Deadline for Comments on Noncommercial Filing Obligations Revised to June 26

This afternoon, the FCC issued an erratum revising the deadline for submitting Comments in the rule making proceeding regarding potential modifications to the ownership report filing requirements for noncommercial broadcasters.  Comments in this proceeding are now due by June 26th, not June 29th as previously indicated.  Please see our earlier post, here, discussing the questions that the FCC has raised in this rule making.  The deadline for Reply Comments is unchanged, and is still July 13th. 

FCC Sets Comment Date on Noncommercial Filing Obligations and Suspends Ownership Report Filings Until November

UPDATE:  On June 2, the FCC issued an erratum revising the Comment date in this proceeding to June 26th.  We've updated our earlier post to reflect the change.

The FCC today issued a Public Notice announcing the filing deadline for comments regarding potential modifications to the ownership report filing requirements for noncommercial broadcasters (see our post, here, on the questions that the FCC is asking).  Comments are due on June 26, with replies on July 13.  As mentioned in our earlier post, the FCC also issued today an Order suspending the requirement that commercial broadcasters who have upcoming ownership report filing deadlines (including the deadline on Monday for on June 1 for radio stations in Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, and television stations in Michigan and Ohio).  This is a new policy, and thus supersedes the information in our post two weeks ago.  As all commercial broadcasters will now have to file reports on the same time - November 1 - the need for a second report was deemed unnecessary, especially given the upcoming revisions to the Form 323 to require more detailed information about some otherwise non-attributable owners, and for certain entities not now required to file.

As we have stated, the FCC is interested in obtaining more detailed ownership information in order to better assess whether additional steps to promote minority ownership are justified.  Watch for details of the new November filing requirement in the near future. 

FCC Seeks Comment on Whether to Begin Investigation of Arbitron PPM - How Far Does FCC Regulatory Power Extend?

Last week, the FCC released a Public Notice asking for comments on whether it should begin a Section 403 investigation into the use of Arbitron's Portable People Meter ("PPM").  A coalition of broadcast groups, the "PPM Coalition," principally comprised of broadcasters providing service to minority communities, sought the investigation as a way of delaying the implementation of the PPM technology next month in a number of large broadcast markets.  In their request, which can be found on the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council website, the PPM Coalition argues that the investigation is justified based on the Commission's objectives (and various administrative and legislative mandates) to improve minority ownership in broadcasting.  The PPM Coalition contends that methodology problems in PPM implementation result in artificially low ratings for minority owned stations.  These parties argue that, if the system is implemented, a number of minority-programmed stations will disappear.  Arbitron has argued that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to regulate ratings services (who are obviously not FCC licensees) or the methodology that they use.  Comments on the request for an investigatory hearing are due on September 24, and replies on October 6 (two days before the PPM system is to be implemented in eight markets).

Section 403 of the Communications Act gives the Federal Communications Commission the power to conduct investigations of any complaint of any violation of its rules or of provisions of the Communications Act, or to explore any other matter relating to the provisions of the Act.  Such investigations are often conducted before an Administrative Law Judge, but can be conducted before the Commission itself, and allow the FCC to use full discovery techniques (e.g. document production requests and depositions) and to conduct an evidenciary hearing.  In the past, the process was used much more frequently.  It has been used both to investigate specific complaints of possible misconduct by individual licensees, and to conduct broader inquiries into business practices in a regulated industry to decide if FCC regulation was necessary.  For instance, in the 1960s, there was an investigation into network practices to determine if those practices required FCC action to regulate the network-affiliate relationship.  In recent years, the power has been rarely used, and when used has tended to relate to specific allegations of misconduct to determine if the FCC should bring some sort of enforcement action against a regulated entity.

The parties to the PPM Coalition have been pushing the FCC for many months to do something about the implementation of the PPM, while Arbitron has been opposing such efforts as outside the FCC's jurisdiction.  Thus, one of the real questions in reviewing the request for the Section 403 inquiry is to determine if the hearing is related to the purposes and provisions of the Communications Act.  The proponents of the hearing have suggested that the interests of the Commission in promoting minority ownership (which have been reflected in various legislative authorizations and budget bills for the FCC, being specifically cited as  one of the reasons that the FCC's 2003 Ownership Rule relaxations were thrown out by the Third Circuit in the Prometheus case because the FCC had not provided sufficient consideration of this issue) justify the inquiry.  Courts have, in recent years, been very careful to evaluate whether FCC actions were within the FCC's power, and that question is now being considered in other FCC proceedings (e.g. in the localism proceeding where some have questioned the FCC's no jurisdiction to take certain actions including the regulation of music selection, in the recent case on Comcast's alleged discrimination between types of Internet traffic, and in the recent proceeding to consider requiring XM Sirius receivers to pick up HD radio).  Those opposing this investigation will no doubt argue that the Commission is not authorized to regulate the contractual relationship between Arbitron and broadcast licensees.  We will need to watch how the parties present their arguments, and what the FCC decides to do once those arguments have been presented. 

FCC's Acts to Increase Diversity in Media Ownership - Part 2, The Proposals for Future Actions - Channel 6 for FM, AM Expanded Band, Definition of Designated Entity, Must Carry for Class A TV and Others

We recently wrote about the Federal Communications Commission’s actions in their Diversity docket, designed to promote new entrants into the ranks of broadcast station owners. In addition to the rules adopted in the proceeding, the FCC is seeking comment on a number of other ideas – some to restrict the definition of the Designated Entities that are eligible to take advantage of these rules, others to expand the universe of media outlets available to potential broadcast owners – including proposals to expand the FM band onto TV channels 5 and 6, and proposals to allow certain AM stations, which were to be returned to the FCC after their owners received construction permits for expanded band stations, to retain those stations or transfer them to Designated Entities. The proposals, on which public comment is being sought, are summarized below.

Definition of Designated Entity. The first issue raised by the Commission deals with whether the class of applicants entitled to Designated Entity status and entitled to take advantage of the Commission’s diversity initiatives should be restricted. One proposal is to restrict the Designated Entity status to companies controlled by racial minorities. The Commission expressed skepticism about that proposal, noting that the courts had throw out several versions of the FCC’s EEO rules, finding that there was insufficient justification offered by the FCC to constitutionally justify raced-based preferences. The Commission asked that proponents of such preferences provide a “compelling” showing of needed, as necessary for a constitutional justification for governmental race-based discrimination.

Alternatively, certain parties suggested that the current Designated Entity ("DE") status is too broad, as it could include all sorts of new, small businesses, even including some that are backed by wealthy individuals who do not need government assistance. Thus, if race-based classifications are not acceptable, these groups suggest that the Commission confer DE status only on those groups that demonstrate to the Commission, through a “full file” review, that they are socially and economically disadvantaged. This would be similar to some programs established by university admissions offices to avoid race-based classifications, but still admit minorities and members of other socially disadvantaged groups who might otherwise be overlooked in an admissions process. The Commission asks the proponents of these rules to explain what criteria the FCC would use to determine who is socially and economically disadvantaged, and whether the adoption of such a standard would require a unique review of every applicant who comes before the FCC seeking such status, or if there are objective criteria that could be used to make review easier.

FCC Form 323 Revisions.  To gather information about minority ownership, the Commission is also asking if it should revise some of the processes it uses to collect ownership information, particularly ownership information about broadcast ownership by minorities and women. This information is gathered currently on a station's Ownership Report, submitted every two years on FCC Form 323 (or more often if there has been a transfer of ownership).  Rather than filing ownership reports every two years on the anniversary date of a station’s renewal filing, the Commission asks if it should create a single, uniform date for the filing of FCC Form 323 ownership reports by all broadcast stations. The Commission also asks if it should require the filing of reports by stations owned by individuals and partnerships owned entirely by individuals (which are currently exempt from the requirement to file updated Ownership Reports every two years, as the Commission considers any ownership changes in these entities to require the filing of a transfer form, at a minimum a short-form Form 316 pro-forma transfer of control as, under the common law, any change in the partners of a general partnership represented the creation of a new partnership). Also, to insure that ownership information is correct, the FCC asks if it should conduct random audits of the Form 323 reports that are submitted.

Proposals For Changes in FCC Technical Rules to Increase Broadcast Opportunity.  The Commission also advanced certain suggestions to make available more broadcast stations for DEs to acquire. These include the following proposals:

  • Allowing FM licensees who are multicasting in digital to actually sell one of the multicast channels to a DE, which would be given a separate license for that station, which could itself be sold in the future, separate from the main station with which it is associated. 
  • Allowing AM licensees who operate an Expanded Band AM station (operating on 1610-1700 on the AM band) to keep both the expanded band AM and their original AM station in the traditional AM band if they are a Small Business, or to sell one of the stations to a DE within a year. Most of these stations were supposed to turn in one of these licenses at some point within the last few years (within 5 years of the commencement of operation by the Expanded band station), but many have been permitted to retain the stations on a temporary basis while this proposal, first advanced two years ago, makes its way through the Commission.
  • Reassigning TV channels 6, and possibly 5, for use for new FM stations after the digital television transition. Channel 6, which is immediately adjacent to the FM band, has been kept pretty much vacant under the DTV allocation table, to eliminate interference to FM noncommercial stations which sometimes occurs under current rules. We previously wrote about this proposal, here.
  • Allowing the change in city of license of a radio station to any other community within the same radio market (presumably to allow for better coverage of population centers) even if the move would leave the current community without any full-power radio service, if the applicant agrees to finance the construction of a low power FM station in the community that is being abandoned.
  • Proving must-carry status to Class A TV stations (presumably enhancing their economic viability). Class A TV stations are LPTV stations that were specially designated as Class A stations in a one-time window in the late 1990s, if they could show that they were originating local television programming and otherwise met all rules applicable to full-power stations (e.g. main studio, public file, children’s television rules). Such stations are given protected status from being bumped off the air by new full-power TV stations or increases in the facilities of existing stations.

Incubator Program.  In addition to these proposals, the Commission asked for comments on a proposal to create a trail “incubator program": by which a large broadcaster could receive an exemption from the radio multiple ownership rules so that it could have one more station in a market than would be otherwise permitted if it “incubated” the ownership of another radio station in the same market by providing financing or other assistance to the incubated station.

Proposals to Review Broadcast Transactions for Effect on Minority Ownership.  Finally, the FCC asked for comments on proposals that the Commission be able to evaluate any broadcast transaction for its potential effect on minority ownership, to deny temporary multiple ownership waivers in large broadcast transactions which would create temporary ownership holdings in excess of the ownership rules, and to allow minority owners to exceed ownership caps in any market if necessary for those owners to have holdings equal to those of the largest owner in a market (which might have grandfathered holdings).

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

These proposals include ones that could create opportunities for many broadcasters and for many individuals who are interested in entering the broadcasting industry through the construction of new stations or the acquisition of existing stations.  There are, however, potential issues for some broadcasters, particularly in connection with the final proposal to review broadcast transactions for their effect on minority ownership, which could slow the processing of some transactions.  Broadcasters should review the entirety of the proposals made by the FCC, and file comments on those issues that most directly affect them. 

FCC Meeting Agenda for December 18 - Potentially One of the Most Important in Recent Memory - Multiple Ownership, Localism, Minority Ownership, Product Placement and Cable TV National Ownership Caps

The FCC has released its agenda for its December 18 meeting - and it promises to be one of the most important,and potentially most contentious, in recent memory.  On the agenda is the Commission's long awaited decision on the Chairman's broadcast multiple ownership plan relaxing broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rules (see our summary here).  Also, the FCC will consider a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Localism issues (pending issues summarized here) following the conclusion of its nationwide hearings on the topic, as well as an Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on initiatives to encourage broadcast ownership by minorities and other new entrants (summary here).  For cable companies, the Commission has scheduled a proposed order on national ownership limits.  And, in addition to all these issues on ownership matters, the FCC will also consider revising its sponsorship identification rules to determine if new rules need to be adopted to cover "embedded advertising", i.e. product placement in broadcast programs.  All told, these rules could result in fundamental changes in the media landscape.

The broadcast ownership items, dealing with broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership, localism and diversity initiatives, all grow out of the Commission's attempts to change the broadcast ownership rules in 2003.  That attempt was largely rejected by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which remanded most of the rules back to the FCC for further consideration, including considerations about their impact on minority ownership.  The localism proceeding was also an outgrowth of that proceeding, started as an attempt by the Commission to deal with consolidation critics who felt that the public had been shut out of the process of determining the rules in 2003, and claiming that big media was neglecting the needs and interests of local audiences.

The cable ownership item has also been hanging around for years, after previous attempts at rule changes were rejected by the courts.  Broadcast local ownership caps, including the rules that prohibit the common ownership of two television stations in the same market ("TV duopoly") unless there are eight independent television owners (and forbidding any combination of any of stations in the top 4 in audience ratings in a market), have also been thrown out by the Courts as being insufficiently justified, yet these rules were not mentioned in the Chairman's proposal as to the resolution of this proceeding.  See our memo here for a discussion of other broadcast ownership issues not discussed in the Chairman's proposals.  We will see if these issues are discussed in the final order in this adopted in this proceeding.

Finally, the Commission will consider an issue that only recently has jumped into play - the initiation of a proceeding to determine if the FCC's sponsorship identification rules are sufficient to deal with product placement in broadcast programming.  With the recent proliferation of TiVos and other digital video recorders ("DVRs"), some broadcast programmers have taken to including products in the body of programs so that they will still be seen even if the viewer fast-forwards through the true commercial message.  While we will not know the specifics of the FCC proposal until the meeting next week, we can expect that the Commission will want to consider tougher disclosure requirements to let the public know who is trying to persuade them to buy a product.

With all of these crucially important and very controversial items on the agenda, the meeting will be one worth watching.  And, with the Commission's recent track record of starting controversial meetings hours after their scheduled time (the last meeting starting after 9 PM), interested parties may want to bring a sleeping bag and some provisions in case the Commission again gets a late start on its work.

FCC Meeting to Consider LPFM Reform, Public Interest Requirements for TV Stations, and Minority Ownership Proposals

The FCC has released the agenda for its Open Meeting to be held on Tuesday, November 27.  The agenda is full of issues of importance to broadcasters, and several items may resolve issues that may be troubling - including issues relating to low power FM stations (LPFM) and resolving a long outstanding proceeding concerning the possibility of mandatory public interest obligations for TV stations.  The Commission also has on tap initiatives to encourage the entry of minorities and other new entrants into the broadcast business - even though comments on the Commission's proposals on this matter were received just a month ago.

First, the Commission is to release an Order on Low Power FM.  We have written about some of the issues that could be decided previously - including issues of whether or not to allow the assignment and transfer of such stations (here) and whether to give these stations preferences over translators and even improvements in full power stations (here and here).

On the TV side, the Commission seems ready to issue an order on the public interest obligations of television operators.  We wrote about the proposals - made as part of the Commission's DTV proceedings (though to be applicable to all TV stations), here.  Proposed rules included the standardization of quarterly issues programs lists, making station's public fies available on the Internet, and quantifying other public interest obligations. 

The proceeding to encourage minority ownership has a laundry list of new proposals, from allowing minority groups to buy expiring construction permits for new stations and giving them increased time to construct, to allowing various modifications of the multiple ownership rules that would allow investments by non-minorities in companies controlled by minorities or new entrants.  We summarized those proposals here.  With the last comments on these proposals just filed on October 15, this would be an exceedingly quick action - as actions on most rulemaking proposals usually take a year or more to resolve.

This could be an incredibly important meeting for broadcasters - so be sure to watch for the results on Tuesday.

A New Push to Address Multiple Ownership?

Over a year ago, the FCC released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on amendments to the FCC's multiple ownership rules.  Issues from newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership, to local TV and radio ownership limits are all being considered.  Our summary of the issues raised in the NPRM is available here.  The FCC has been holding field hearings throughout the country on its proposals, gathering public comment on the proposals - the most recent having been held in Chicago last night.  Only one more field hearing to go and the Commission will have conducted the six hearings that it promised.  Many, including me, had felt that the timing was such that no decision in this proceeding could be reached until 2008 and, as that is an election year, the decision could quite well be put off until after the election to avoid making it a political issue.  However, there are now signs that some at the FCC are gearing up to try to reach a decision late this year or early next - presumably far enough away from the election for any controversy to quiet before the election.  With this push, others are expressing concern about a rush to judgment on the issues, and may well seek to delay it further.

Evidence of the FCC's increasing attention to the multiple ownership issues include the recent Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, asking questions about minority ownership and making proposals on how that ownership can be encouraged (proposals we summarized here).  The FCC has also asked for comment on several studies that it commissioned to look at the effects of ownership consolidation in the broadcast media (the public notice asking for comments is here, and the studies can be found here).  Comments on the Further Notice and the ownership studies are due on October 1, with replies due on October 15.  Some have suggested that this time table is unnecessarily accelerated, especially as certain peer review documents on the ownership studies were just recently released.

At last night's Chicago field hearing, the two Democratic Commissioners expressed their concern about a rush to judgment.  Commissioner Copps, in his Remarks at the hearing, expressed concern over the short time frame given for comments on the issues raised by the Further Notice.  Commissioner Adelstein suggested that the Commission appoint an independent panel of experts to review the ownership studies and report back to the FCC before any decision on the ownership rules is made. 

At this week's Future of Music Policy Summit in Washington, DC, a legal assistant to Commissioner Adelstein expressed concern over this rush to reach a decision, suggesting that the Chairman wanted to see the decision out before his term ended, and was looking for a decision early next year.  Several Congressional staffers on a panel about Capitol Hill activities that affect the music industry, as well as Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, all also expressed concerns about FCC action in this area, and indicated that both the House and the Senate intended to hold hearings on media consolidation this Fall, before any decision can be reached.

With battle lines being drawn, there are likely to be stormy times ahead in the multiple ownership debate.  In 2003, with a Republican-controlled Congress, there were a number of bipartisan Congressional attempts to roll back the FCC's relaxation of the ownership rules before the Third Circuit Court or Appeals blocked most of those reforms.  With a Democratic Congress, who knows what would come of any FCC relaxation of those rules in the coming months.  But we may well see that issue play out - and perhaps become a political football in the upcoming elections.