings. (1) Any party in interest may file with the Com- mission a petition to deny any application (whether as originally filed or as amended) to which sub- section (b) of this section applies at any time prior to the day of Commission grant thereof without hearing or the day of formal designation thereof for hearing; except that with respect to any classi- fication of applications, the Commission from time to time by rule may specify a shorter period (no less than thirty days following the issuance of public notice by the Commission of the acceptance for filing of such application or of any substantial amendment thereof), which shorter period shall be reasonably related to the time when the applica- tions would normally be reached for processing. The Petitioner shall serve a copy of such petition on the applicant. The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that the peti- tioner is a party in interest and that a grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with subsection (a) of this section. Such allegations of 32 fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof. The applicant shall be given the opportunity to file a reply in which allegations of fact or denials thereof shall similarly be supported by affidavit. 33 [22 F.C.C. 2d 306] F.C.C. 70-310 BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 Docket No. 18110 In the Matter of Amendment of Sections 73.35, 73.240 and 73.636 of the Commission Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM and Television Broadcast Stations. First Report and Order (Adopted March 25, 1970) By the Commission: Chairman Burch concurring in part and dissenting in part and issuing a statement: Commissioner Robert E. Lee dissenting: Commis- sioner Wells dissenting and issuing a statement. 1. The Commission has before it (1) a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (33 F.R. 5315) adopted March 27, 1968, which commenced this proceeding and established an interim policy! for dealing with applications for broadcast station authorizations during the pendency of the proceeding: (2) a “Memorandum Opinion and Order” (12 F.C.C. 2d 912), adopted May 15, 1968, which denied petitions for reconsideration of 'The interim policy is discussed in pars. 74-78, infra. 34 the interim policy, answered questions that had arisen concerning that policy, and clarified the proposed rule amendments contained in the notice; and (3) com- ments, reply comments, and other material filed in response to the notice.” THE COMMISSION’S PROPOSAL 2. In this proceeding, the Commission proposed to amend the present multiple-ownership rules so as to prohibit the granting of any application for a broadcast license if after the grant the licensee would own, operate, or control two or more full-time broadcast stations within the market. The proposed amended rules would apply to all applications for new stations and for assignment of license or transfer of control except assignment and transfer applications filed pursuant to the provisions of section 1.540(b) or i.541(b) of the rules (i.c., pro forma or involuntary assignments and transfers) and applications for [307] assignment or transfer to heirs or legatees by will or intestacy. Divestiture, by any licensee, of existing facilities would not be required. The remainder of this section sets the proposal in perspective. 2 Approximately 120 parties participated in the proceeding. They are listed in appendix A. If a party consisted of two or more entities making a joint filing, the names of the entities are listed under the name of the lead entity. The short designation of every party referred to in the present document appears in parentheses following the full name in appendix A. Participating parties include the three major networks, Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc., the National Association of Broadcasters, numerous State broadcasters associations, the All-Channel Television Society, the Association of Broadcasting Standards, Inc., the Community Broadcasters Association, Inc., individual and multiple owners and the Department of Justice. 35 3. The multiple-ownership rules of the Commission have a twofold objective: (1) Fostering maximum competition in broadcasting, and (2) promoting diversi- fication of programing sources and viewpoints. The rules are essentially the same for the standard, FM, and television broadcast services and, respectively, appcar in 47 CFR §§73.35, 73.240, and 73.636 (1969). Each of these sections is divided into two parts, the first of which is known as the d@uopoly rule, and the second of which is often called the concentration of control rule.* 4. The concentration of control rules aim at achieving the aforementioned twotold objective na- tionally and regionally by providing that a license for a broadcast station will mot be granted *o a party if the grant would resulf m chat party's owming, operating, or controlling more than a specified number of stations in the same broadcast service. For AM the number is 7, for FM ix is 7, and for TV it is 7, with no more than 5 being VHF. The rules also provide that a grant will not be made, cwem though it would not result in exceeding these specified maximums, if it would result in undue concentration of control contyary to the public interest (some of the criteria for making such a determination are contained in the rules). SFor a brief history of the duopoly and concentration of control rules, see Multiple Ownership (docket No. 14711), 27 F.R. 6846, at par. 3 (1962); Multipie Ownership (docket No. 16068), 30 F.R. 8166, at par. 3 (1965), 33 F.R. 3078, concurring opinion of Commissioner Loevinger in which Commissioner Wadsworth joined (1968); Network Broadcasting, H.R. 1297, 85th Cong., 2d sess., 553-599 (1958). Recent rule amendments not covered in the foregoing appear in Multiple Ownership of AM, FM, and TV Stations, 13 F.C.C. 2d 07 (1968). A pending proposal to amend the rules with regard to bank holdings of broadcast stocks appears in Multiple Ownership (docket No. 18751), 34 F.R. 19032 (1969). 36 5. While the comcentration of comsrol rules aim at attaining the twofold objectwe nationally and re- gionally, the duopoly rules are designed to attain it locally and regionally by providing that a license for a broadcast station will not be granted to a party that owns, operates, or controls a station in the same broadcast service a specified contour of which would overlap the same contour of the station proposed to be licensed. (For AM stations the predicted or measured i-mv./m. groundwave contours must not overlap: for FM, the predicted l-mv./m. contours; for TV, the predicted grade B contours.) In broader language, the duopoly rules prohibit a party from owning, operating, or controlling more than one station in the same broadcast service in the same area. However, they do not prevent a single party from owning, operating, or controlling more than one station in the same area if each station is in a different service. Hence, a single licensee often has a standard, an FM, and a television broadcast station in one community. 6. The proposal in this proceeding is in essence an extension of the present duopoly rules, since it would proscribe common ownership, operation, or control of more than one unlimited-time broadcast station in the same area, regardless of the type of broadcast service involved.* THE RULES ADOPTED HEREIN {308} 7. All but four of the commenting parties op- posed the proposal. Some opponents urge that if the Commission, over the objections they raise, should *The proposal applies to commercial stations and not to noncommercial educational stations. 37 decide to adopt rules they should not be the ones proposed in the notice but a modification thereof (various modifications are suggested). The four parties supporting the proposal believe that it does not go far enough and urge the Commission to take various further steps. We have carefully considered all of the comments and other material filed in this proceeding and, for the reasons set forth hereinafter, are of the view that it is in the public interest to adopt the rules contained in appendix B hereto. With some exceptions, they are the same as those which we proposed in the notice as clarified by the memorandum opinion and order. A brief description of the rules follows. 8. The memorandum opinion and order (par. 1, supra) noted that since the rules proposed in the notice were in essence an extension of the present duopoly rules, the Commission would (without intending to prejudice the meaning of “‘market” in any rules that might be adopted) use the overlap concept in the present duopoly rules for purposes of administering the interim policy. As previously stated (par. 5, supra), those rules proscribe overlapping of specific service contours of commonly owned stations. We determined that for the interim policy if granting an application would result in one party’s owning, operating, or controlling two or more full-time broadcast stations with overlap of those contours, the stations would be considered to be in the same market and the application would not be acted on until the termination of this proceeding. Thus, for example, if an application were for a TV license and the grade B contour of the proposed station would overlap the 1-mv./m. contour of a commonly owned, operated, or controlled full-time aural station, the application would be held in abeyance until the termination of this proceeding. 38 9. The concept of market in the rules adopted today differs from that used in administering the interim policy. The new rules retain the previous duopoly rules intact, that is, they proscribe common ownership of television stations if the grade B contours overlap, of AM stations if the l-mv./m. contours overlap, and of FM stations if the l-mv./m. contours overlap. However, in extending the duopoly rules to proscribe common ownership of stations in different broadcast services in the same area, the standard is different: Common ownership of a TV station and an AM< station is prohibited if the grade A contour of the former encompasses the entire community of license of the latter, or if the 2-mv./m. contour of the latter encompasses the entire community of license of the former. The same principle applies to FM stations in relation to TV or AM< stations, with the 1-mv./m. contour of the FM station being the criterion, for example, if the 1l-mv./m. contour of the FM station encompasses the entire community of license of an AM station or the 2-mv./m. contour of the AM station encompasses the entire community of license of the FM station, common ownership of the stations is not permitted. The aforementioned encompassment stand- ard applies whether the stations in question are licensed to serve the same community or different communities. [309] 10. The new rules are phrased in terms of proscribed overlap, for stations in the same broadcast service (that is, the previously existing duopoly rules), and proscribed encompassment, for stations in different broadcast services: they do not use the term “market.” However, since the proposal in the notice used the term and invited comments on how it should be defined, and since the comments therefore use it, the following 39 discussion herein uses it also. When used, of course, it means stations with the proscribed overlap or encom- passment. 11. With one exception, the rules adopted provide that no license for an AM (daytime or full time), FM, or television broadcast station will be granted to a party that already owns, operates, or controls one or more full-time stations which, if the grant were made, would be in the same market as the proposed station. The exception: The licensee of a class IV AM station.which is licensed to serve a community of less than 10,000 population will be permitted to obtain a license for an FM station even though the two stations would be in the same market. (This would not be permitted, however, if the FM station would also be in the same market as a commonly owned, operated, or controlled TV station.) 12. The licensee of a daytime-only AM station not having a license for an FM station in the area may obtain a license for an FM station that would be in the same market. Note, however, that according to the statement in the previous paragraph, an FM licensee could not obtain a daytime-only AM license in the same market. 13. A party having no broadcast stations in a community may obtain a license for only one station there—TV, AM (daytime only or full time), or FM. However, such a party may obtain licenses for an et eee ts Oe cane mates by way of assignment or transfer if a proper showing is made by the seller that for economic or technical reasons the stations cannot be sold and operated separately. 40 14. No divestiture, by any licensee, of existing facilities will be required at this time. The rules will apply to all applications for new stations and for assignment of license or transfer of control except assignment and transfer applications filed pursuant to the provisions of section 1.540(b) or 1.541(b) of the rules (that is, pro forma or involuntary assignments or transfers) or applications for assignment or transfer to heirs or legatees by will or intestacy that would not result in violation (for example, the licensee of an existing full-time station could not, as heir or legatee, be the assignee or transferee of other stations that would be in the same market as the existing station). Applications involving television satellite stations and aural stations in the same market will be handled on a case-by-case basis. With some exceptions, for example, applications for increases in power by class IV AM stations, the rules will apply to applications for major changes in facilities, but certain applications of that type (and of all other types) pertaining to UHF stations will be handled on a case-by-case basis. 15. An examination of notes 7 and 8 in the present duopoly rules and notes 7 and 8 in the new rules in appendix B will show that the topics mentioned in the preceding paragraph generally are covered therein and that the latter notes merely modify the former to embrace the broader concept of duopoly contained in the new rules. [310] THE BASIS AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES 16. Basic to our form of government is the belief that “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the 41 welfare of the public.” (Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945).)° Thus, our Constitution rests upon the ground that “the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Justice Holmes dissenting in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919). 17. These principles, upon which Judge Learned Hand observed that we had staked our all, are the wellspring, together with a concomitant desire to prevent undue economic concentration, of the Com- mission’s policy of diversifying control of the powertul medium of broadcasting. For, centralization of control over the media of mass communications is, like monopolization of economic power, per se undesirable. The power to control what the public hears and sees over the airwaves matters, whatever the degree of self-restraint which may withhold its arbitrary use. 18. It is accordingly firmly established that in licensing the use of the radio spectrum for broadcasting, we are to be guided by the sound public policy of placing into many, rather than a few hands, the control of this powerful medium of public communication. (“Amendment of Sections 3.35, etc.,” 18 F.C.C. 288 (1953), affirmed United States v. Storer Broadcasting ‘This is because “right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection.” (United States v. Associated Press, 52 F. Supp. 362, 372 (S.D. N.Y., 1943), affirmed 326 U.S. 1 (1945).) Thus, our rules are not based upon the proposition disputed by Prof. George H. Litwin, in his study submitted on behalf of the NAB, that common ownership within one medium or of more than one medium results in any particular degree of control of what people think and how they act. 42 Co., 351 U.S. 192 (1956); 99 U.S. App. D.C. 369, 240 F. 2d 55 (1956).) This basic principle, enforcible in ad hoc proceedings or through rulemaking, applies to the judgment of whether an individual application should be granted as well as to the comparison of competing applicants. (United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., supra; Clarksburg Publishing Co. v. Federal Communica- tions Commission, 96 U.S. App. D.C, 211,225 F. 2d 511 (1955); Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. »v. Federal Communications Commission, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 13, 189 F.2d 677 (1951), cert. den. 342 U.S. 830; Plains Radio Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 85 U.S. App. D.C. 48, 175 F. 2d 359 (1949).° 19. It is true that section 315 of the Communica- tions Act, the Commission’s Fairness Doctrine, and the Commission’s rules relating to personal attacks and station editorials on candidates for public office all contribute substantially toward insuring that, whatever a station’s ownership, and the views of the licensee, each station will present conflicting viewpoints on controversial issues. However, this is not enough. For, as was stated in Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 13, 19, 189 F.2d 677, 683 [311] (1951), cert. den. 342 U.S. 830, the key to the question is the public interest in acquiring information from diverse and antagonistic sources, and news communicated to the public is subject to selection and, through selection, to editing, and * * * in addition there may be diversity in methods, 6 such consideration is not the arbitrary discrimination which has been said in a dictum, Stahiman v. Federal Communications Commission, 75 U.S. App. D.C. 176, 126 F. 2d 124 (1942), to be beyond the Commission's legitimate powers. 43 manner and emphasis of presentation, This is true not only with respect to news programs, but also the entire range of a station’s treatment of programs dealing with public affairs. 20. As pointed out above, the governing considera- tion here is power, and power can be realistically tempered on a structural basis. It is therefore no answer to the problem to insist upon a finding of some specific improper conduct or practice. The effects of joint ownership are likely in any event to be so intangible as not to be susceptible of precise definition. The law is clear that specific findings of improper harmful conduct are not a necessary element in Commission action in this area, and that remedial action need not await the feared result. 21. Application of the principles set forth above dictates that one person should not be licensed to operate more than one broadcast station in the same place, and serving substantially the same public, unless some other relevant public interest consideration is found to outweigh the importance of diversifying control. It is elementary that the number of frequencies available for licensing is limited. In any particular area there may be many voices that would like to be heard, but not all can be licensed. A proper objective is the maximum diversity of ownership that technology permits in each area. We are of the view that 60 different licensees are more desirable than 50, and even that 51 are more desirable than 50. In a rapidly changing social climate, communication of ideas is vital. If a aty has 60 frequencies available but they are licensed to only 50 different licensees, the number of sources for ideas is not maximized. It might be the 51st licensee that would become the communication channel 44 for a solution to a severe local social crisis. No one can say that present licensees are broadcasting everything worthwhile that can be communicated. We see no existing public interest reason for being wedded to our present policy that permits a licensee to acquire more than one station in the same area.’ 7MBS states its conviction that it can only become stable and viable as a network by having AM, FM, and perhaps TV, stations in major markets. It avers that it presently owns no broadcast stations, that it has publicly announced its intention to acquire AM, FM, and TV stations, and that the rule would prevent it from having more than one station in a market, At the same time, the networks with which it competes would not be divested, so that MBS could not achieve parity with them. It argues that the importance of competition among networks has been recognized in the KOB case (American Broadcasting- Paramount Theatres, Inc. v. FCC, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 83, 280 F. 2d 631 (1960), 345, F. 2d 954 (1965) and that under the decision in that case the Commission is required to provide comparable facilities for all networks. Hence, as a matter of law, MBS says, the Commission could not apply the rules, if adopted, to MBS. Adoption of rules herein does not mean an end to a flexibility that would, for example, permit the Commission to allow MBS to acquire more than one station in a market, for as the Supreme Court said in National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 225 (1943), sustaining the chain broadcasting regulations: “The Commission * * * did not bind itself inflexibly to the licensing policies expressed in the Regulations. In each case that comes before it the Commission must still exercise an ultimate judgment whether the grant of a license would serve the ‘public interest, convenience, or necessity.’ ” And Storer, supra, in sustaining the concentration of control portion of the multiple ownership rules, quoted that statement from National Broadcasting Co. and went on to say (at 205): “That flexibility is here under the present §309(a) and (b) and the FCC's regulations * * * We read the Act and Regulations as providing a ‘full hearing’ for applicants who have reached the existing limit of stations, upon their presentation of applications [footnote continued] 45 [312] 22. It is true that many communities have multiple broadcast and other communications media, But it is also true that the number of daily newspapers has been decreasing, a fact which increases the significance of the broadcast medium. Material attached to the NAB reply comments shows the number of cities with commercially competing local dailies to be 45 in 1968. In 1962 the figure was 61.° In our view, as we have made clear above, there is no optimum degree of diversification, and we do not feel competent to say or hold that any particular number of outlets of expression is enough. We believe that the increased amount of broadcast service now available also forms the basis for the conclusion that, with the exceptions mentioned later herein, it is no longer necessary to permit the licensing of combined operations in the same market, as was the case in the early days of broadcasting, in order to bring service to the public. It conforming to Rules 1.361(c) and 1.702, that set out adequate reasons why the Rules should be waived or amended. The Act, considered as a whole, requires no more.” It is not clear that MBS could not achieve a competitive posture through the ownership of the permissible number of AM, FM, and TV stations in separate markets. However, MBS would be entitled to a full hearing if it filed applications with requests for waiver of the new rules setting out adequate reasons why it should be permitted to obtain more than one station in an area. A full hearing could similarly be obtained by ABC, which argues that its competitive position could be improved by merging with a larger company, but that the advantages of merger would be nullified by the new rules which would require it to divest of all but one of its owned and operated stations in each market it is licensed to serve in order to obtain approval of the merger request. 8 Raymond B. Nixon, “Trends in U.S. Newspaper Ownership: Concentration with Competition,” Gazette, vol. XIV, No. 3 1968, PP- 8-9. 46 is urged that the Commission not only permitted but encouraged AM licensees to become TV licensees in their own area, and again, later, to acquire FM stations in their area, that it is inequitable now not to permit such common ownership for it robs such owners of the fruits of their risk taking, and that the rules will hinder FM and UHF development. At the time that such encouragement was given to AM licensees, we con- sidered that the objective of encouraging the larger and more effective use of radio was overriding, for TV and FM channels were lying unused, But conditions have changed, and we are obligated to change the priority of our objectives, in the public interest. 23. It is said that the good profit position of a multiple owner in the same market results in more in-depth informational programs being broadcast and, thus, in more meaningful diversity. We do not doubt that some multiple owners may have a greater capacity to so program, but the record does not demonstrate that they generally do so. The citations and honors for exceptional programing appear to be continually awarded to a very few licensees—perhaps a dozen or so multiple owners out of a total of hundreds of such owners. Although multiple owners may have more funds for experimental programing and innovation, there has been no showing that the funds are spent for these purposes. However, accepting arguendo that some multiple licensees do a better programing job in this respect than do single station licensees, we are not reducing the holdings of multiple licensees. Moreover, the further notice being issued today, which would require divestiture over a period of time, would not reduce the financial strength of multiple owners that presumably leads to an ability to engage in such 47 programing. Rather, it would maximize the number of different licensees in each market but would permit the purchase by divested licensees of a similar number of stations in other markets. [313] 24. Finally, the argument is made that rules prohibiting a present owner of a single full-time station in a community from obtaining additional stations there would be illegally discriminatory because they would prevent him from competing effectively with combina- tion owners in the area and would make a privileged class out of combination owners. Therefore, it is argued, if the rules are adopted, divestiture should be required. The decision to refuse to permit additional local concentration in the future does not necessarily require that existing situations all be uprooted. On an overall basis, there has been no showing that single Stations cannot compete effectively with combination owners. We are herewith instituting new rulemaking to consider the need for divestiture and will there consider the arguments in its favor.® Individual cases can of course always be dealt with where necessary to preserve adequate competition. But a line must be drawn somewhere, and the application of new policy to new applications is a clearly reasonable approach. 25. Although the principal purpose of the proposed rules is to promote diversity of viewpoints in the same area, and it is on this ground that our above discussion is primarily based, we think it clear that promoting diversity of ownership also promotes competition. A number of comments were made with respect to the competitive advantage that licensees of coowned stations have over the single station licensee in the same See par. 68, infra. 48 area. Thus, the Department of Justice points out that AM, FM, and TV are for many purposes sufficiently interchangeable to be directly competitive, and that competitive considerations support adoption of the rules. It mentions that one effect of combined ownership of broadcast media in the same market is to lessen the degree of competition for advertising among the alternative media. Another, it is averred, is that a combined owner may use practices which exploit his advantage over the single station owner. These practices may include special discounts for advertisers using more than one medium, or cumulative volume discounts covering advertising placed on more than one medium. Mount Wilson, Freddot, and Lunde present similar arguments about such practices.'® 26. Opponents of the proposed rules state that there is no hard evidence that multiple licensees generally engage in practices of this kind. CBS says that the argument about such practices provides no justification for the rules for the Commission long ago addressed itself to the matter (Combination Advertising Rates, 24 Pike & Fischer, R.R. 930 (1963) ), and there is no significant problem in this area. A study commissioned by WGN and others purports to find no statistical evidence that revenue yields for multiple owners are significantly different from yields of single-station OT Ke topic is outside the scope of this docket. If rules were contemplated, they would have to be handled in a separate proceeding. The same would be true of the question of call letters. Comments herein suggest that the use of identical letters for commonly owned stations in the same community has anticompetitive effects and that rules should be adopted requiring the use of separate call letters. A petition for rulemaking on this subject (RM-1451), filed May 5, 1969, by Lincoln Broadcasting Co., is pending. 49 owners (using revenue per thousand audience as an indication of superiority). However, we note that it does show significantly higher revenue yields for multiply owned radio stations, [314] particularly in their national spot business, which appears to hold true in all sizes of markets (at pp. 17-20 of the study). 27. NBC, in its reply comments (directed against the Justice comments), argues that the market shares of the largest owners in the larger markets are well below the points which are generally considered danger points by antitrust standards. The basic data on market shares which it presents, in spite of the conclusion of NBC, do show high concentration in some markets. For example, in Washington, D.C., if the market is considered to be only the broadcast media, the top three owners have a 64-percent market share; if the market is considered to be broadcast and arwepeper media, the top two owners have a 68-percent share.'! In any event, we find that distributing ownership more broadly will strengthen competition by removing the potential of competitive advantage over single station owners. There is no need to find specific abuses in order to provide a healthier competitive environment of benefit to smaller licensees. 28. In sum, as we have stated before (18 F.C.C. 288,291-2): It is our view that the operation of broadcast Stations by a large group of diversified licensees will better serve the public interest than the 11 : NBC obtains a much smaller market share figure by using the revenue of the broadcast owner, excluding newspaper revenues, but dividing it by the base of total broadcast and newspaper advertising revenue in the market (NBC reply comments, p. 13). 50 operation of broadcast stations by a small and limited group of licensees. The vitality of our system of broadcasting depends in large part on the introduction into this field of licensees who are prepared and qualified to serve the varied and divergent needs of the public for radio service. Simply stated, the fundamental purpose of this facet of the multiple ownership rules is to promote diversification of ownership in order to maximize diversification of program and service viewpoints as well as to prevent any undue concentration of economic power contrary to the public interest. DISCUSSION OF THE RULES Stations in the same “‘market”’ 29. The notice proposed rules that would limit common ownership of full-time broadcast facilities in the same market, but did not define the latter term. The memorandum opinion and order announced what “market” would mean for purposes of administering the interim policy (see par. 8, supra) and stated that the interim usage would not prejudice ultimate decisions on the meaning of “market” in any rules which might be adopted in this proceeding. 30. Although comments were invited on what “market” should mean if the proposed rules were adopted, few were received. The most appealing suggestion was that a “market” should be a standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) as defined by the 1960 or subsequent censuses and that the rules should apply to stations licensed to any community within the same SMSA. We have given consideration to use of the SMSA but reject it because although it might have some 51 advantages, it has drawbacks as well. For example, not all communities are located within an SMSA. If an SMSA “market” were used, it would be necessary to use a separate standard for communities lying outside an SMSA. We think it best to have a fixed standard that can be applied uniformly in all cases. [315] 31. Paragraphs 9 and 10 set forth the standard used in the rules adopted today. (They also point out that the rules are worded in terms of overlap or encompassment and do not use the term “market.” The deliberate omission is intended to avoid confusion since “market” is given various meanings in the broadcast industry.) The new encompassment standard to be applied to cases involving commonly owned stations in different broadcast services is less restrictive than the standard used for such stations under the interim policy. For example, under the interim policy if the l-mv./m. contour of an FM station licensed to serve one community overlapped the grade B contour of a TV station proposed to be licensed to serve another community, the stations were considered to be in the same market. But under the new rules, in such a case the 1-mv./m. contour of the FM station must not only overlap the grade A contour of the TV station (as contrasted with the grade B contour) but must encompass the entire community of license of the TV station. In other words, the stations must be closer together in order to fall under the proscription against common ownership. 32. In arriving at a practical criterion for commonly owned stations in different broadcast services, we decided that the overlap standard of the interim policy went further than we thought necessary to achieve the desired ends of the proposed rules. We are of the view 52 that the concept of a usable signal for a primary service from cach of two stations (in different broadcast services) to the principal community of one of them should be determinative. However, we still believe that for stations in the same broadcast service the previously existing overlap standard should apply and as para- graphs 8 and 9 indicate, the new rules therefore retain a proscription against overlap of TV grade B contours, AM 1-mvy./m. contours, and FM 1-mv./m. contours. ! ? 33. A final point about the criteria of the new rules should be mentioned. It pertains to major changes. Under the new rules, as under the previous duopoly rules, increases in overlap of specified contours between commonly owned stations in the same broadcast service are proscribed. Thus, for example, an application to increase power of one of two commonly owned AM stations with overlapping l-mv./m. contours would be prohibited since this would result in increased overlap. However, for commonly owned stations in different broadcast services the standard is not one of contour overlap but, rather, one of community encompass- ment—a standard aimed at preventing a single owner from bringing more than one primary service to a community of license. Hence the method of treating major changes will be different. The new rules are silent on the point, but we here announce that if proscribed encompassment already exists and if after grant of an application for major change it would still exist, the rules will not bar the grant. 34. The concept is best illustrated by an example: Assume that an owner is licensed to serve community A 12 For explanation of the basis of this retained standard, see “Multiple Ownership” (docket No. 14711), 29 F.R. 7535 (1964). 53 with an FM station and community B with an AM station, and that the 2-mv./m. contour [316] of the latter station just barely encompasses all of community A. Grant of an application for increase in power of the AM station would result in the 2-mv./m. contour of the Station easily encompassing community A and going quite some distance beyond it. Such a change would not be barred by the rules since both before and after the change the situation would still be one in which a single owner was bringing more than one primary service to the community (albeit after the change community A would be receiving a stronger signal). The principle is not limited to power changes but would apply to al) major changes, for example, to changes in transmitter site. In contrast to the foregoing result, if the stations in community A and B had both been in the same broadcast service (that is, AM) and had previously existing proscribed overlap, the power change would be denied since it would result in increased overlap. Characteristics of different “markets” 35. A widely held view of opponents is that the proposed rules are too sweeping and not tailored to the specific requirements of particular situations. It is said that all markets are not alike and that the rules should treat different markets differently. Some urge that large markets should be exempted because of the great number of independently owned mass media serving them. Others urge exemption for small markets because viability there often depends on having combined operations, and point to the fact that the Commission recognized financial difficulties in smaller markets when it exempted them from the AM-FM duplication rules. 54 Still others proposed that if a market has a specified number of “voices,” it be exempted on the ground that it presumptively has an adequate amount of diversity so that the rules are not needed. And some suggest that weights or points be given for various types of media and that a single owner be permitted to have only a specified number of points in a market.!* 36. The Litwin report (note 5, supra) suggests that across-the-board rules limiting common _ ownership would be detrimental to the public interest in the majority of cases. We find weaknesses in the study so greatly affecting the conclusions reached therein as to render them of little value in our deliberations. 37. Thus, for example, the study relies largely on statements of interviewees for obtaining the information on which most of its conclusions are based. The technique of relying on statements of interviewees rather than on more solid factual data is open to question. For example, it would appear the better course to ascertain the hours of news broadcast per day by a station by examining the last renewal application or the station logs rather than inquiring of media personnel. Admittedly, some of the _ information gathered from the interviewees would, by its nature (for example, opinions about the amount of influence of various media personnel on media policy), not be 'S air Trails suggests an incentive plan that might encourage owners to break up local combinations by permitting them to own a greater number of stations nationally than is permitted under present rules. This would increase diversity locally at the expense of increasing concentration of control nationally. We think it more in the public interest to adopt rules that would increase local diversity while at the same time not increasing national concentration to the degree suggested. 55 available in factual data, and could only be obtained by Interviews. How-[317] ever, a weakness of any interview situation is that the interviewee, intentionally or unintentionally, may not say what is actually true. It does not appear that any attempt was made to ask questions designed to provide a crosscheck on some of the answers given. 38. The study matched markets demographically, chose markets with close to the same number of media outlets in each media category, and so on, in an effort to show how singly owned stations differ from stations which are commonly owned with other stations in a single market. If differences between commonly owned and singly owned stations are to be attributed to the ownership factor one must be sure that the media compared differ little or not at all in other important respects. It would appear that the study fails to meet this test. For example, it shows the number of media personnel interviewed in the commonly owned and singly owned categories in each market, but does not indicate with what specific media they were associated. At the request of the staff, Dr. Litwin submitted a letter which indicated that in the commonly owned sample (covering six markets used in the study) there were nine VHF and one UHF TV stations all of which were network affiliated. In the singly owned sample there were five TV stations—two VHF affiliates, one VHF independent, and two UHF independents. The total profits (before taxes) of the TV stations in the former group were $12.7 million in the 1968 as compared to $3.9 million for the latter group in the same year. Conclusions reached about these stations could just as well be attributed to their profit position as to their being commonly or singly owned. One could 56 argue that even if a station were singly owned, if it were a VHF station in a large market with a CBS affiliation it would be in an excellent position to provide excellent news and public affairs service to the public, a type of programing which Litwin suggests 1s more likely to be broadcast by commonly owned stations. Moreover, some singly owned stations and some of the stations commonly owned in the same market were owned by parties who also owned stations elsewhere in the Nation, but the effect of this factor was not examined. 39. Another weakness is that although in many instances statistically significant differences were the basis for statements of how commonly owned and singly owned operations differ, often statements were made that were based on differences that were not indicated to be statistically significant in the tables contained in the report. 40. Finally, some assumptions of the study are open to question. For example, it assumes that singly owned stations go hand in hand with lack of financial resources; that a single owner’s personal involvement in operating his stations is contrary to the public interest; and that editorial stands in highly controversial areas, which it finds single owners have more of a tendency to take, are inflammatory. 41. We agree with those who say that rules should be reasonably related to the ends sought, and believe that the rules adopted herein are. They represent a particularization of our conception of the public interest (National Broadcasting Co., supra, at 218), and deal with a recurring problem which we believe is best dealt with by general rules. Though they are general in nature, they take into account the precarious positions 57 of many existing FM stations, the lack of aural [318] service in small markets with class IV stations, the needs of some daytime AM stations for nighttime service that will benefit a community, peculiar problems of satellite television stations, the policy of fostering UHF development, and other matters. Comparability of A.M., F.M. and TV'* 42. Opponents of the proposal aver that the three services are not comparable and therefore that the rules are imapt since the different services have different audiences in kind and size and eliminating common ownership in the same market does not mean that individual members of the public will receive more voices. 43. What opponents appear to be saying is that if, for example, one owner has three stations in the same market and each serves the same audience, then if the stations were sold and became separately owned that audience would be exposed to three voices instead of one and diversity of viewpoints would have been promoted. However, according to their argument, if each of the stations serves a different audience, and they say each would, then having three separate owners instead of one merely means that although each audience would be exposed to a different voice, it would still be just one voice, and the listeners would have no increased diversity. l4This section deals only with comparability of the services with regard to their broadcasting of diverse viewpoints. As to comparability in terms of economic competition, see pars, 25-28 supra. 58 44. The rules are designed to prevent any possible undue influence on local public opinion by relatively few persons or groups. They can do this by either bringing more voices to the same audience, or by assuring that no one person or entity transmits its single voice to each of three audiences. Assuming separate audiences for each of the three services, a commonly owned AM-FM-TV combination sends a single voice to the sum of all three audiences which might well constitute most of the community. With three separate owners, no one person or entity could so reach the entire community. Each would reach a part of it, and this would act to reduce possible undue influence. Insofar as there is overlap of audiences of the three services, separate ownership, of course, would being more voices to the overlapping audiences. Such overlap may be substantial. FM and UHF development 45. Some parties urge that the rules would be contrary to the policy of fostering UHF development, since often the local AM licensee might be the only one willing to undertake to build a UHF station, so that may be the only way that UHF may develop in many communities. Moreover, in many communities, we are told, independent FM operation is not viable. If this is the case, it is argued, it is difficult to see how the rules would achieve diversity. Channels would lie fallow that otherwise might have been used by licensees of other local stations. Moreover, when AM-FM combinations are sold, there may often be no buyer for the FM station, with the result that it would go off the air. This, opponents contend, would be unfair to AM licensees who went into FM operations in the same community 59 as the result of Commission encouragement since it would deny them the fruits of their risk [319] taking by depressing property values at the time of sale. Consequently, it is argued, many might be disinclined to enter into new areas of communications in the future, thereby slowing development in new areas, and this would be contrary to the public interest. It is also pointed out that the AM-FM_ nonduplication rule recognized that AM-FM combinations in small markets are not in a position to program even 50 percent separately, yet the rules proposed herein would not only require 100-percent separate programing, but separate ownership as well. 46. As opposed to the foregoing, supporters of the proposal hold that the clear effect of combined ownership of stations in the same market is to reduce diversity of news and information sources available and to lessen the degree of competition for advertising: that separate ownership of AM and FM stations would require completely separate programing instead of the amount presently permitted under the non-duplication rules and that this would give the public a greater choice of programing; that it is difficult to imagine that a dual owner would carry conservative editorials on its AM station and liberal editorials on its FM station— separate owners give more views; and that common ownership of AM and FM sstations restricts FM development.!® 15 Several parties suggest amendment of the AM-FM nondupli- cation rules in a way that would require more nonduplicated programing. See “Broadcast Station Assignment Standards” (docket No. 18651), 19 F.C.C. 2d 472, 488 (1969), where we said that a document dealing with this matter will be issued in the near future. 60 47. We find the arguments of opponents persuasive. Surely independent UHF stations still need all the support they can receive. Although AM stations have shown little inclination in the past to build or acquire such UHF stations,'® combinations of UHF with AM stations, or, should the occasion arise, with FM stations or with AM-FM combinations, will be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, as indicated in note 7 to the revised section 73.636. 48. With respect to existing AM-FM combinations in the same area, we recognize that in most cases the operations may be economically and/or technically interdependent. Financial data reported by FM stations indicate that they are generally losing money.! 7? We are, therefore, in the rules adopted today, permitting assignments or transfers of combined AM-FM stations to a single party where a showing is made that establishes the interdependence of the stations and the impracticability of selling and operating them as separate stations. Although this will not faster our objective of increasing diversity, it will preclude the possible demise of many FM stations, which could only decrease diversity.'® '©We note only two cases of UHF-radio combinations in the top 50 markets (Department of Justice comments, app. A). '7 Operating statements showing revenues, expenses, and income are reported to the Commission by FM stations which operate independently of an AM station in the same community. Reports of combined AM-FM stations do not show income for the FM separately. In 1968, of the 433 independent FM stations reporting, only 148 showed a profit. Their average profit, before Federal income taxes, was $15,308. The average loss for the other 285 stations was $21,599. Sin the light of our view, expressed at various times in recent years, that FM should not be an adjunct or supplement of [footnote continued] 61 49. However, although we take the aforementioned step as to existing AM-FM combiantions, licensees of FM stations or of full-time AM stations (with the exception of certain class [V’s) will not be permitted to [320] obtain a second aural authorization in the same market. We believe that there is no general shortage of aural service, and have decided to prevent any further concentration of ownership of such stations. The excepted class IV stations are those in markets with a shortage of local annual service, as explained below. For reasons also set forth below, daytime-only AM stations will be permitted to obtain FM licenses. Exemptions—daytime AM and some class IV AM stations 50. Our proposal in the notice, as clarified in the memorandum opinion and order, was that a daytime AM station could obtain a license for a full-time station in the same market and conversely, a full-time station could obtain a license for a daytime AM station. However, no full-time station could obtain a license for another full-time station in the market. 51. The rules we adopt provide that a daytimer may obtain an FM station in the same market. But no FM station will be permitted to acquire a daytime AM station. Moreover, and contrary to the proposal, licensees of class [TV AM stations in communities under 10,000 will be permitted to acquire an FM station. AM, but that both AM and FM should be integral parts of a total aural service, it is our intent to study further the entire questions of combined AM-FM ownership in the same area. This will be done in docket No, 18651 (note 19, infra) or otherwise. 62 52. Arguments are made that all class IV stations should be treated like daytime stations and permitted to obtain licenses for FM stations in the same market because class IV stations have very limited nighttime coverage and therefore resemble daytimers. A similar argument is made for full-time stations with DA patterns restricting nighttime coverage. Additionally, it is argued that daytimers could also be nighttimers if they were willing to invest in night directional facilities, and therefore should not be given preference over those who have made such investments, with respect to the right to acquire FM facilities. 53. It is said that in establishing the table of assignments for FM channels (docket No. 14185), the third and sixth priorities were to provide each community with at least one FM station, especially where the community has just a daytime-only or local class IV station; and to provide a substitute for AM operations, which, because they are daytimers or suffer serious interference at night, are marginal from a technical standpoint. It is said that the Commission obviously envisioned that, where practicable, daytime- only and class IV stations would have an FM channel available to them. We are told that the new rules would for the first time make a distinction between the two types of stations. 54. It is also averred that the Commission has encouraged AM-FM combinations as an alternate means of providing aural broadcast service if daytimers could not provide adequate service within the restrictions of the AM rules, or to overcome service losses caused by interference resulting from presunrise operation of daytime-only stations. 63 55. Against the aforementioned argument for class IV exemption, Mount Wilson, a single FM station licensee and a supporter of our proposal, states that even with reduced nighttime coverage, the competitive influence of such stations can be far reaching, and that to exempt class IV’s would impede the development of FM (see par. 46, supra). 56. Citizens Committee, also a supporter, takes the position that radio is now primarily a daytime medium so that it is important that efforts be made to achieve diversity of programing, especially in small communities where local issues may be covered only by radio. It therefore urges that consideration be given to not exempting daytime AM stations from the rules. 57. It cannot be denied that past encouragement has been given to AM licensees to engage in joint AM-FM operations. However, as stated elsewhere (par. 22, supra), changing conditions require a re-evaluation of objectives, which may result in rule changes.'? For example, for a long time 100 percent duplication of AM-FM programing was permitted. However, that was changed by the adoption of the AM-FM nonduplication '9The case of those arguing that the Commission has encouraged such joint operations may be overstated. For example, they cite our statement in the report and order which established new AM assignment standards in 1964, where we said, in presenting reasons for restricting the construction of new nighttime AM stations, that “* * * such needs for nighttime aural service as dO exist may be met far more efficiently by FM stations, * * *” (“AM Assignment Station Assignment Standards” docket No. 15084, 2 Pike & Fischer, R.R. 2d 1658, 1672 (1964),) This statement does not necessarily mean that the FM stations should be operated by AM licensees in the same community. Similarly, the third and sixth priorities in docket — 14185, mentioned above, did not necessarily have that port. 64 rules. It is noted that at the time that those rules were adopted, we referred to our previously expressed view that separate ownership of AM and FM stations in the same community was a desirable long-range goal that was not being gone into at that time in view of the fact that the subject of possible general revisions of the multiple ownership rules was then under study (Id., at 1678). 58. For public interest reasons previously mentioned, we have fashioned the rules to give special consideration to the sale of AM-FM combinations. Additionally, for reasons mentioned below, class IV AM stations in communities with less than 10,000 population, and all daytime AM stations, will be permitted an FM station in the same community. Beyond this we are not prepared to go in the matter of dual ownership of AM and FM stations. 59. We now turn to the exemption of daytime AM stations. As was proposed, such stations will be permitted to obtain FM licenses. This is done in the interest of bringing nighttime service to areas served by daytimers, thereby adding a voice for nighttime listeners.2° We think this purpose outweighs the argument of Citizens Committee that daytime AM stations should not be exempted. 20Not only will we permit daytimers to use FM to bring nighttime serve, but in many cases we shall require them to use FM if they wish to provide such service. In a notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of inquiry looking toward revision of the AM station assignment standards (“Broadcast Station Assignment Standards” docket No. 18651, 19 F.C.C. 2d 472 (1969)), we have proposed rules (and stated reasons in support thereof) that would require a daytimer seeking new nighttime AM service to show that there is available in his community no commercial FM channel on which he could operate a station (at 475-6). 65 60. The reasons for permitting daytimers to obtain FM do not apply in reverse. Therefore, contrary to the proposal, the rules do not permit an FM station to obtain a daytime AM license since the FM station is already giving both day and night service.* ! Similarly, we do not generally permit full-time AM stations, whether class IV or stations with DA _ patterns restricting nighttime coverage, to obtain authorizations for FM stations in the same area. Such AM stations are already licensed to serve both day and night. Though they may have restricted [322] service areas at night, and though they might, by using FM, bring an additional voice to areas not now served by them at night, it would be at the expense of having their voice over two channels in their present daytime and nighttime service areas. We are willing to permit a daytimer to have two daytime channels (AM and FM) and one nighttime channel (FM) in the interest of adding a nighttime voice. But we are unwilling to permit full-time AM stations to have two daytime channels (AM and FM) serving the community of license and outlying areas, and two nighttime channels serving a more restricted area which includes the community of license,?? in order to add a voice (FM) to outlying areas. 2IThe new rules prevent an FM licensee from obtaining, in any manner (new station, assignment, transfer), an authorization for a daytime station serving the same area. Additional reasons for restricting authorizations of new daytime stations, whether or not the applicant is an FM licensee, appear in the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of inquiry in docket No. 18651, note 19, supra. 22 Present rules require a licensee to serve all of its community of license, day or night. 66 61. However, with regard to class IV stations in communities under 10,000 population, a special factor convinces us that they should be permitted to obtain FM licenses: Generally there is no other station licensed to the same community to give nighttime service, so that the areas lying outside the nighttime service area of the class IV usually receive no nighttime aural service from local stations. On the other hand, for communities over 10,000 population, generally the outlying areas receive at least one aural service from a local station. We have previously said that because there is no general shortage of aural service we would prevent further concentration of ownership. However, in the case of outlying areas of communities under 10,000 population, there appears to be a shortage, and class IV stations will be permitted to alleviate it by obtaining FM licenses if they desire them. 62. Finally, on the matter of full-time AM stations alleging the need for an FM license in order to compensate for presunrise interference they receive, such applications for FM licenses will be handled on an ad hoc basis. A factor that would be considered in such cases is the relative importance of the alleged loss of service for a few presunrise hours as against the importance of achieving diversity of programing on two channels in the same area for the entire remainder of the day and night. Miscellaneous matters 63. Television satellite stations are handled on a case-by-case basis under the present duopoly rules because of special problems pertaining to them (see “Multiple Ownership” (docket No. 14711), 29 F.R. 7535, 7539 (1964)). This practice, for the same reasons, is carried over into the new rules. 67 64. Pursuant to our general plan of permitting power increases for all class [V AM stations, applications for such increases are exempted from the operation of the new rules. However, in view of our expressed intent to discontinue the policy of encouraging class IV power increases as of September 1970 or later in some cases (“Broadcast Station Assignment Standards,” 19 F.C.C. 472, 486-7 (1969) ), this exemption will be eliminated in like manner. The nondivestiture provision 65. Some parties urge that although the rules are intended to be prospective and not require divestiture, it is likely that they would produce results contrary to the expressed intent to “grandfather” existing licensees because implicit in the rules is the determination that it is contrary to the public interest for any licensee, prospective or existing, to own more than one station in a market. It is asserted that a flood of competing applications filed at renewal time by new applicants with no broadcast interests in the market, but possessing highly impressive traditional qualifications, would prevail either at the Commission level or on review by the courts, and that this would thwart the intent to grandfather.?> 66. We believe that our policy statement of January 15, 1970, on comparative hearings at renewal time 23 some opponents suggest that, in addition to the foregoing, the WHDH decision (WHDH, Inc., 16 F.C.C. 2d 1, 17 F.C.C. 2d 856 (1969)) would invite filing of competing applications at renewal time. Citizens Committee, a supporter of our proposal, believes that this would not be so because of the uncertain effect of the decision and the reluctance of competitors to file. 68 adequately covers this question (35 F.R. 822, F.C.C. 2d ). Moreover, as to the fears which are expressed, our experience since we adopted the fixed overlap duopoly rules, which “grandfathered” existing licensees, has shown that there has been no great shower of competing applications filed against renewal applications for stations the service contours of which overlap those of commonly owned stations. 67. It is appropriate here to mention briefly the arguments which opponents to the rules make with regard to divestiture. Typical is that of Air Trails which says that because of the relative stability of the tenure of ownership and the relatively small number of new applications to be expected in the future as compared with the past, the restructuring of the industry would be slow, and except over a very long period of time, quite minor. (Also see par. 24, supra.) However, opponents are generally quick to state that they oppose divestiture since it would not be feasible or equitable, and would be disruptive and inconstent with the overall broadcast regulatory system. Supporters of the rule are of the view that without divestiture the rules would not be effective. Justice, without using the term, appears to Suggest divestiture at renewal time. Citizens Committee and Freddot, Ltd., recommend that divestiture take place in stages to ease the impact. 68. When the notice was issued we believed that it was in the public interest to “grandfather” existing licensees (partly because of the disruptive effect of divestiture), although requiring them to break up combinations when selling their stations. Consideration of the record, however, has given us pause. Being now of the view that the rules we adopt, even though providing for no divestiture, are a reasonable start 69 toward diversity and are in the public interest, but that divestiture may further serve the public interest, we should like to explore the matter more fully. Accordingly, we are today issuing a further notice of proposed rulemaking looking toward divestiture in order to develop more information on the subject and to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the matter. For similar reasons, the matter of newspaper ownership, mentioned by various parties, is also dealt with in the further notice. [324] Minority cross-interests 69. ABC, Auburn, and GEBCO assert that the present duopoly portions of the multiple-ownership rules contain no mention of minority-ownership in- terests. In this connection, they direct our attention to Radio Athens, Inc. v. FCC, 13 U.S. App. D.C. 333, 401 F.2d 398 (1968). In that case, Radio Athens, licensee of AM station WATH, filed an application to increase power. A 70-percent stockholder of Radio Athens was, additionally, an officer and director thereof, and also owned less than one-third of the stock of the licensee of a neighboring AM station and was an officer and director of that licensee. Grant of the application would have resulted in the type of overlap vf contours proscribed by the duopoly rules. 70. The decision pointed out that the duopoly rules state that a broadcast station license will not be granted to parties directly or indirectly owning, operating, or controlling one or more stations in the same broadcast service if the grant of the license will result in any overlap of specified service contours. The court held that the rules by themselves did not advise a person that ownership of less than one-third of the stock of a 70 close corporation of which he was an officer and director constituted, as a matter of law, such control as to make the application patently violative of the Commission’s rules and subject to being not accepted for filing by the Commission. 71. The court stated that various constructions which the Commission had in the past made of the duopoly rule to make it operative in cases of cross-interest, whether or not the interest is tantamount to ownership, operation, or control, did not operate to give an applicant fair notice that its application was patently not in accordance with the rules and therefore subject to being rejected. It said that in circumstances where such a drastic step as dismissal of an application without any consideration is involved more clarity of notice to an applicant was needed and suggested that this should be given by the adoption of rules. However, it also said that agencies may rightly expect attention to be accorded to their interpretative rulings and expect attention to be accorded to their interpretative rulings and indicated that in cases not involving outright dismissal of an application such an expectation would be justiiied. 72. ABC, Auburn, and GEBCO state that since the notice did not mention minority cross-interests, they assume that the present proceeding is not directed at broadening the duopoly rules to embrace such interests, and that if the Commission decides to take such a step they will be given an opportunity to comment pursuant to provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. We agree that the notice did not refer to minority cross-interests, and the rules we adopt today contain no 71 new language thereon.** Inasmuch as the new rules are an extension of the present duopoly rules, we are announcing that the rulings that we have made in the past On minority cross-interests in duopoly cases will be carried over and applied to cases involving such interest under [325] the new rules.*5 However, of course, situations under the new rules that are like that which arose in Radio Athens, in which an application was dismissed as not acceptable for filing, will be treated consistently with the holding of that case. 73. The subject of minority cross-interests, involving, for example, less than complete cross-ownership, interlocking directorates, partial ownership in one station and employment by another, and other matters, is in need of reexamination and we intend to give it consideration which may lead to actions looking toward the issuance of interpretative or other regulations. 24Ry a report and order in docket No. 15627 (“Multiple Ownership of AM, FM, and TV Stations,” 13 F.C.C. 2d 357 (1968)) amendments to the multiple-ownership rules were adopted. They became effective about 3 weeks after the decision in Radio Athens. Although not going into the question of minority cross-ownership interests in detail, new note 2 of the rules as amended therein states that partial as well as total ownership interests in corporate broadcast licensees are con- sidered in administering the duopoly rules. 25 See conditions applied against cross-interests in two overlapping television stations, WECT-TV, Wilmington, N.C., public notice of Jan. 13, 1966, mimeograph No. 78695, Roy H. Park, who held control of one of two overlapping stations, WNCT-TV, Greenville, N.C., and also a minority stock interest in WECT-TV, Wilmington, N.C. (the second overlapping station), was precluded from holding an office in or participating in the management of WECT-TV. 72 THE INTERIM POLICY 74. The notice, as clarified by the memorandum opinion and order, provided that all applications within the scope of the proposed rules tendered for filing on or before April 3, 1968 (the date the notice was published in the Federal Register) and subsequently accepted for filing would be processed according to existing rules and precedents. However, as an interim policy, applications falling within the scope of the proposed rules that were tendered for filing after that date would be accepted for filing if they otherwise complied with Commission rules or other requirements, but would not be acted on until the Commission had determined the action to be taken on the proposed rules. 75. If applications were mutually exclusive and some or all of them fell under the provisions of the interim policy, the applications were not to be designated for hearing, but were to be held in a pending file without further action until decisions were reached in this proceeding. However, to avoid the creation of a backlog, this aspect of the policy was subsequently modified (Seaborn Rudolph Hubbard et al., 15 F.C.C. 2d 690 (1968), 16 F.C.C. 2d 312 (1969)) to provide that such mutually exclusive applications would be designated for hearing. If in such a hearing an application not in conflict with the proposed rules were preferred, a grant would be made in the usual manner. If the preferred application were one falling within the scope of the proposed rules, then it and all other applications remaining in the proceeding would be held in hearing until resolution of the rulemaking proceed- ing, with appropriate action being taken in the light of the disposition of the rulemaking proceeding. 73 76. On relatively few occasions the Commission, in dealing with applications that fell within the scope of the proposed rules and that were not mutually exclusive with other applications, has for good cause waived the interim policy and made an unconditional grant; or a grant subject to the condition that the purchaser of more than one full-time station in the same market dispose of the excess stations as soon as possible, or within a specified period of tine: or a grant subject to the outcome of this proceeding. [326] 77. Our unconditional grants and those with the condition of divestiture will, of course, stand. With regard to grants subject to the outcome of this proceeding which involve assignment or transfer of AM-FM combinations that are in the same market under the new rules, we shall, if the material on file contains sufficient information to show that the stations cannot be separately sold and operated, and if they would not be in the same market as a commonly owned TV station, make the grant final. If more information is needed for a decision on such cases it will be requested of the applicants. In cases where the proper showing is not made, the AM-FM facilities must be separated. Grants involving TV and aural facilities in the same market will also be required to be separated. Applications for waiver will be considered. Grants involving TV satellite stations will be reviewed on an ad hoc basis. 78. The new rules will be effective as to pending applications tendered for filing after April 3, 1968, whether or not in hearing status. Pending applications may be amended to bring them into compliance with the new rules. If possible, such amendment should be made prior to the effective date of the rules. 74 Applications which are in hearing status may be amended, subject to the usual rules governing removal from hearing status. All applications (in hearing or otherwise) which are not amended to achieve compli- ance will be dismissed when the new rules become effective unless good cause is shown for not having so amended prior to the effective date. ORDER 79. In view of the foregoing, /t is ordered, That part 73. of the Commission’s rules and regulations /s amended, effective May 15, 1970, as set forth in the attached appendix B. 80. Authority for the adoption of the rules herein is contained in sections 4(i) and (j), and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Federal Communications Commission, Ben F. Waple, Secretary. APPENDIX A PARTIES FILING COMMENTS (*Indicates reply comments also filed) Air Trails, Inc., et al. Air Trails, Inc. Bulletin Co. Great Trails Broadcasting Corp. KPAT, Inc. Radio Voice of Springfield, Inc. 75 Reams Broadcasting Corp. RKO General, Inc. Royal Street Corp. Roywood Corp. Time-Life Broadcast, Inc. WEZE, Inc. WKY Television System, Inc. WRIT, Inc. Alexandria Broadcasting Corp. (Alexandria) [327] The All-Channel Television Society (ACTS) American Broadcasting Cos., Inc.* (ABC) Armstrong Broadcasting Corp. (Armstrong) Association On Broadcasting Standards, Inc. (ABS) Atlantic States Industries, Inc.* (Atlantic) Auburn Broadcasting Corp., et al. (Auburn) Auburn Broadcasting Corp. Babcock Cos., Inc. Channel 10, Inc. Group One Broadcasting Co. Group One Broadcasting Co. of Texas Guaranty Broadcasting Corp. Island Teleradio Service, Inc. KAKC of Tulsa, Inc. KFAB Broadcasting Co. KMAP, Inc. May Broadcasting Co. Plains Television Corp. Sagre De Cristo Broadcasting Corp. Summit Radio Corp. WKNE Corp. WKRG-TYV, Inc. Spanish International Broadcasting Co. Augusta Broadcasting Co. (Augusta) Basic Communications, Inc., et al. (Basic Communications) _ Basic Communications, Inc. 76 Binghamton Press Co., Inc. Central California Communications Corp. Daily Telegraph Printing Co. Daytona Broadcasting, Inc. Evans Communications System, Inc. Gannett Florida Corp. Golden West Broadcasters Golden West Broadcasters, Inc. Guy Gannett Broadcasting Services James Broadcasting Co. Lake Shore Broadcasting Co., Inc. Mount Hood Radio & Television Broadcasting Corp. Multimedia, Inc. New Hampshire-Vermont Broadcasting Corp. Newhouse Broadcasting Corp. Northwestern Publishing Corp. Palmer Broadcasting Co. Plough Broadcasting Co., Inc. Providence Journal Co. Radio Medfor [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_1574%3A06. Public record. Not legal advice.