[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60387-60391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26014]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 73 and 76
[MM Docket No. 83-484: FCC 00-360]
Repeal or Modification of the Personal Attack and Political
Editorial Rules
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rules: Request for Supplemental Information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document concerns a 60-day suspension of the political
editorial and personal attack rules and asks parties to submit evidence
on the effects of the suspension 60 days after the suspension period
ends. The Commission adopted the Order and Request to Update Record in
response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Radio-
Television News Directors Ass'n v. FCC, 184 F.3d 872 (1999). The
intended effect of this action is to enable the Commission to obtain a
better record on which to review the rules.
DATES: Parties may submit evidence on the effect of the suspension of
the rules on or before January 31, 2001, and replies may be submitted
on or before February 15, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Address all evidence concerning this suspension to the
Commission's Secretary, Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street,
SW., Washington DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cyndi Thomas, Policy and Rules
Division, Mass Media Bureau, at (202) 418-2130.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Order and Request
to Update in MM Docket No. 83-484, FCC 00-360, adopted on October 3,
2000, and released on October 4, 2000. The full text of this decision
is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours
in the FCC Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257,
Washington DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 445
Twelfth Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington DC. The complete text is
also available under the file name fcc00360.pdf on the Commission's
Internet site at www.fcc.gov.
Electronic Access and Filing Addresses
1. Information may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System or by filing paper copies via the Internet to
http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Parties may also submit an
electronic copy by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-
mail information, parties should send an e-mail to [email protected],, and
should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get
form, your e-mail address>.'' A sample form and directions will be sent
in reply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
2. The actions taken in this Order and Request to Update Record
have been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), and found to request new or modified reporting or recordkeeping
by the public. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget for emergency review under Section 3507 of the PRA.
Summary of Order and Request To Update Record
3. The Commission adopts an Order and Request to Update Record
(Order) in response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' (D.C.
Circuit) decision in Radio-Television News Directors Ass'n v. FCC, 184
F.3d 872 (1999) (RTNDA). In the Order, the Commission suspends the
political editorial and personal attack rules, 47 CFR 73.1920 and
73.1930, for 60 days to enable the Commission to obtain a better record
on which to review the rules. These rules as they apply to cable
television system operators, 47 CFR 76.209(b), (c), and (d), are also
within the scope of this proceeding. The court recognized that the
Commission considered the record previously before it to be ``old and
possibly flawed'' and encouraged the Commission to ``consider modern
factual and legal developments.'' This brief suspension, which the
Commission hopes will provide useful data on the effect of the rules,
will allow it ``to work from a relatively clean procedural slate,'' as
the court suggested. In addition, the Commission takes this opportunity
to make clear that much of the discussion in Syracuse Peace Council, 2
FCC Rcd 5043 (1987), recon. denied, 3 FCC Rcd 2035 (1988), aff'd sub
nom. Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC, 867 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1989),
cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1019 (1990), accompanying the Commission's
repeal of the fairness doctrine has been repudiated. The Commission
also asks those parties to this proceeding who believe that it is not
possible to ``distinguish[] political editorials and personal attacks *
* * from subjects formerly covered by the fairness doctrine'' to
consider whether the rules at issue should be extended to cover matters
that previously were subject to the fairness doctrine.
4. The lengthy history of this proceeding was summarized by the
D.C. Circuit last year in its opinion in RTNDA. In 1983, after the
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) filed a petition asking the
Commission to repeal the political editorial and personal attack rules,
the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'')
proposing to repeal or modify the rules (48 FR 28295, June 21,1983).
Because the NPRM also sought comment on these rules as they apply to
cable television system operators, the suspension adopted herein will
apply to the cable as well as the broadcast rules and the Commission
welcomes comments on the rules as they apply to cable operators as well
as broadcasters. The Commission subsequently stopped
[[Page 60388]]
enforcing the related fairness doctrine in 1987, in Syracuse Peace
Council. For nearly a decade after the repeal of the fairness doctrine,
the Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) and the NAB
(``the Broadcasters'') did not vigorously press their attack on the
political editorial and personal attack rules, but they renewed their
challenge in 1996. Since then, the Commission has spent a considerable
amount of time on this proceeding, but has twice deadlocked, despite
significant changes in membership.
5. After the second deadlock, the D.C. Circuit considered the
Broadcasters' arguments concerning the validity of the rules. As a
threshold matter, the court rejected the Broadcasters' contention that
the Joint Statement of Commissioners Susan Ness and Gloria Tristani
favoring retention of the rules, 13 FCC Rcd 21901 (1998) (Joint
Statement), should not be accorded deference as the decision of the
Commission. To the contrary, the court held that ``a deadlocked vote on
a proposal to repeal a rule constitutes reviewable, final agency action
in support of the status quo,'' and that it was appropriate to ``accord
the Joint Statement the same respect normally accorded agency decisions
in rulemaking proceedings.'' The D.C. Circuit also rejected the
Broadcasters' principal argument on the merits, which was that ``the
Syracuse order of its own force drags the political editorial and
personal attack rules down with the fairness doctrine to which they
were moored.'' Rather, the court explained, in agreement with the Joint
Statement, ``there is nothing inherently inconsistent about preserving
the two challenged rules despite abrogation of the fairness doctrine.''
The court also declined to review the Broadcasters' contention that the
rules unlawfully ``chill protected expression, impose undue
administrative burdens on broadcasters, and have been rendered obsolete
by the proliferation of new media technologies and outlets.'' At the
same time, the court assumed that the rules ``interfere with editorial
judgment'' to some extent, even though the record was not entirely
clear on the extent of that interference.
6. After rejecting the Broadcasters' principal argument, the court
remanded the matter to the Commission, explaining that the Joint
Statement had failed to square the rationale underlying the
Commission's decision to repeal the fairness doctrine with the
retention of the rules at issue. Generally, the court said that,
``[a]fter 1987, the instant rulemaking should have involved
distinguishing political editorials and personal attacks, which are
regulated, from subjects formerly covered by the fairness doctrine but
that have been deregulated, such as non-editorial political commentary,
editorials on political issues aside from candidate endorsements, and
non-personal attacks.'' The court found, however, that the Joint
Statement was ``mostly silent on this salient question, choosing
instead to rebut specific attacks against the rules.'' More
specifically, the court noted that ``the Joint Statement recognizes
that the current rules are broader than their rationales suggest,''
explaining, for example, that ``the fact that a national news network
rarely covers local state assembly races may explain why a right of
reply is necessary on a local network affiliate for a state assembly
candidate maligned by that affiliate, but it does not follow that the
local affiliate must also be the venue for a right of reply involving a
presidential candidate.''
7. In addition, the court noted that, although the Joint Statement
criticized the Broadcasters for relying on ``old and possibly flawed
data to show a chilling effect on editorializing, the FCC offered no
updated or more credible information to the contrary.'' Recognizing the
staleness of the record, the court encouraged the Commission ``to work
from a relatively clean procedural slate, consider modern factual and
legal developments, and obtain comments on specific proposals to modify
the rules.'' The court thus urged the Commission ``to supplement its
analysis'' with evidence superior to that which had previously been
supplied. The court closed its opinion by directing the Commission to
``act expeditiously.''
8. In the Order, the Commission states that it has been struggling
to implement the court's decision. The Commission explains that this
has been difficult because, as the court recognized, the Chairman had
recused himself from this proceeding, two commissioners would repeal
the rules, and the two remaining commissioners have authority to defend
``the status quo'' but questionable authority to take affirmative steps
such as initiating a new rulemaking proceeding or proposing
modifications of the rules. In response to a petition filed by the
Broadcasters seeking recall of the mandate or the issuance of a writ of
mandamus, the D.C. Circuit on July 24, 2000, ordered that the petition
be held in abeyance until September 29, 2000, while inviting the
Broadcasters to ``supplement their requests and seek whatever action
they deem appropriate from the court'' if the Commission has not acted
by that date. The Commission states in the Order that it understands,
and shares, the court's apparent frustration with the Commission's
inability to resolve this matter.
9. On account of the continuing deadlock, the Chairman decided,
after the court's order of July 24, to participate in this matter for
the purpose of initiating a proceeding to update the record. The
existing record is stale and devoid of empirical evidence, except for
the 1982 survey criticized in the Joint Statement. In fairness to the
Broadcasters, it is difficult to see how they could present evidence
that is not susceptible to criticism that it is biased and self-
serving, while the rules are in effect, concerning what they would do
if the rules were not in effect. To develop a better record, therefore,
the Commission has decided to suspend the rules for 60 days following
the adoption of this Order to create a better record upon which to
review the rules at issue. Of course, elections will be held during the
60-day period, making it an ideal time to determine how broadcasters
are affected by the political editorial rule. While less obvious, it is
also an ideal time to obtain evidence regarding the effect of the
personal attack rule, which was established in a series of cases in the
early 1960s involving personal attacks on candidates and elected
officials.
10. If the Broadcasters intend to continue to challenge the rules,
the Order requests they present evidence 60 days after the suspension
ends reporting on their actions while the rules were suspended,
addressing how that evidence supports their contention. Parties will
also have an opportunity to submit replies 15 days later. For example,
the Broadcasters have contended that elimination of the political
editorial rule would lead to a dramatic increase in the number of
editorials broadcasters present, on account of the alleged chilling
effect of the rules. Suspension of the rule will permit the Commission
to test that prediction, and the Order requests the Broadcasters to
supply it with the information necessary to do so. More specifically,
the Commission will want information on the number of political
editorials run during the suspension of the rules and comparative
information concerning the number of editorials run during prior
election cycles. To respond to the court's concerns, the Commission
also will need information concerning the nature of the elections on
which licensees editorialize: are they, for example, state assembly
races or the presidential election? Whether other media outlets
editorialized on these races would also be useful in
[[Page 60389]]
determining whether the rules should be modified rather than eliminated
or retained in full. For example, using the D.C. Circuit's example, it
is possible that a right of reply may be warranted in state assembly
races but not in presidential elections because the relative merits of
the presidential candidates will be thoroughly aired by the media in
any event but the relative merits of state assembly candidates will not
be discussed by the media in any detail.
11. The Order asks the Broadcasters to present evidence relevant to
the court's other concerns as well. For example, with respect to the
political editorial rule, the court stated that ``[i]f broadcasters
want to use public resources overtly to push a private agenda by
advocating a result in an election, a right of reply might be a
minimally intrusive means of countering a licensee's government-granted
monopoly on access to the resource,'' but questioned whether the same
could not be said concerning ``editorial[s] about tax policy,'' and
directed the Commission ``to explain why editorials about candidates
are particularly appropriate subjects for regulation.'' To respond to
the court's concerns, the Commission needs information concerning
broadcasters' editorial practices more generally. Among other things,
the Commission is interested in whether and the extent to which
broadcasters editorialize on topics unrelated to political campaigns
and whether the rate of such editorials is increasing or decreasing.
The Order also seeks information regarding the factors relevant to a
broadcaster's decision to editorialize. The Broadcasters are in the
best position to provide such information and the Commission expects
them to do so.
12. In addition to providing information responsive to the court's
concerns, the Order asks the Broadcasters to provide information
relevant to issues raised in the Commission's prior decisions. For
example, in their Joint Statement, Commissioners Ness and Tristani
indicated their willingness to consider modifying the political
editorial rule such that it might shift the burden to the candidates to
request time from the station or ``would only trigger an obligation to
furnish time to major candidates or major party supporters.'' A
modification to include only major candidates or major party supporters
would be consistent with the Supreme Court's recognition in Arkansas
Educational Television Ass'n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998), that
broadcasters may in good faith decide that in some cases the inclusion
of third-party candidates in debates detracts from their usefulness.
These modifications also would be responsive to the Broadcasters'
claims that the rule is burdensome, because it would reduce the burden.
In any event, the Order asks the Broadcasters to report whether those
licensees who editorialize while the rules are suspended decide to
offer response time to some candidates but not others. The Commission
hopes that parties will provide as objective and useful information as
possible.
13. With respect to the personal attack rule, the Broadcasters
similarly should attempt to obtain information that will be useful in
evaluating the effect of the rule. However, the Order asks broadcasters
to collect information regarding complaints concerning personal attacks
that are received while the rule is suspended, and to compare the
number and nature of the complaints made during those 60 days to a
comparable period while the rule was in effect. The Order seeks comment
on ways that any undue burdens caused by the rule could be reduced. To
assist the Commission in evaluating whether the personal attack rule is
overly burdensome, as argued by the Broadcasters, the Order seeks
information on what steps broadcasters take to comply with the
notification requirements. For example, in their Joint Statement,
Commissioners Ness and Tristani indicated their willingness to consider
modifying the personal attack rule to eliminate the existing
notification requirements and make the rule request-driven.
14. The Order encourages those groups that have advocated retention
of the rule to do the same--that is, to collect evidence relating to
personal attacks that they would have challenged had the rule not been
suspended. In that connection, the Commission notes that some parties
have argued that the rule should be expanded to cover situations to
which it does not currently apply, and it would welcome any information
regarding personal attacks made, for example, during ``bona fide news
interviews,'' which currently are not subject to the rule. In addition,
the Commission would be particularly interested in learning of personal
attacks made in connection with the upcoming elections.
15. In responding to this Order, the Commission encourages parties
to present the sort of careful analysis the D.C. Circuit expects.
Although it cannot rule out the possibility that the rules will be
retained exactly as written or eliminated entirely, the Commission
believes it would profit most at this point from hearing arguments
directed to how the rules should be modified to achieve their
fundamental purposes with minimal burden, consistent with the D.C.
Circuit's opinion in this case and our decisions in other cases.
16. Some parties, however, may contend that it is not possible to
``distinguish[ ] political editorials and personal attacks * * * from
subjects formerly covered by the fairness doctrine.'' For that reason,
the Order asks the Broadcasters, at the time they file their report on
their actions while the rules were suspended, to report also on the
effects of the repeal of the fairness doctrine, and the Commission will
invite the other parties to respond to that report. In last year's
opinion, the D.C. Circuit described Syracuse Peace Council as ``agency
precedent for declining to use the FCC's power to redress a market
failure in provision of balanced coverage of important issues,'' and
directed the Commission to provide ``clear, cogent explanations'' for
requiring a right of reply in some situations but not others.
Previously, on account of its deadlock, the Commission has been
constrained to consider how to reconcile the political editorial and
personal attack rules with its decision in Syracuse Peace Council. In
that connection, those parties who believe that Section 315 of the
Communications Act, as amended, requires the Commission to enforce some
obligation on broadcasters ``to operate in the public interest and to
afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views
on issues of public importance'' should comment on how their reading of
the statute bears on the issues before us.
17. The Order therefore invites the Broadcasters, and the other
parties as well, to consider the court's various statements to the
effect that it is difficult to distinguish political editorials and
personal attacks from ``many issues of public concern,'' and to address
whether it would be appropriate to extend the reach of the rules at
issue. For example, the court noted that ``a network has more freedom
to endorse a ballot initiative than to endorse a candidate championing
such an initiative,'' and concluded that ``[t]he FCC has not
articulated a basis for the distinction.'' If those issues may not be
distinguished on a principled basis, it may be that a right of reply is
warranted in both cases. In addition, the Commission encourages the
parties to consider whether the D.C. Circuit has identified a
distinction between local and national issues that the Commission ought
to examine in more detail. That is, as explained in the Joint
Statement, the
[[Page 60390]]
explosion in media outlets relied upon in Syracuse Peace Council, and
particularly its reliance on cable channels, may be relevant to
national issues but not to local issues.
18. The Commission does not intend to prejudge that or any other
issue. Rather, while suspending the political editorial and personal
attack rules, the Commission asks the Broadcasters to report to the
Commission on the various matters discussed in this Order. With a fresh
record, the Commission will consider how to reconcile its decision in
Syracuse Peace Council with the rules at issue. It is possible that the
Commission will decide to modify the rules at issue, or to modify its
decision in Syracuse Peace Council, or both.
19. In that regard, it is appropriate to make clear that the dicta
in Syracuse Peace Council regarding the appropriate level of First
Amendment scrutiny has been rejected by Congress, this Commission, and
the courts. Although the Commission based its decision in Syracuse
Peace Council largely on its view that the standard of Red Lion
Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), should be abandoned, the
D.C. Circuit did not affirm on that basis. Subsequently, in enacting
the Children's Television Act of 1990 (CTA), Congress made clear that
broadcasters should be subject to public interest obligations reviewed
under the Red Lion standard, and Congress's views on that matter are
entitled to ``great weight.'' The Commission agreed that Red Lion sets
the appropriate standard of review, as it made clear in its Order
implementing the CTA, which expressly repudiated the dicta from
Syracuse Peace Council. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit not only applied but
extended Red Lion in 1996 in Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. FCC, 93
F.3d 957 (1996). In that case, the court upheld under the Red Lion
standard the constitutionality of Section 335 of the Communications
Act, as amended, which requires operators of direct broadcast satellite
(DBS) systems to set aside at least four percent of their channels for
noncommercial educational programming.
20. The fundamental error of the Commission's decision in the
portion of Syracuse Peace Council that has been repudiated was its
confusion of the rationale underlying the fairness doctrine with the
basis for public interest regulation of the broadcast spectrum. The
fairness doctrine originated at a time when there were only three major
television networks, and the proliferation of television stations and
the development of cable television reasonably led the Commission to
reevaluate the need for the fairness doctrine. The standard of Red
Lion, however, was not based on the absolute number of media outlets,
but on the fact that the spectrum is a public resource and ``there are
substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than there are
frequencies to allocate.'' As both the U.S. Supreme Court and the D.C.
Circuit have explained, ``[a] licensed broadcaster is `granted the free
and exclusive use of a valuable part of the public domain; when he
accepts that franchise it is burdened by enforceable public
obligations.' '' The D.C. Circuit explained in remanding the political
editorial and personal attack rules that application of the Red Lion
standard does not mean that any particular obligation is therefore
warranted. Rather, the Commission must provide a reasonable explanation
as to why it chooses to impose certain public interest obligations and
not others. But the long-standing basis for the regulation of
broadcasting is that ``the radio spectrum simply is not large enough to
accommodate everybody.'' Under our Nation's system for allocating
spectrum, some are granted the ``exclusive use'' of a portion of this
``public domain,'' even though others would use it if they could. That
is why ``it is idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to
broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write
or publish.''
21. Congress has directed the Commission to ensure that
broadcasters granted the exclusive use of a particular frequency serve
the public interest. Or, as the D.C. Circuit put it in this case, a
broadcaster holds a ``government-granted monopoly,'' and the Commission
is required by statute to ensure that the public receives a fair return
from each broadcaster for its use of that public resource. Unlike the
DBS operator in Time Warner, who was required both to pay millions of
dollars for the spectrum it won at auction and to set aside at least
four percent of its capacity for noncommercial educational programming,
broadcasters have obtained their spectrum for free and are not subject
to such a set-aside requirement. The Commission therefore requests the
parties to address this difference in treatment.
22. Under the relevant constitutional standard, a key factor in
deciding whether to retain the rules at issue here or impose any other
requirement is the extent to which the requirement interferes with the
editorial judgment of broadcasters. As the U.S. Supreme Court has
repeatedly recognized, the Commission has long `` `walk[ed] a
tightrope' '' designed to permit broadcasters ``to exercise `the widest
journalistic freedom consistent with' '' the principle that it is ``the
right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters
which is paramount.'' In this case, as explained above, the D.C.
Circuit assumed that the rules at issue burden broadcasters to some
extent, recognized that the Joint Statement had criticized the evidence
previously presented on that point by the Broadcasters, but noted that
the Commission had ``offered no updated or more credible information.''
A temporary suspension of the rules at issue, coupled with a proceeding
that considers the other issues raised in this Order, should help the
Commission to respond to the court's concerns.
Administrative Matters
23. Request to Update Record. Parties submitting evidence on the
effect of the suspension of the rules as discussed above should submit
such evidence 60 days after the suspension ends, and replies should be
submitted 75 days after the suspension ends. Information may be filed
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by
filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
24. Information filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.
Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If
multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this
proceeding, however, parties must transmit one electronic copy of the
evidence to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption.
In completing the transmittal screen, parties should include their full
name, postal service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by
Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail information,
parties should send e-mail to [email protected], and should include the
following words in the body of the message, ``get form, your e-mail
address>.'' A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
25. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit
information on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to: Wanda
Hardy, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room 2-C221, Washington DC 20554. Such
a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM
compatible format using WORD 97 or compatible software. The diskette
should be accompanied by a cover letter and
[[Page 60391]]
should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette should be
clearly labeled with the party's name, proceeding (including the docket
number (MM Docket No. 83-484), type of pleading, date of submission,
and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should
also include the following phrase: ``Disk Copy--Not an Original.'' Each
diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a
single electronic file. In addition, parties must send diskette copies
to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription
Service, Inc., 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C.
20554.
26. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding will be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding, subject to the ``permit-but-disclose''
requirements under Section 1.1206(b) of the rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b), as
revised. Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in
accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda
period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally
prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded
that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of
the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the
subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description or the
views and arguments presented is generally required. 47 CFR
1.1206(b)(2), as revised. Additional rules pertaining to oral and
written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b) of the
Commission's rules.
27. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. The actions taken in
this Order and Request to Update Record have been analyzed with respect
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), and found to request new
or modified reporting or recordkeeping by the public. It will be
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for emergency review
under Section 3507 of the PRA.
Ordering Clauses
28. Authority for issuance of this Order and Request to Update
Record is contained in sections 4(i), 303 and 315 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 315.
29. Sections 73.1920 and 73.1930 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
73.1920, 73.1930 (broadcast personal attack and political editorial
rules), and Sec. 76.209(b), (c), and (d) of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 76.209(b), (c), (d), (cable personal attack and political editorial
rules) are suspended upon the adoption date of this Order and Request
to Update Record through December 2, 2000. This action is taken
pursuant to sections 4(i), 303 and 315 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 315.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting, television broadcasting.
47 CFR Part 76
Cable television service.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26014 Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P