# Broadcast Television National Ownership Rules

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-32139

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** December 19, 1996
- **Citation:** 61 FR 66987

## Text

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket Nos. 96-222, 91-221, and 87-8; FCC 96-437]

Broadcast Television National Ownership Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed Rule Making makes several proposals
regarding how to calculate a group television station owner's aggregate
national audience reach to determine compliance with the Commission's
35% national audience cap. This action is needed to best implement the
national ownership provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

DATES: Comments are due by February 7, 1997, and reply comments are due
by March 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul R. Gordon, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2130.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket Nos. 96-222, 91-221, and 87-7,
adopted November 5, 1996, and released November 7, 1996. The full text
of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 239), 1919
M Street, NW.,

[[Page 66988]]

Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may be purchased
from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription
Services, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC
20037.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule Making

1. In 1995, the Commission released a Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in MM Docket Nos. 87-8 and 91-221 (TV Ownership Further
NPRM) seeking comment on a variety of issues relating to the national
broadcast television multiple ownership rules.\1\ After comments were
submitted, Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the
``1996 Act''). The 1996 Act set specific national ownership audience
reach limitations and eliminated our prior national numerical cap on
station ownership. However, it did not address the issue of the
measurement of audience reach for the purposes of the new limits.
Therefore, we seek to update the record on measuring national
television audience reach for purposes of the new national ownership
limit in three areas, described in detail below: (1) whether to
continue to disregard satellite station ownership in measuring national
ownership (the ``satellite exemption''); (2) whether and how to
incorporate local marketing agreements (``LMAs'') into the calculation
of national audience reach; and (3) whether to replace our use of
Arbitron's Areas of Dominant Influence (``ADIs'') to define geographic
television markets with the use of Nielsen's Designated Market Areas
(``DMAs''). We defer until 1998 consideration of another issue: whether
to continue to attribute UHF facilities with only one half the audience
reach of VHF stations in the same market (the ``UHF discount'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Further NPRM in MM Docket Nos. 87-8 and 91-221, 60 FR 6490,
February 2, 1995 (TV Ownership Further NPRM). Those aspects of the
TV Ownership proceeding that address national ownership issues are
now incorporated into this new docket. The TV Ownership Further NPRM
also addressed issues relating to the Commission's local television
ownership rules, which are the subject of a companion proceeding.
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket Nos. 91-
221 and 87-7, also being published today (Local TV Second Further
NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

2. Before passage of the 1996 Act, Sections 73.3555(e)(1)(ii) and
(iii) generally prohibited entities from having an attributable
ownership or other cognizable interest in more than 12 such stations.
Sections 73.3555(e)(2)(i) and (ii) generally prohibited from an entity
from having an attributable ownership or other cognizable interest in a
station if it would result in that entity's having such an interest in
television stations with an aggregate national audience reach exceeding
25%. The rule defined a station's audience reach as consisting of the
total number of television households within the television market for
that station, rather than its actual viewing audience. The television
market, in turn, was defined as the Area of Dominant Influence (ADI)
that Arbitron, a commercial audience-rating service, used in analyzing
broadcast television station competition. For purposes of calculating
this aggregate audience reach under the rules, UHF stations were
attributed with only 50% of the audience within their ADI (the UHF
discount), and satellite stations generally were not counted at all
(the satellite exemption).
3. Section 202(c)(1) of the 1996 Act directed the Commission to
``modify its rules for multiple ownership set forth in Section 73.3555
of its regulations. . . .--
(A) by eliminating the restrictions on the number of television
stations that a person or entity may directly or indirectly own,
operate, or control, or have a cognizable interest in, nationwide; and
(B) by increasing the national audience reach limitation for
television stations to 35%.''
Accordingly, the Commission released an Order revising Section
73.3555(e) of the Rules to reflect these two changes.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Order, FCC 96-91 (released March 8, 1996), 61 FR 10691,
March 15, 1996 (1996 National TV Ownership Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The 1996 Act is silent with respect to the UHF discount and the
satellite station exemption, both of which remain part of the
definitions set forth in Section 73.3555(e)(2) for calculating national
audience reach. We stated in the 1996 National TV Ownership Order that
issues related to these rule provisions would be addressed separately,
and that the existing UHF discount and the satellite exemption would
remain in effect until such time as we could review and resolve these
matters. We added that any entity subsequently acquiring stations
before these issues were resolved and which complied with the 35%
audience reach limitation only by virtue of either or both of these two
provisions would be subject to the outcome of the pending national
television ownership proceeding, the relevant issues of which have been
incorporated into this proceeding.
5. We consequently seek to update the record with regard to the
satellite exemption, and we also seek comment on two other issues not
addressed in the 1996 Act but which bear on our implementation and
enforcement of the new 35% reach limit: the treatment of LMAs and the
use of geographic market definitions for purposes of calculating
national audience reach.

The Rules

The UHF Discount

6. When the Commission adopted the UHF discount in 1985, it stated
that the inherent physical nature of the UHF signal created competitive
disadvantages at that time sufficient to warrant accommodation in the
national multiple ownership rules. However, as explained below, we are
postponing any decision as to whether to modify or eliminate the UHF
discount until the next biennial review of the broadcast ownership
rules.
7. We have observed in other contexts that the UHF disparity has
been ameliorated over the years. This is due in part to improved
television receiver designs, as well as the fact that many households
received broadcast channels via cable rather than by over-the-air
transmission. In the TV Ownership Further NPRM, we suggested that
extensive cable carriage of UHF stations, might have reduced the UHF
disparity.
8. Nearly all of the commenters addressing the issue oppose
eliminating the UHF discount. As they correctly point out,
approximately 4% of potential viewers are not passed by cable and
approximately 34.8% of television households do not subscribe to cable.
Such viewers continue to rely on over-the-air reception of both VHF and
UHF signals and, accordingly, continue to be subject to the UHF signal
disadvantage. Moreover, the Supreme Court is considering the
constitutionality of the must-carry rules. If the rules are determined
to be unconstitutional, and if many UHF stations are as a result
dropped by cable systems, then the increased pass rate and penetration
rate of cable television could become much less relevant to the
magnitude of the UHF disparity.
9. Given these circumstances, and based on the current record, we
have decided to defer any further review of this policy to the biennial
review of our broadcast ownership rules that we will conduct in 1998
pursuant to the 1996 Act. We should be in a better position in 1998 to
assess the continuing growth over the next several years in the
availability and penetration of cable and other multichannel video
programming

[[Page 66989]]

suppliers and how this affects the continuing need for the UHF
discount. In addition, by 1998 the Commission will have adopted a
digital television (DTV) Table of Allotments, and the implementation of
this new technology will have proceeded further. Our review of the UHF
discount as part of the biennial ownership review would take into
account these developments, as both digital technology and the
allotment of DTV channels may eventually diminish to a great extent the
physical distinction between the UHF and VHF signals.We also invite
comment on whether we should impose in the interim any supplementary
limitation on national audience reach.

The Satellite Exemption

10. A television satellite is a full-power terrestrial broadcast
station that retransmits all or part of the programming of a parent
station that is often commonly owned. The Commission currently exempts
TV satellites from the national multiple ownership rules. In 1991, in a
proceeding addressing the Commission's overall regulation of satellite
stations, we abolished both the 5% limit on the amount of local
programming that a satellite can originate and the use of that 5%
benchmark for determining whether a station is still a satellite.\3\
Accordingly, because satellites were no longer limited as to the amount
of local programming they could originate, we also sought comment on
whether to continue to exempt satellites from the national ownership
rule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87-8, 56 FR 31876, July
11, 1991 (TV Satellite R&O) (recon. pending).
\4\ Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket
87-8, 56 FR 42306, August 27, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. A satellite may operate in the same market as its parent
station intramarket, or the two stations may operate in different
markets. We tentatively conclude that, with respect to the intramarket
situation, the public interest would be served by retaining the
satellite exemption. However, we believe that satellite stations should
be counted for purposes of the national ownership limits where they are
in a separate market from the parent station.
12. In intramarket situations, we see no reason to count that
market twice for the purposes of determining national audience
reach.\5\ The national multiple ownership rule, as amended by the 1996
Act, is concerned with potential audience rather than actual
viewership. Nor are we concerned with the particular number of
television stations owned. Indeed, the 1996 Act eliminated the
numerical station limitations formerly in the rule and now focuses
solely on national audience reach. In this regard, if a licensee
acquires a satellite television station in a market within which it
already operates a station, it has not extended its audience reach in
that television market for purposes of the national audience reach
limit; the television households in that market are already counted,
given the existence of the licensee's non-satellite station. This is
true whether or not the satellite station is originating local
programming. We seek comment on our proposal not to ``double count'' a
satellite and its parent station in these circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ As noted above, any satellite issues that might arise in the
context of the local duopoly rule will be addressed in the local
ownership proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Notably, the above analysis would apply regardless of whether
one of the commonly owned stations is a satellite station, as it is
based solely on the fact that both stations operate in the same
television market. Thus, we extend our proposal to incorporate all
commonly owned television stations within a market. Specifically, when
two commonly owned stations are in the same market by virtue of a
waiver of the local television duopoly rule, we propose not to ``double
count'' the television households within that market for national
ownership purposes. Similarly, should we ultimately authorize common
ownership of more than one television station in a market in the
pending local ownership proceeding, we intend not to double count the
television households within that market for the purposes of
calculating a licensee's national audience reach. We seek comment on
this proposal. We also seek comment on how this proposal would affect
programming diversity and opportunities for small stations, or stations
owned by women and minorities.
14. Turning to parent-satellite combinations in separate markets,
we note that this type of satellite provides programming to a
population that otherwise would receive no programming at all over the
air from either the parent or the satellite station, and the licensee
of the parent station controls the programming of both the parent and
the satellite station. Consequently, the actual over-the-air audience
reach of the parent station's licensee is in fact expanded into another
market by the audience reach of the satellite station. While the
exemption may have encouraged the operation of satellite stations in
the past, any such incentive has been minimized by the elimination of
the 12-station limit. Previously, without the exemption, a satellite in
an isolated area would have been regarded as being no different from a
full-service station in a heavily populated area for the purpose of
counting the number of stations toward the 12-station limit. However,
as noted above, satellite stations typically operate in areas that are
likely to provide television broadcasters relatively little opportunity
for growth and profit when compared with larger markets. Under these
circumstances, if there had been no satellite exemption, a licensee
would have had a disincentive to operate a satellite station, and many
rural areas would likely not be receiving service from satellite
stations that are operating today. Thus, the exemption allowed group
owners to acquire and operate satellite stations without concern for
the national numerical station limits.
15. Under the new national ownership rule, however, the equal
treatment of satellite stations for the purposes of national ownership
would no longer provide a disincentive to satellite operation. Because
a satellite generally serves a sparsely populated area that is
underserved, the population of the entire market in which the satellite
is located should add relatively little to a group owner's total
national audience reach. Thus, we tentatively conclude that the
satellite exemption in cases where the parent and satellite station
serve separate markets is no longer necessary to encourage the
operation of satellite stations. We seek comment on our tentative
conclusion to eliminate the satellite exemption for parent/satellite
combinations in different markets.

Local Marketing Agreements

16. The question of double-counting is also raised when a licensee
programs another television station in the same market through an LMA.
An LMA is a type of joint venture that generally involves the sale by a
licensee of discrete blocks of time to a broker who then supplies the
programming to fill that time and sells the commercial spot
announcements to support it. Such agreements enable separately owned
stations to function cooperatively via joint advertising, shared
technical facilities (including shared production facilities), and
joint programming arrangements.
17. We request comment specifically addressing how best to treat
LMAs when calculating an entity's national audience reach. We stress
that in this NPRM we are not addressing the permissibility and
attribution of LMAs under our local ownership rules, as

[[Page 66990]]

these issues are currently being analyzed in our companion local
ownership and attribution rule makings.
18. The double-counting issue arises when one licensee operates as
a broker to another in the same television market pursuant to an LMA;
in this situation it reaches the same audience twice, through two
different television stations. We have incorporated the general issue
of whether television LMAs should be attributed in the Attribution
Further NPRM and tentatively conclude in that proceeding that an LMA of
another television station in the same market for more than 15% of the
brokered station's weekly broadcast hours should generally be
attributed for purposes of our ownership rules. However, as discussed
above in the context of satellite stations, the national television
ownership rule now focuses solely on national audience reach and we see
no reason to double-count a market for purposes of calculating this
reach. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We seek comment in
particular on the effect of double counting for small stations, or for
stations owned by women or minorities.

Market Definition

19. The 1996 Act left unchanged a provision in our television
ownership rule that defines national audience reach as the total number
of television households in the Arbitron Area of Dominant Influence
(ADI) markets in which the relevant stations are located divided by the
total national television households as measured by ADI.
20. As we stated in the 1995 Television Ownership Further NPRM,
Arbitron no longer updates its county-by-county determinations of each
broadcast station's ADI. Accordingly, we proposed to use Designated
Market Areas (DMAs) as compiled by A.C. Nielsen--another commercial
ratings service--where we previously relied on ADIs, noting that they
are analytically similar. Moreover, in our companion Local TV Second
Further NPRM, we state that the DMA provides, as a general matter, a
reasonable proxy of a television station's geographic market.
Consequently, we tentatively conclude in that proceeding that local
television markets should be on the basis of DMAs, although for
purposes of the local ownership rules, we further propose that we
should supplement the DMA test with a Grade A signal contour criterion.
21. While the general issue of how to delineate the geographic
scope of local markets was addressed by several commenters in response
to the 1995 Television Ownership Further NPRM, we observe that it was
not in the context of calculating a broadcaster's national audience
reach. In the absence of any comment, we tentatively conclude that we
should adopt the proposal to use DMAs for calculating national audience
reach.
22. In some instances the use of DMAs instead of ADIs may lead to
small variations in the audience reach calculation of some stations.
This is due to the fact that in some instances Arbitron and Nielsen
define markets somewhat differently. For example, Hagerstown, Maryland,
constitutes its own Arbitron ADI, while it is part of the Washington,
DC DMA established by Nielsen. While we recognize that these variations
occur, we believe they will have a minor effect on the calculation of
an entity's national ownership reach. We invite parties to comment on
this assessment.

Implementation and Transition Issues

23. In this NPRM, we propose to modify the satellite exemption, but
we defer consideration of the UHF discount until our biennial review in
1998. We seek comment regarding the implementation of any changes we
may make to the satellite exemption. We also seek to determine whether
a group station owner complying with the 35% limit only by virtue of
the UHF discount could nevertheless have so high a national audience
reach that it would not be in the public interest and, if so, how this
matter is best addressed. We note that part of the 1996 National TV
Ownership Order concerned subsequent station acquisitions (i.e., UHF or
satellite station acquisitions made after March 15, 1996, the effective
date of that Order) that comply with the 35% audience reach limitation
only by virtue of either or both of the UHF discount or the satellite
exemption. We advised broadcasters that such transactions would be
subject to the ultimate resolution of this rulemaking. We now ask
commenters to address how best to effectuate that approach.

Conclusion

24. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 established new, relaxed
limitations on national multiple ownership. We have issued this NPRM to
update the record on subsidiary matters not addressed in the Act which
determine how to calculate the new 35% national audience reach cap--
whether to continue the satellite exemption, as well as issues related
to LMAs and market definition. In seeking comment on these issues, we
wish to ensure that the new national audience reach cap is effectively
implementated so as to promote our competition and diversity goals. We
also seek comment on the transaction issues raised by any rule changes
we may adopt in this proceeding.

Administrative Matters

25. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Secs. 1.415 and 1.419,
interested parties may file comments on or before February 7, 1997, and
reply comments on or before March 7, 1997. To file formally in this
proceeding, you must file an original plus four copies of all comments,
reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner
to receive a copy of your comments, you must file an original plus nine
copies. You should send comments and reply comments to Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.
Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239),
1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
26. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the
Commission Rules. See generally 47 CFR Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and
1.1206(a).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

The rules proposed herein have been analyzed with respect to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found to contain no new or modified
form, information collection and/or record keeping, labeling,
disclosure or record retention requirements. These proposed rules would
not increase or decrease burden hours imposed on the public.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. Sec. 603, the Commission is incorporating an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of
the policies and proposals in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM).\6\ Written public comments concerning the effect of the

[[Page 66991]]

proposals in the NPRM, including the IRFA, on small businesses are
requested. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines for the submission of comments in this
proceeding. The Secretary shall send a copy of this NPRM, including the
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ An IRFA pursuant to Public Law Notice 96-354, Sec. 603, 94
Stat. 1165 (1980) was incorporated into both the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket
Nos. 91-221 and 87-8, the national ownership aspects of which have
been incorporated into this proceeding.
\7\ Public Law Notice 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601
et seq. (1981), as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reason for NPRM

After the issuance of the TV Ownership Further NPRM in 1995, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 \8\ was signed into law. Accordingly,
this NPRM seeks comment on how the Telecommunications Act of 1996
should affect our ongoing analysis of the national broadcast television
ownership rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Public Law Notice 104-104, Sec. 101, 110 Stat. 56 (1996)
(Telecommunications Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objectives

This NPRM seeks comment on modifying the national broadcast
television ownership rules to achieve our competition and diversity
goals in light of the passage of the Telecommunications Act. Pursuant
to the Act, a licensee may not own a station if it would result in that
broadcaster's owning television stations with an aggregate national
audience reach exceeding 35%. A station's audience reach has
traditionally been defined for national ownership purposes as the total
number of television households within the station's Area of Dominant
Influence (ADI), an area used by Arbitron to analyze broadcast
television station competition. While the Telecommunications Act set
the 35% national audience reach limit, it did not address how to
actually measure audience reach. This NPRM seeks comment on issues
relating to such measurement.
First, we propose to eliminate the satellite exemption to the
national ownership rule, by which a television satellite station is not
considered when calculating a broadcaster's national audience reach, in
cases where the satellite operates in a different market from its
parent. The exemption was intended to encourage the operation of
satellite stations. Without the exemption, a satellite would have
brought a group station owner closer to the 12-station cap (which was
eliminated by the Telecommunications Act) just like the acquisition of
any other station, thereby creating a disincentive for satellite
operation. However, because the 12-station cap has been eliminated and
because incorporation of a satellite's local market should add
relatively little to a group owner's total national audience reach, the
disincentive to satellite operation has likely been removed. When the
satellite and the parent are in the same market, however, we propose to
retain the exemption, because multiple counting of the same audience
would appear unrelated to Congress's concern with national audience
reach.
Second, the NPRM turns to LMAs, noting that the issue is relevant
only if the LMA is deemed attributable, a question being resolved in
the pending attribution proceeding. This NPRM proposes that local
marketing agreements (LMAs) not be counted for the purposes of
calculating an entity's national audience reach. When one licensee
operates as a broker to another in the same television market pursuant
to an LMA, it reaches the same audience twice, through two different
television stations, and it does not allow the brokering station's
licensee to reach any audience that it is not already reaching. Thus,
it appears that Congress's concern with national audience reach, as
opposed to numerical station limits, is not implicated.
Finally, the NPRM proposes to utilize Designated Market Areas
(DMAs), the areas used by Nielsen to analyze broadcast television
station competition, instead of ADIs when calculating the number of TV
households in a station's market. Arbitron no longer updates its
county-by-county determinations of each broadcast station's ADI.
However, DMAs are generally similar to ADIs and are still updated
regularly. Any effects caused by this modification of the rule are
expected to be de minimis.

Legal Basis

Authority for the actions proposed in this NPRM may be found in
Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i), 303(r).

Recording, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

No new recording, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements
are proposed.

Federal Rules That Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the Proposed
Rules

The Commission's broadcast-newspaper, television broadcast-cable,
local radio ownership, and local television ownership rules also
promote the same goals as the rules discussed in this item. However,
they do not overlap, duplicate or conflict with the proposed rules.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the
Rules Would Apply

The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a television
broadcasting station that is independently owned and operated, is not
dominant in its field of operation, and has no more than $10.5 million
in annual receipts as a small business.\9\ Television broadcasting
stations consist of establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting
visual programs by television to the public, except cable and other pay
television services.\10\ Included in this industry are commercial,
religious, educational, and other television stations.\11\ Also
included are establishments primarily engaged in television
broadcasting and which produce taped television program materials.\12\
Separate establishments primarily engaged in producing taped television
program materials are classified under another SIC number.\13\ There
were 1,509 television stations operating in the nation in 1992.\14\
That number has remained fairly constant, as indicated by the
approximately 1,550 operating television stations in August, 1996.\15\
In 1992,\16\ there were 1,155 television station establishments that

[[Page 66992]]

produced less than $10.0 million in revenue.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ 13 CFR Sec. 121.201, Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 4833
(1996). For purposes of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we are
utilizing the SBA's definition in determining the number of small
businesses to which the proposed rules would apply, but we reserve
the right to adopt a more suitable definition of ``small business''
as applied to radio and television broadcast stations and to
consider further the issue of the number of small entities that are
television broadcasters in the future. See Report and Order in MM
Docket No. 93-48 (Children's Educational and Informational
Programming), 61 FR 43981 (August 27, 1996), citing 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 601(3).
\10\ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census,
U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,
Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series
UC92-S-1, Appendix A-9 (1995).
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id.
\13\ Id.
\14\ FCC News Release No. 31327, January 13, 1993; Economics and
Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Dep't of Commerce,
supra note 71, Appendix A-9.
\15\ Federal Communications Commission News Release 64958,
September 6, 1996.
\16\ Census for communications establishments are performed
every five years, during years that end with a ``2'' or ``7''. See
Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
Dep't of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and
Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series UC92-S-1, Appendix A-
9, III (1995).
\17\ The amount of $10 million was used to estimate the number
of small business establishments because the relevant Census
categories stopped at $9,999,999 and began at $10,000,000. No
category for $10.5 million existed. Thus, the number is as accurate
as it is possible to calculate with the available information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We recognize that the proposed rules may also affect minority and
women-owned stations, some of which may be small entities. In 1995,
minorities owned and controlled 37 (3.0%) of 1,221 commercial
television stations.\18\ According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1987 women owned and controlled 27 (1.9%) of 1,342 commercial and
noncommercial television stations in the United States.\19\ We
recognize that the numbers of minority and women broadcast owners may
have changed due to an increase in license transfers and assignments
since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. We seek
comment on the current numbers of minority and women owned broadcast
properties and the numbers of these that qualify as small entities. To
assist us with our responsibilities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, we specifically request comments concerning our assessment of the
number of small businesses that will be impacted by this rule making
proceeding, the type or form of impact, and the advantages and
disadvantages of the impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Minority Commercial Broadcast Ownership in the United
States, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, The Minority Telecommunications
Development Program (MTDP) (April 1996). MTDP considers minority
ownership as ownership of more than 50% of the broadcast
corporation's stock, have voting control in a broadcast partnership,
or own a broadcasting property as an individual proprietor. Id. The
minority groups included in this report are Black, Hispanic, Asian,
and Native American.
\19\ See Comments of American Women in Radio and Television,
Inc. in MM Docket No. 94-149 and MM Docket No. 91-140, at 4 n.4
(filed May 17, 1995), citing 1987 Economic Censuses, Women-Owned
Business, WB87-1, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
August 1990 (based on 1987 Census). After the 1987 Census report,
the Census Bureau did not provide data by particular communications
services (four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code),
but rather by the general two-digit SIC Code for communications
(#48). Consequently, since 1987, the U.S. Census Bureau has not
updated data on ownership of broadcast facilities by women, nor does
the FCC collect such data. However, we sought comment on whether the
Annual Ownership Report Form 323 should be amended to include
information on the gender and race of broadcast license owners.
Policies and Rules Regarding Minority and Female Ownership of mass
Media Facilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 2788
(1995), 60 FR 6068, (February 1, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities
and Consistent with the Stated Objectives

The proposed rules and policies would apply to full power broadcast
television licensees, permittees, and potential licensees. We have
proposed to not double count commonly owned stations in the same market
and LMAs for the purpose of calculating a licensee's national audience
reach. We also propose to eliminate the satellite exemption of
licensees that operate a satellite station in a separate market from
the parent station. We do not have sufficient information, at this
time, to reach a tentative conclusion about the effect of these
proposed rules, and seek comment on the potential significant economic
impact of these proposals on a substantial number of small stations. We
urge parties to support their comments with specific evidence and
analysis.
We tentatively conclude that there is not a significant economic
impact regarding our proposal to use Designated Market Areas (DMAs)
compiled by A.C. Nielsen instead of Arbitron to calculate national
audience reach. A.C. Nielsen, like Arbitron, is another commercial
ratings service, and they are analytically similar.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-32139 Filed 12-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-32139. Public record. Not legal advice.