[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 250 (Thursday, December 28, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82305-82310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-33209]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 00-244; FCC 00-427]
Broadcast Services; Radio Stations, Television Stations
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to revise the Commission's
methodologies for defining radio markets, counting the number of
stations in a radio market, and determining the number of stations that
a party owns in a radio market for the purposes of determining
compliance with its multiple ownership rules. Experience in applying
those methodologies since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, has indicated that the Commission's current framework may be
having results that may frustrate the structure of the
Telecommunications Act and that are not in the public interest.
DATES: Comments are due by January 26, 2001; reply comments are due by
February 12, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Holberg, Mass Media Bureau,
Policy and Rules Division, (202) 418-2134 or Dan Bring, Mass Media
Bureau, Policy and Rules Division, (202) 418-2170.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (``NPRM'') in MM Docket No. 00-244, FCC 00-427, adopted
December 6, 2000, and released December 13, 2000. The complete text of
this NPRM is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th
Street, SW., Washington, DC and may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service
(202)857-3800, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC. The
NPRM is also available on the Internet at the Commission's website:
http://www.fcc.gov.
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule Making
1. We are adopting this NPRM to seek comment on whether and how we
should modify the way in which we determine the dimensions of radio
markets and count the number of stations in them. We are also seeking
comment on whether and how we should amend the method by which we
determine the number of radio stations owned by a party in a radio
market for the purpose of applying our multiple ownership rules.
Overview
2. In 1991, we commenced a proceeding to relax our local and
national radio ownership rules. We ultimately established two market
sizes that would determine the number of radio stations in which an
entity could have an attributable interest in a local area. One tier
included markets with 15 or more commercial radio stations. The other
market tier consisted of markets with fewer than 15 stations. A party
could have attributable interests in a different number of stations
depending on the tier into which its market fell. This decision
required that we establish both how we would define a market and,
because of the different treatment of markets with less than 15
stations and those with 15 or more, how we would count the number of
stations in a market. We determined that:
we will define the radio market as that area encompassed by the
principal community contours (i.e., predicted or measured 5 mV/m for
AM stations and predicted 3.16 mV/m for FM stations) of the mutually
overlapping stations proposing to have common ownership.
With regard to how we would count the number of stations in a market,
we stated:
[t]he number of stations in the market will be determined based on
the principal community contours of all commercial stations whose
principal community contours overlap or intersect the principal
[[Page 82306]]
community contours of the commonly-owned stations.
In section 202(b)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (``1996 Act''), Congress directed the
Commission to increase the number of stations in a market in which a
party could have a cognizable ownership interest, providing that in the
largest markets a single entity could own up to eight stations. The
number of stations in which it could have such an interest would depend
upon the number of commercial stations in the market. Our methods of
defining a radio market and determining the number of stations in a
market, however, were not altered by the 1996 Act or by our Orders
implementing that statute.
3. Using this methodology, we evaluate whether a proposed
transaction complies with our ownership rules by first determining the
boundaries of each market created by the transaction. Thus, we look to
all stations that will be commonly owned after the proposed transaction
is consummated and group these stations into ``markets'' based on which
stations have mutually overlapping signal contours. A market is defined
as the area within the combined contours of the stations to be commonly
owned that have a common overlap. For example, suppose an applicant
proposes to own stations A, B, C and D. The contours of stations A, B
and C each overlap the contours of the other two stations--that is,
there is some area which the contours of all three stations have in
common. Station D, on the other hand, overlaps the principal community
contour of station A, but not those of stations B or C. Under our
current definitions, the area encompassed by the combined contours of
stations A, B and C form one ``market'' and the area within the
combined contours of stations A and D form another market.
4. To determine the total number of stations ``in the market,'' as
defined above, we count all stations whose principal community contours
overlap the principal community contour of any one or more of the
stations whose contours define the market. Thus, in the market formed
by the contours of stations A, B and C, any station whose contour
overlapped the contour of A, B or C would be counted as ``in the
market.'' We use a different methodology, however, to determine the
number of stations that any single entity is deemed to own in a given
market. For this purpose, we only count those stations whose principal
community contours overlap the common overlap area of all of the
stations whose contours define the market. Thus, a station owned by the
applicant that is counted as being ``in the market'' because its
contour overlaps the contour of at least one of the stations that
create the market will not be counted as a station owned by the
applicant in the market unless its contour overlaps the area which the
contours of all of the stations that define the market have in common.
Referring to our example of the market formed by the contours of
stations A, B and C, station D would be counted as ``in the market''
because its contour overlaps the contour of station A. But, station D
would not be counted as a station owned by the applicant in the ABC
market because station D's contour does not also overlap the contours
of stations B and C. In short, the applicant's ownership of station D
would not be counted against it in determining compliance with the
ownership cap in the ABC market.
5. Our experience has led us to conclude that this framework may be
having results that may frustrate the structure of the statute and that
are not in the public interest. For example, under the existing
policies and rules, the Commission's Mass Media Bureau recently
determined that Wichita, KS, is a market containing 52 stations and
granted the assignment application for station KOEZ(FM) from Kansas
Radio Assets to Journal Broadcasting Corporation, giving Journal six
stations, including 5 FM stations, in the Wichita market. This is well
within the eight stations that a single owner would be permitted to own
in a market with more than 45 stations under our rules implementing the
1996 Act. Yet Arbitron, which defines radio markets for commercial
purposes, classifies Wichita as a 24-station market in which, under
these rules, a single entity could only have an interest in six radio
stations, no more than 4 of which could be in the same service.
Similarly, under the existing policies and rules, BIA data show that
one party seeks to own nine stations in Youngstown, OH. (Appendix B
describes how our radio definitions and counting methodologies may be
applied in Youngstown.) Yet Arbitron data show only 23 commercial radio
stations in the Youngstown metropolitan area. In another transaction,
using the Commission's methodology, an applicant was able to show that
Ithaca, NY, was a market with at least 32 commercial radio stations.
Yet Arbitron data show only 9 commercial radio stations in the Ithaca
metropolitan area.
6. Given such results, we question whether the use of overlapping
signal contours is an appropriate means of defining market boundaries
and counting the number of stations in a market. Our methodology
sometimes leads to results that are completely at odds with commercial
market definitions and economic reality, and may undermine the
structure of the statute to allow levels of ownership that increase
commensurately with the size of the market. Additionally, our
methodology may encourage applicants to structure transactions to
fragment what are commercially considered single markets into a number
of smaller markets. While a licensee may be within our ownership limit
as to each of these fragmented markets, in the aggregate it owns more
stations than our rules would permit were these markets considered to
be a single market, as they are by commercial rating services and would
be under any economically meaningful market definition.
7. The Commission has used this methodology for defining markets
and counting stations in markets since 1992. While the methodology has
produced some odd results since its inception, it was not until the
ownership limits were substantially increased in 1996 that the
methodology's potential to cause results at odds with economic reality
became clearly discernible. Until then, the number of problems and
their impact were constrained, by the more modest numerical ownership
limits and by a 25 percent audience share cap in markets with 15 or
more stations.
8. Another problem with this methodology was highlighted in the
Commission's recent Pine Bluff decision. (In re Application of Pine
Bluff Radio, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 6594 (1999).) In that case, Seark Radio,
Inc., sought to purchase one AM and two FM stations in Pine Bluff,
Arkansas. Seark already had direct or attributable interests in three
other stations in Pine Bluff and environs. A petitioner (Bayou
Broadcasting, Inc.) filed a Petition to Deny claiming, in part, that
the relevant market contained 11 stations and that grant of the subject
application would give Seark direct or attributable interests in 6 of
those stations. Were this the case, it would have caused Seark to
exceed the ``cap'' that one party can have in an 11-station market
because it would give it interests in more than 5 of the stations in
the market. In a decision which we recently affirmed on review, the
Mass Media Bureau determined that, under the Commission's method for
defining markets and counting the number of stations in a market, the
stations involved actually formed three separate markets. Market 3 was
formed by two mutually overlapping stations attributable to Seark. Two
other stations
[[Page 82307]]
were determined to contribute to this market. One of those two stations
was owned by Seark. However, because this station's principal community
contour did not overlap the principal community contours of both of the
stations whose overlapping principal community contours established the
market, it was not counted as an attributable interest of Seark's in
this market. Thus, application of our existing methodologies led to the
determination that this Seark station would be counted as being ``in
the market'' for purposes of determining the base number of stations in
that market. But, the same station would not be considered to be ``in
the market'' for the purposes of determining how many stations in the
market were and would be owned by Seark, and thus whether Seark
complied with the numerical station caps. Seark could not have owned
three stations in this market because that would have given it an
attributable interest in more than half of the four stations considered
to be in Market 3. Section 73.3555(a)(1)(iv) allows a party to own,
operate, or control up to 5 commercial stations in markets with 14 or
fewer stations provided that ``a party may not own, operate, or control
more than 50 percent of the stations in such market.'' Accordingly,
strict compliance with our precedents in this area led to the
conclusion that Seark had an attributable interest in only two of the
four stations in this market, notwithstanding its attributable interest
in a third station which counted as a station in the market for the
purpose of determining the total number of stations in the market. (We
recognized that this appeared to be an anomalous result but pointed out
that it was produced by methodology that had been consistently used
since 1992 and that subsequent events in the market had rendered
harmless the impact of this anomaly in that case.)
Options
9. Several options or approaches present themselves as possible
means of addressing the definitional issues raised in the preceding
discussion. With respect to the counting consistency issue exemplified
by the Pine Bluff case, the most direct solution might be simply to
alter our counting methodology and count against an applicant's
ownership allowance in a given market any station that it owned and
that was included in determining how many stations were ``in the
market'' for purposes of assessing compliance with the local radio
ownership rules. Under this proposed approach, the applicant in the
Pine Bluff case would have been charged with ownership of three
stations in a four-station market, rather than two, and the transaction
would not have complied with the numerical limits in our rules. This
would clearly and logically resolve the inconsistency in our present
approach and produce more rational results. Moreover, this approach may
better reflect the statute's structure, and lend consistency and
predictability to the commercial marketplace. We invite comment on this
approach. Alternatively, we could exclude from the count of the number
of stations in a market, any stations owned by the applicant, except
the commonly owned stations that form the market. We seek comment on
this approach.
10. Another, broader approach might address both the counting
anomaly and the discontinuity between the Commission's and commercial
rating services' definition of radio markets generally. Under this
approach, we would eliminate our current market definition and,
instead, rely on commercially determined market definitions. For
example, we could adopt Arbitron radio metro market definitions and
simply rely on these commercial delineations to determine the total
number of stations in any given market and how many stations an
applicant would control in that market. Arbitron-defined markets have
the advantage that they attempt to reflect accurately the location of a
station's listeners and the identity of stations that are actually
perceived by advertisers to be in a market. Additionally, the
Department of Justice utilizes Arbitron markets in its competition
analysis of radio station mergers. However, the use of Arbitron markets
has the disadvantage that many radio stations are not in an Arbitron
market. Out of 3100 counties in the United States, slightly less than
850 (containing, however, nearly 80 percent of the nation's population)
are in Arbitron markets. Arbitron defines a geographic area based on
county lines. We recognize that Arbitron metros do not encompass all
the counties that can receive some of the radio signals of the metro
radio stations. However, the radio stations included in the Arbitron
metro do a significant portion of their business in the counties that
are included in the Arbitron metro.
11. In our 1992 decision (on reconsideration) concerning radio
markets we decided not to utilize Arbitron markets to define radio
markets. The Commission accepted petitioners' arguments that Arbitron
markets change regularly, the number of rated stations continually
fluctuate and that Arbitron tends to undercount the number of stations
in a market because it has minimum reporting standards or overcount
them because it counts out-of-market stations with reportable shares in
the market. See Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 91-140, supra at 6394-95, 57 FR
42701 (September 16, 1972). We do not believe these to be
insurmountable problems and, for the reasons discussed above, we
believe the use of Arbitron markets or equivalent commercial markets
may result in more accurate measures of the number of stations in a
market than do our current methodologies.
12. We seek comment on whether we should use Arbitron or other
commercially defined markets. How should we determine the dimensions of
a market when the stations involved are not located in a commercially
defined market? If we use Arbitron or another commercially defined
market, what should we do when a market changes? For example,
population growth might result in a county that was in a single market
to later be split between two markets. This could cause the number of
stations in the market to drop, placing some existing ownership
combinations above the local ownership limits. One approach to such
changes would be to disregard them (effectively grandfathering existing
combinations) until such time as a relevant application is filed, at
which point we would apply the market definitions in effect at the time
of the application's filing or grant. We seek comment on these and on
alternative proposals.
13. Alternatively, should we determine the number of stations in a
market using a different contour overlap standard? For example, we
could count as being in a market only those stations whose principal
community contours overlap or intersect the overlap area of the
principal city contours of the stations whose ownership is to be
merged. This might provide a superior gauge relative to the area with
which we are most concerned in merger situations with respect to both
competition and diversity. However, this standard might be too
restrictive and thus inappropriately thwart the relaxation of the
ownership rules that the 1996 Act contemplated. Is there some other
overlap standard that might more accurately provide a count of the
number of stations in a market? Perhaps counting only those stations
that overlap a certain percentage of the contour of one or more of the
mutually overlapping stations would provide
[[Page 82308]]
accurate results. What percentage would be appropriate? Another option
would be simply to count only those stations that are actually heard in
a market. What methodology should we use in the event we adopt this
option? We invite comment on all of these alternatives.
Procedural Matters
14. We do not propose that any rules and policies we adopt herein
should be applied retroactively to existing ownership combinations.
Those ownership arrangements were granted as being in the public
interest and in accordance with applicable Commission rules and
policies. There is no reason to disturb these ownership combinations.
15. Merger applications now pending or filed after the adoption of
this NPRM but before our final decision in this proceeding present
another case. As a general matter, we will continue to process
applications under the existing standards, unless and until they are
changed in this proceeding. In cases raising concerns about how we
count the number of stations a party owns in a market, however, we will
defer decision pending resolution of that issue in this proceeding. As
we concluded in the 1998 Biennial Review Report, the ``shifting market
definition'' in our counting methodology ``appears illogical and
contrary to Congress' intent.'' Given this conclusion, it would be
inappropriate to continue to apply this standard to pending and newly
filed applications. We believe that the harm caused by application of
this standard outweighs any harm caused by the deferment of decision on
these applications. We intend to act expeditiously in this proceeding
to ensure that any such deferments are few in number and short in
duration.
Administrative Matters
16. Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419,
interested parties may file comments on before January 26, 2001, and
reply comments on or before February 12, 2001. Comments 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 (1998).
17. Comments 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, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of
the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the
caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters 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 comments, commenters 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. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking
number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit
two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman
Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445
Twelfth Street, SW., TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.
18. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to: Wanda
Hardy, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room, 2-C207, Washington, DC 20554.
Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM
compatible format using MS Word 97 for Windows or compatible software.
The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be
submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled
with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the docket number in
this case, MM Docket No. 00-244, type of pleading (comment or reply
comment), 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,
commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 445 Twelfth
Street, SW., CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.
19. Comments and reply comments will be available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center,
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. Persons with disabilities who need assistance in
the FCC Reference Center may contact Bill Cline at (202) 418-0270,
(202) 418-2555 TTY, or [email protected]. Comments and reply comments also
will be available electronically at the Commission's Disabilities
Issues Task Force web site: http://www.fcc.gov/dtf. Comments and reply
comments are available electronically in ASCII text, Word 97, and Adobe
Acrobat.
20. This document is available in alternative formats (computer
diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille). Persons who need
documents in such formats may contact Martha Contee at (202) 4810-0260,
TTY (202) 418-2555, or [email protected].
21. Ex Parte Rules. This is a permit-but-disclose 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's Rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202,
1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
22. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by Section
603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared the
following IRFA of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities of the proposals contained in this NPRM. Written public
comments are requested on the IRFA. In order to fulfill the mandate of
the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 regarding the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we ask a number of questions in our
IRFA regarding the prevalence of small businesses in the radio
broadcasting industry. Comments on the IRFA must be filed in accordance
with the same filing deadlines as comments on the NPRM, but they must
have a distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. Written
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments on the NPRM provided above in paragraph 16. The Commission
will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C.
603(a). In addition, the NPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will
be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
24. Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act)
requires the Commission to review all of its broadcast ownership rules
[[Page 82309]]
every two years commencing in 1998, and to determine whether any of
these rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of
competition. The 1996 Act also requires the Commission to repeal or
modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the public
interest. The Commission adopted a Notice of Inquiry (63 FR 15353,
March 31, 1998) in 1998 in compliance with this requirement. The
Commission believes that its present method of determining the
dimensions of radio markets and/or of counting the stations available
in those markets may be having results that do not reflect the
structure of the Telecommunications Act with regard to local radio
station ownership and are not in the public interest. Present
methodology may result in radio markets whose dimensions do not reflect
actual listening patterns or availability, artificially enhance the
number of stations in those markets or artificially fragment what may
be single individual markets into several independent smaller markets,
thereby allowing a single owner to own a number of stations in a market
in excess of what Congress intended. Our methodology sometimes leads to
results that are completely at odds with commercial market definitions
and economic reality, and thus does not advance the statutes structure
which allows levels of ownership that increase commensurately with the
size of the market. Additionally, the Commission determined in its
biennial review proceeding (MM Docket No. 98-35) that it appears that
the way in which it determines the number of radio stations that a
party owns in a market may have lead to unintended results. This NPRM
is designed to solicit comment on proposals to assure that our
definitions and methodologies more closely reflect commercial realities
and the intent of Congress. Because Section 202(h) of the 1996 Act
directs the Commission to repeal or modify any broadcast ownership
regulation it finds no longer in the public interest the Commission has
adopted this NPRM to solicit comment on the modification of the subject
policies and rules.
B. Legal Basis
25. This NPRM is adopted pursuant to sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 303,
307, 309, 310, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, 310, and Section 202(h) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
26. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
27. The SBA defines a radio broadcasting station that has $5
million or less in annual receipts as a small business. A radio
broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in
broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Included in this
industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other radio
stations. The 1992 Census indicates that 96 percent of radio station
establishments produced less than $5 million in revenue in 1992.
Official Commission records indicate that 11,334 individual radio
stations were operating in 1992. As of September 30, 2000, Commission
records indicate that 12,717 radio stations (both commercial and
noncommercial) were operating of which 2,140 were noncommercial
educational FM radio stations. (Our multiple ownership rules, however,
do not apply to noncommercial educational radio stations.) Applying the
1992 percentage of station establishments producing less than $5
million in revenue (i.e., 96 percent) to the number of commercial radio
stations in operation, (i.e., 10,577) indicates that 10,154 of these
radio stations would be considered ``small businesses'' or ``small
organizations.''
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
28. There currently are no recordkeeping or other compliance
requirements associated with the subject rule and policies. The NPRM
proposes no new recordkeeping or other compliance requirements.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
29. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
30. In fashioning its Report in the Commission's Biennial Review
Proceeding (MM Docket No. 98-35) the Commission considered a number of
alternatives to the subject counting methodology policy. These
alternatives were: (1) Retention of the existing radio market
definition policy; (2) modification of the existing radio market
definition policy; (3) retention of the existing rule (47 CFR
73.3555(a)(3)(ii)) concerning counting the number of stations in the
radio market; (4) modification of the existing rule concerning counting
the number of stations in the radio market; (5) retention of the
existing policy for counting the number of stations a party owns in a
radio market; and (6) modification of the existing policy for counting
the number of stations a party owns in a radio market. The Biennial
Review Report tentatively concluded that the existing policy for
determining radio markets and counting methodology rule and policy
should be modified. An alternative considered in this item is to
maintain the status quo. However, the NPRM does propose to modify the
current method of defining radio markets and to modify our station-
counting methodologies. Alternatives (2), (4), and (6) may have a
beneficial effect on small entities. A more accurate and predictable
definition of radio markets, and improved counting methodologies may
more precisely determine the size of markets and the number of stations
in them and allow the Commission to achieve the results intended by
Congress in passing the 1996 Act. This could result in some small radio
stations facing competition from commonly owned local station groups
that are more of the size Congress intended than is the case under
current Commission rules and policies. Any significant alternatives
presented in the comments received in response to the instant NPRM will
certainly be considered.
[[Page 82310]]
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
31. None.
32. Authority. This NPRM is issued pursuant to authority contained
in sections 4(i), 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and 307, and Section 202(h) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Ordering Clauses
33. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i),
303, 307, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, and 310, and Section
202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, this NPRM is adopted.
34. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of this NPRM, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Shirley Suggs,
Chief, Publications Group.
[FR Doc. 00-33209 Filed 12-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U