Broadcast Law Blog : Broadcast Lawyer & Attorney : Davis Wright Tremaine Law Firm : Broadcast Law Blog : Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Shanghai

Local television ownership:  The FCC tentatively concludes that the current rule, limiting TV combinations to the ownership of two stations in a market, but only where there will be 8 independently owned stations in the market after the combination, and only where the combination is not of two of the top 4 rated stations in the market.  The FCC asks for comments on that conclusion, and on a number of other issues including:

• Whether, in a digital world, it should look at ownership on a DMA basis, rather than relying on Grade B contours that really were an analog concept.  This would be similar to what the FCC does in radio - looking at how many stations are owned and how many voices are in a market based on Arbitron-defined markets
• Should there be waivers of the prohibitions on combinations of stations in smaller markets, where stations might not otherwise be able to support themselves, or support news programming, if they were independently owned?  What standards should govern such waivers?  Do combining stations need to be failing, or does there simply need to be some other public interest benefit of the combination?
• Is the prohibition against the Top 4 stations combining sufficient to preserve diversity in a market, or should a Top 5 or Top 6 rule be adopted?
• Should the sale of an affiliation be regulated, so that a Top 4 station owning a second lower ranked station could not buy the affiliation agreement of another Top 4 station - taking advantage of the FCC's policy of evaluating Top 4 status only in connection with the sale of a license (a reaction to the Honolulu case where a sale of an affiliation took place - see our article here)
• Do digital multicasting, new technologies, and other competition in the video marketplace affect the FCC's tentative conclusions?

Local Radio Ownership:  The current rules place limits on the number of stations that can be owned in each market based on the number of competitors who are in that market.  In the smallest market, one owner can have interests in two stations - one AM and one FM.  In the largest (markets with 45 or more radio stations), one owner can hold up to 8 stations, no more than 5 of which can be AMs or FMs.  The FCC proposes to keep these rules in place, but asks questions including:

• A number of broadcast groups suggest that limits not have the AM and FM subcaps - so that one owner could hold up to 8 AMs or 8 FMs in a single market.  While the FCC tentatively rejects those proposals, the Commission asks for more comments, including whether just allowing 8 AMs under common ownership might be a good idea
• Do Internet radio, satellite radio and other technologies pose a sufficient competitive force in local markets that they should be considered in an ownership analysis?
• Does digital HD radio, with multicasting opportunities, in any way affect the need for the rules, or minimize the need for liberalization of the rules?
• In the largest of markets, should one owner be allowed to hold more than 8 stations - i.e. should the FCC set up tiers where there one owner could own more stations - say allowing ownership of 10 stations in a market of more than 55 stations?
• In what circumstances should waivers of these limits be permitted?

Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership: The current rules prohibit a newspaper operator from owning a radio or TV station in the same area the newspaper serves.  In 2007, the FCC proposed relaxing that prohibition in the Top 20 markets, and also provided for waivers in smaller markets.  The Third Circuit overturned this decision based on the lack of public comment.  The FCC now proposes that a rule similar to the 2007 decision be adopted, but asks for comments as to exactly what standards should be used to evaluate proposed combinations.  The tentative conclusion is that, in the Top 20 markets, radio/newspaper ownership should be allowed, and newspaper/TV combinations be allowed if the TV station is not a Top 4 station and there are at least 8 voices in the market (one would think that the 8 voices test would be met in every Top 20 market).  But the FCC asks a number of questions including:

• Should the rules be addressed on a DMA basis, rather than on a Grade A contour methodology as is currently the case for TV/newspaper combinations?
• Should cross-ownership be based on tiers established by the number of media voices in a market?  Are the Top 20 markets significantly different than smaller markets?
• Are there circumstances where a waiver should be granted to permit combinations in smaller markets?
• Should additional factors be evaluated in permitting combinations in Top 20 markets? 

Radio-Television Cross-Ownership:  The current rules permit same-market combinations of radio and TV stations based on the number of other voices in a market, but the ownership of a TV station will set for that owner an ownership limit for radio stations lower than that which would normally apply for radio ownership in that market.  The FCC proposes to do away with any restrictions on radio and television ownership - allowing one owner to have the maximum number of each type of station that would be permitted in that market.  This is based on a finding that radio and television stations are not viewed as substantial substitutes by either advertisers or consumers.  The FCC asks for comments on this conclusion.

Dual Network Rule:  The rule currently prohibits the combination of any of the Top 4 commercial networks (ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox).  The FCC concluded that these networks still serve a much larger audience than any cable network or any other broadcast network, and are very important to both advertisers and viewers.  Based on the important role that the networks play, the Commission proposed retaining the rule.  It asks for comments on this conclusion.

Shared Services Agreements:  Given the controversy in Hawaii (summarized here) and the issues that have been raised by public interest groups suggesting that shared services agreements and similar arrangements evade the FCC ownership prohibitions, the FCC has asked if these kinds of agreements should be made "attributable", i.e. if they should count as if they are an ownership interest subject to the ownership rules.  Comments are sought on a number of questions including:

• What are the benefits of such agreements, and the perceived detriments?
• How should SSAs be defined, if a rule against them is adopted?
• Should the FCC not even try to define an SSA, but instead adopt a broader rule that encompasses any kind of significant relationship with a competing station?  (This would seem to imply a return to an old FCC "cross-interest" policy that prohibited substantial interests in competing stations, a policy that was abandoned decades ago as the FCC felt that bright line tests set by the ownership rules should determine what is permitted and what is not)
• The FCC also notes that it has had an open proceeding on the attribution of TV Joint Sales Agreement - radio JSAs having been made attributable years ago, though it gives no indication of when that proceeding will be resolved.

Diversity:  In connection with each of these rules, the FCC asked for comments on the impact that its proposals would have on the ownership of broadcast stations by members of minority communities, and whether other changes in each of these rules would somehow better serve its interest in encouraging diversity in ownership of the media.

Other Issues:  The FCC also summarized a number of studies that it conducted on media ownership and its effect on news, diversity of viewpoints, localism and minority ownership.  The FCC asks for comments on the findings of these studies.

This is a very important proceeding that will be sure to generate much controversy, and much discussion.  When will it be resolved?  My observations are that these proceedings always take much longer than anyone expects.  Moreover, given their potential to be quite controversial, they are not usually decided before a big election, like that coming up in November.  My prediction - don't look for a decision for another year (maybe during the December holidays next year?).  Be ready to file your comments when the date is announced, and participate in the upcoming debate. 

The broadcast industry is in an interesting position with respect to this decision.  While broadcasters do believe that, given the competitive pressures, there is a need for greater ownership deregulation such as that approved by the FCC in December, many do not believe that the deregulation has gone far enough.  There were some concerns by radio broadcasters that the December decision did not in any way relax ownership even in the largest markets, nor did it correct any of the anomalies created by the switch to a markets based on Arbitron definitions rather than contour overlap for use in computing the number of stations that one party can own in any radio market.

Perhaps most disappointed by the decision were small market TV operators, who were hoping for duopoly relief, allowing owners to operate more than one television station in the smallest markets, where the cost efficiencies of such operations would be the most beneficial.  There is an interesting article in today's tvnewsday, interviewing Bill Duhamel, a television station owner in small market Rapid City, South Dakota, about the operational and economic concerns that arise in that size market.  If the December decision stands, it will take a whole new FCC proceeding and the years of litigation that follow before there can be expected to be any relaxation of the local television duopoly rules in these small markets.

The resolution of disapproval is not the only avenue pending by which the December decision could be changed.  Parties on both sides of the issue have filed appeals and petitions for reconsideration that are still to be resolved.  Thus, no matter what happens in Congress, we have not heard the end of the multiple ownership debate. 

The specific proposals that were adopted, and which will go into effect 30 days after Federal Register publication, include:

• Allowing designated entities to purchase construction permits for new stations that are nearing their expiration dates, and giving the designated entity 18 months after the purchase in which to construct the new stations.
• Modified the Equity Debt Plus rule (which makes an otherwise non-attributable ownership in a broadcast station interest attributable if the interest exceeds 33% of the financial interest - debt plus equity - in the company and either (a) the holder has an attributable ownership interest in another station in the same market, or (b) it provides more than 15% of the programming to a station) to allow that holder to have a financial interest in a designated entity if (i) the interest is less than 50%, or (ii) the financial interest is less than 80% and the holder of the interest has no equity interest, option, agreement, or understanding by which it can acquire an equity interest in the designated entity
• Revived the FCC's distress sale policy by allowing a broadcaster whose license has been set for a revocation hearing or is facing a renewal challenge on basic qualifications grounds to sell to a designated entity to avoid the issues that it is facing.  Ordinarily, if a licensee is facing issues which could lead to a loss of license, it is not allowed to sell the station until the issues are resolved.
• Allowed the sale of existing grandfathered combinations of radio stations which exceed the limits established by the multiple ownership rules (as revised in 2003) to one owner, provided that the owner agrees to sell the stations which exceed the limits to a designated entity within a year
• Provided additional time for spin-offs of broadcast stations in "substantial transactions" if efforts were being made to sell excess stations to designated entities
• Gave a preference to companies which "incubated" companies owned by designated entities (i.e. provided them financing or other similar assistance) if the company was in a situation where the company and another both filed, on the same day, to create a TV duopoly in a market where only one such duopoly could exist (i.e because there must be 8 separately owned and controlled television operators remaining in a market after the permitted combination).
• Adopted a new rule prohibiting discrimination in the sale of a commercial broadcast station on the base of race, sex, religion or national origin.  A certification that no discrimination has taken place will be required in applications submitted to the FCC for approval of station sales.
• Adopted a zero tolerance policy against "ownership fraud," situations where the putative owner of a station is not truly involved in station operations.  The FCC promises to try to resolve any such allegations within 90 days, and also promised to keep confidential, to the extent that it can consistent with the Freedom of Information Act, the names of whistleblowers on such frauds
• Adopted a rule prohibiting any advertising contract containing "no urban" or "no Spanish" dictates, meaning that an advertiser cannot specify in an advertising contract that the ads will not run on stations targeted to the African-American or Hispanic communities.  A certification that no such advertising discrimination has taken place will be required in license renewal applications.
• Agreed to conduct a number of initiatives to promote minority ownership, including conducting a study of the extent of minority and female ownership in broadcasting (and amending the FCC Form 323 Ownership Report to obtain such information), encouraging local banks to lend to the broadcast industry, holding an access to capital summit, and publishing a guidebook on diversity in contracting and ownership.

While some of these initiatives seem to have real promise for designated entities (e.g the sale of expiring construction permits for new stations and the distress sale policy expansion), others seem to be less likely to be used.  Just how often will two television operators file an application to create a duopoly on the same day in a market with just 9 independent television voices?  I don't know that it has ever occurred, and doubt that it will be likely enough to occur in the future to provide much incentive for companies to enter into incubation agreements.

Several other proposals really need more details to avoid being a trap for the unwary, getting broadcasters into trouble for routine practices.  For instance, the Commission does not explain how this would they will insure that there is no discrimination in the sale of a broadcast station, or exactly what circumstances they would consider to be discriminatory.  For instance, to what extent must a seller go to make sure that the station is offered to minority and female prospective purchasers?  If there is a direct sale from one non-minority to another without any advertisement of the availability of the station, has there been some sort of discrimination?  Or if there is a sale of a religious commercial radio station to another person of the same religious affiliation, has there been discrimination?  The Commission does not address these questions. "Ownership fraud" is also curiously undefined.  What will happen to an entity that is found to have engaged in such fraud?  How can the FCC fulfill its promise to resolve allegations of fraud within 90 days - a very quick resolution for what can be a very complex issue?  These questions are unanswered.

Perhaps most surprising is the limited discussion of the prohibition on no urban-no Spanish dictates, as press reports had indicated that members of the advertising community had been visiting the Commission, lobbying on the issue.  But the Commission says nothing more than that there is a prohibition on these clauses in advertising contracts.  But if a broadcast company owns two stations - one a Spanish language station and the other an Adult Contemporary station broadcasting in English, if an advertiser says "run my ads only on the AC station", does that violate the prohibition?  If so, that might actually encourage some groups to avoid programming Spanish and urban formatted stations, to avoid having advertisers specify that their advertising run on only one or two other stations, and perhaps creating an issue even if the advertiser was just trying to reach the unique demographic served by that particular station.

Apparently, these issues will be sorted out through cases or future FCC pronouncements.  But, for now, broadcasters will have to guess what they mean. 

About the only new information found in the text dealing with the newspaper-television cross interest decision  was the details of several waivers granted by the Commission allowing the permanent continuation of certain existing combinations of newspapers and television stations.  The majority decision emphasized several factors favoring those waiver grants, including the economies recognized by these combinations, the increased public service that these economies permitted, and the business stability promoted by the permanent waivers.  This decision prompted significant objections from the Democratic Commissioners arguing that many of the owners who had been granted waivers had entered into the cross-ownership situation knowing that the combinations were not permitted by the rules in effect at the time, so that looking at business stability was rewarding these owners for making a decision that they knew was contrary to the FCC rules (the Commission could not block the purchase of a newspaper by a broadcast station owner, but could later refuse to grant a television station a license renewal if their owners had acquired a newspaper).  The Democrats argued that the standards used to permit these waivers would permit almost any waiver - reinforcing their position that the standards written into the rules would allow far too many combinations to go forward.

The Commission did, however, hold off on grants of certain newspaper-television combinations where the combinations involved more than one newspaper or television station in the same market.  In those cases, the Commission stated that it would hold additional proceedings to determine if these existing combinations should be permitted to continue.  With these waiver decisions, and the Democratic opposition, public interest groups have already indicated that they will appeal the Commission's relaxation for the ownership rules.

What has drawn less attention and, so far, less protest, are the ownership rules that the Commission did not relax.  On the issue of TV duopoly, the Commission was facing a remand from the US Court of Appeals, which had questioned the FCC rules limiting local ownership combinations of television stations to situations where there would be eight separate TV owners in a market after the combination, and prohibited combinations of any of the top 4 stations in a market.   The text of the decision, rather than relying on well-developed analysis of detailed economic showings submitted by the parties (as was done in the analysis of the newspaper-television analysis), the Commission cited some anecdotal evidence submitted by a few parties, and came to the conclusion that it would not change it rules.  No significant analysis is given to arguments that in smaller television markets, to have a viable fourth station, a combination is necessary.

On the TV duopoly issue, there was at least some discussion and analysis.  Radio received even less consideration.  The Third Circuit, in remanding the Commission's 2003 decision, asked the Commission to determine whether its numerical limits on the number of AM and FM stations that one party could own made sense - especially as stations have different coverage areas and different size audiences.  Should all of the stations count the same?  The Commission read the court's question at its most narrow - whether the Commission should allow more AM stations to be co-owned than allowed by the current limits.  The Commission concluded that some AM stations still are successful (again based on a few examples of AM stations that are still rated well rather than an extensive economic analysis of the AM radio segment of the industry), and concluded that the cap on AM ownership should not be relaxed.

The question asked by the Court could be read in a much broader context, that the Commission should consider the relative power and reach of stations before determining how much they should count in any multiple ownership analysis.  At least one party raised exactly that issue - whether a small Class A FM stations should count the same in a multiple ownership analysis as a large Class C FM station.  One example was posed where two Class A stations that are simulcasting in order to cover a geographically large market.  Should those two stations really count twice as much toward a licensee's ownership limits as a Class C station that totally encompasses the area served by the two Class A stations?  The Commission chose not to address that issue, concluding only that the rules that it had adopted had not been specifically overturned by the Court, so there was no reason to revisit them now.

Similarly, several parties asked for reconsideration of other aspects of the radio rules, including the rules dealing with grandfathering of ownership situations that did not comply with the rules adopted in 2003.  The Commission indicated that some grandfathering provisions would be dealt with in the Diversity order decided on at the December 18 meeting (though the full text of what was decided still has not been released).  Other clarifications or requests for reconsideration - including proposals for grandfathering of existing Joint Sales Agreements (or simply reconsidering the decision to make joint sales agreements attributable) were denied, basically with no reason except that the rules were adopted in 2003, not overturned by the Court, and therefore the FCC decided not to revisit the issue now.  As the Commission obviously decided to reconsider some aspects of the 2003 decision (e.g the grandfathering provisions considered in the diversity proceeding), how they can ignore other issues simply based on the fact that the Commission once decided the issue?  The purpose of reconsideration is to give the Commission an opportunity to revisit and review a decision that it made earlier, to consider points not examined or potentially decided incorrectly when the initial decision was made.  To refuse to even address the substance of the issues raised on reconsideration seems to defeat that purpose.

In short, with the issues that were decided, and those that were not, its likely that we have not heard the last of the ownership debate.  Court appeals are probable, and legislative intervention is even possible (Senator Dorgan has reportedly promised to introduce a resolution to overturn the decision).  So keep watching this space.

First, all newspaper broadcast combinations will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.  This seemingly means that, while there will be a presumption that combinations of a daily newspaper and either one radio station or one television station (as long as it is not one of the Top 4 stations in a market) in the Top 20 markets in the United States (using DMA market rankings from Nielsen) will be permitted, this presumption could be rebutted if it could be shown that the combination would not be in the public interest.  How a positive presumption could be rebutted was not addressed at the meeting.  Combinations in smaller markets would be presumed to not be in the public interest, unless a showing could be made that overcame the presumption.  Specifics of how that presumption could be overcome were specifically discussed and outlined in detail.

In evaluating requests to rebut the presumption in smaller markets, the Commission will use a multi-part test that will include looking at:

• The level of media concentration in a market
• Whether the combination would increase the amount of local news coverage in a market
• Whether the newspaper and broadcast station would continue to have independent news and editorial staffs
• The financial condition of the combining media outlets, and whether the Buyer is willing to commit to spend money to increase newsroom operations

In addition, the Commission would consider the negative presumption to be overcome in any of the following specific situations:

• Where there was a "failed" station or newspaper, i.e. one in bankruptcy or which had ceased operation for 4 months before FCC approval for the combination was sought
• If there is a "failing station" or failing newspaper - found only in situations meeting a four part test:
  • If the television station in the proposed combination had an audience share of less than 4%
  • If the station or newspaper which is claimed to be failing had 3 consecutive years of negative cash flow
  • If public interest benefits could be shown, and
  • If it can be shown that there is no other out-of-market buyer for the failing outlet
• If the combination resulted in a new news operation at the broadcast station which would include at least 7 hours of weekly local news coverage.

Commissioner Copps derided these conditions,finding it difficult to believe that promises made to receive permission for a combination would be kept.  How, he asked, could it be believed that parties would buy a failing property that no one else wanted and increase costs by investing in news?  Instead, he found it much more likely that any new owner would cut costs by combining staff, leading to less diversity. 

There were also numerous arguments between the Commissioners about whether the process was fair, and whether it gave interested parties a meaningful opportunity to have their views heard and considered.  While Chairman Martin, in his statement appends a long list of the process that was gone through over the last several years in considering the ownership revisions, Commissioner Copps focused instead on the "end game," faulting the Chairman for rushing the decision - for example, by having his proposal published in the New York Times and released in a Press Release by the FCC the day after the last field hearing (meaning that the statements at that hearing could not have been considered in drafting the proposal), and having a draft final decision circulated weeks before comments on the Chairman's proposal had even been received.

We may well have not heard the end of this proceeding.  First, the full text will need to be released, addressing some of the many unanswered questions, including what happened to all the reconsideration requests filed in connection with the already effective 2003 revision of the radio ownership rules, to the question of how the FCC dealt with the US Court of Appeals decision that had found the local television ownership rules (which forbid TV "duopolies" except in a market where there will be 8 independent voices after the transaction, and forbid combinations among the Top 4 stations in a market) to be arbitrary and capricious.  Legal challenges to the final decision may follow.  And many in Congress have been actively opposed to this decision, including 25 Senators who signed a letter indicating an interest in overturning this decision.  So, once again, stay tuned for the next episode in this long running series. 

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.

In this proceeding, the procedure has been somewhat different.  The Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking really did not suggest any proposed rules - instead just asking a number of questions that gave little guidance as to what the Commission was really thinking about doing to reform the ownership  rules (see our summary here).  The original Notice was much more akin to a Notice of Inquiry, which asks for general guidance on a subject, and then usually leads to a more specific Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  Here, the Chairman's Public Notice was really the public's first look at what the proposed revisions to the rules would look like - and the suggestions seem to be those of the Chairman only, not those of the full Commission (or even necessarily a majority of the Commissioners).  And, instead of providing an opportunity for comments and replies and informal lobbying and advocacy, the Public Notice gives only a single date of December 11 for comments, and then seems to contemplate an FCC decision the next week (leaving no time for informal lobbying after the comment date, as there is a 7 day quiet period, where no lobbying is permitted, before a decision to be made at an FCC open meeting). 

In looking at the specifics of the proposal, one is struck by how many issues it leaves unanswered.  One would think that these issues will have to be addressed in any final order issued by the Commission.  The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asked about a number of subjects that seem to have been ignored by the Chairman's proposal.  For instance, small market television stations have long been clamoring for some relief from the rules that only allow TV combinations in markets where there are eight separate TV owners.  Small market owners have long contended that in the very small markets the only way to start a station that is not affiliated with a major market is to run it in combination with another station - and certainly the only way to be able to afford local news on one of these stations is to have a second station that can share the costs.  And with the costs of the digital transition fast upon stations in these market, who have a limited revenue base from which to pay for the costs of the digital conversion (costs that are essentially the same as the costs for a large market station with far greater revenue opportunities), many of these smaller stations are hurting economically.  Yet there is no mention of small market duopoly relief in the Chairman's proposal.  Given that the US Court of Appeals, in a case brought by Sinclair Broadcasting, ruled that the Commission needed to provide more justification for its rules limiting TV duopolies to markets where there would be 8 independent owners after any combination, and prohibiting combinations among the Top 4 stations in a market, it would seem that this issue needs to be addressed and justified in any order of the FCC. 

Large market TV operators were also looking for some opportunities.  In the 2003 order, the FCC allowed one entity in the very largest markets to own up to three TV stations.  No such proposal is contained in the Chairman's proposal. 

Radio, too, was hoping for some clarifications of the ownership rules that went into effect in 2004.  The radio rules adopted in the FCC's 2003 Multiple Ownership reform order were the only rules from that order that actually went into effect.   And those rules actually tightened the rules that were previously in effect - determining the number of stations in a market based on Arbitron market definitions rather than by contour overlaps.  As this reduced the number of stations in a number of markets, and the number of stations in a market determines how many stations one party can own, a number of issues were raised.  Many of the issues dealt with grandfathering of preexisting interests.  While the Commission grandfathered most combinations that existed at the time that the rules were adopted, that grandfathering protection would disappear in most cases upon an assignment or transfer.  While the FCC allowed grandfathering to continue if there was a transfer caused by the death of a shareholder, it made no provisions for grandfathering where there is a transfer that takes place over time in employee-owned or other closely-held businesses,  where continuity of ownership remains, though a technical transfer may have occurred.  The rules also forfeited grandfathering protection if there was a city of license change for any station in the cluster - even if that city of license change was from one community in an Arbitron market to another in the same market.  Some parties asked for reconsideration of that rule - again something not addressed, and much more important given the recent Commission decisions easing city of license changes to make it easier for radio stations to improve their technical facilities (see our posts, here and here)).

The 2003 Order also, for the first time, made radio Joint Sales Agreements attributable interests (meaning that stations subject to such agreements count as if they are owned by the party doing the advertising sales in assessing that party's compliance with the multiple ownership rules), and gave parties two years to divest themselves of any JSA which would result in a combination that would exceed the ownership rules.  A number of parties asked for reconsideration of that ruling - asking for further grandfathering of those agreements to preserve the economic benefits of the parties.  Parties also asked for clarification or other relief of situations in some geographically large Arbitron markets, where some parties need two lower power stations to cover a market.  Should those lower power stations count the same as a high power station that might alone cover the entire market.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision which overturned most of the 2003 ownership rules seem to require that the Commission address the rationale for the strict reliance on the number of stations in a market in deciding ownership limitations without any consideration of the coverage or audience of such stations.  Again, there is no mention of any consideration of that issue in the Chairman's notice.  The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding also asked for a permanent definition of a radio market in areas not served by Arbitron - and there certainly has been no specific proposal made in that regard.

Thus, the Chairman's Public Notice would seemingly not signal the end of the ownership debate, as there remain many, many unanswered questions raised in this and other related proceedings.  So, even if the newspaper- broadcast issue is resolved next month, the Commission's multiple ownership work appears to be far from complete.