[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 245 (Thursday, December 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66987-66992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-32139]


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


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