< Back to Current Version

The FCC’s Rules and Policies Regarding Media Ownership, Attribution, and Ownership Diversity

Changes from March 12, 2015 to December 16, 2016

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.


The FCC's Rules and Policies Regarding Media Ownership, Attribution, and Ownership Ownership Diversity

March 12, 2015Updated December 16, 2016 (R43936)
Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

Summary

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) broadcast media ownership rules restrict the number of media outlets that a single entity may own or control. Its attribution rules define which relationships the FCC counts as ownership. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the FCC to review these rules every four years and repeal or modify those it no longer deems to be in the public interest. The 1996 act also directs the FCC to promote policies favoring the diversity of media voices and vigorous economic competition. In 2004 and again in 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, directed the FCC to review its broadcast ownership diversity policies in conjunction with the media ownership rules.

In response to these directives, the FCC issued a notice in March 2014 that included new final rules governing joint sales agreements (JSAs) among television stations and proposed new rules related to the disclosure of shared service agreements between television stations. The FCC's notice also included proposals and general guidelines for the Quadrennial Review of its ownership rules, as well as proposals to foster broadcast ownership diversity. That review is now under way, but is not expected to be complete until 2016.

Separately, the FCC's Media Bureau issued a public notice stating that it will closely scrutinize any proposed transaction that includes "sidecar" agreements in which two (or more) broadcast stations in the same market enter into an arrangement to share facilities, employees, and/or services, or to jointly acquire programming or sell advertising and enter into an option, right of first refusal, put/call arrangement, or other similar contingent interest, or a loan guarantee. The Media Bureau's public notice differs from the 2001 attribution rules adopted by the full commission, as well as from the affirmation by the full commission of a Media Bureau public notice condoning similar arrangements in 1997.

The FCC's notice and the separate Media Bureau notice have rekindled a debate as to whether the FCC's actions to promote competition enhance or inhibit its goals in promoting the diversity of ownership and programming. Several broadcasters, as well as FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, assert that JSAs facilitate minority and female ownership and enable the provision of local news and Spanish-language programming. Chairman Tom Wheeler and Commissioner Mignon Clyburn assert that sidecar business models openly circumvent the FCC's local TV ownership rule, impede the ability of potential broadcasters to compete to buy stations that would otherwise be available for sale, and deny opportunities for minority ownership and management. Several parties have initiated court challenges to the FCC's proposed and adopted media ownership and attribution rules; the challenges have been consolidated into one case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.


The FCC's Rules and Policies Regarding Media Ownership, Attribution, and Ownership Diversity

Introduction: Why Regulate Media Ownership?

From the earliest days of commercial radio, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, have been concerned about diversity in broadcasting.1 This concern has repeatedly been supported by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has affirmed that "[T]heAuthority and Legal Directives

  • News Consumption Trends
  • Broadcast Signals and Markets
  • Television Signal Contours
  • Radio Signal Contours
  • FM Primary Service Area
  • AM Primary Service Area
  • Television Markets
  • Radio Markets
  • Attribution Rules
  • Joint Sales Agreements
  • Disclosure of Sharing Agreements
  • Media Ownership Rules
  • Local Television Ownership Rules (Television Duopoly Rules)
  • Modifications
  • Relief from Rules
  • Local Radio Ownership Rules
  • Clarifications
  • Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rules
  • Modifications
  • Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rules
  • Modifications: Geographic Scope
  • Relief from Rules
  • Dual Network Rule
  • Ownership Diversity
  • Link with Media Ownership Rules
  • Eligible Entity Standard and Measures
  • Court Directives
  • 2016 FCC Diversity Order
  • Legal Authority
  • Revenue-Based Eligible Entity Standard
  • Measures Specific to Small Businesses
  • Summary

    From the earliest days of commercial radio, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, have encouraged diversity in broadcasting. This concern has repeatedly been supported by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has affirmed that "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public," and that "assuring that the public has access to a multiplicity of information sources is a governmental purpose of the highest order, for it promotes values central to the First Amendment."

    The FCC's policies seek to encourage four distinct types of diversity: (1) diversity of viewpoints, as reflected in the availability of media content reflecting a variety of perspectives; (2) diversity of programming, as indicated by a variety of formats and content; (3) outlet diversity, to ensure the presence of multiple independently owned media outlets within a geographic market; and (4) minority and female ownership of broadcast media outlets.

    In addition to promoting diversity, the FCC aims, with its broadcast media ownership rules, to promote localism and competition by restricting the number of media outlets that a single entity may own or control within a local geographic market. Two characteristics of broadcast television and broadcast radio stations determine whether or not media ownership rules are triggered: (1) the geographic range of their signals, and (2) the boundaries of their media markets as determined by the Nielsen Company, a market research firm.

    After first adopting rules limiting common ownership of multiple local radio stations, multiple local television stations, and multiple national broadcast networks in the 1940s, the FCC continued to expand and modify media ownership rules. It began to limit cross-ownership of radio and television stations in 1970, and cross-ownership of newspapers and television stations in 1975. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the FCC to review these rules every four years and repeal or modify those it no longer deems to be in the public interest.

    Following its most recent review, the FCC retained its media ownership rules in 2016, and readopted rules counting broadcast stations that jointly sell advertising time as commonly owned. Pending approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the FCC will require independently owned broadcast television stations to include resource-sharing agreements in their online public inspection files. In addition, as directed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, the FCC reviewed its broadcast ownership diversity policies. It concluded that it did not believe the 1996 Telecommunications Act nor the Communications Act of 1934 requires it to adopt race- or gender-conscious measures in order to promote ownership diversity. In order to increase broadcast ownership diversity, FCC also reinstated rules enabling certain small businesses to abide by less restrictive media ownership and attribution rules, and more flexible licensing policies, than their counterparts. The newly approved media ownership and diversity rules took effect on December 1, 2016.

    The FCC's 2016 review occurred against the background of sweeping changes in news consumption patterns. Surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center show 20% of respondents citing printed newspapers as a source they "read yesterday" or used regularly in 2016, down from 50% in 1996. While the percentage of adults citing local broadcast television as a news source declined from 65% in 1996 to 46% in 2016, it still outranked other local news sources. These trends, along with increased consumption of news online, are contributing to debate in Congress as to whether common ownership of multiple media outlets in the same market might limit diversity of viewpoints as much today as 20 or 40 years ago.

    Why Regulate Media Ownership?

    From the earliest days of commercial radio, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, have encouraged diversity in broadcasting.1 This concern has repeatedly been supported by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has affirmed that "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public,"2 and that "assuring that the public has access to a multiplicity of information sources is a governmental purpose of the highest order, for it promotes values central to the First Amendment."3

    The FCC's current policies seek to encourage four distinct types of diversity4 in local broadcast media:

    • diversity of viewpoints, as reflected in the availability of media content reflecting a variety of perspectives;
    • diversity of programming, as indicated by a variety of formats and content, including programming aimed at various minority and ethnic groups;
    • outlet diversity, to ensure the presence of multiple independently owned media outlets within a geographic market; and
    • minority and female ownership of broadcast media outlets.5

    The FCC enacted its broadcast media ownership rules (see the "Media Ownership Rules: Current and Proposed" section below)6 to promote diversityIn addition to promoting diversity, the FCC aims, with its broadcast media ownership rules,6 to promote localism and competition by restricting the number of media outlets that a single entity may own or control. Congress requires the FCC to review its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether they continue to serve the public interest.7 In assessing the public interest, the FCC also considers localism and competition.8 within a geographic market.7 Localism addresses whether broadcast stations are responsive to the needs and interests of their communities. In evaluating competition, in contrast to antitrust authorities who consider the prices stations charge to advertisersthe extent of competition, the FCC considers whether competition is providing stationsstations have adequate commercial incentives to invest in diverse news and public affairs programming tailored to serve viewers within their communities.8 In contrast, antitrust authorities primarily consider the prices stations charge advertisers to air commercials during programming, and, in the case of television stations, the prices they charge cable and satellite operators for the retransmission of broadcast programming.9 Authority and Legal Directivesincentives to invest in diverse news and public affairs programming.9

    The rules govern the ownership of broadcast television stations, broadcast radio stations, and broadcast television networks, as well as a broadcaster's ownership of daily newspapers within the broadcast station's local market. The rules do not govern ownership of websites, except those commonly owned by broadcast television, radio, and newspaper outlets, although websites have become increasingly important sources of news (see Figure 1).

    Figure 1. Where Americans Get News

    Percentage of Respondents Who Got News "Yesterday" from Each Platform

    Source: Adapted from Pew Research Center, "In Changing News Landscape, Even Television is Vulnerable," September 27, 2012, http://www.journalism.org/media-indicators/where-americans-get-news/.

    Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the FCC to review its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether they are "necessary in the public interest as a result of competition," and "repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the public interest."10 Section 257(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996act directs the FCC to promote policies favoring the diversity of media voices and vigorous economic competition. In addition11 In 2004, 2011, and 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, has directed the FCC to consider how its media ownership rules impact minority and female ownership of broadcast stations.11review its broadcast ownership diversity policies in conjunction with the media ownership rules.12 The FCC must balance this mandate with the requirement that its rules withstand the U.S. Supreme Court's scrutiny of any rules selectively applied to organizations based on the race or gender of their owners.12

    Many owners of commercial broadcast stations have relationships that fall short of the FCC's definition of common ownership, yet allow the owner of one station to exert substantial influence over the operation and finances of another station. The FCC has been concerned that such arrangements may be structured to circumvent its media ownership rules. To minimize such behavior, the FCC has developed attribution rules "to identify those interests in or relationships to licensees that confer a degree of influence or control such that the holders have a realistic potential to affect the programming decisions of licensees or other core operating functions."13

    New and Proposed Rules

    In March 2014, the FCC adopted a document with four major elements related to media ownership: (1) new rules attributing joint sales agreements between broadcast television stations, (2) proposed rules to require stations to disclose additional joint operating agreements, (3) proposed rules for media ownership, and (4) proposed rules to increase broadcast ownership diversity. The last element, referred to as 2014 Quadrennial Review, incorporated public comments the FCC received via the incomplete 2010 Quadrennial Review. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler directed the Media Bureau to compete the 2014 review by June 30, 2016.14

    Attribution of Joint Sales Agreements

    Joint sales agreements (JSAs) enable the sales staff of one broadcast station to sell advertising time on a separately owned station within the same local market. The FCC's new rules specify that television JSAs allowing the sale of more than 15% of the weekly advertising time on a competing local broadcast television station are attributable as ownership or control.15 The new rules require stations to file attributable JSAs with the commission.16 Section 104 of the 2014 Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (P.L. 113-200) delays enforcement of the JSA attribution rules until December 19, 2016.

    The FCC stated that parties may seek a waiver of the attribution rules or the duopoly rule (which, as described below, limits ownership of multiple television stations within a market). The parties must demonstrate that a particular JSA, based on the totality of circumstances, does not provide one media property with the opportunity, ability, and incentive to exert significant influence over the other.17 The FCC stated that a waiver request for a JSA that is limited in scope and duration is more likely to be successful than an open-ended request. The order directs the Media Bureau to prioritize review of any JSA waiver applications.

    The new rules were supported by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which asserted that JSAs provide incentives similar to common ownership, and should be made attributable.18 They were opposed by several broadcasters, as well as FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who asserted that JSAs facilitate minority and female ownership and enable the provision of local news and Spanish-language programming.19 The text approved by the FCC majority countered that the examples cited by Commissioner Pai include stations involved in various sharing and financing arrangements, which the new JSA attribution rules would not affect.

    The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), Howard Stirk Holdings LLC, and Nexstar Broadcasting Inc. have filed petitions in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit), arguing the FCC's decision to attribute certain JSAs went too far.20 Not-for-profit group Prometheus Radio Project (Prometheus) has filed a petition in the Third Circuit arguing that the FCC did not go far enough. Prometheus also argued that the FCC failed to comply with the court's prior orders to justify how its proposed media ownership rules would promote ownership by minorities and women.21 The cases have been consolidated and referred to the D.C. Circuit.22 In previous cases, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC's statutory requirement to review its media ownership rules carries a presumption favoring deregulation,23 while the Third Circuit ruled that it does not.24

    Disclosure of Sharing Agreements

    The FCC proposed requiring commercial television stations to disclose all joint operating agreements, broadly encompassed by the term "shared services agreements." Such agreements can take a number of forms. Local marketing agreements (LMAs), formerly known as time brokerage agreements (TBAs), typically allow the licensee of one station to program substantial portions of the LMA partner's broadcast week and to sell advertising time during such segments, subject to the licensee's ultimate editorial control. Local news service agreements (LNSs) may involve the provision of raw news footage to another station in the market, or the sharing of news-gathering equipment such as a helicopter. Shared services agreements (SSAs) may include a range of nonprogramming services such as administration.

    The FCC proposed requiring broadcast licensees to report the substance of oral SSAs in writing to the FCC. It asked whether stations should be required to place SSAs in the public inspection files at their studios, online, or both; whether stations should file the contracts with the FCC;25 and whether the commission should permit licensees to redact confidential or proprietary information.

    Two recent studies have found that sharing agreements are widespread. One study estimates that as of 2013, joint agreements of one kind or another existed in 94 out of the 210 total television markets, an increase from 55 in 2011.26 A 2012 survey of television news directors found that 25% of the 953 broadcast stations that aired local newscasts relied on another station to produce the newscast.27 In its notice, the FCC tentatively concluded that disclosure of SSAs, as defined in the proceeding, is necessary to enable the FCC and the public to assess the extent of joint operations and collaborations between independently owned commercial television stations, and the agreements' impact on the FCC's policy goals.

    The FCC observed that its rules define LMAs and JSAs, but not other types of sharing agreements between television stations. The FCC tentatively concluded that it should define SSAs as

    any agreement or series of agreements, whether written or oral, in which (1) a station, or any individual or entity with an attributable interest in the station, provides any station-related services including, but not limited to, administrative, technical, sales, and/or programming support, to a station that is not under common ownership (as defined by the FCC's attribution rules); or

    (2) stations that are not under common ownership (as defined by the FCC's rules), or any individuals or entities with an attributable interest in those stations, collaborate to provide or enable the provision of station-related services, including, but not limited to, administrative, technical, sales, and/or programming support, to one or more of the collaborating stations.

    In addition, the FCC proposed that the definition of "SSA" encompass agreements involving any entities, including the parent companies of the stations, in which one independently owned station provides station-related services for another station, using the same employees for both. It seeks comment on whether it should expand the requirements to cover commercial radio stations and/or noncommercial television stations as well.28

    Media Bureau "Sidecar" Policy Statement

    "Sidecar" business models involve contingent (financial) interest agreements as well as operational agreements described above.29 In 2012 and 2013, the FCC Media Bureau reviewed 22 transactions involving the sale of 31 stations that included a JSA. In each case, the JSA included the sale of 100% of the brokered station's advertising time.30 Moreover, of those 22 transactions, 20 involved some type of contingent interest agreement, such as an option, right of first refusal, put/call arrangement, or loan guarantee.31

    What Are Contingent Interest Agreements?

    • An option is a privilege or right that the owner of property (the "optionor") gives to another person (the "optionee") to engage in a transaction at a fixed price within a certain period.

      • For example, Station A may pay Station B, located within the same market, $10,000 for a right to purchase it for $2 million within an eight-year period (a call option).

      • Conversely, Station B may retain the right to require Station A, located within the same market, to purchase its assets for $2 million within an eight-year period (a put option).
    • A right of first refusal gives Station A a contractual right to buy Station B before anyone else can. Typically, Station B is obligated to offer the property to Station A upon the same terms as those offered by any third party. If Station A declines to exercise its right, Station B is free to sell itself to another buyer.
    • A loan guarantee is a promise by Station A (the guarantor) to assume a debt obligation of Station B if Station B defaults. A guarantee can be limited or unlimited, making the guarantor liable for only a portion or all of the debt.

    In February 2014 comments filed with the FCC, the DOJ stated that "combinations of SSAs, LNS agreements, purchase options, substantial loan guarantees, or other engagements can confer similar degrees of controls as JSAs, or may preserve some competition between the participants, depending on their precise terms." The DOJ recommended that the FCC analyze such agreements on a case-by-case basis."32

    In March 2014, the Media Bureau issued a public notice stating that it would closely scrutinize any application in which two (or more) stations in the same market propose to

    • 1. enter into an arrangement to share facilities, employees, and/or services, or to jointly acquire programming or sell advertising, including a JSA, an LMA, or any other arrangement that would have the same practical operational or financial effect as any of these agreements, and
    • 2. enter into an option, right of first refusal, put/call arrangement, or other similar contingent interest, or a loan guarantee.

    The Media Bureau added that applicants would bear the burden of showing that its approval of a proposed transaction would be consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.33

    The public notice differs from the FCC's affirmation of a notice that the Media Bureau issued in 1997 approving of similar agreements. It also differs from the FCC's 2001 interpretation of its attribution rules, and from the Media Bureau's decisions in published cases from December 2004 through December 2013.34

    In a blog post, however, Chairman Tom Wheeler and Commissioner Mignon Clyburn characterized the sidecar business models as "openly circumventing [the FCC's] local TV ownership rule, which generally forbids ownership of more than one station in a local market. The effect [of these business models] was to deny opportunities for minority ownership and management."35 They added that by tying up stations as sidecars, major broadcasters impede the ability of truly independent would-be broadcasters to compete to buy stations that would otherwise be available for sale.

    Delegated Authority vs. Commission Votes

    Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Reilly issued statements objecting to the Media Bureau's sidecar policy on procedural grounds. They claimed that, rather than a clarification of existing policy issued under the Media Bureau's delegated authority, the notice constituted a policy change that should have been subjected to a vote by the full Commission.36

    Part 0 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains provisions related to the FCC's organization. Specifically, 47 C.F.R. §0.283 delegates authority to the chief of the FCC's Media Bureau to perform all functions of the bureau, with two key exceptions:

    • notices of proposed rulemaking and of inquiry and final orders in such proceedings,37 and
    • matters that present novel questions of law, fact, or policy that cannot be resolved under existing precedents and guidelines.

    Matters falling under the criteria described above, must, per the FCC's own rules, be referred to the five FCC commissioners for a vote.38

    On February 18, 2015, Representative Fred Upton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; Representative Greg Walden, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology; and Representative Tim Murphy, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, jointly wrote a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler expressing concern about the FCC's use of delegated authority, including the Media Bureau's public notice concerning sidecar arrangements. They requested that the FCC submit information and documents about this practice.39

    Table 1 summarizes past, present, and proposed FCC and Media Bureau rules and policies related to operational and financial agreements between television stations.

    Table 1. FCC Rules, Proposals, and Guidelines Regarding Television Station Programming, Sales, Operating, and Financing Agreements

    Past, Current, and Proposed

     

    Time Brokerage and Local Marketing Agreements

    Joint Sales Agreements

    Shared Services Agreements

    Local Marketing Agreements plus Financing

    Financing

    Joint Sales/Shared Services Agreements Plus Financing

    Status

    TBAs: Policy statement supporting diversity of voices)

    LMAs: Final rule

    Final rule

    Proposed rule

    (1) Processing guidelines, public notice, interim interpretive statement of FCC rules

    (2) Processing guidelines, public notice (silent re: Media Bureau's reading of FCC rules)

    Final rule

    Processing guidelines, public notice

    (Silent re: Media Bureau's interpretation of FCC rules)

    Decisionmaker

    TBAs: Policy statement: FCC in 1980

    LMAs: Attribution rules: FCC in 1999

    FCC (3-2 vote) in 2014

    FCC (3-2 vote) in 2014

    (1) Chief, Mass Media Bureau, June 1995 (affirmed by full FCC in 1997)

    (2) Chief, Mass Media Bureau, March 2014, pursuant to delegated authority

    FCC

    Chief, Mass Media Bureau, March 2014, pursuant to delegated authority

    Agreements covered

    One station brokers more than 15% of weekly broadcasting hours of another

    One station sells more than 15% of weekly advertising time of another

    Any station-related services, including, but not limited to, administrative, technical, sales, and/or programming support

    (1) (a) LMA plus (b) arms-length loan for station acquisition or option to purchase station

    (2) (a) LMA plus (b) loan guarantee or option, right of first refusal, or similar contingent interest

    Options, warrants, and other nonvoting interests

    (1) JSA or SSA

    plus

    (2) loan guarantee or option, right of first refusal, or similar contingent interest

    Attributable?

    Yes, if one station brokers more than 15% of weekly broadcasting hours of another

    Yes, if one sells more than 15% of weekly advertising time of another

    To be determined—FCC must collect data first

    (1) To be determined—pending attribution rulemaking. Media Bureau would approve LMA plus loan, or LMA plus option, but not all three

    (2) Media Bureau unlikely to approve LMA plus loan, option, or other contingent interest; applicants bear burden of proof to show that the combination of agreements is not attributable

    Not ordinarily attributable until conversion affected

    Applicants bear burden of proof to show that combination of agreements is not attributable

    Must agreement(s) be filed with FCC?

    Yes, as of 1999

    1945-1972: yes

    1972-1999: no

    Yes, as of 2014

    Issue pending—FCC tentatively concludes yes

    Yes, when filing applications

    Silent

    Yes, when filing applications

    Must agreement be included in station's public file?

    Yes, as of 1999

    1972-1999: at station, available to public upon request

    Yes, for all JSAs as of 2001

    Public files available on FCC website as of 2012

    Issue pending—FCC tentatively concludes yes

    Silent

    Silent

    Silent

    Entities covered

    Station receiving TBA services only

    Station receiving JSA services only

    Tentatively proposed commercial TV only

    Applicants seeking transfer or assignment of TV and radio broadcast licenses

    Silent

    Applicants seeking transfer or assignment of TV and radio broadcast licenses

    Waivers / grandfathering

    Pre Nov. 4, 1996, LMAs grandfathered

    Expedited review of waiver process

     

     

     

    (Potentially for eligible entities?)

    Compliance deadline

    Aug. 5, 2001, for duopoly rule

    Nov. 28, 2014, for filing agreements with FCC;

    Dec. 19, 2016, for duopoly rule

     

     

     

     

    Source: FCC rulemakings, FCC Notices, Media Bureau notices available via Lexis.

    Media Ownership Rules: Current and Proposed

    The following summarizes the current and proposed local media ownership rules, as described in the 2014 Quadrennial Review. For more information about the rationale, public policy analysis, proposed waiver criteria, and proposed grandfathering of the local media ownership rules, see Table 6.

    Local Television Ownership Rule (Television Duopoly Rule)

    Under the current local and proposed television ownership rule, known as the "TV duopoly" rule, an entity may own or control two television stations in the same television market, so long as the overlap of the stations' signals is limited and the joint control does not violate the "top four/eight voices test." The proposed modification would change the applicable signal contours to reflect stations' transition to digital television. Markets would be those defined as Designated Market Areas (DMAs) by the Nielsen Company, which has assigned each county in the United States to a specific DMA based on the pattern of residents' viewing of broadcast television stations.40

    Table 2 summarizes both the current and proposed rules.

    Table 2. Current and Proposed TV Local Ownership (Duopoly) Rules

    Permitted Combinations of TV Stations in a Market

     

    Signal Overlap

    Top 4/8 Voices Test

    Current Rule

    The Grade B contoursa of the stations do not overlap

    (a) At least one of the stations is not among the four highest-ranked stations in the DMA,b and

    (b) at least eight independently owned and operating commercial or noncommercial full-power broadcast television stations would remain in the DMA after the proposed combination is consummatedc

    Proposed Rule

    The digital noise limited service contours (NLSC)d of the stations do not overlap

    Waiver

    If one station fails/is failing;e as part of diversity order, the FCC proposed to reinstate failed station solicitation rule to facilitate entry

    Source: 2014 Quadrennial Review.

    Notes: The FCC first adopted the duopoly rule in 1941. Federal Communications Commission, "Experimental and Commercial Television Broadcast Stations," 6 Federal Register 2282, 2284-2285, May 6, 1941. This was the year that commercial television service first became available in the United States. The FCC adopted the Grade B signal contour component of the rule in 1964. Federal Communications Commission, "Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and Television Broadcast Stations, FCC 64-445," 29 Federal Register 7535, June 12, 1964.

    a. Grade B is a measure of signal intensity associated with acceptable reception when a television signal is being transmitted using analog technology. The FCC's rules define this contour, represented by a circle drawn around the transmitter site, in such a way that 50% of the locations on that circle are statistically predicted to receive a signal of Grade B intensity at least 90% of the time. Although a station's predicted signal strength increases as one gets closer to the transmitter, there may be some locations within the Grade B contour that do not receive a signal of Grade B intensity.

    b. The FCC uses Designated Market Areas (DMAs) constructed by the Nielsen Company to define local television markets. Nielsen has constructed 210 DMAs by assigning each county in the United States to a specific DMA, based on the predominance of viewing of broadcast television stations licensed to operate in a given Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area.

    c. 47 C.F.R. §73.3555(b).

    d. As determined by 47 C.F.R. §73.622(e).

    e. 2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4397-4398.

    The "top four ranked" stations in a local market generally are the local affiliates of the four major English-language broadcast television networks—ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. In some television markets, however, other stations may emerge within the top four. For example, in Chicago, independent station WGN-TV and Univision affiliate WGBO-TV have ranked among the top three stations during certain time periods.41 The rule applies to the stations' ranking at the time they apply for common ownership. The FCC proposed prohibiting "affiliation swaps," that would enable broadcast licensees to obtain control over two of the top four stations in a market through an exchange of network affiliations with other licensees, such as occurred in Honolulu, HI, in 2011.42

    The "eight voices" test effectively limits duopolies to larger television markets, which have more separately owned television stations than smaller markets. For example, the largest television market, New York City, has more than 15 full-power commercial broadcast television stations (excluding satellite stations) and four duopolies (owned by Comcast NBC Universal, Fox Television, CBS, and Univision).43 The Burlington, VT-Plattsburgh, NY, television market, which is ranked number 98 as of the 2014-2015 television season, has four full-power commercial television stations (excluding satellites), including two separately owned stations (an ABC affiliate licensed to Mission Broadcasting and a FOX affiliate licensed to Nexstar Broadcasting) that operate pursuant to a joint sales agreement.44

    The FCC proposed to retain the failed station solicitation rule, reiterating its assessment in 1999 that the rule promotes new entry in a local television market by ensuring that entities located outside of the DMA that are interested in purchasing a station, including those owned by minorities and women, will have an opportunity to bid.45

    Local Radio Ownership Rules

    The FCC proposed to retain the local radio ownership rules without modification.46

    Table 3 illustrates the current rules.

    Table 3. FCC 13

    In August 2016, the FCC completed the 2014 Quadrennial Review of its media ownership rules.14 The final decision contains rules related to (1) the determination and disclosure of media ownership (attribution rules); (2) limits on the type and number of media properties a single entity may own (media ownership rules); and (3) rules designed to enhance media ownership diversity. Three months earlier, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals admonished the FCC for failing to complete the congressionally mandated quadrennial media ownership review, noting that as of May 2016, both the 2010 and 2014 reviews remained open.15

    The new media ownership rules became effective December 1, 2016.16 The National Association of Broadcasters filed a petition with the FCC requesting that the agency reconsider its 2016 decision by repealing and/or relaxing the rules.17

    The News Media Alliance (formerly known as the Newspaper Association of America) appealed the FCC's rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, claiming that the Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rules in particular (described in "Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rules") are "antiquated" and "no longer serve the public interest," and that the FCC's decision "violates the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996."18 Prometheus Radio Project has appealed the FCC's rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, arguing, among other things, that the FCC's modifications to the rules "permit increased concentration of ownership," and that its decision "violate[s] the Administration Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551."19 These cases have been consolidated in the District of Columbia Circuit.20

    News Consumption Trends The debate over media ownership rules is occurring against the background of sweeping changes in news consumption patterns. Figure 1 illustrates these general trends. Based on surveys conducted by Pew Research Center, the percentage of adults citing local broadcast television as a news source declined from 65% in 1996 to 46% in 2016. Nevertheless, local television still outranks other local news sources. The percentage of respondents who stated that they "got news yesterday" from online sources grew from 2% in 1996 to 38% in 2016. In contrast, those citing printed newspapers as a source they "read yesterday" or use regularly declined from 50% in 1996 to 20% in 2016. These trends raise questions as to whether common ownership of multiple media outlets in the same market might limit diversity of viewpoints as much today as two decades ago.

    Figure 1. Trends in News Consumption, 1996-2016

    Percentage of Respondents Who Get News from Each Media Platform

    Sources: 1996-2012 data: Pew Research Center, "In Changing News Landscape, Even Television is Vulnerable," September 27, 2012, http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/in-changing-news-landscape-even-television-is-vulnerable/. 2016 data: Kristine Lu and Jesse Holcomb, State of the News Media 2016, Pew Research Center, Digital News Audience: Fact Sheet, June 15, 2016, p. 45, http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/digital-news-audience-fact-sheet/.

    Notes: Data from 1996 to 2012 show the percentage of adults who got news "yesterday" from each media platform, except that data on "Local TV" are based on the percentage of adults who "regularly watch." Data from 2016 are based on the percentage of adults who get news "often" from each media platform. "TV" includes local broadcast television as well as cable networks and broadcast television networks.

    Broadcast Signals and Markets Two characteristics of broadcast television and broadcast radio stations determine whether or not the media ownership rules described in later sections of this report are triggered: (1) the geographic range (or contours) of their signals, and (2) the limits of their media markets as determined by the Nielsen Company, a market research firm. Television Signal Contours

    In the past, the FCC employed analog broadcast television signal contours as one criterion in determining whether television licensees were complying with media ownership rules. On June 12, 2009, however, full-power television stations completed a transition from analog to digital service pursuant to a statutory mandate, thereby rendering the analog contour criteria obsolete.21 In 2016, the FCC modified the media ownership rules to reflect two digital television service contours:22

    • 1. The digital "principal community contour" (digital PCC). This contour specifies the signal strength required to provide television service to a station's community of license. The FCC sought, when defining the digital PCC, to provide television stations with flexibility in siting and building their facilities while still preventing stations from straying too far from their respective communities of license.23
    • 2. The digital "noise limited service contour" (digital NLSC). The FCC designed this contour to define a geographic area in which at least 50% of residents can receive the signal a majority of the time.24 The FCC wanted to ensure that after the digital transition, broadcasters would be able to reach the same audiences they served previously with analog transmissions.
    Radio Signal Contours FM Primary Service Area

    The 1 millivolt-per-meter (1 mv/m) contour for FM radio represents a signal that will result in satisfactory service to at least 70% of the locations on the outer rim of the contour at least 90% of the time.

    AM Primary Service Area

    In its rules for AM radio stations, the FCC delineates three types of service areas: (1) primary, (2) secondary, and (3) intermittent. Some classes of radio stations render service to two or more areas, while others usually have only primary service areas.25 The FCC defines the primary service area of an AM broadcast radio station as the service area in which the groundwave is not subject to objectionable interference or fading.26 The signal strength required for a population of 2,500 or more to receive primary service is 2 millivolts-per-meter (2 mv/m). For communities with populations of fewer than 2,500, the required signal strength is 0.5 mV/m.

    When the FCC first proposed incorporating AM contour signals in its media ownership rules, it noted that "a one mv/m AM signal is somewhat less than the signal intensity needed to provide service to urban populations, but somewhat greater than the signal at the outer limit of effective non-urban service."27

    Television Markets The FCC uses Designated Market Areas (DMAs), created by the Nielsen Company, to define local television markets. Nielsen has constructed 210 DMAs by assigning each county in the United States to a specific DMA, based on the predominance of viewing of broadcast television stations licensed to operate in a given Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. Radio Markets The FCC also relies on the Nielsen Company to define local radio markets. These markets, called "Metros," generally correspond to the metropolitan statistical areas defined by the U.S. government's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), but are subject to exceptions based on historical industry usage or other considerations at the discretion of Nielsen.28 In contrast to television markets, radio markets do not include every U.S. county.29 To determine the number of radio stations within a radio market, the FCC uses a database compiled and updated by BIA Kelsey, another market research firm.30 Attribution Rules Many owners of commercial broadcast stations have relationships that fall short of the FCC's definition of common ownership, yet allow the owner of one station to exert substantial influence over the operation and finances of another station. To minimize such behavior, the FCC has developed attribution rules "to identify those interests in or relationships to licensees that confer a degree of influence or control such that the holders have a realistic potential to affect the programming decisions of licensees or other core operating functions."31

    The following summarizes the media attribution rules, as described and modified in the 2014 Quadrennial Review Second Report and Order, and related FCC policies.

    Joint Sales Agreements

    Joint sales agreements (JSAs) enable the sales staff of one broadcast station to sell advertising time on a separately owned station within the same local market. In 2014, the FCC adopted rules specifying that television JSAs allowing the sale of more than 15% of the weekly advertising time on a competing local broadcast television station are attributable as ownership or control.32 Congress subsequently twice extended the period by which parties must comply with these rules, ultimately extending the deadline to September 30, 2025.33

    In May 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC's initial adoption of such rules in 2014 was procedurally invalid. The court determined that media ownership attribution rules are inextricably linked to media ownership rules. The court ruled that the FCC could not adopt new attribution rules without deciding whether or not to retain its media ownership rules.34 The court offered no opinion on substantive challenges to the television JSA attribution rules.35

    In August 2016, the FCC readopted its JSA attribution rules in conjunction with its decision to retain the "duopoly rule," which, as described in "Local Television Ownership Rules (Television Duopoly Rules)," limits ownership of multiple television stations within a market. The FCC's rules also specify that stations must file copies of attributable JSAs with the commission.36 However, the transition procedures are different from those FCC adopted in 2014. The FCC retained its previous deadline, March 31, 2014, for television licensees to ask the agency to grandfather its JSAs, and gives stations until September 30, 2025, to comply with the JSA rules. Until that time the FCC will permit parties to transfer JSAs to other parties without terminating the grandfathering provisions.37

    The FCC did not specify whether the procedures it adopted in 2014 allowing JSA waivers on a case-by-case basis still apply.38 Likewise, it did not state how its 2016 decision to allow stations to transfer JSAs would affect the Media Bureau's 2014 public notice regarding close scrutiny of any license transfers involving both JSAs or other operational agreements and a contingent interest or loan guarantee.39

    Disclosure of Sharing Agreements

    In August 2016, the FCC adopted new disclosure requirements for all joint operating agreements, broadly encompassed by the term "shared services agreements" (SSAs) among broadcast television stations.40 Pending approval from the OMB, each station that is a party to an SSA, whether in the same or different television markets, must file a copy of the SSA in its online public inspection file.41 Licensees may redact confidential or proprietary information. Broadcast licensees must report the substance of oral SSAs in writing to the FCC.

    The FCC defined an SSA as

    any agreement or series of agreements, whether written or oral, in which

    (1) a station provides any station-related services including, but not limited to, administrative, technical, sales, and/or programming support, to a station that is not directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted under the [FCC's] regulations; or

    (2) stations that are not directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted under the [FCC's] regulations collaborate to provide or enable the provision of station-related services, including, but not limited to, administrative, technical, sales, and/or programming support, to one or more of the collaborating stations.42

    The term "station" includes the licensee, including any subsidiaries and affiliates, and any other individual or entity with an attributable interest in the station. SSA disclosure requirements do not apply to noncommercial television stations, radio stations, and newspapers.

    The FCC concluded that industry-wide disclosure of SSAs is necessary to enable the FCC and the public to comprehensively evaluate the extent to which broadcast television stations use various types of SSAs, the nature of the contractual relationships, and the manner in which specific types of agreements affect competition, diversity, or localism. The FCC declined to make SSAs attributable, but stated that it may do so later.

    Media Ownership Rules

    The FCC has five distinct sets of rules governing ownership of multiple media outlets in a single market: (1) local television ownership rules (known as the television duopoly rules); (2) local radio ownership rules; (3) radio/television cross-ownership rules; (4) newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rules; and (5) the dual network rule.

    Local Television Ownership Rules (Television Duopoly Rules)

    Local television ownership rules (known as the television duopoly rules) limit common ownership of television stations serving the same geographic region. An entity may own or control two television stations in the same television market, so long as the overlap of the stations' signals is limited and the joint control does not violate the "top four/eight voices test" (described below). The FCC uses broadcast television signals to determine when the rules are triggered, and uses television markets to count the voices.

    The FCC initially adopted a TV duopoly rule in 1941, barring a single entity from owning two or more broadcast television stations that "would substantially serve the same area."43 In 1964, the FCC adopted the signal overlap component of the rules.44 The FCC sought to limit "future ownership to a maximum of two stations in most states and, thus ... act indirectly to curb regional concentrations of ownership as well as overlap itself."45

    In 1999, the FCC adopted the "top four ranked/eight voice" component of these rules, as well as the waiver criteria.46 The "top four ranked" stations in a local market generally are the local affiliates of the four major English-language broadcast television networks—ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. The rules apply to the stations' ranking at the time they apply for common ownership.

    Taking into account geographically large DMAs where viewers on the outskirts of a DMA may not receive the signal of some broadcasters in the DMA, the FCC, in a reconsideration order of January 19, 2001, determined to count toward the eight voices only those stations whose analog signal contours overlap.47 The "eight voices" test effectively limits duopolies to larger television markets, which have more separately owned television stations than smaller markets.

    Table 1 summarizes the rules. Table 1. Local TV Ownership (Duopoly) Rules

    Permitted Combinations of TV Stations in a Market

    Top 4/8 Voices Test

    Signal Overlap

    Waiver Criteria

    Notes

    (1) At least one of the stations is not among the four highest-ranked stations in the DMA, and

    (2) at least eight independently owned and operating commercial or noncommercial full-power broadcast television stations would remain in the DMA after the proposed combination is consummated

    The digital noise limited service contours (NLSC) of the stations do not overlap

    On a case-by-case basis, the FCC will consider waivers if

    (1) one station failed/is failing. Applicants must demonstrate that an in-market buyer is the only entity ready, willing, and able to operate the station, and that sale to a buyer outside of the market would result in an artificially depressed price.a

    or

    (2) the combination will result in the construction of an unbuilt station. The permittee of the unbuilt station must demonstrate that it has made reasonable efforts to construct but has been unable to do so.

    Stations cannot switch broadcast network affiliations if the switch would result in one party directly or indirectly owning, operating, or controlling two of the top-four-rated television stations within the DMA at the time of the agreement.

    Sources: 47 C.F.R. §73.3555(b); 47 C.F.R. §73.3555, Note 7; 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O. a. A station is considered "failed" if it has not been in operation due to financial distress for at least four consecutive months immediately prior to the application, or is a debtor in an involuntary bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding at the time of the application. A station is considered to be "failing" if it has an all-day audience share of no more than 4% and has had negative cash flow for three consecutive years immediately prior to the application. Modifications
    Signal Overlap Redefined

    In August 2016, the FCC changed the applicable signal contours to the digital NLSC to reflect stations' transition to digital television. The FCC found that this modification "accurately reflects current digital service areas while minimizing any potential disruptive impact."48 In addition, the FCC found that retaining the DMA and contour overlap approach promotes local television service in rural areas by enabling station owners in rural areas to build or purchase an additional station in remote portions of the DMA, as long the digital NTSC contours do not overlap.

    Affiliation Swaps Prohibited

    In August 2016, the FCC prohibited "affiliation swaps" that would enable broadcast licensees to obtain control over two of the top four stations in a market through an exchange of network affiliations with other licensees, such as the swap that occurred in Honolulu, HI, in 2011.49

    Relief from Rules

    In 2016, the FCC retained its "failed station/failing station" waiver test. Under this policy, to obtain a waiver of the local television rules, an applicant must demonstrate that (1) one of the broadcast television stations involved in the proposed transaction is either failed or failing; (2) the in-market buyer is the only reasonably available candidate willing and able to acquire and operate the station; and (3) selling the station to an out-of-market buyer would result in an artificially depressed price.50 The FCC declined to relax its criteria for determining whether a station is failing or failed, stating that parties might be able to manipulate the data used to determine the criteria.51

    The FCC also preserved the failed station solicitation rule (FSSR).52 The FSSR requires licensees seeking to apply for a failed station/failing station waiver of the television duopoly rules to notify the public that a failed/failing station is for sale, and demonstrate that it was unsuccessful in securing an out-of-market buyer for the station. The FCC reiterated its assessment in 1999 that the rules promote new entry in a local television market by ensuring that entities located outside of the DMA that are interested in purchasing a station, including women and minorities, will have an opportunity to bid.53 For more on the relationship between the FSSR and the FCC's diversity policies, see "Ownership Diversity."

    Local Radio Ownership Rules

    The local radio ownership rules limit ownership of radio stations serving the same geographic area. After initially using radio broadcast signals to define the relevant geographic area, the FCC switched to radio markets. The FCC does not have any specific waiver criteria for the local radio ownership rules similar to the failed/failing station criteria it uses for its local television ownership rules.54

    FCC first adopted rules limiting ownership of FM radio stations serving "substantially the same service area" in 1940.55 In 1943, the FCC adopted rules limiting ownership of AM radio stations "where such station renders or will render primary service to a substantial portion of the primary service area of another [AM] broadcast station."56 In 1964, the FCC amended the rules to use the service contours of FM and AM stations to define the service area.57 The FCC first adopted rules limiting ownership of AM and FM stations serving the same area in 1970 and amended them in 1989.58

    In 1992, to address the fact that many radio stations were facing difficult financial conditions, the FCC relaxed the radio ownership rules to establish numerical limits on radio station ownership based on the total number of commercial stations within a market, rather than on whether their signals overlapped.59 In 1996, as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress directed the FCC to revise the rules; the caps specified in Section 202(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, described in Table 2, remain in place today. In 2016, FCC retained the local radio ownership rules without modification, but adopted some clarifications.60 Table 2. Local Radio Ownership Rules

    Number of Commercial Radio Stations in Market

    Number of Full Power Commercial and Noncommercial Radio Stations Under Common Ownership Permitted

    Number of Stations Within Same Service (AM or FM) Under Common Ownership Permitted

    45

    8

    5

    30-44

    7

    4

    15-29

    6

    4

    14 or fewer

    5

    3

    Source: 47 C.F.R. §73.3555(a).

    Notes: The FCC bases its definition of "radio markets" on those provided Nielsen Audio (formerly known as Arbitron). These markets, called "metros," generally correspond to the metropolitan statistical areas defined by the U.S. government's Office of Management and Budget, but are subject to exceptions based on historical radio listening patterns and other marketing considerations. (The Nielsen Company, Arbitron eBook Reference Guide, 2009, p. 46, http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/docs/nielsen-audio/guide-to-understanding-and-using.pdf.)

    In contrast to television markets, radio markets do not include every U.S. county. (Americanradiohistory.com, Arbitron Reports and Data of Interest, Metropolitan Survey Area Maps, 2013 Metro Radio Metro Areas Hi-Res, http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Arbitron/2013_RadioMetroMap_hi-res.pdf.)

    In 2003, as part of its 2002 media ownership review, the FCC proposed that for stations located outside of metro areas, it would base its radio ownership rules on the overlaps of their radio signals, and would require proposed JSAs involving such stations to be filed within 60 days of the effective date of its decision in a pending rulemaking. (2002 Biennial Review, pp. 13724, 13746.) As of 2015, that rulemaking is still pending.

    Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rules

    The FCC proposed to repeal its radio/television cross-ownership rules.47 The current rules restrict common ownership of multiple television and radio stations, depending on the number of independent media owners that would remain in the local market.

    Table 4 illustrates the current rules.

    Table 4. FCC Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rules

    Permitted Combinations Based on Independently Owned Media Outlets

    Number of Independently Owned Media "Voices" Post-Merger

    Number of TV Outlets

    Number of Radio Outlets

    20

    1

    7

    20

    2

    6

    10

    2

    4

    Source: 47 C.F.R. §73.3555(c)(2).

    Notes: The FCC triggers the cross-ownership rules when the signal of one station encompasses the city to which the other station is licensed by the FCC. 47 C.F.R. §73.3555(c)(1). The rules do not apply to noncommercial stations.

    Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership (NBCO) Rule

    The FCC proposed to repeal its radio/newspaper cross-ownership rules.48 It proposed to retain the general prohibition on the cross-ownership of newspapers and television stations, but consider waivers on a case-by-case basis, based on published guidelines of circumstances that the FCC would deem to be in the public interest.49

    Current Rules

    Table 5 summarizes the current rules.

    Table 5. Broadcast/Newspaper Cross-Ownership Rules

    Prohibited Combinations Based on Signal Overlap

    On a case-by-case basis, the FCC will consider waivers if one station failed.a Applicants must demonstrate that an in-market buyer is only entity ready, willing, and able to operate the station, and that sale to a buyer outside of the market would result in an artificially depressed price. Sources

    Broadcast Outlet

    Signal

    Full power television station

    Grade A service contoura

    Full power AM radio station

    Predicted or measured 2 millivolt per meter contourb

    Full power FM radio station

    1 millivolt per meter contourc

    Note: An entity may not own more than 50% of the stations in markets with 14 or fewer total stations, except that an entity may always own a single AM and single FM station in combination. Clarifications The FCC clarified certain aspects of its local radio ownership rules to assign radio stations to Nielsen Audio Metros for the purpose of determining whether a radio station complies with its local radio ownership rules.61 The FCC stated that in Puerto Rico, the FCC will use radio station signal contour overlaps, rather than the Nielsen Audio Metro, to apply local radio ownership rules due to topographical and market conditions.62 Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rules

    The radio/television cross-ownership rules limit ownership of broadcast radio and television stations serving the same geographic area. The rules specify conditions regarding the proximity of radio and television stations that trigger the application of the rules, and how to count the number of media voices in a market, including television stations, radio stations, newspapers, and cable systems. The FCC uses broadcast signals to determine when the rules are triggered and a combination of broadcast signals and markets to determine how to count the voices.

    The FCC first adopted such rules in 1970, characterizing them as an extension of the local radio and television ownership rules.63 In evaluating when to trigger the rule, FCC used contour limits that were less restrictive than those it adopted in 1964 for the local television and radio ownership rules.64 In other words, the stations had to be closer together for their joint ownership to be a violation of the rules.65

    In 1999, the FCC added the "media voice" component of the rule.66 The FCC also adopted the failed station waiver standard it uses for the TV duopoly rule, but declined to adopt a standard for "failing" or "dark" stations.67 The FCC did not believe that these additional waivers were necessary given its relaxation of the radio/television cross-ownership rules, and the relaxation of radio ownership limits in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In contrast to the waivers for local television ownership rules, FCC did not apply a FSSR for radio/TV cross-ownership waivers.

    The rules use Nielsen's DMAs as the geographic regions for counting the number of independently owned and operated voices (i.e., television stations, daily newspapers with circulations exceeding 5% of the households within the DMA, and cable systems).68 The rules count broadcast television stations with overlapping signals as a single television voice.

    To count the number of radio voices, the rules specify that the FCC include the number of independently owned radio stations that are in the radio Metro (as defined by a nationally recognized national radio service, such as Nielsen Audio) of (1) the television stations' communities of license, or (2) the radio stations' communities of license.

    In 2001, the FCC amended the rules to incorporate larger analog signal contour limits of television stations for the purposes of counting voices.69 In 2016, the FCC retained its radio/television cross-ownership rules, with some modifications, after considering their repeal.70

    Modifications
    Applicable Television Signals Redefined

    The FCC uses two different types of broadcast television signals for the purpose of (1) triggering the radio/television cross-ownership rules, and (2) counting the number of independent television voices within a DMA. In 2016, the FCC redefined the applicable broadcast television signal contours to reflect stations' transition to digital television. The FCC uses the smaller digital PCC for the rules' trigger, and the larger digital NLSC for the television voice count.

    When explaining why it would use the digital PCC (rather than a digital NLSC) for triggering the rules, the FCC stated that "a television station's [digital] PCC ensures reliable service for the community of license, is already defined in the [FCC's] rules, and can be verified easily in the event of a dispute."71 The FCC stated that using the digital NLSC to count the number of independent voices is consistent with its approach to the television duopoly rule.72

    The FCC prohibits common ownership of a broadcast television station and an FM radio station if

    • the digital PCC of the television station encompassed the entire community of license of the FM radio station, or
    • the 1 mv/m contour of the FM station encompassed the entire community of license of the broadcast television station.73

    The FCC prohibits common ownership of a broadcast television station and an AM radio station if

    • the digital PCC contour of the television station encompassed the entire community of license of the AM radio station, or
    • the 2 mv/m contour of the AM station encompassed the entire community of license of the broadcast television station.74
    Table 3 further describes the rules. Table 3. Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rules

    Permitted Combinations Based on Independently Owned Media Outlets

    Number of Independently Owned Media "Voices" Post-Merger

    Number of TV Outlets

    Number of Radio Outlets

    Waiver Criteria

    20

    20

    10

    1

    2

    2

    7

    6

    4

    Source: 47 C.F.R. §73.3555(d); c)(2); 47 C.F.R. §73.3555, note 6.

    Notes: The applicable geographic area is the community in which the newspaper is published. The FCC triggers the newspaper/ broadcast cross-ownership rules when the signals of the broadcast or radio television stations overlap the newspaper's entire community. For the purposes of these rules, the FCC defines a daily newspaper as "one which is published four or more days per week, which is in the dominant language in the market, and which is circulated generally in the community of publication."

    a. A Grade A service contour maps the geographic area that is predicted by an engineering model to receive a broadcast television signal at an intensity associated with good reception.

    b. A 2 millivolt-per-meter (2 mv/m) contour maps the geographic area that is predicted by an engineering model or measured to receive a radio signal of that intensity.

    c. A 1 millivolt-per-meter (1 mv/m) contour maps the geographic area that is predicted by an engineering model or measured to receive a radio signal of that intensity.

    A broadcaster may start a new daily newspaper in a local market in which it owns a television or radio station, but may not combine with an existing newspaper.

    The FCC currently considers waivers of the NBCO rules in four situations:

    • 1. the entity is unable to dispose of a financial interest in a newspaper or station in order to conform to the NBCO rules;
    • 2. the entity can sell a newspaper or station only at an artificially depressed price;
    • 3. the entity's divestiture of a newspaper or station would not serve the rules' purposes; or
    • 4. the community in which the newspaper is published cannot support separate ownership of the newspaper and station.50

    Under the commission's current practice, if a television licensee purchases a newspaper that triggers the NBCO rule, then, absent a waiver, it must dispose of its station within one year or by the date of its next license renewal, whichever is later.51 Alternatively, the television station licensee may seek a waiver of the rule in conjunction with its license renewal, at which point interested parties are free to comment on the waiver request. As a result, the opportunity to comment on a television station's acquisition of a newspaper may not occur until many years after consummation of the purchase.

    Proposed Television/Newspaper Cross-Ownership Rules

    The FCC proposed to modify its television/newspaper cross ownership rule by prohibiting common ownership under the following conditions:52

    • 1. the broadcast television station's community of license (by the FCC) and the newspaper's community of publication are located within the same DMA, and
    • 2. the broadcast television station's principal community contour (PCC)53 encompasses the newspaper's entire community of publication.

    The FCC also seeks comment on whether it should adopt a pure case-by-case approach to considering waivers. Alternatively, the commission might evaluate applications with the presumption that an application involving one of the 20 largest DMAs would be approved if it does not involve a television station ranked among the top four in the DMA, and if at least eight major media voices would remain in the DMA following the transaction. All other waiver applications would be considered with a negative presumption.

    The FCC seeks comment on whether, to enable a timely public response to a merger involving a newspaper purchase by a television licensee, it should require the station to file its waiver request prior to a newspaper acquisition, rather than at the time of the station's license renewal, and whether commission staff should place such waiver requests on public notice.54

    Table 6 summarizes the proposed local media ownership rules. The digital broadcast signals the FCC proposed to include in the duopoly and NBCO rules are slightly different, but the FCC does not explain why. The FCC's public interest rationales for retaining or repealing the various rules also differ. For example, the commission states that TV stations that combine operations with newspapers or radio stations might increase the overall output of local news in a community, due to efficiencies they might realize. On the other hand, it states that TV stations that operate separately are more likely to increase news production, due to their incentives to compete.

    Table 6. Summary of Proposed Local Media Ownership Rules

    Proposals, Waivers, and Grandfathering

     

    TV Local Ownership (Duopoly)

    TV-Newspaper Cross-Ownership

    Radio-Newspaper Ownership

    Radio-TV Cross-Ownership

    Radio Local Ownership

    Proposal

    Modify

    Modify

    Repeal

    Repeal

    Retain

    Acceptable combinations

    TV stations' digital noise limited service contours (NLSC)a (proposed) do not overlap

    TV station's principal community contour (PCC) (proposed) does not encompass newspaper's entire community of publication

    Any

    Any

    Varies by number of radio stations in market

     

    Top 4/8 voices test

     

     

     

     

    Geographic area

    TV stations' DMAs, as defined by Nielsen

    Newspaper's community of publication/TV station's DMA (proposed)

    Overlap of newspapers' community of publication/radio stations' signals

     

    Radio stations' "metros," as defined by Nielsen

    Special waiver criteria

    Failed/failing station

    Favorable presumption:

    • top 4/8 voices test;

    • top 20 DMAs

    Negative presumption otherwise (proposed)

    Not applicable

    Not applicable

    None

    Failed station solicitation rule

    Yes

    None proposed

    Not applicable

    Not applicable

    None proposed

    Grandfathering (based on proposed rule change)

    Existing combinations that would violate duopoly rule under revised contour signal standard (proposed)

    Existing combinations that would violate NBCO rules under revised contour signal standard (proposed)

    Not applicable

    Not applicable

    None proposed

    Are grandfathered combos transferable?

    No (proposed)

    No (proposed)

    Not applicable

    Not applicable

    Not applicable

    Source: 2014 Quadrennial Review.

    Note: The FCC seeks comment on all of its proposals.

    a. As determined by 47 C.F.R. §73.622(e).

    Table 7 summarizes the FCC majority's proposed public policy rationales for maintaining, revising, or repealing the local media rules. Its rationales for revising the television duopoly rule are internally inconsistent. When discussing the rule itself, the majority tentatively concludes that it need not discuss the rules' impact on localism and viewpoint diversity because the rules remain necessary to foster competition. When rebutting a broadcaster's comment, however, the majority states that the television duopoly rule is based on a broader concern of promoting localism and diversity as well as competition. It also states that efficiencies from joint operations of television and radio stations, or newspapers and television stations, could promote localism by enabling these outlets to invest in more local programming, while competition from separately owned television stations is necessary to achieve the same outcome.

    Table 7. Summary of Public Interest Rationales for Local Media Ownership Rules

     

    TV Local Ownership (Duopoly)

    TV-Newspaper Cross-Ownership

    Radio-Newspaper Ownership

    Radio-TV Cross-Ownership

    Radio Local Ownership

    Are rules necessary to promote competition?

    Yes

    Rules enable TV stations to compete for revenues from (1) advertising (broadcast TV is separate product market) and (2) retransmission consent.

    No

    (Newspapers and TV stations are separate product markets)

    No

    (Newspapers and radio stations are separate product markets)

    No

    (TV and radio stations are separate product markets)

    Yes

    (Broadcast radio is separate product market for listeners and advertisers)

    Are rules necessary to promote localism?

    FCC need not consider (n. 106) but

    Retention of rules is consistent with localism; competition-based rules can promote localism (p. 4377) and

    Yes, rules are based on FCC's broader concern of promoting localism (n. 1108)

    No

    but case-by-case waiver might promote localism; combined operations might increase news production

    No

    No

    but repeal of rule might increase localism

    Joint broadcast operations might lead to investment in TV and radio news operations, thanks to financial efficiencies

    Yes

    Competitive market promotes localism

    Are rules necessary to promote viewpoint diversity?

    FCC need not consider (n. 106) but

    Competition-based rules can promote viewpoint diversity (p. 4377) and

    Yes, rules are based on FCC's broader concern of promoting viewpoint diversity (n. 1108)

    Yes

    Newspapers, TV stations, and associated websites remain primary sources of local news

    Seeks comment

    Commercial radio stations do not produce much local news; most consumers do not rely on commercial radio stations as primary sources of local news

    No

    Yes

    Rules enable entry into broadcast radio industry

    Are rules necessary to promote minority/female ownership of broadcast stations?

    No

    but competition can indirectly promote minority/female ownership of TV stations

    Proposed FSSR would promote entry by enabling out-of-market entities, including women and minorities, to bid for stations they might not otherwise know are for sale

    No

    No

    No

    Record does not indicate that minority/female-owned radio stations contribute to viewpoint diversity

    Yes

    AM stations provide low-cost ownership opportunities for minorities and women to enter broadcast radio industry

    Source: 2014 Quadrennial Review.

    Note: The FCC seeks comment on its analyses.

    Dual Network Rule

    The FCC proposes to retain the dual network rule without modification, in order to foster its goals of preserving competition and localism.55 The dual network rule permits common ownership of multiple broadcast networks, but prohibits a merger between or among the "top-four" networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC).

    The FCC tentatively finds that a combination of top-four broadcast networks would reduce the choices available to advertisers seeking large, national audiences. Such a reduction in choices for national advertisers could substantially lessen competition and lead the networks to pay less attention to viewer demand for innovative, high-quality programming.56

    It also tentatively finds that the rule remains necessary to preserve the balance of bargaining power between the top-four networks and their affiliates, thus improving the ability of affiliates to exert influence on network programming decisions in a manner that best serves the interests of their local communities.

    Ownership Diversity

    Analysis Related to Minority and Female Broadcast Ownership Policies

    Finally, to comply with the directive of the Third Circuit, the 2014 Quadrennial Review notice contained proposals to increase broadcast ownership diversity, and addressed whether the FCC believes that it has the constitutional authority to adopt rules specifically targeting minority and female ownership of broadcast stations.

    The FCC tentatively found that the U.S. Supreme Court could deem the commission's interest in promoting a diversity of viewpoints sufficiently compelling to pass its legal tests for regulations targeting minorities and females.57 Nevertheless, the FCC tentatively concluded that it lacked sufficient evidence to pass other elements of the Supreme Court's tests for such rules.58 The FCC cited two reasons:

    • 1. the Media Ownership studies it commissioned (based on data from its broadcast ownership reports), as well as studies submitted by commenters, did not demonstrate that the connection between minority and female ownership and viewpoint diversity is direct and substantial.
    • 2. the record did not reveal a feasible means of adopting race- or gender-based measures in the flexible, nonmechanical way.

    The FCC seeks comment on its tentative analysis and findings.

    Broadcast Ownership Data Collection Initiatives

    The FCC has launched initiatives to improve its collection and analysis of broadcast ownership information.59 Among the initiatives, it has implemented major changes to its Form 323 biennial ownership reports to improve the reliability and utility of the data reported in the form, including data regarding minority and female broadcast ownership. The FCC made the ownership data available to the authors of the 11 peer-reviewed media ownership studies included in the 2010 media ownership proceeding's record. The Media Bureau has published reports on ownership of commercial broadcast stations, including minority and female ownership of commercial broadcast stations, in 201260 and 2013.61

    Proposed Eligible Entity Standard

    In order to promote the diversity of media ownership, the FCC proposed setting aside a special class of organizations, called "eligible entities," that would be subject to less restrictive media ownership and attribution rules, and more flexible licensing policies, than their counterparts. The FCC proposed reinstating a revenue-based eligible entity standard, thereby encouraging the participation of small businesses in the broadcast industry. The FCC conceded that it lacked evidence that targeting small businesses would specifically increase minority and female broadcast ownership, which the Third Circuit directed it to provide. Nevertheless, the FCC suggested that ownership by small businesses could enhance viewpoint diversity.62

    The FCC proposed to use the Small Business Administration's definition of a "small business" for its eligible entity standard, which would apply to any entity, commercial or noncommercial, that met the definition of a small business within its industry. Entities that already own broadcast stations and have total annual revenue of $35.5 million or less would qualify.63 Such a definition could potentially apply to entities that own stations involved with the "sidecar" arrangements that the Media Bureau has stated it will scrutinize more carefully.

    Table 8 summarizes the FCC's proposed measures to increase broadcast ownership diversity and their potential impact on its ownership and attribution rules.64 By exempting small businesses from some of its ownership and attribution rules, the FCC might undermine the rationales for retaining and tightening these rules as described in Table 6, other portions of the 2014 Quadrennial Review, and the Media Bureau Public Notice.

    Table 8. Proposed Regulatory Measures for Eligible Entities

    Eligible Entities Would Meet SBA's Definition of a Small Business

    Proposed Measure

    Description

    Analysis/Rationale (in original 2008 proposal)

    Impact on Media Ownership/Attribution Rules?

    Modify attribution rule

    Allow a holder of debt or equity interest in an eligible entity to exceed the attribution threshold. The debt cannot be convertible into equity or accompanied by an equity interest.a

    The new threshold still would not permit a controlling interest. Relaxing the attribution rule may foster investments by larger broadcasters, and therefore make it easier for small businesses, including those owned by women and minorities, to obtain financing.

    Yes. The stronger the rules, the more likely capital might flow to eligible entities that are exempt.

    Reinstate distress sale policy

    Enable a broadcaster whose license renewal has been designated for a hearing to sell its station to an eligible entity.

    Policy would make it easier for small businesses and new entrants, including minority-owned businesses, to purchase stations. This, in turn, may result in a greater diversity of program services, including services that are responsive to local needs and interests and the interests of underserved audiences.

    Possibly. Owners of stations in danger of losing their license by violating the FCC's rules might be more willing to sell the stations to eligible entities.

    Prioritize duopolies for eligible entities

    FCC would prioritize any entity financing or "incubating" an eligible entity, if it files for a duopoly simultaneously with noneligible entities in a market that can support only one additional duopoly. (The FCC does not define "incubating.")

    A general statement of policy that grants priority to entities funding or incubating eligible entities would promote ownership diversity.

    Yes. The stronger the rules, the more likely capital might flow to eligible entities whose applications are prioritized by the FCC.

    Extend divestiture deadlines in mergers in which applicants have actively solicited bids from eligible entities

    Entities availing themselves of an extension must either sell a given property to an eligible entity within the extended deadline or have the property placed in an irrevocable trust for sale by an independent trustee to an eligible entity. This would prevent potential abuse of the extensions and ensure that they will actually result in sales to eligible entities.

    The FCC has encouraged companies undertaking major transactions to assist small businesses, including those owned by minority and female entrepreneurs interested in purchasing divested properties. Such entities may need additional time to secure funding to complete potential transactions.

    Yes. Companies seeking FCC merger approvals may be able to retain broadcast stations or newspapers longer than they might otherwise.

    Revise rules regarding construction permit deadlines

    Allow the sale of an expiring construction permit to an eligible entity that pledges to build out the permit within the time remaining in the original construction permit or within 18 months, whichever period is greater. Limit of one 18-month extension. FCC would assess whether transaction is arms-length and assignee is eligible entity.

    Divestiture deadlines are intended to prevent undue concentration of media ownership. Deadline extension provides eligible entities additional opportunities to enter broadcast industry.

    Possibly. Media Bureau's/FCC's determination of "arms-length" status might depend on attribution rules and processing guidelines (e.g., sidecar policy).

    Allow assignment or transfer of grandfathered radio combinations

    Permit the assignment or transfer of a grandfathered radio station combination intact to any buyer so long as the buyer files an application to assign the excess stations to an eligible entity or to an irrevocable divestiture trust for the ultimate assignment to an eligible entity within 12 months after consummation of the purchase of the grandfathered stations.

    Would promote small business investment in broadcasting by providing additional time and flexibility to raise the capital necessary to purchase the excess stations.

    Yes. Radio station buyers might be able to retain a combination of radio stations longer than they might otherwise.

    Source: CRS Analysis of 2008 Diversity Order and 2014 Quadrennial Review.

    a. The FCC also proposed to reinstate the application of the modified "equity debt plus" standard to its broadcast auction rules. Interest holders in eligible entities would be entitled to new entrant bidding credits. See 47 C.F.R. §73.5008(c)(2). 2014 Quadrennial Review, p. 4578, n. 798.

    Additional Measures to Increase Broadcast Ownership Diversity

    The FCC has taken two additional actions that it claims will increase the availability of investment capital for minority owners, females, small businesses, and new entrants into the radio and television broadcasting industries. First, in November 2013, the commission lifted its 25% foreign investment cap on broadcast stations, stating that it would consider such investments on a case-by-case basis.65 Second, the FCC recommended that Congress pass a new tax incentive program to spur ownership diversity among small businesses, including those owned by women and minorities.66

    Note 7; 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O.

    Note: The rules do not apply to noncommercial stations, but noncommercial broadcast and radio stations are counted among the post-merger media voices.

    a. The definition of a "failed station" is the same as that used for the television duopoly rule. In contrast to the television duopoly rule, however, there is no "failing station" waiver standard. Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rules

    The newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership (NBCO) rules limit ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers serving the same geographic area. In 2016, the FCC modified the rules to consider radio and television markets as well as broadcast signals to determine when the rules are triggered. In contrast to the local television and radio/television cross-ownership rules, the NBCO rules do not include a voice test.

    For the purposes of these rules, the FCC defines a daily newspaper as "one which is published four or more days per week, which is in the dominant language in the market, and which is circulated generally in the community of publication."75 A broadcaster may start a new daily newspaper in a local market in which it owns a television or radio station, but may not combine with an existing newspaper.

    The FCC first adopted NBCO rules in 1975.76 In evaluating when to trigger the rules, FCC used signal contour limits that were parallel to those it adopted for the radio/television cross-ownership rules.77 The FCC prohibited common ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers where these signals encompassed the locality of a newspaper.

    The FCC stated that television and radio stations could be expected, through public affairs programming, to provide coverage of problems of the communities encompassed by the city grade signals, including the newspaper's locality.78 The FCC stated that it was unreasonable to expect stations to serve the needs of communities located outside of their city grade signal contours, "and it would be unfair to impose any such burden on them to attempt it."79 Therefore, the FCC did not base its criteria on the overall viewing patterns of a station, but instead on whether the station could "provide meaningful attention to local problems and issues."80

    Modifications: Geographic Scope

    In 2016, the FCC retained its radio/newspaper cross-ownership (NBCO) rules after considering their repeal.81 It also retained the general prohibition on the cross-ownership of newspapers and television stations. In addition, the FCC (1) replaced the analog television signal contours specified in the rules with digital signals, and (2) revised the trigger of the NBCO rules to consider the relevant television and radio markets of the stations as well as their signals.

    Signal Overlap Redefined for Triggering of Rule

    Similar to the radio/television cross-ownership rules—but in contrast to the television duopoly rules—the FCC uses the digital PCC for the NBCO rules' trigger.82 The FCC stated that a television station's [digital] PCC "can be verified in a straightforward manner, which ensures reliable service for the [broadcast television station's] community of license."83

    Markets

    In 2016, the FCC modified the geographic scope of the NBCO rules by incorporating television DMAs into the rules governing cross-ownership of newspapers and television stations, and Nielsen Audio Metro markets in the rules governing cross-ownership of newspapers and radio stations.84

    Specifically, the FCC prohibits cross-ownership of a full-power television station and a daily newspaper when

    • the community of license of the television station and the community of publication of the newspaper are in the same Nielsen DMA, and
    • the digital PCC of the television station encompasses the entire community in which the newspaper is published.

    The FCC stated that the DMA requirement ensures that the newspaper and television station serve the same media market, and the contour requirement ensures that they actually reach the same communities and consumers within that large geographic market.85

    The FCC prohibits cross-ownership of a full-power radio station and a daily newspaper, in areas designated as Nielsen Audio Markets, when

    • the community of license of the radio station and the community of publication of the newspaper are in the same Nielsen Audio Metro market, and
    • the service contour of the radio station (i.e., the 1 mV/m contour of an FM station, the 2 mV/m contour of an AM station) encompasses the entire community in which the newspaper is published.

    When both the community of license of the radio station and the community of publication of the newspaper are not located in the same Nielsen Audio Metro market, then only the second condition applies.

    The FCC stated that it believes that Nielsen's determination of a radio market's boundaries is useful in considering whether particular communities rely on the same media voices. It further stated that it believes that such a determination, combined with the actual service areas of the respective facilities, gives a stronger picture of the relevant market and instances in which the FCC should prohibit common ownership.86 Table 4 further illustrates the rules. Table 4. Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rules

    Prohibited Combinations Based on Signal and Market Overlap

    Broadcast Outlet

    Signal Overlapa

    Markets

    Exceptions/ Waiver Criteria

    Full-power television station

    Digital PCC service contour

    The TV station's community of license and the newspaper's community of publication are located within the same DMA.

    Exception to NBCO rules apply if one station or newspaper failed/is failing.b Applicants must demonstrate that an in-market buyer is the only entity ready, willing, and able to operate the station, and that sale to a buyer outside of the market would result in an artificially depressed price.

    FCC may issue waivers on a case-by-case basis. Applicants must demonstrate proposed mergers would not harm viewpoint diversity.

    Full-power FM radio station

    1 mv/m signal contour

    The FM station's community of license and the newspaper's community of publication are located within the same Nielsen Audio Metro market (if applicable).

     

    Full-power AM radio station

    2 mv/m signal contour

    The AM station's community of license and the newspaper's community of publication are located within the same Nielsen Audio Metro market (if applicable).

     

    Sources: 47 C.F.R. §73.3555(d); 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9930-9934.

    a. For the rules to be triggered, the signals must encompass the entire community in which the newspaper is published. b. To qualify as failing, the applicant must show that (1) if a broadcast television station, that it had an all-day audience share of 4% or lower, (2) the newspaper or broadcast station had negative cash flow for the previous three years, and (3) the combination will produce public-interest benefits. Relief from Rules

    In 2016, the FCC described three ways licensees can seek relief from the NBCO rules: (1) qualifying for an outright exception to the rules by demonstrating that the broadcast station or newspaper is financially failing or has failed; (2) applying for a waiver by demonstrating, on a case-by-case basis, that the waiver would not unduly harm viewpoint diversity; and (3) qualifying for grandfathered status as a result of the FCC's changes to the geographic scope of the rules.

    Exception

    The FCC adopted an exception, rather than a waiver standard, to the rules for proposed mergers involving a failed or failing broadcast station or newspaper, and stated that it would consider waivers of the rules on a case-by-case basis, if the applicants can show the proposed mergers would not harm viewpoint diversity.

    In adopting the failed/failing station or newspaper exception, the FCC stated the following:

    It stands to reason that a merger involving a failed or failing newspaper or broadcast station is not likely to harm viewpoint diversity in the local market. If the entity is unable to continue as a standalone operation, and thus contribute to viewpoint diversity, then preventing its disappearance from the market potentially can enhance, and will not diminish, viewpoint diversity.87

    For granting exceptions to the NBCO rules, FCC adopted the same failed/failing criteria it uses for its case-by-case waivers of the television duopoly rules. Applicants need not show, either at the time of their application or during subsequent license renewals, that the tangible and verifiable public interest benefits of the combination would outweigh any harm. The FCC explained that it would not require a public interest showing because it was creating an exception to the NBCO rule, rather than a waiver. The FCC stated that "recognizing that an absolute ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership is overly broad, we believe it is appropriate to provide greater flexibility and certainty in the context of this rule."88 The FCC did not impose an FSSR requirement for parties seeking to take advantage of this exception to the NBCO rules.

    Waivers

    The FCC adopted a case-by-case approach to considering waivers of the NBCO rules.89 The FCC plans to evaluate waiver requests by assessing "the totality of the circumstances for each individual transaction" without measuring it against a set of defined criteria or awarding the applicant an automatic presumption based on a prima facie showing of particular elements.90 An applicant will need to show the grant of the waiver would not unduly harm viewpoint diversity in the local market.

    The FCC stated that it believed a case-by-case waiver approach would give it flexibility to allow due consideration of all factors relevant to a case, and enable it to home in quickly on the most important considerations of the proposed transaction and approach them with an openness that might not occur with a set framework. As a result, the FCC stated, it will be able to determine more accurately and precisely whether a proposed combination would have an adverse impact on viewpoint diversity in the relevant local market. Moreover, the FCC stated that

    specifically allowing for a waiver of the NBCO Rule[s] in cases where applicants can demonstrate that the proposed combination will not unduly harm viewpoint diversity, we signal our recognition that there may be instances where enforcing the prohibition against ownership of a newspaper and broadcast station is not necessary to serve the rule's purpose of promoting viewpoint diversity in the local market. Indeed, it is our determination herein that the public interest would not be served by restricting specific combinations that do not unduly harm viewpoint diversity.91

    To enable a timely public response to waiver requests, the FCC will require broadcast and radio station licensees to file their requests prior to a newspaper acquisition, and commission staff will place the waiver requests on public notice.92

    Grandfathering The FCC will grandfather, to the extent required, any existing newspaper-broadcast combinations that no longer comply with the NBCO rules as a result of the FCC's 2016 changes but will not allow licensees to transfer grandfathered newspaper-broadcast combinations, including those subject to permanent waivers.93 In addition, the FCC will continue to allow all combinations currently in existence that have been grandfathered or approved by permanent waiver to the extent that grandfathering/permanent waivers are still necessary to permit common ownership.

    The FCC stated that this policy is consistent with long-standing precedent of requiring transferees or assignees of properties to comply with FCC rules in effect at the time of the transaction. In addition, the FCC stated the policy will drive the broadcast industry toward compliance with current rules when owners voluntarily decide to sell their properties, while minimizing hardships on licensees who would otherwise be forced to sell properties as a result of the FCC's modifications.

    Dual Network Rule

    The dual network rule (described in detail at 47 C.F.R. §73.658(g)) prohibits common ownership of two of the "top four" networks but otherwise permits common ownership of multiple broadcast networks.94 Generally, the four broadcast networks covered by this definition are ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC.

    The FCC first adopted this rule, which originally prohibited ownership of any two networks, with respect to radio in 1941, as part of the Chain Broadcasting Report.95 The FCC directed the rule at NBC, the only company at that time with two radio networks. The FCC found that the operation of two networks gave NBC excessive control over its affiliated broadcast radio stations, and an unfair competitive advantage over other broadcast radio networks.96 The FCC extended the dual network rule to television networks in 1946.97

    Section 202(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 directed the FCC to revise its dual network rule to prohibit a party from affiliating with an entity if that entity controlled more than one of the four largest networks—ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC—or with an entity that controlled one of these four networks and either of two emerging networks in existence at that time.98 In 2001, the FCC revised the rule to permit one of the four major networks to jointly own one of those emerging networks, which have since merged into the CW network.99 Today, the CBS Corporation has a partial ownership interest in the CW broadcast network.100 In 2016, the FCC retained the "dual network" rule without modification, in order to foster its goals of preserving competition and localism.101 Table 5 summarizes the public-interest rationales for each of the rules. Table 5. Summary of Public-Interest Rationales for Media Ownership Rules  

    Local TV

    Local Radio

    Radio/TV Cross

    Newspaper/ Broadcast Cross

    Dual Network

    Necessary to promote competition?

    Yes; for viewers and revenues

    Yes; broadcast radio unique product market

    No

    No

    Yes

    Necessary to promote localism?

    Consistent with; competition stimulates localism

    No, but consistent with; may promote

    No

    No

    Yes; preserves balance of bargaining power between networks and affiliates, enabling affiliates to influence networks' programming decisions in manner that serves affiliates' communities

    Necessary to promote viewpoint diversity?

    Will promote; ensures presence of independently owned TV stations

    No, but consistent with; may promote

    Yes

    Yes

    Silent

    Necessary to promote minority/female ownership of broadcast stations?

    Consistent with; competition can indirectly promote; FSSR promotes

    Consistent with; competition can indirectly promote

    Consistent with; rules preserve ownership opportunities for new entrants

    Helps promote; preserves ownership opportunities for new entrants

    No; no meaningful impact

    Source: 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O.

    Ownership Diversity In 2004, 2011, and 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, directed the FCC to review its broadcast ownership diversity policies in conjunction with the media ownership rules. Specifically, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the FCC to consider a range of standards for defining entities that would be eligible for exceptions to its media ownership rules, and what the exceptions might be.

    As evidence of the FCC's "statutory obligation to promote minority and female broadcast ownership," the Third Circuit cited two sections of the Communications Act of 1934. Due to the manner in which the FCC licenses new broadcast stations, however, it is possible that only one of these two sections currently applies.

    The first section, Section 309(i)(3)(A) of the Communications Act, states, in the context of applications to the FCC for a random selection for licenses or construction permits, that "to further diversify the ownership of the media of mass communications, an additional significant preference shall be granted to any group controlled by a member or members of a minority group."102 In 1997, however, as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33), Congress directed the FCC to resolve competing applications for commercial broadcast stations by competitive bidding, rather than random selection, and expanded the FCC's competitive bidding authority under Section 309(j) of the Communications Act.103

    The second section cited by the Third Circuit is Section 309(j)(3)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, which specifies that in awarding licenses and permits via competitive bidding, one of the FCC's objectives must be promoting opportunities for, among others, "businesses owned by members of minority groups and women."104 To achieve this goal, Section 309(j)(4)(D) of the Communications Act directs the FCC to "ensure that small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women are given the opportunity to participate in the provision of spectrum-based services, and, for such purposes, consider the use of tax certificates, bidding preferences, and other procedures."105 Link with Media Ownership Rules

    In 1999, the FCC relaxed several of its media ownership rules.106 Acknowledging that various parties expressed concern that greater consolidation of broadcast ownership could make it more difficult for new licensees to enter the broadcasting industry, the FCC stated that (1) it was conducting studies that would enable it to address the requirement that its rules withstand the U.S. Supreme Court's scrutiny of any rules selectively applied to organizations based on the race or gender of their owners, and (2) upon completion of the studies, it would examine steps it could take to expand opportunities for minorities and women to enter the broadcast industry.107 In addition, as described in "Local Television Ownership Rules (Television Duopoly Rules)," the FCC reasoned that the notification requirement would give minorities and women interested in purchasing a station an opportunity to bid.108 The commission reiterated that "the [FCC] has made a number of efforts separate from this proceeding to address minority and female ownership issues, and we hope to take further steps in this area."109

    In 2002, the FCC issued an order repealing and/or further relaxing several media ownership rules, including the failed station solicitation rule (FSSR), described in "Local Television Ownership Rules (Television Duopoly Rules)," arguing that "the efficiencies associated with operation of two same-market stations, absent unusual circumstances, will always result in the buyer being the owner of another station in that market."110 The FCC deferred consideration of other proposals to advance minority and female ownership, stating that it would address them in a future rulemaking.111

    In 2004, in Prometheus Radio Project v. Federal Communications Commission (shorthanded as Prometheus I), the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the repeal of the FSSR, noting that the FCC did "not explain that preserving minority ownership was the purpose of the FSSR, nor [did] it argue that the FSSR was harmful or ineffective toward this purpose."112 Also in Prometheus I, the Third Circuit directed the FCC to consider proposals to promote minority broadcast ownership at the same time that it addressed other media ownership rules.113 The FCC reinstated the FSSR as part of the 2006 Quadrennial Review Order, which it adopted in 2007.114

    Eligible Entity Standard and Measures

    In 2003, to help promote diversity of ownership, the FCC established a class of broadcast licensees called "eligible entities" that would be eligible for an exception to its radio/television cross-ownership rules.115 Specifically, the FCC permitted broadcast licensees to assign or transfer control of a grandfathered combination of radio and television stations to any entity that would qualify as a small business consistent with revenue-based standards for its industry grouping, as established by the Small Business Administration.

    In 2008, in response to the Third Circuit's directive in Prometheus I, the FCC adopted a range of additional measures designed to promote the diversification of media ownership.116 The measures enabled eligible entities to abide by less restrictive media ownership and attribution rules, and more flexible licensing policies, than their counterparts. Once again, the FCC used a revenue-based definition. The FCC claimed that the measures would "be effective in creating new opportunities for a variety of small businesses and new entrants, including those owned by women and minorities."117 It also stated that such a "race- and gender-neutral definition" would enable the FCC to avoid "constitutional difficulties" that might impede timely implementation of its efforts to diversify media ownership.118

    Court Directives

    In 2011, in Prometheus Radio Project v. Federal Communications Commission (shorthanded as Prometheus II), the Third Circuit vacated and remanded each of the measures adopted in the 2008 Diversity Order, ruling that the FCC failed to provide evidence that its revenue-based eligible entity definition would meet its goal of increasing broadcast ownership by minorities and women. The Third Circuit also directed the FCC to consider other proposed definitions for eligible entities, so that the FCC might "adequately justify or modify its approach to advancing broadcast ownership by minorities and women."119

    In 2016, in Prometheus Radio Project v. Federal Communications Commission (shorthanded as Prometheus III), the Third Circuit concluded that the FCC had unreasonably delayed action on its definition of an eligible entity, and ordered the FCC to "act promptly."120 2016 FCC Diversity Order

    In 2016, the FCC adopted rules designed to increase broadcast ownership diversity, and addressed whether the agency believes that it has the constitutional authority to adopt rules specifically targeting minority and female ownership of broadcast stations.

    Legal Authority

    The FCC found in 2016 that, though there were differing opinions on the interpretation of the case law, the U.S. Supreme Court could deem the FCC's interest in promoting a diversity of viewpoints sufficient to pass its legal tests for regulations targeting minorities and females.121 However, even if the FCC's interest in promoting viewpoint diversity were deemed sufficient, the FCC concluded that it lacked sufficient evidence to pass other elements of the Supreme Court's tests for such rules.122 The FCC cited two reasons:

    • 1. The studies it commissioned on media ownership and Hispanic television (based in part on data from its broadcast ownership reports), as well as studies submitted by commenters, did not demonstrate adequately that the connection between minority and female ownership and viewpoint diversity is direct and substantial.
    • 2. The record did not reveal a feasible means of adopting race- or gender-based measures in a flexible, nonmechanical way.

    The FCC stated that it did not believe that either Section 257 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act or Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 requires it to adopt race- or gender- conscious measures in order to promote ownership diversity.123 The FCC did not discuss Section 309(i) of the Communications Act of 1934.

    Revenue-Based Eligible Entity Standard

    In 2016, the FCC reinstated the revenue-based eligible entity standard, using the Small Business Administration's definition of a "small business."124 Entities that own broadcast stations and have total annual revenue of $38.5 million or less qualify for exemption from the media ownership rules.125 Such a definition could potentially apply to entities that own stations engaged in the joint financial and operational arrangements, described in "Joint Sales Agreements," that the Media Bureau stated it would carefully scrutinize.

    Measures Specific to Small Businesses

    In 2016 the FCC also reinstated the six measures from its 2008 Diversity Order to enable eligible entities to abide by less restrictive media ownership and attribution rules, and more flexible licensing policies, than their counterparts.126

    By exempting small businesses from some of its ownership and attribution rules, the FCC could potentially undermine the rationales for retaining and tightening these rules, other portions of the 2014 Quadrennial Review, and the Media Bureau Public Notice.

    Author Contact Information

    Dana A. Scherer, Specialist in Telecommunications Policy ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])

    Footnotes

    Prometheus Radio Project v. Federal Communications Commission, 373 F. 3d 372, 420- 421, n. 59 (3d Cir. 2004) (Prometheus I); ; Prometheus Radio Project v. FCCFederal Communications Commission, 652 F.3d 431, 444-445471 (3d Cir. 2011) (Prometheus II).

    News Media Alliance v. FCC, et al., Petition for Review, Docket # 16-1395, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, docketed November 14, 2016.

    .

    Order Granting Mot. to Transfer, Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, No. 16-4046 (3d Cir. Nov. 18, 2016) (granting the FCC's motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2112(a)(3), to transfer case to the D.C. Circuit in order to consolidate petitions for review).

    31. Federal Communications Commission, "Part 4—Broadcast Services Other Than Standard Broadcast," 6 Federal Register 2282, 2284-2285, May 6, 1941. This was the year that commercial television service first became available in the United States.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Review of the Television Satellite Stations Review of Policy and Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 00-406," 14 FCC Record 1067, 1072-1073, January 19, 2001 (2001 Media Ownership Reconsideration). (The FCC adopted the modification in 2000.)

    96.

    As directed by the Third Circuit in Prometheus II, the FCC discussed additional proposals set forth by commenters in the 2010 Diversity proceeding. The commission declined to adopt them.

    1.

    Johnson-Kennedy Radio Corp. (WJKS), Docket No. 1156, affirmed sub nom F.R.C. v. Nelson Bros. Co., 289 U.S. 266, 270-271 (1933); United States Broadcasting Corp., 2 FCC 208, 233 (1935). Louis Caldwell, "Legal Restrictions on the Contents of Broadcast Programs," Air Law Review, vol. IX, no. 3 (July 1938), pp. 229, 246-248.

    2.

    Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 20 (1945).

    3.

    Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC 512 U.S. 663 (1994).

    4.

    A fifth type, source diversity (the availability of media content from a variety of content producers), has been the focus of merger proceedings, but in 2002 the FCC determined that this type of diversity was not relevant to its media ownership rules. Federal Communications Commission, "Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Cross-Ownership of Broadcast Stations and Newspapers; Rules and Policies Concerning Multiple Ownership of Radio Broadcast Stations in Local Markets; Definition of Radio Markets; Definition of Radio Markets for Areas Not Located in an Arbitron Survey Area," 18 FCC Record 13633, July 2, 2003 (2002 Biennial Review).

    5.

    The FCC first began to encourage minority ownership of broadcast stations in 1978, in response to an initiative by President Jimmy Carter. Federal Communications Commission, "Statement of Policy on Minority Ownership of Broadcasting Facilities, FCC 78-322," Public Notice, May 25, 1978, ftp://ftp.fcc.gov/pub/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/78-322.pdf; Jimmy Carter:, "Telecommunications Minority Assistance Program Announcement of Administration Program," January 31, 1978. Online, online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29917.

    6.

    47 C.F.R. §73.3555.

    7.

    Section 629 of the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199) modified Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104) by instructing the FCC to perform a quadrennial review of all of its broadcast media ownership rules, except the national television ownership rule. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, rejecting prior analysis by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, determined that Section 202(h) does not carry a presumption in favor of deregulation. Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F. 3d 372, 3952002 Biennial Review, p. 13620.

    8.

    Federal Communications Commission, "2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review, 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review, Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, Rules and Policies Concerning the Attribution of Joint Sales Agreements in Local Television Markets, Second Report and Order, FCC 16-107," 31 FCC Record, 9864, 9873, August 25, 2016 (2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O).

    9.

    See, for example, U.S. Department of Justice, "Justice Department Requires Divestitures in Order for Nexstar to Proceed with Media General Acquisition," press release, September 2, 2016, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-divestitures-order-nexstar-proceed-media-general-acquisition.

    10.

    P.L. 104-104 §202(h), 257 (47 U.S.C. §303(h)).

    11.

    P.L. 104-104 §202(h), 257 (47 U.S.C. §257(b)).

    12.
    8.

    2002 Biennial Review, p. 13620; and Prometheus Radio Project v. Federal Communications Commission, 824 F. 3d 33, 54 n. 13 (3d Cir. 2016) (Prometheus III).

    913.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Matter of 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Promoting Diversification of Ownership In the Broadcasting Services, Rules and Policies Concerning Attribution of Joint Sales Agreements Inin Local Television Markets, FCC 14-2816-107, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Report and Order," 29 FCC Record 4371, 43814341, 4492-4493, April 14, 2014 (2014 Quadrennial Review).

    1015, 2014 (2014 Quadrennial Review FNPRM and R&O). Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (discussing the standard of scrutiny to be applied to categorizations based on race). Nevada Dep't of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003) (discussing the standard of review to be applied to gender-based categorizations). Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 329 (2003) (further discussion the standard of review for race-based categorizations).
    14.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O.

    15.

    Prometheus III 824 F.3d at 39-43.

    16.

    Federal Communications Commission, "2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review," 81 Federal Register 76220, November 1, 2016.

    17.

    National Association of Broadcasters, "Matter of 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Promoting Diversification of Ownership In the Broadcasting Services, Rules and Policies Concerning Attribution of Joint Sales Agreements in Local Television Markets, Petition for Reconsideration," December 1, 2016, http://www.nab.org/documents/newsRoom/pdfs/120116_Quadrennial_Ownership_PetforRecon.pdf.

    18.

    P.L. 104-104 §202(h), 257 (47 U.S.C. §§303(h), 257).

    1119.

    Prometheus I, 373 F. 3rd 372, 420- 421(3d Cir. 2004), and Prometheus II and 652 F.3d 431, 471(3d Cir. 2011).

    12.

    Federal Communications Commission, "2014 Quadrennial Review," 29 FCC Record 4341, 4492-4493, April 15, 2014. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 329 (2003); Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). Nevada Dep't of Human Res. V. Hibbs, 58 U.S. 721 (2003). For additional information, see CRS Report RL34269, Minority Ownership of Broadcast Properties: A Legal Analysis, by [author name scrubbed].

    13Radio Project, et al. v. FCC, et al. Petition for Review, Docket #16-4046, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, docketed November 8, 2016. 20.
    21.

    47 U.S.C. §309(j)(14)(A).

    22.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9876-9877 (for local television ownership rule); pp. 9944–9872 (for radio/television cross-ownership rule); p. 9931 (for newspaper-broadcast television cross-ownership rule).

    23.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Advanced Television Systems and their Impact on the Existing Television Broadcast Service," 25 FCC Record 14588, 14634-14635, April 21, 1997 (1997 Sixth R&O). Federal Communications Commission, "2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review – Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 10-92," 25 FCC Record 6086, 6117, n. 150, May 25, 2010 (2010 Quadrennial NOI).

    24.

    1997 Sixth R&O, pp. 14605-14607.

    25.

    47 C.F.R. §73.182(c).

    26.

    47 C.F.R. §73.14.

    27.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Standard, FM and Television Broadcast Stations: Multiple Ownership; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," 27 Federal Register 6847, July 19, 1962.

    28.

    The Nielsen Company, Arbitron eBook Reference Guide, 2009, p. 46, http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/docs/nielsen-audio/guide-to-understanding-and-using.pdf.

    29.

    Americanradiohistory.com, "Arbitron Reports and Data of Interest," "Metropolitan Survey Area Maps," "2013 Metro Radio Metro Areas Hi-Res," http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Arbitron/2013_RadioMetroMap_hi-res.pdf.

    30.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9903-9904.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Attribution of Broadcast and Cable/MDS Interests, Review of the Commission's Regulations and Policies Affecting Investment in the Broadcast Industry, Reexamination of the Commission's Cross-Interest Policy, Report and Order (R&O), FCC 99-207," 14 FCC Record 12559, August 6, 1999. Section §103 of P.L. 113-200, the Satellite Extension and Localism Reauthorization Act, also prohibits a television broadcast station from negotiating a retransmission consent contract jointly with another broadcast station in the same market, regardless of its audience size, unless the FCC considers the stations to be directly or indirectly owned, operated, or controlled by the same entity. Thus, the FCC's attribution rules impact a station's retransmission consent negotiations.

    1432.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, p. 4583.

    15.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, p. 4527 2nd R&O, pp. 9888-9890. The FCC decided to attribute radio JSAs in 2003. Federal Communications Commission, 2002 Biennial Review, p. 13620. It proposed attributing television JSAs in 2004, and revisited the issue in 2011, but did not make a final decision. Federal Communications Commission, "Attribution of TV JSAs, NPRM, FCC 04-173," 19 FCC Record 15238, July 2, 2004; Federal Communications Commission, "2010 Quadrennial Review, NPRM), FCC 11-186," 26 FCC Record 17489, 17565-17566, December 22, 2011.

    16.

    The FCC required television broadcast stations to file attributable JSAs with the commission by November 28, 2014, or, for JSAs entered into after October 28, 2014, within 30 days after execution. Federal Communications Commission, "Media Bureau Announces Requirement to File Certain Television Joint Sales Agreements, DA 14-1555," Public Notice, November 28, 2014, http://www.fcc.gov/document/tv-joint-sales-agreement-filing-deadline.

    17.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4540-4541. In examining the "totality of circumstances," Media Bureau staff will review the JSA in combination with any other agreements, documents, facts, or information concerning the operation and management of a brokered station.

    18.

    DOJ, February 20, 2014, Ex Parte Comments. These comments were submitted in the 2010 Quadrennial Review proceeding (MB Docket No. 09-182), the Diversity proceeding (MB Docket No. 07-294), and the TV JSA proceeding (MB Docket No. 04-256).

    19.

    Quadrennial Review, p. 4538, n. 1104 and pp. 4587-4602. Federal Communications Commission, "Office of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai Releases Results of Broadcast Ownership Diversity Research, Concludes Joint Sales Agreements Disproportionately Benefit Women and African-Americans," press release, March 20, 2014, http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0320/DOC-326157A1.pdf.

    20.

    Howard Stirk Holdings, LLC v. FCC, "Petition for Review of Final Order on Television Joint Sales Agreements," USCA Case No. 14-1090, May 30, 2014 (D.C. Circuit); Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, USCA Case No. 14-1091, May 30, 2014 (D.C. Circuit) (consolidated with No. 14-1090).

    21.

    Prometheus Radio Project. v. FCC, USCA Case No. 14-2814, May 22, 2014 (Third Circuit).

    22.

    When parties challenge the same case in different circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation conducts a lottery to see which court will review the case. The D.C. Circuit was selected, but Prometheus is requesting that the D.C. Circuit transfer it to the Third Circuit. John Eggerton, "Briefing Schedule Set in FCC JSA/Media Ownership Challenge," Broadcasting & Cable, February 20, 2015, http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/briefing-schedule-set-fcc-jsamedia-ownership-challenge/138165.

    2333.

    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, §626, P.L. 114-113 (2015). The first extension was through December 19, 2016, per §104 of the 2014 Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (P.L. 113-200).

    34.

    Prometheus III, 824 F.3d, 43-57.

    35.

    Ibid., p. 55.

    36.

    Once the media ownership and attribution rules become effective, 30 days after the FCC publishes them in the Federal Register, broadcast station licensees must file the JSAs with the commission. 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, p. 9888-9989, n. 168.

    37.

    In its 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, p. 9889, the FCC stated that while generally the agency does not allow licensees to assign or transfer grandfathered combinations unless the combinations comply with ownership rules in effect at the time, "we believe that the relief [with respect to JSAs] is warranted given the various expressions of Congressional will in this regard."

    38.

    2014 Quadrennial Review FNPRM and R&O, pp. 4540-4541. In examining the "totality of circumstances," Media Bureau staff will review the JSA in combination with any other agreements, documents, facts, or information concerning the operation and management of a brokered station.

    39.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Broadcast TV Applications Proposed Sharing Arrangements," 29 FCC Record 2647, 2648, March 12, 2014. Federal Communications Commission," "Statement of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai on the Media Bureau's New Guidance on Sharing Agreements and Contingent Interests," press release, March 11, 2014, http://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pais-statment-media-bureaus-new-guidance.

    40.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 10008-10023.

    41.

    The new disclosure rule is subject to the approval of OMB under §3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, P.L. 104-13. After the FCC publishes a separate document in the Federal Register, OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies may comment on the new information collection requirements. OMB will evaluate the new rule to determine whether (1) it is necessary for the proper performance of a function of the agency requiring the disclosure (i.e., the FCC), including whether it will be practically useful; (2) it minimizes the burden upon those affected by the rules; and (3) maximizes the usefulness and public benefit that could be derived from the information. 44 U.S.C. §3504; §3507(g). The FCC has placed its notice in the Federal Register seeking comment to the change in its rules to require disclosure of shared service agreements. Federal Communications Commission, "Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission, Notice and Request for Comments," 81 Federal Register 78591, November 8, 2016. The comment period will close January 9, 2017. Ibid.

    42.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, p. 10012.

    43.

    Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 284 F. 3d 148, 159 (District of Columbia 2002).

    2444.

    Prometheus I, 373 F. 3d 372, 395 (3d Cir. 2004); Prometheus II, 652 F.3d 431, 444-445 (3d Cir. 2011)Federal Communications Commission, "Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and Television Broadcast Stations, FCC 64-445," 29 Federal Register 7535, 7537, June 12, 1964.

    2545.

    Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §73.3613Ibid.

    2646.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting, Television Satellite Stations Review of Policy and Rules, Report and Order, FCC 99-209," 14 FCC Record 12903, 12931-12941, August 6, 1999 (1999 Media Ownership R&O).

    47.
    48.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9876-9877.

    49.

    In addition to switching network affiliations, the parties swapped nonnetwork programming and call signs. 2014 Quadrennial Review FNPRM and R&O, pp. 4390-4393. At the time of the Honolulu transaction, the Media Bureau found that the transaction technically complied with the duopoly rule. Ibid., p. 4392, n. 119. The FCC put parties on notice, however, that "similar efforts to evade the media ownership rules could be subject to enforcement action." Ibid., p. 4392, n. 125.

    50.

    47 C.F.R. §73.3555, Note 7.

    51.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, p. 9891.

    52.

    Ibid., p. 9894, n. 205.

    53.

    2014 Quadrennial Review FNPRM and R&O, p. 4402, n. 182. The FCC noted that it does not collect data regarding sales of failed or failing stations. Ibid., p. 4507, n. 917.

    54.

    Pursuant to §202(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, however, the FCC may, notwithstanding any ownership limits, permit a person or entity to own, operate, or control, or have a cognizable interest in, radio broadcast stations if the FCC determines that such ownership, operation, control, or interest will result in an increase in the number of radio broadcast stations in operation.

    55.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Part 3—Rules Governing Standard and High Frequency Broadcast Stations," 5 Federal Register 2382, 2384, June 25, 1940.

    56.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Part 3—Rules Governing Standard and High Frequency Broadcast Stations: Multiple Ownership of Standard Broadcast Stations," 8 Federal Register 16065-16066, November 27, 1943.

    57.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and Television Broadcast Stations, FCC 64-445," 29 Federal Register 7535- 7537, June 12, 1964. At the time, the FCC used a 1 mv/m signal contour for both AM and FM stations in its local radio ownership rules, arguing that the standards for both services were roughly comparable, because a 1 mv/m signal provided adequate levels of service in less-populated areas where overlap between co-owned stations was more likely to occur.

    58.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Amendment of Sections 73.35, 73.240 and 73.636 of the Commission Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and Television Broadcast Stations, FCC 70-310, First Report and Order," 5 FCC Reports 306, March 25, 1970 (1970 Cross Ownership R&O). Federal Communications Commission, "Amendment of Section 73.3555 of the Commission's Rules, the Broadcast Multiple Ownership Rules, Report and Order, FCC 88-343," 4 FCC Record 1723, February 22, 1989.

    59.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Revision of Radio Rules and Policies, Report and Order, FCC 92-97," 7 FCC Record 2755, 2756-2757, 2757-2779, April 10, 1992.

    60.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, p. 9897.

    61.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9905-9906.

    62.

    Ibid., p. 9907. Nielsen considers Puerto Rico to be a single radio market.

    63.

    1970 Cross Ownership R&O, p. 307.

    64.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and Television Broadcast Stations, FCC 64-445," 29 Federal Register 7535- 7537, June 12, 1964. At the time, the FCC used a 1 mv/m signal contour for both AM and FM stations in its local radio ownership rules, arguing that the standards for both services were roughly comparable, because a 1 mv/m signal provided adequate levels of service in less-populated areas where overlap between co-owned stations was more likely to occur.

    65.

    1970 Cross Ownership R&O, p. 315.

    66.

    1999 Media Ownership R&O, pp. 12949-12954.

    67.

    Ibid., pp. 12954-12955.

    68.

    47 C.F.R. §73.3555(c)(3).

    69.

    2001 Media Ownership Reconsideration, p. 1073.

    70.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9944-9952.

    71.

    Ibid., pp. 9951-9952.

    72.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, p. 9951.

    73.

    Ibid., p. 10026.

    74.

    Ibid.

    75.

    C.F.R. §73.3555, Note 6.

    76.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Amendment of Sections 73.34, 73.240, and 73.636 of the Commission's Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and Television Broadcast Stations, FCC 75-104, Second Report and Order," 50 FCC Reports, Second Series 1046, January 31, 1975 (1975 Cross Ownership 2nd R&O).

    77.

    Ibid., p. 1075.

    78.

    Ibid., p. 1082.

    79.

    Ibid.

    80.

    Ibid.

    81.

    Ibid., pp. 9912-9944.

    82.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, p. 9931.

    83.

    Ibid., p. 9931, n. 485.

    84.

    Ibid., pp. 9931-9933.

    85.

    Ibid., p. 9931.

    86.

    Ibid., pp. 9932-9933.

    87.

    Ibid., p. 9933.

    88.

    Ibid., p. 9934. In contrast to the radio/television cross-ownership rules, the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rules specify "Nielsen Audio" rather than "Arbitron [which changed its name after Nielsen acquired it] or another nationally recognized audience rating service." Therefore, if Nielsen Audio is acquired by another firm, the FCC would need to update this rule.

    89.

    Ibid., pp. 9938-9941.

    90.

    Ibid., p. 9938.

    91.

    Ibid., p. 9940.

    92.

    Ibid., p. 9938. Such a prohibition mirrors antitrust laws, which prohibit the premature combining of parties ("gun jumping"). 15 U.S.C §18 (prohibiting mergers that would substantially lessen competition); 15 U.S.C. §18a (requiring parties exceeding certain size thresholds that plan to engage in transactions exceeding certain dollar values to report their plans to the Federal Trade Commission and the DOJ for review prior to the transaction's completion); Adam Eckart, "Jumping the Gun: Navigating Antitrust Laws before Closing the Merger," American Bar Association, http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/the_101_201_practice_series/jumping_gun_navigating_antitrust_laws.html.

    93.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9941-9942.

    94.

    The rules provide the following: "A television broadcast station may affiliate with a person or entity that maintains two or more networks of television broadcast stations unless such dual or multiple networks are composed of two or more persons or entities that, on February 8, 1996, were 'networks' as defined in Section 73.3613(a)(1) of the Commission's regulations (that is, ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC)." 47 C.F.R. §73.658(g).

    95.

    Federal Communications Commission, Report on Chain Broadcasting, Order No. 37, Docket No. 5060, May 1941, pp. 91-92, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b78643;view=1up;seq=8.

    Deborah Potter et al., State of the News Media 2014: A Boom in Acquisition and Content Sharing Shapes Local News in 2013, p. 2, Pew Research Center, Report, March 2014, http://www.journalism.org/files/2014/03/Local-News-Aquisitions-and-Content-Sharing-Shapes-Local-TV-News-in-2013_Final.pdf.

    27.

    Bob Papper, Newsroom Technology, Partnerships Stabilize, Radio Television Digital News Association, June 2013, http://rtdna.org/article/newsroom_technology_partnerships_stabilze#.UnKnifmshSi.

    28.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4522-4524.

    29.

    Keach Hagey, "Sinclair Draws Scrutiny Over Growth Tactic; TV Station King Uses 'Sidecars' to Skirt Ownership Limits," Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2013; Phil Verveer, Senior Counsel to Chairman Wheeler, How the Sidecar Business Model Works, Federal Communications Commission, March 6, 2014, http://www.fcc.gov/blog/how-sidecar-business-model-works.

    30.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, p. 4528, n. 1041.

    31.

    Ibid., n. 1047.

    32.

    Department of Justice, February 20, 2014, Ex Parte Comments, p. 16. These comments were submitted in the 2010 Quadrennial Review proceeding (MB Docket No. 09-182), the Diversity proceeding (MB Docket No. 07-294), and the TV JSA proceeding (MB Docket No. 04-256).

    33.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Broadcast TV Applications Proposed Sharing Arrangements, 29 FCC Record 2647, 2648, March 12, 2014. Federal Communications Commission," Statement of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai on the Media Bureau's New Guidance on Sharing Agreements and Contingent Interests," press release, March 11, 2014, http://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pais-statment-media-bureaus-new-guidance.

    34.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Processing of Applications Proposing Local Marketing Agreements," Public Notice, June 1, 1995, 1995 FCC Lexis 3593, Mimeo No. 54161. Federal Communications Commission, "Applications of: Priscilla A. Schwier, et al. (Transferor) and SJL Communications, L.P. (Transferee); for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Station WICU-TV, Erie, PA; Erie Broadcasting, Inc. (Assignor) and NV Acquisition (Assignee); for Consent to the Assignment of License of Station WFXP (TV), Erie, PA, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 97-313," 12 FCC Record 20769, September 22, 1997. Federal Communications Commission, "Commission's Regulations Governing Attribution Of Broadcast and Cable/MDS Interests; Review of the Commission's Regulations and Policies Affecting Investment In the Broadcast Industry; Reexamination of the Commission's Cross-Interest Policy, FCC 00-438, Memorandum Opinion and Order," 16 FCC Record 1097, 1112-1113, January 19, 2001. Federal Communications Commission, "Applications from Shareholders of Belo Corp. to Gannett Co., Inc. et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order," 28 FCC Record 16867, 16878, n. 81, December 19, 2013.

    35.

    Chairman Tom Wheeler and Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, "Making Good on the Promise of Independent Minority Ownership of Stations," Federal Communications Commission, Official FCC Blog, December 4, 2014, http://www.fcc.gov/blog/making-good-promise-independent-minority-ownership-television-stations.

    36.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Statement of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai on the Media Bureau's New Guidance on Sharing Agreements and Contingent Interests," press release, March 11, 2014, http://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pais-statment-media-bureaus-new-guidance; Federal Communications Commission, "Statement of Commissioner Michael O'Rielly on the Media Bureau's New Guidance on Sharing Agreements and Contingent Interests," press release, March 12, 2014, http://www.fcc.gov/document/orielly-statement-media-bureaus-guidance-sharing-arrangements.

    37.

    47 C.F.R. §0.283(a).

    38.

    47 C.F.R. §0.283(c).

    39.

    Letter from Reps. Fred Upton, Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Tim Murphy, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Greg Walden, Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, to Tom Wheeler, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, February 18, 2015, http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/114/Letters/20150218FCC.pdf.

    40.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4418, 4378.

    41.

    "Chicago's November TV Sweeps Ratings Wrap-Up," Chicagoland Radio and Media, December 6, 2013, http://chicagoradioandmedia.com/news/6185-chicago-s-november-tv-sweeps-ratings-wrap-up. In the 2014 Quadrennial Review, the FCC stated while that the ratings "cushion" between the fourth- and fifth-rated television stations does not exist in every market, the fact that such a cushion exists in most markets supports its decision to retain the top-four prohibition. 2014 Quadrennial Review, p. 4390, n. 111.

    42.

    In addition to switching network affiliations, the parties swapped nonnetwork programming and call signs. 2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4390-4393. At the time of the Honolulu transaction, the Media Bureau found that the transaction technically complied with the duopoly rule. Ibid., p. 4392, n. 119. The FCC put parties on notice, however, that "similar efforts to evade the media ownership rules could be subject to enforcement action." Ibid., p. 4392, n. 125.

    43.

    CRS analysis of SNL Kagan, TV Stations by Market (database).

    44.

    TV & Cable Factbook, Stations, ed. Albert Warren, 83 ed., vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Warren Communications News, 2015), pp. A-1319–A-1323, and Federal Communications Commission, TV Station Profiles and Public Inspection Files, WVNY, https://stations.fcc.gov/collect/files/11259/Joint%20sales%20agreements/WVNY%20JSA%20%2814169448663782%29.PDF.

    45.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, p. 4402, n. 182. The FCC noted that it does not collect data regarding sales of failed or failing stations. Ibid., p. 4507, n. 917.

    46.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4402-2217.

    47.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4460-4471.

    48.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4435-4438. It noted that research shows most radio stations do not produce significant amounts of local news and that most consumers do not rely on radio stations as their primary source of local news. Ibid., p. 4419.

    49.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4438-4460.

    50.

    These waiver criteria have been effective since the FCC adopted the NBCO rules in 1975. FCC Media Bureau, "Tribune Company and its Licensee Subsidiaries, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 12-1258," 27 FCC Record 14239, 14247, November 16, 2012 (citing Federal Communications Commission, "1975 Media Ownership Second Report and Order, FCC 75-104," 50 FCC Reports, Second Series,1046, 1084-1085, January 31, 1975).

    51.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, p. 4379.

    52.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4420, 4441-4442. The FCC would trigger the television NBCO rule only if both conditions are met.

    53.

    The PCC is defined in 47 C.F.R. §73.625. It is a digital signal contour that ensures reliable service for the community of license.

    54.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, p. 4439. Such a prohibition would mirror antitrust laws, which prohibit the premature combining of parties ("gun jumping"). Adam Eckart, "Jumping the Gun: Navigating Antitrust Laws before Closing the Merger," American Bar Association, http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/the_101_201_practice_series/jumping_gun_navigating_antitrust_laws.html.

    55.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4471-4478.

    56.

    While the FCC cites preserving competition in the market for selling national television advertising as a public policy rationale for retaining the rule, it does not specifically mention preserving competition in the market for purchasing television programming as a rationale. The FCC repealed its former financial interest and syndication rules, which limited the amount of programming in prime time and syndication that the broadcast networks could own in the mid-1990s, and declined to consider implementing a similar restriction in the 2014 Quadrennial Review, p. 4477, n. 708.

    57.

    The Supreme Court also recognizes a compelling governmental interest in remedying past discrimination. In order for the FCC to impose race or gender-based remedial regulations, the FCC would first need to find evidence that past discrimination had existed. The FCC tentatively found that, while some evidence might support a finding of race and gender discrimination, currently, it was not of a sufficient weight to withstand the levels of scrutiny that would be applied. If sufficient evidence could be discovered, the FCC might be able to justify adopting rules that would rectify past discrimination. See Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (racial discrimination); United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (gender discrimination).

    58.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4496-4512.

    59.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4481-4487.

    60.

    Federal Communications Commission, Report on Ownership of Commercial Broadcast Stations, DA 12-1667, November 14, 2012, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1667A1.pdf.

    61.

    Federal Communications Commission, Report on Ownership of Commercial Broadcast Stations, DA 14-294, June 26, 2014, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-14-924A1.pdf.

    62.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4374, 4489.

    63.

    2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4491-4492. The FCC also proposed that the eligible entity meet one of three control tests to ensure that ultimate control over the licenses rests with it. Each of these three tests requires that more than 50% of the voting stock rest with the corporation or partnership that will hold the broadcast license.

    64.

    The FCC discussed additional proposals set forth by commenters in the 2010 Diversity proceeding, but the FCC recommends against adopting them.

    65.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Commission Policies and Procedures Under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act, Foreign Investment in Broadcast Licensees, Declaratory Ruling," 22 FCC Record 16244, November 14, 2013. The FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling clarifying that as it interprets Section 310(b)(4) of the 1934 Communications Act (47 U.S.C. §310(b)(4), the section provides the FCC with the authority to review applications for approval of foreign investment in the controlling U.S. parent of a broadcast licensee above the 25% benchmark on a case-by-case basis.

    66.

    The former tax certificate policy permitted firms to defer capital gains on the sale of media properties to minorities. 2014 Quadrennial Review, pp. 4514-4515. The FCC submitted the recommendation pursuant to Section 257 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. §257). This section directs the FCC to report to Congress, every three years, market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the provision of telecommunications and information services. One of the underlining purposes of the section is to promote the diversity of media voices. Federal Communications Commission, Section 257 of the Communications Act of 1934, http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/section-257-communications-act-1934.

    .

    Ibid., pp. 70-73. The FCC repealed the rules for radio in 1977. Federal Communications Commission, "Review of Commission Rules and Regulatory Policies Concerning Network Broadcasting by Standard (AM) and FM Broadcast Stations, Report, Statement of Policy, and Order, FCC 77-206," 63 FCC Reports, Second Series 674, March 23, 1977.

    97.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Part 3—Rules Governing Television Broadcast Stations," 11 Federal Register 33, 37, January 1, 1946.

    98.

    P.L. 104-104 §202(e).

    99.

    Federal Communications Commission, "Amendment of Section 73.658(g) of the Commission's Rules—The Dual Network Rule," 16 FCC Record 11114, May 15, 2001.

    100.

    CBS Corporation, "Our Portfolio: The CW," https://www.cbscorporation.com/portfolio/the-cw/.

    101.

    2014 Quadrennial Review R&O, pp. 9952-9960.

    102.

    Congress added this section as part of the Communication Amendments Act of 1982, P.L. 97-259. (47 U.S.C. §309(i)). The conference report stated that the underlying policy goal of this preference was to "promote the diversification of media ownership and consequent diversification of media content" and that such a policy would be served by "assuring that minority and ethnic groups that have been unable to acquire any significant degree of media ownership are provided an increased opportunity to do so." U.S. Congress, Communications Amendments of 1982, conference report to accompany H.R. 3239, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-765 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1982), pp. 40, 43.

    103.

    47 U.S.C. §309(i)(5). Federal Communications Commission, "Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses; Reexamination of the Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast Hearings; Proposals to Reform the Commission's Comparative Hearing Process to Expedite the Resolution of Cases, First Report and Order, FCC 98-194," 13 FCC Record 15920, August 18, 1998 (1998 Commercial Broadcast Competitive Bidding R&O).

    104.

    47 U.S.C. §309(j)(3)(B).

    105.

    47 U.S.C. §309(j)(4)(D).

    106.

    1999 Media Ownership R&O.

    107.

    1999 Media Ownership R&O, p. 12910. Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).

    108.

    1999 Media Ownership R&O, p. 12937.

    109.

    Ibid.

    110.

    Federal Communications Commission, "2002 Quadrennial Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 03-127," 18 FCC Record 13620, 13708, July 2, 2003 (2002 Quadrennial R&O and NPRM).

    111.

    Ibid., pp. 13636-13637.

    112.

    Prometheus I, 373 F.3d 420 (2004).

    113.

    Ibid., p. 421.

    114.

    Federal Communications Commission, "2016 Quadrennial Review Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 070216," 23 FCC Record 2010, 2068, February 4, 2008.

    115.

    Federal Communications Commission, "2002 Biennial Review Order, FCC 03-127," 18 FCC Record 13620, 13810-13812, July 2, 2003.

    116.

    The FCC voted on the rules in 2007, but published them in 2008. Federal Communications Commission, "Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-217," 23 FCC Record 5922, March 5, 2008 (2008 Diversity Order).

    117.

    2008 Diversity Order, p. 5927.

    118.

    2008 Diversity Order, p. 5927.

    119.

    Prometheus II, 652 F.3d at 438.

    120.

    Prometheus III, 824 F.3d at 37.

    121.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9989-9994. While there is debate over whether the Supreme Court would recognize viewpoint diversity as a sufficient government interest to support race- or gender-based classifications, the Supreme Court has recognized a compelling governmental interest in remedying past discrimination. In order for the FCC to impose race- or gender-based remedial regulations, the FCC would first need to find evidence that past discrimination had existed. The FCC found that, while some evidence might support a finding of race and gender discrimination, currently, it was not of a sufficient weight to withstand the levels of scrutiny that would be applied. Ibid., pp. 9995- 9999. If sufficient evidence could be discovered, the FCC might be able to justify adopting rules that would rectify past discrimination. See Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (racial discrimination); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 329 (2003); United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (gender discrimination).

    122.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9989-9994. The FCC conducted a study of Hispanic television viewing that considered (1) the impact of Hispanic-owned television stations on Hispanic-oriented programming and viewership, and (2) the extent of Hispanic-oriented programming on U.S. broadcast television, which it released in May 2016. Ibid., pp. 9967- 9970.

    123.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9999-10000.

    124.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9979-9984.

    125.

    2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9983-9984. The FCC stated that it would require the eligible entity meet one of three control tests to ensure that ultimate control over the licenses rests with it. Each of these three tests requires that more than 50% of the voting stock rest with the corporation or partnership that will hold the broadcast license.

    126.