WPCB 2HBEX@Z3|P' (TT) X-#XP\  P6QCXP#"5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BE7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fExTxTxTxo7oE\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^ee*B`^-wSTTn[Cfx`xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTTHP LaserJet IIISiLPT2 555A_1HPLAIISI.WRSC\  P6Q,,,+:P2W Ez@X X-#XP\  P6QCXP#"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddy.C8*,/C\  P6QP7PC2,CXP\  P6QXP.Current Windows Form'3    &FileE&xit&Window&Tile&Cascade2  @4 @t 3|P'Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)CG Times (WN)CG Times (WN) (Italic)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT)"5@^2Nodd8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdNdzzozzzB8BrdBddYdYBdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNF,Fr2BB!BBPRBdddddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzddddYYYYYYddddooPdNdNBNdddz8zRoodNRoNoNNF2ddNdddddd5d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#XP\  P6QCXP#2vp=kka8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2vZtDa2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2   Z a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2#  t!D"a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2-&O#O$%%Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2)_& ''Z(a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2/N))3Z*+a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:#l?$l?Footnotel!G!$?w A<x $}6 @  $}6 @ "Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font# Document 8Document 8$ 2A%x%@&l@'l A(luADocument 4Document 4%  Document 6Document 6& Document 5Document 5' Document 2Document 2( 2'G)lB*B+D,lFDocument 7Document 7) Right Par 1Right Par 1*` hp x (#X` hp 0X` hp 0` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 2+` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Document 3Document 3, 2O-YG.wI/K0MRight Par 3Right Par 3-` hp x (#X` hp 0X` hp 0` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4.` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5/` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 60` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#2X1P2!R3(?T4$gVRight Par 7Right Par 71` hp x (#X` hp 0X` hp 0` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 82` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Document 1Document 13` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 54` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#2]5$X6lZ7lM[8$[Technical 6Technical 65` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 26 Technical 3Technical 37 Technical 4Technical 48` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#2d9l^:${^;$`<bTechnical 1Technical 19 Technical 7Technical 7:` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8;` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#toc 1toc 1<` hp x (#` hp x (#2m=e>1g?Oi@mktoc 2toc 2=` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toc 3toc 3>` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4?` hp x (#  ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5@` hp x (#hh` hp x (#2tAmBvoCQpDortoc 6toc 6A` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7B toc 8toc 8C` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9D` hp x (#` hp x (#2{EtFvGxHv{index 1index 1E` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#index 2index 2F` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingG` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaptionH 2s}Il{Jp-|Kq|Le}_Equation Caption_Equation CaptionI Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gJ` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gK  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gL  2Me}N ~Op~P Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gM  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gN*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gO  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gP8 @  2RQRlSTRight Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gQA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gR0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gSJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gTS` ` `  @  2UV:WXRight Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gU\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gVe` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gWn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gXw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 2$YąZ~[\Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gYF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gZ&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g[&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g\*%&    2]V^_`/Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g]''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g^&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g_4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g`&-.  . 2abkcidSTechnical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ga&/0  . footnote tex#b'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#headercAx 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# referenced;#FxX  Pg9CXP#2e~fig^hO]itemizeX1e&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2fI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3gF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!h!!#d\  PCP#2*iޓjk0ldƕHeadingChapter HeadingiJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersj>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingk0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldeddl+. 2km\nqo1 p1:DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Datem X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offn@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5o 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5pf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   2q1r1ΛsntmLETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11qL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14r 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentsK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedtN X 2Rud vjwxE HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeuB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscoredv V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginswu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoicex ,, $0$0  2§y-z8{8|!MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatyD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoicez:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro{z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice|+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX 2]}X~[L[[NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle}SMALLSmall Typestyle~FINEFine TypestyleLARGELarge Typestyle2լ[[E ȫEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  B2>rȭ:r̮Format DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#a2Agendaa1AgendaAgenda Items7D yP ) I. a3Agenda2}p}xpage numberpage number1#XP\  P6QXP#head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/` ` ` 2=Ba3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf[   2no.Xa7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrff  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfq toatoa` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#1df2+@lStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !2]|Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO 2!sStyle 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advanced U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2SX@n@Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 "5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBddddddd<d<BBoodBBddBoBddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2 @ @`@@"5@^(1<footnote referenceGw) "7>NGI "+WXDefault ParaK&7>Default Paragraph Fontw+ "7>NGI "([(\endnote refeK&7>endnote referenceGw- "7>NGI "+_+`2aannotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "2c(d2G2*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8ij@  3G3*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Akl@` ` `  ` ` ` 2 d   4G4*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Jmn` ` ` @  ` ` ` 5G5*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Sop` ` `  @  6G6*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "\qr` ` `  @hhh hhh 7G7*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "est` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2q  pQ  8G8*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "nuv` ` `  hhh@  9G9*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "wwx` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 10G0*(Q&7tDocument Style Gl0 "7t GI "GH` ` ` 11G1*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "4I$J     2?h12G2*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "*KL    13G3*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "'MN   14G4*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&OP   15G5*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&QR  . 2@)16G6*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&ST  . 17G7*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&UV  . 18G8*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&WX  . 19G9*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "8YZ@  2r ^20G:*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "A[\@` ` `  ` ` ` 21G;*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "J]^` ` ` @  ` ` ` 22G<*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "S_`` ` `  @  23G=*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "\ab` ` `  @hhh hhh 2BF24G>*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ecd` ` `  hhh@ hhh 25G?*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "nef` ` `  hhh@  26G@*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "wgh` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 27wSg K6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJmn` ` @  ` `  2^t!28wSg L6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ESop` `  @  29wSg M6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\qr` `  @hh# hhh 30wSg N6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Eest` `  hh#@( hh# 31wSg O6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Enuv` `  hh#(@- ( 2pa32wSg P6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ewwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 33wSg R6w Document Style=(H8g Rܺ*HںwSg E{|` ` ` 34wSg S6w Technical Document Styleg Sܺ*HںwSg E4}$~     35wSg T6w Technical Document Styleg Tܺ*HںwSg E*    2!Ox  36wSg U6w Technical Document Styleg Uܺ*HںwSg E'   37wSg V6w Technical Document Styleg Vܺ*HںwSg E&   38wSg W6w Technical Document Styleg Wܺ*HںwSg E&  . 39wSg X6w Technical Document Styleg Xܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2#!9""P#40wSg Y6w Technical Document Styleg Yܺ*HںwSg E&  . 41wSg Z6w Technical Document Styleg Zܺ*HںwSg E&  . 42wSg [6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   43wSg \6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2&$$n%$&44wSg ]6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  45wSg ^6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  46wSg _6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 47wSg `6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2 *''(h)48wSg a6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 49wSg b6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 50wSg c6w Document Style=(H8g cܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  51wSg d6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  2(->**+`,52wSg e6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  53wSg f6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 54wSg g6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 55wSg h6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 2/Z-p+..K/56wSg i6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 57wSg j6w Document Style=(H8g jܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 58wSg k6w Technical Document Styleg kܺ*HںwSg E4$     59wSg l6w Technical Document Styleg lܺ*HںwSg E*    2L200B1160wSg m6w Technical Document Styleg mܺ*HںwSg E'   61wSg n6w Technical Document Styleg nܺ*HںwSg E&   62wSg o6w Technical Document Styleg oܺ*HںwSg E&  . 63wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg E&  . 24~233464wSg q6w Technical Document Styleg qܺ*HںwSg E&  . 65wSg r6w Technical Document Styleg rܺ*HںwSg E&  . 66wSg s6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   67wSg t6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 274586668wSg u6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  69wSg v6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  70wSg w6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 71wSg x6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2B @7 @;^_>R"5@^#(7<- d(#Making in MM Docket Nos. 91221 & 878, 10 FCC Rcd 3524,  13840 (1995) ("TV Ownership Further Notice"),  d(#but now intend to resolve the issue of treatment of LMAs in this attribution proceeding. We will resolve the issue  {O-of possible grandfathering of LMAs in the television ownership proceeding. See  29 infra.@ Thus, we tentatively conclude  d(#-that we should treat time brokerage of another television station in the same market for more than  d(#fifteen percent of the brokered station's weekly broadcast hours as being attributable, and  X<- d(#Ztherefore as counting toward the brokering licensee's national and local ownership limits.U <0 أ {O-ԍ TV Ownership Further Notice,  138.U Third,  d(#we invite comment as to whether we should attribute joint sales agreements among broadcasters  d(#in the same markets, at least under certain circumstances, and as to what factors should make  d(#such contractual relationships attributable. With respect to television stations, the definition of  d(#what is the same "market" for purposes of applying the "equity or debt plus" attribution standard,  d(#.if adopted, as well as for applying the proposals to attribute LMAs and JSAs, will be resolved  X- d(#in the television local ownership proceeding.b أ {O%%-ԍ See TV Ownership Second Further Notice, Section II.b For radio stations and other entities covered by  d(#our broadcast attribution rules, we would define the same "market" by reference to the definition of the market used in the underlying multiple ownership rule that is implicated."T ,-(-(ZZ2"Ԍ X-ԙ1. "Equity or Debt Plus"  X- v 9. Background. In the Attribution Notice, we expressed concern that our earlier  d(#conclusion that a minority shareholder could not exert significant influence on a licensee where  X- d(#=there is a single majority shareholder may not be a valid conclusion in all circumstances.Kأ {O-ԍ Attribution Notice,  51.K We  d(#also noted our concern that nonvoting shareholders could, in certain circumstances, carry  Xx- d(#appreciable influence that is not now attributed.KxZأ {O -ԍ Attribution Notice,  53.K Accordingly, we invited comment on whether  d(#ito restrict or eliminate current attribution exemptions for nonvoting shares and for minority voting  d(#>shareholders in a corporation with a single majority shareholder. In addition, we requested  d(#=comment on whether we should adopt new attribution rules or policies when multiple financial  X - d(#or business relationships were held in combination in a licensee.  أ {O- d(#ԍ For an example of a case involving multiple combined relationships, see note 27 infra. In that case, we issued a grant conditioned on the outcome of this proceeding, deeming the combined interests nonattributable in the interim.  We noted that such multiple  d(#relationships could in combination with equity or debt interests create sufficient influence to  d(#warrant attribution. While we expressed these concerns, we did not delineate specific proposals to address them.  X - v  10. We received several comments concerning these issues. Most commenters urged us  X- d(#kto retain the single majority shareholder and nonvoting stock exemptions from attribution.xFأ yO- d(#;ԍ Association of Independent Television Stations, Inc., now known as Association of Local Television Stations,  d(#Inc. ("ALTV"), for example, argued that minority shareholders in a corporation with a single majority shareholder  d(#have no legal control over the corporation and that nonvoting stock conveys no legal power to control the affairs  d(#,of a corporation. Comments of ALTV at 8. Also, EZ Communications, Inc. ("EZ"), a publiclytraded corporation  d(#with a single majority shareholder, noted that the ability to sell a nonattributable minority interest is important to  d(#facilitate raising capital, particularly for small businesses, that very few abuses of the exception have been brought  d(#hto the FCC's attention, and that curtailing the exception would run counter to the Commission's interest in fostering  d(#investor certainty and consistency and the efforts to help broadcasters compete with other media. According to EZ,  d(#current case law interpreting what constitutes a transfer of control under Section 310(d) of the Communications Act,  d(#which prevents unauthorized transfers of control, provides adequate guidance for any cases that may occur. Comments of EZ at 24.x  d(#However, network affiliates have expressed concerns that the exemptions have allowed networks  d(#kto extend their nationwide reach by structuring nonattributable deals in which the networks  XM- d(#\effectively exert significant influence if not control over licensees.Mأ {O"- d(#Yԍ See Consolidated Comments of AFLAC Broadcast Group ("AFLAC") at 1519; Consolidated Reply Comments of AFLAC at 34; Reply Comments of Network Affiliated Stations Alliance ("NASA") at 23, 67. In addition, while most"M,-(-(ZZ+"  X- d(#jparties were generally opposed to a casebycase attribution approach, أ yOy- d(#ԍ According to joint comments filed by M/C Partners, The Blackstone Group, and Vestar Capital Partners  d(#("M/C"), for example, the Commission should retain its current system of analyzing different types of ownership  d(#Jinterests independently, which leads to valuable predictability for investors pondering specific types of investments. Reply Comments of M/C at 5. several parties agreed that  d(#there is a need to adopt new policies with respect to multiple business interests, or at least to  X- d(#=clarify our existing policies in this regard.أ {O3- d(#ԍ See, e.g., Consolidated Comments of AFLAC at 15, 2123; Comments of Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. ("ABC") at 1317. One commenter was generally opposed to relaxing  X- d(#the attribution rules.v أ yOv -ԍ Comments of National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters ("NABOB") at 10.v NABOB commented that "[a]ny relaxation of the attribution rules will  d(#/allow an increase in the concentration of control of the industry," adding that an increased  d(#kconcentration of control "works against diversity of viewpoints and works against minority  Xv-ownership."9vأ {O-ԍ Id. at 13.9  XH- v  11. In light of the broad divergence of opinion in the comments, we believe it would be  d(#desirable to explore a balanced, specificallytailored approach that would focus the rules more  d(#precisely on those relationships that potentially permit significant influence such that they should  X - d(#be attributed. Accordingly, based in part on our review of the comments, which underscore the  X - d(#concerns expressed in the Notice, and in response to recent cases, we invite comment on a new  X - d(#"equity or debt plus" attribution rule. Many of the concerns sought to be addressed by the  d(#proposed "equity or debt plus" attribution approach have traditionally been dealt with under the  d(#-crossinterest policy. A chief benefit of the new proposed approach, as discussed further below,  d(#is that it would permit greater certainty and predictability in deciding future cases than the cross X{-interest policy, which has traditionally been applied on an ad hoc, casebycase basis.  XO- v ` h DDG` h DG 12. Overview of Approach. The new rule would operate in addition to other attribution  d(#standards and would attempt to increase the precision of the attribution rules, address the  d(#foregoing concerns about multiple nonattributable relationships, and respond to concerns about  d(#abuses of the single majority shareholder and nonvoting stock attribution exemptions. This  d(#approach would not eliminate the nonvoting and single majority shareholder exemptions from  d(#=attribution, but would limit their availability in certain circumstances. Under this approach, we  d(#would attribute the otherwise nonattributable debt or equity interests in a licensee where: (1) the  d(#interest holder also holds certain other significant interests in or relationships to a licensee or  d(#other media outlet subject to the crossownership rules that could result in the ability to exercise  d(#jsignificant influence; and (2) the equity and/or debt holding exceeds specified thresholds. We  d(#seek to apply bright line attribution tests wherever possible. Accordingly, we invite comment on  d(#what the appropriate threshold(s) for these purposes should be and specifically whether we should  d(#set the threshold at 33 percent where the interest holder is: (1) a program supplier to the licensee,";, ,-(-(ZZ"  d(#as will be discussed below, or (2) a samemarket broadcaster or other media outlet subject to the  d(#Zbroadcast crossownership rules, including newspapers and cable operators. We emphasize that,  d(#under the "equity or debt plus" approach delineated herein, a finding that an interest is  d(#<attributable would result in that interest being counted for all applicable multiple ownership rules, local and national.  Xv- v  13. The "equity or debt plus" approach is narrower than that discussed in the Notice with  d(#>respect to resolving our concerns that multiple nonattributable business interests could be  d(#combined to exert influence over licensees. It also does not go so far as to repeal the current  d(#nonvoting stock and single majority shareholder attribution exemptions; except in cases involving  d(#Ma samemarket broadcaster or a program supplier or any other relationship category that we  d(#delineate, the single majority shareholder and nonvoting stock exemptions would continue to  d(#-apply as they do now. This approach reflects our current judgment as to the appropriate balance  d(#Lbetween our goal of maximizing the precision of the attribution rules by attributing all interests  d(#that are of concern, and only those interests, and our equally significant goals of not unduly  d(#disrupting capital flow and of affording ease of administrative processing and reasonable certainty  d(#to regulatees in planning their transactions. To the extent that it misses some situations that  d(#might be of concern, we, of course, would reserve the right to address extraordinary cases on an  Xd- d(# ad hoc basis and in a manner consistent with the public interest. We invite comment as to  d(#jwhether the "equity or debt plus" option should be adopted, and, if so, whether the 33 percent  d(#<benchmark is appropriate and whether other relationships to or interests in a licensee should also trigger attribution under an "equity or debt plus" approach.  X- v  14. Triggering Relationships. The "equity or debt plus" approach would focus directly  d(#on those relationships that may trigger situations in which there is significant incentive and ability  d(#for the otherwise nonattributable interest holder to exert influence such that the interest may  d(#-implicate diversity and competition concerns and should be attributed. As noted above, we seek  d(#Lcomment as to whether the application of the equity and/or debt benchmarks discussed below  d(#should be triggered where the interest holder is either: (1) a broadcaster or other media entity in  d(#any service implicated by any of the current crossownership rules, which operates in the same market; or (2) a program supplier.  X$- v 15. The approach of focusing on specified triggering relationships would extend the  d(#yCommission's current recognition that the category or nature of the interest holder is important  d(#to whether an interest should be attributed. For example, under the current broadcast attribution  X- d(#rules, passive investors are subject to a higher voting stock attribution benchmark,Jڣ yOX"-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  73.3555 Note 2(c).J since these  d(#jparties are subject to fiduciary and other restraints on their exercise of influence over licensees  d(#iand are, by their nature, principally concerned with investment returns rather than direct influence over the licensee.  Xl$- v @16. Samemarket broadcasters and certain other samemarket media entities may raise"l$X,-(-(ZZF#"  d(#particular concerns because of our goal of protecting local diversity and competition. Firms with  d(#Lexisting local media interests could use financing or contractual arrangements, such as LMAs,  d(#to obtain a degree of horizontal integration within a particular local market that should be subject  d(#Lto local multiple ownership limitations. Indeed, the Commission's crossinterest policy reflects  X- d(#<its concern for competition and diversity where an entity has an attributable interest in one media  d(#outlet and a "meaningful relationship" with another media outlet serving substantially the same  Xv- d(#yarea, i.e., in the same market.vڣ {O- d(#ԍ For a recent application of the policy and statement of this justification, see Roy M. Speer, FCC 96258,  12425, released June 14, 1996. In such cases, if the "equity or debt plus" approach is adopted,  d(#an attributable investment in one broadcast or other media outlet subject to the broadcast cross XJ- d(#ownership rules (i.e., cable systems and newspapers), combined with a substantial nonattributable  d(#investment in a second station or media outlet subject to the crossownership rules in the same  d(#market, would trigger attribution of both stations or media interests to the interest holder, where  d(#common ownership of the two entities involved would be barred by the broadcast cross d(#ownership rules. We seek comment on this option. Certainly, television broadcasters should be  d(#included as "samemarket broadcasters," as should radio stations. We also believe that other  X - d(#-media entities captured by the crossownership rules (i.e., daily newspapers and cable operators)  d(#Zshould be subject to the "equity or debt plus" approach, just as they are subject to our broadcast  d(#crossownership rules, but we seek comment on the implications of including daily newspapers  d(#and cable operators within the scope of this proposal. In particular, how should we define what  d(#is the "same market" for purposes of applying the "equity or debt plus" proposal to these latter entities?  X#- v 17. We also invite comment on whether we should include program suppliers under the  d(#"equity or debt plus" attribution test to address our concern and that of some commenters that  d(#jprogram suppliers such as networks could use nonattributable interests to exert influence over  d(#ycritical station decisions, including programming and affiliation choices. In recent transactions  d(#-involving program suppliers, it has appeared that nonattributable investors can be granted rights  X- d(#over licensee decisions that might afford them significant influence over the licensee."ڣ {O- d(#Kԍ See, e.g.,  18 infra for a discussion of a particular case that raised concerns over the kinds of interests and rights that are currently nonattributable. We note  d(#that radio and television time brokerage agreements or LMAs are program supply contracts and  d(# would be encompassed under the "equity or debt plus" attribution approach, if we specify  d(#xprogram suppliers as a triggering category. Thus, under the "equity or debt plus" approach, such  d(#yagreements might result in attribution in specific cases if the brokering station holds a financial  X=- d(#interest in or acts as a creditor of the brokered station. Television time brokerage agreements  X&-might also be attributable under the per se LMA attribution approach discussed below.  X- v A18. One recent transaction, for example, required us to decide whether to attribute  d(#Zcomplex and substantial financial interests that a national television network held in the proposed" |,-(-(ZZ"  X- d(#Zassignee of a television station and associated translator station.Pb ڣ {Oy- d(#ԍ BBC License Subsidiary L.P (WLUKTV), 10 FCC Rcd 7926 (1995). These interests included: 45 percent of  d(#Ythe cash equity in the licensee; nonvoting stock representing 25 percent of the common stock; an option to acquire  d(#up to half of the shares of common stock; an option, exercisable for one year following acquisition of certain  d(#,television stations, to purchase shares amounting to onehalf of the shares of common stock; a contractual right to  d(#convert, slightly less than three years after entering into the joint venture arrangement, the stock to voting stock;  d(#and approval rights over certain major decisions of the licensee, such as expansion of operations into new business  d(#.areas, mergers, consolidations and acquisition of other businesses, the sale of assets, the sale of securities and  d(#issuance of stock, the amendment of the corporate bylaws and dividend payment decisions. Additionally, the  d(#network had agreed to the slate of directors, including its own former employee, sitting on the applicant's board for  d(#the first three years; had one of its current employees scheduled to assume an executive position with the venture;  d(#and had a contractual commitment from the assignee to enter into a 10year network affiliation agreement for its stations and to "at all times use its best efforts" to operate the stations as an affiliate of the network.P The proposed assignee was a  d(#multiple station owner whose stations were affiliated with the network investor. We found that  d(#Kthe collective interests and relationships in that case "do not squarely fall within any of the cases  d(#... in which the Commission has previously found multiple relationships between a network and  X- d(#its affiliate nonattributable."u ڣ {OG- d(#ԍ Id. at  43. Moreover, we noted that: "whether and under what circumstances multiple relationships, which  d(#Ztaken individually are nonattributable, should be considered attributable in the aggregate, is precisely the question  d(#Jwe have posed in the pending rulemaking on attribution.... We believe that question is a very difficult one, one that  {O- d(#is best answered with the benefit of a full and carefully considered record in the Attribution Review proceeding."  {Ok-Id.u We therefore granted the application conditioned upon the outcome  X- d(#of this rulemaking proceeding.?ڣ {O- Id. at  44.? Other recent cases have raised similar concerns and are also  Xv-conditioned on the outcome of this proceeding. v:ڣ {Oa- d(#Zԍ These include Roy M. Speer, FCC 96258, released June 14, 1996; BBC License Subsidiary L.P. (KHONTV  {O+- d(#et. al), 10 FCC Rcd 10968 (1995); BBC License Subsidiary L.P (WLUKTV), 10 FCC Rcd 7926 (1995); Quincy D.  {O- d(#Jones, 11 FCC Rcd 2481 (1995); Letter to Heritage Media, Inc. et al. from Roy J. Stewart, Chief, Mass Media  d(#Bureau, dated Jan. 18, 1996 (FCC File Nos. BTCCT950911KFKG and BALCT950628KJKL); Letter of Roy J.  d(#LStewart, Chief, Mass Media Bureau, dated May 8, 1995, Re File Nos. BALH940323GE and BAL940330EA  d(#(Cincinnati, Ohio); Letter of Larry D. Eads, Chief, Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Ref. 1800B2,  d(#8910BD, dated June 8, 1995, Re File Nos. BAL940525EA, BALH940525EB (Wellington and Fort Collins,  yO- d(#Colorado). Additionally, on March 27, 1996, the staff, acting pursuant to delegated authority, conditioned the grant  d(#;of applications seeking authorization for the transfer of control of Noble Broadcast Licenses, Inc., licensee of radio  d(#stations serving communities in Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and Colorado, to Jacor Communications, Inc., on the  d(#-outcome of this proceeding. We do not seek nor will we consider in this proceeding comments on the merits of  d(#Kthe decisions in these particular cases. If necessary, we will issue separate orders to apply any new rules resulting  d(#from the instant proceeding to the cases that have been conditioned on its outcome. We mention these cases here  d(#Konly to illustrate the kinds of relationships and interests that have aroused concerns about the need to revise our attribution rules and invite comment, as discussed below, on these relationships and interests in general.  XH- v 19. We tentatively conclude that there is the potential for certain substantial investors or  d(#creditors to have the ability to exert significant influence over key licensee decisions through their  d(#contract rights, even though they are not granted a direct voting interest or may only have a" ,-(-(ZZB "  d(#<minority voting interest in a corporation with a single majority shareholder, which may undermine  d(#the diversity of voices we seek to promote. They may, through their contractual rights and their  d(#ongoing right to communicate freely with the licensee, exert as much or more influence or control  d(#over some corporate decisions as voting equity holders whose interests are attributable. We seek specific comment on this issue.  Xv- v O 20. If we were to apply this new attribution approach to program suppliers, we would  d(#need to decide how to define the category of "program supplier." We seek comment on how the  d(#]definition should be set. One potential definition would include all entities from which a  d(#broadcast licensee obtains programming, including program producers, syndicators and networks.  d(#As noted above, these entities in particular may have inherent interests in influencing  d(#\programming decisions. Alternatively, should we limit the definition to networks or only to  d(#program suppliers that supply significant or substantial quantities of programming to the licensee?  d(#If we limit the definition to networks, how should we define a network for these purposes?  d(#<Alternatively, if we were to adopt a criterion based on the amount of programming supplied, what  d(#amount of programming would be sufficient for us to classify an entity as a program supplier for  d(#purposes of applying the "equity or debt plus" approach? In addition, where the program supplier  d(#yis an entity in which other persons or entities hold interests, how great an interest in a program  d(#supplier can a person or entity hold without being deemed to be a program supplier for purposes  d(#of applying the debt or equity plus rule? Should we treat as program suppliers only those  X4- d(#persons or entities that hold a controlling interest (de facto or de jure) in a program supplier?  d(#ZAlternatively, should we apply our broadcast attribution rules in answering this question? Under  d(#ysuch an approach, for example, applying the current attribution rules, the holder of five percent  d(# of the voting stock in a program supplier would be considered to be a program supplier for  d(# purposes of applying the equity or debt plus approach. As another alternative, should we  d(#kestablish a separate benchmark to be applied in making this determination? If the last, what should that benchmark be?  X~- v ]21. Finally, if we include programming suppliers among the cognizable relationships that  d(#zwould trigger the equity or debt thresholds discussed above, we nonetheless wish to avoid  d(#disrupting the flow of capital to television stations to fund, among other things, the conversion  d(#to digital television, which we anticipate will be costly. We invite comment as to whether the  d(#"equity or debt plus" approach would significantly hinder networks or other telecommunications  d(#entities from helping stations to fund the conversion to digital television, and, if so, if this is a significant problem.  X - v 22. Investment Thresholds. Under the foregoing approach, where the creditor or equity  d(#jinterest holder is a samemarket broadcaster or a program supplier to the station in question, in  d(#yaddition to applying the existing attribution criteria, we would attribute any financial interest or  d(#investment in the station or other media outlet that exceeds specified equity or debt thresholds.  d(#<We would aggregate the equity interests of such an investor (including both nonvoting stock in  d(#whatever form it is held and voting stock) in a licensee or other media outlet for purposes of  d(#Kapplying the equity threshold and would apply the same approach with respect to aggregating all  d(#jdebt holdings in applying the debt threshold. We seek comment as to whether preferred stock"%' ,-(-(ZZ%"  d(#should be treated as equity or as debt for purposes of applying the threshold. Additionally, when  d(#the investor's total investment in the licensee or other media outlet, aggregating all debt and  X- d(#equity interests,ڣ yOK- d(#ԍ As an example of aggregating these interests, an investor holding $9,000,000 of the common stock (whether  d(#voting or nonvoting) and $8,000,000 of the debt of a broadcast company with total equity of $20,000,000 and total  d(#<debt of $80,000,000 would own 45.0 percent of equity, 10.0 percent of debt and 17.0 percent of the company's  d(#assets. In this example, of course, the investor would have its interest attributed (assuming that it is either a same  d(#jmarket broadcaster or program supplier to the licensee) based simply on the holding of the 45 percent equity investment. exceeds a specified threshold percentage of all investment in the licensee (the  d(#sum of all equity plus debt), attribution would also be triggered. In aggregating the different  d(#iclasses of investment, equity and debt, we propose to use total capitalization as a base. We invite  d(#comment on these views. Is the approach proposed workable? Would aggregating different classes of investment pose difficulties, and, if so, how can these difficulties be avoided?  XH- v 23. We invite comment on what specific percentage threshold(s) we should set for  d(#Kpurposes of applying the foregoing approach, and we specifically request commenters to provide  d(#factual and empirical data to support the threshold or benchmark they advocate. We are inclined  d(#to set the equity and debt thresholds at the same level because the rationale for including such  X - d(#investments, i.e., those affording the ability to influence important station decisions, is the same  d(#Nfor all such forms of investment. A 33 percent benchmark might be reasonable for these  d(#purposes. We invite comment on whether a higher or lower benchmark would be more effective  d(#yin achieving our diversity and competition goals, while not unduly disrupting capital flow. We  d(#believe that the threshold should be at least as high as the passive investor benchmark, whether  X{- d(#Kthat benchmark be 10 percent, as under the current rules, or 20 percent, as proposed in the Notice  d(#in this proceeding. Additionally, we do not want to set the limit so low as to unduly disrupt  d(#capital flow to broadcasting. Finally, we note that, in the context of its cross interest policy, the  X8- d(#xCommission has permitted a nonattributable equity interest as large as 33 percent. ^8@ڣ {O)- d(#ԍ See Cleveland Television Corp., 91 FCC 2d 1129, 113235 (Rev. Bd. 1982), review denied, FCC 83235  {O- d(#(May 18, 1983), aff'd, Cleveland Television Corp. v. FCC, 732 F.2d 962 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ("Cleveland Television").  {O-Accord, Roy M. Speer, FCC 96258,  12426, released June 14, 1996. In Cleveland  X#- d(#Television, the Commission held that a onethird nonvoting preferred stock interest by a  d(#broadcaster in another station in the same market conferred "insufficient incidents of contingent  d(#control" to violate the multiple ownership rules or the crossinterest policy, and that the holders,  d(#by virtue of ownership of the nonvoting preferred stock interest would not retain the means to  X- d(#directly or indirectly control the station.\!f ڣ {O!-ԍ Cleveland Television, 91 FCC 2d at 113235. \  We invite comment on the validity of this conclusion  d(#in the context of the "equity or debt plus" approach. Additionally, we seek comment on the  d(#impact of a 33 percent threshold on small business entities, particularly on whether there would be a disproportionate effect on small or minority entities.  XX- v 24. With respect to the specific benchmark proposed, the comments reveal that the  d(#networks have substantial nonattributable investments in affiliated stations and that group owners"A !,-(-(ZZ"  X- d(#have nonattributable investments in other stations."@ڣ yOy- d(#ԍ For example, according to the NASA Comments, Exhibit 1, filed in May 1995: ABC had a 14.7 percent  d(#nonattributable interest in 10 stations in addition to the stations in which it owned a 100 percent interest; CBS had  d(# a 49 percent nonattributable interest in one station in addition to transactions pending to acquire other nonattributable  d(#interests in connection with a station swap with NBC; Fox had a 20 percent nonattributable interest in the stations  d(#hattributed to New World, a 25 percent nonattributable interest in the stations attributed to SF/Savoy, and a proposed  d(#20 percent nonattributable interest in the Blackstar stations; and NBC had a 49 percent nonattributable interest in  d(#,one station. Of course, this information is over one year old. Indeed, in the interim, both CBS and ABC have been sold to other entities that are group owners.  We invite commenters to give us current  d(#\data as to the typical nonattributable interests held by networks and group owners in other  d(# stations and how those relationships might be affected by the proposed changes. We ask  d(#icommenters to designate whether the station is a small business as defined by the Small Business  X- d(#\Administration ("SBA"),#ڣ yO% - d(#ԍ The SBA defines a small television station as one that has no more than $10.5 million in annual receipts.  {O -13 C.F.R. 121.201. See also Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Appendix A. and/or is minority or womanowned. Such information would be  d(#useful in weighing the probable impact of setting the threshold at the 33 percent level or another  d(#level. Finally, we note that nonvoting shares, debt, and voting minority shares in a corporation  d(#.with a single majority shareholder are not reported under current ownership report forms, and,  d(#.if we adopt the "equity or debt plus" proposal, we would need to modify our ownership forms  d(#=accordingly. We invite comment as to how we should modify our ownership report form, FCC Form 323, for this purpose.  X - v 25. We also invite comment as to whether the targeted approach outlined above would  d(#ibe preferable to a casebycase approach that determines whether an interest should be attributed  d(#based directly on the kinds of powers granted to an interest holder in contract language. For  d(#example, in some recent transactions, currently nonattributable investments have been  d(#accompanied by contractual provisions that essentially give the investor veto power over  d(#decisions normally made by the board of directors under the authority of the voting  Xb- d(#.shareholders.u$b* ڣ {O=- d(#-ԍ For example, in BBC License Subsidiary L.P (WLUKTV), 10 FCC Rcd 7926 (1995), in addition to holding  d(#45 percent of the cash equity in the licensee and other contractual rights, the investor had approval rights over  d(#>certain major decisions of the licensee, such as expansion of operations into new business areas, mergers,  d(#consolidations and acquisition of other businesses, the sale of assets, the sale of securities and issuance of stock, the amendment of the corporate bylaws and dividend payment decisions.u Such combined provisions could give the investor undue power to influence  d(#operational decisions. One approach to handling these cases might be to base attribution on the  d(#type of contract language that yields control over decisions of concern to us. Although such an  X- d(#|ad hoc approach is more tailored than a generic rule, it also might lead to complicated  d(#yinterpretation and processing difficulties and might add uncertainty to resolution of attribution  d(#[cases. Thus, a bright line approach, such as the "equity or debt plus" approach, which clearly  d(#Zdefines those business relationships that cause the greatest concern, could provide certainty and  d(#minimize regulatory costs. We invite comment as to whether a bright line test, where attribution  d(#would be linked to the size of an investor's interest, can serve as a proxy for these concerns," $,-(-(ZZ4"  d(#based on the assumption that the degree of contractual rights an investor may hold is typically  d(#=related to the level of his investment. Also, would the "equity or debt plus" approach capture  d(#those cases where currently nonattributable investments are accompanied by contractual provisions that have aroused the foregoing concerns?  X-2. Attribution of Time Brokerage Agreements or LMAs  X_- v 26. An LMA or time brokerage agreement is a type of contract that generally involves  d(#[the sale by a licensee of discrete blocks of time to a broker that then supplies the programming  X1- d(#to fill that time and sells the commercial spot announcements to support the programming.%1ڣ {O - d(#ԍ TV Ownership Further Notice,  133. See 47 C.F.R. 73.3555(a)(4)(iii). As noted above, note 4 supra, we will refer to LMAs as time brokerage agreements between stations in the same market.  d(#Currently, the Commission does not attribute television LMAs, and, accordingly, these  d(#relationships are not subject to our multiple ownership rules. However, in the radio context, time  d(#brokerage of another radio station in the same market for more than fifteen percent of the  d(#brokered station's weekly broadcast hours results in attribution of the brokered station to the  X -brokering licensee for purposes of applying our multiple ownership rules.S& "ڣ {O-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(a)(4)(i).S  X- v N27. In our TV Ownership Further Notice, we tentatively proposed to attribute television  d(#yLMAs based on the same principles that apply to radio time brokerage agreements. Thus, time  d(#brokerage of another television station in the same market for more than fifteen percent of the  d(#brokered television station's weekly broadcast hours would be held to be attributable, and  d(#therefore would count toward the brokering television licensee's national and local ownership  X- d(#limits.' ڣ {O- d(#ԍ TV Ownership Further Notice,  138. When the TV Ownership Further Notice was released, we applied  d(#;national multiple ownership limits to radio stations, and the brokered station was attributed to the brokering station  {O- d(#for purposes of applying both those national limits and the local limits.  See Revision of Radio Rules and Policies,  {O- d(#M7 FCC Rcd 2755 (1992), on reconsideration, 7 FCC Rcd 6387, 640001 (1992) ("First Radio Ownership  {O- d(#KReconsideration Order"), on further reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd 7183, 7191 (1994). Subsequently, the national  {Ot- d(#Mownership limits were eliminated for radio.  See Implementation of Sections 202(a) and 202(b)(1) of the  {O>- d(#Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Broadcast Radio Ownership), FCC 9690, 61 Fed. Reg. 10689 (March 15, 1996).  d(#Accordingly, the interest is counted only in applying local radio ownership limits. National multiple ownership  d(#ylimits apply to television stations, however, and, under our proposal, the brokered television station would be  d(#counted toward the brokering television station's national and local ownership limits, including the onetomarket  d(#rule. We note, however, that the narrow issue of whether the audience reach of a brokering and a brokered station  d(#serving the same market would both be counted toward the audience reach cap, with the effect of double counting  {O"- d(#the stations, will be decided in our proceeding concerning the television national multiple ownership rules. Notice  {O#-of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket Nos. 96222, 91221 & 878, FCC 96437, released November 7, 1996. We hereby incorporate this proposal into this proceeding,(|ڣ yOL%- d(#[ԍ We incorporate into the record of this proceeding the Comments and Reply Comments filed in the TV Ownership proceeding to the extent that they deal with the issues incorporated into this proceeding. and tentatively conclude that  d(#it should be adopted as a standalone LMA attribution standard. We specifically propose here"(,-(-(ZZ"  d(#that LMAs, if attributable, would also count in applying our other ownership rules, including, for  X- d(#example, the broadcastnewspaper crossownership rule,C)ڣ yOb-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(d).C the broadcastcable crossownership  X- d(#rule,B*Xڣ yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.501(a).B and the onetoamarket rule (or radiotelevision crossownership rule).C+ڣ yOk-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(c).C We request  d(#comment on these tentative proposals. In particular, are there differences between radio and  d(#television services and markets that would justify applying a different percentage (other than the  d(#fifteen percent applied with respect to radio) to television LMAs for purposes of determining  d(#whether to attribute them? We also note that if we adopt this proposal for television LMAs, the  d(#Lradio LMA rules (47 C.F.R.  73.3555(a)(3)) would have to be modified accordingly, since radio  d(#LMAs are currently considered only for purposes of applying the radio contour overlap rule (47  d(#C.F.R.  73.3555(a)(1)), and invite comment on how the radio LMA attribution rules should be  d(#=modified in this regard. We also incorporate the tentative proposal that attributable television  d(#>LMAs be filed with the Commission in addition to being kept at the stations involved in an  X - d(# LMA., xڣ {O-ԍ See TV Ownership Further Notice,  138. See 47 C.F.R.  73.3613(d). We note that we asked in the TV Ownership Further Notice whether the program  d(#duplication or simulcasting limits that apply to commonly owned or time brokered radio stations  X -should apply to TV LMAs.U- ڣ {O{-ԍ TV Ownership Further Notice,  139.U We will also resolve that issue in this proceeding.  X- v 28. The proposed per se LMA attribution standard would apply whether or not the LMA  d(#holder has other multiple business relationships with the brokered station or otherwise has a  d(#Lfinancial investment in the brokered station. While time brokerage agreements not involving a  XO- d(#television station in the same market would not fall under this per se LMA attribution standard,  d(#as discussed above, such time brokerage agreements could be attributable under the "equity or  d(#debt plus" approach, if adopted, where the brokering station has an equity and/or debt interest  X - d(#in the brokered station that exceeds the specified investment threshold.. ڣ {OY- d(#Zԍ Thus, under the proposals enumerated in this Further Notice, LMAs are potentially attributable under a per  {O#-se LMA attribution rule and/or under the "equity or debt plus" approach discussed above. We invite updated comments on all aspects of the foregoing tentative conclusions and proposals.  X- v 29. In making this proposal to attribute television LMAs in the TV Ownership Further  X- d(#ZNotice, we also recognized the need to deal with preexisting television LMAs and asked whether  d(#zwe should grandfather television LMAs entered into prior to December 15, 1994, the date of  X- d(#adoption of the TV Ownership Further Notice, and whether we should subject such existing  Xq- d(#LMAs to renewability and transferability guidelines similar to those governing radio LMAs.\/q ڣ {O'-ԍ TV Ownership Further Notice,  13840.\ "q /,-(-(ZZ"  d(#However, if we do decide to attribute LMAs as we propose here, we intend to resolve the  X- d(#grandfathering, renewability and transferability issues in the separate TV local ownership docketh0ڣ {Ob-ԍ See TV Ownership Second Further Notice, Section IV.h  d(#yso that we can evaluate the extent to which grandfathering may be needed based on the nature of the local ownership rules we adopt.  X- v @30. With respect to our tentative proposal in the TV Ownership Further Notice, now  d(# incorporated within this attribution proceeding, to attribute certain television LMAs to the  d(#brokering station for purposes of applying the multiple ownership rules, commenters voiced a  d(#range of positions. Some opposed attributing television LMAs for ownership purposes,  X3- d(#Zparticularly if the Commission does not relax its duopoly rule.m1Z3Zڣ {O> - d(#ԍ See, e.g., Comments of Association of Independent Television Stations, Inc., now known as Association of  d(#Local Television Stations, Inc. ("ALTV"), filed in MM Docket Nos. 91221 & 878 at 29, n.52; Comments of Kentuckiana Broadcasting, Inc. filed in MM Docket Nos. 91221 & 878 at 56.m Others supported using the radio  X - d(#0rules as a blueprint for regulating television LMAs.{2 |ڣ {OI-ԍ See, e.g., Comments of ABC, filed in MM Docket Nos. 91221 & 878, at 2627.{ Still other parties argued for more  X - d(#restrictive rules.3 ڣ {O-ԍ See Comments of PostNewsweek Stations, Inc., filed in MM Docket Nos. 91221 & 878, at 89. However, commenters generally failed to provide the Commission with the  d(#kind of factual information we seek. Consequently we once again request quantitative  X -information on the number and characteristics of existing television LMAs.Y4 ڣ {O(-ԍ See TV Ownership Further Notice,  136.Y  X - v 31. We are especially interested in information on the typical geographic proximity of the  d(#brokering and brokered stations, the typical term of television LMAs, the typical renewal  d(#provisions, the typical arrangements between the brokered station and the broker on the sale of  d(#advertising time during brokered time periods, the percent of brokered station time sold to the  d(#program supplier in an LMA, and the typical arrangements between the brokered station and the  d(#broker to allow the brokered station to reject brokersupplied programming that the brokered  d(#station deems not in the public interest to broadcast. Since television LMAs are not now  d(#attributable, they are not required to be filed with the Commission, and we consequently have  d(#=little information about their terms and characteristics. We ask commenters to provide us with  d(#jinformation as to whether such agreements typically require the broker to make fixed payments  d(#/to the brokered station or whether other payment terms are applicable. Do LMAs typically  d(#require that the broker sell all the brokered time? Do they call for the broker to provide the  d(#brokered station with studio services at the broker's facility? Is there a typical LMA? Are there  d(#typical provisions or do these agreements vary widely? Can we draw general conclusions about  d(#LMAs? Are there classes or categories of LMAs that should be subject to different attribution  d(#treatment? Finally, we want to emphasize, as we did in our radio ownership proceeding, "that  d(#the licensee is ultimately responsible for all programming aired on its station, regardless of its"92 4,-(-(ZZ"  X- d(#isource."{5ڣ {Oy-ԍ First Radio Ownership Reconsideration Order, 7 FCC Rcd 6387,  63 (1992).{ In this regard, we invite comment on what, if any, specific safeguards we should adopt  d(#<with respect to television LMAs to ensure a brokered station's ability to exercise its programming  X-responsibility.6"Zڣ yO- d(#ԍ For instance, radio time brokerage agreements of the type described in Section 73.3555(a)(3)(i) of our Rules  d(#must be reduced to writing and contain a certification by the licensee or permittee of the brokered station verifying  d(#wthat it maintains ultimate control over the station's facilities, including control over station finances, personnel, and  {O5-programming. See 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(a)(3)(ii).  X-3. Joint Sales Agreements (JSAs)  Xv- v 32. In the Attribution Notice, we requested comment on whether, through multiple  d(#cooperative arrangements or contractual agreements, broadcasters could so merge their operations  XJ- d(#as to implicate our diversity and competition concerns.S7JDڣ {O?-ԍ Attribution Notice,  9495. S We noted, however, that we did not  X3- d(#intend to reopen our earlier decisions permitting joint sales practices in radio and television.L83ڣ {O-ԍ Attribution Notice,  95. L  d(#These decisions, of course, allowed joint sales practices subject to compliance with the antitrust  X -laws.Z9<  h ڣ yO- d(#ԍ Indeed, we have stated that separately owned stations can function cooperatively in terms of advertising sales  d(#wand other aspects "so long as each licensee retains control of its station and complies with the Communications Act,  {O- d(#the Commission's rules and policies and the antitrust laws." Report and Order, Revision of Radio Rules and  {Ox- d(#kPolicies, 7 FCC Rcd 2755, 2787 (1992), reconsidered on other grounds, 7 FCC Rcd 6387 (1992), further  {OB- d(#reconsidered on other grounds, 9 FCC Rcd 7183 (1994). Accord, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Revision of  {O - d(#KRadio Rules and Policies, 6 FCC Rcd 3275, 3281 (1991) (joint sales practices "if not carefully formulated could  {O- d(#be subject to challenge as involving anticompetitive price fixing or market divisions"); Report and Order in BC  {O- d(#Docket No. 80438 (In the Matter of Representation of Stations by Representatives Owned by Competing Stations  {Oj- d(#in the Same Area), 87 FCC 2d 668, 682 (1981) ("market structure and antitrust laws and policies will deter  {O4- d(#Janticompetitive practices."); Policy Statement in MM Docket No. 87154 (CrossInterest Policy), 4 FCC Rcd 2208,  {O- d(#221314 (1989); Second Report and Order in MM Docket No. 83842, 59 RR 2d 1500,  49 (1986), reconsidered  {O- d(#Yon other grounds, 2 FCC Rcd 3474 (1987) ("the removal here of our policies will open the marketplace to function  yO-freely, within the limitations of the antitrust laws").  Z  X - v  33. Subsequent to issuing the Attribution Notice, the staff has been presented with cases  X - d(#involving joint sales agreements (i.e., agreements for the joint sales of broadcast commercial  X - d(#time) that have raised anew diversity and competition concerns with respect to such agreements.:" lڣ {O#- d(#=ԍ See, e.g., Letter of Roy J. Stewart, Chief, Mass Media Bureau, dated May 8, 1995, Re File Nos. BALH d(#940323GE and BAL940330EA (Cincinnati, Ohio); Letter of Larry D. Eads, Chief, Audio Services Division, Mass  d(#LMedia Bureau, Ref. 1800B2, 8910BD, dated June 8, 1995, Re File Nos. BAL940525EA, BALH940525EB  yO$&-(Wellington and Fort Collins, Colorado).   d(#This leads us to ask whether nonownership based mechanisms such as JSAs that might convey"V:,-(-(ZZ"  d(#influence or control over advertising shares should be considered, and possibly attributed. For  d(#example, where one station owner controls a large percentage of the advertising time in a  d(#=particular market, it could potentially exercise market power. Accordingly, we invite additional  d(#comments on the potential effects of JSAs among samemarket broadcasters on diversity and  d(#competition. We also seek comment as to whether we should attribute JSAs among licensees in  d(#ythe same market, including both radio and television licensees, irrespective of whether they are accompanied by the holding of debt or equity.  XH- v P!34. We recognize that a JSA not involving stations in the same market may permit  d(#<influence over station operations. Nonetheless, we distinguish between JSAs in the same market  d(#and JSAs among stations not located in the same market. Our concern for media concentration  d(#<has been focused on local markets. For example, in the radio context, only LMAs among stations  d(#jin the same market are subject to attribution, and we apply only local multiple ownership limits.  d(#<And, in the television context, we have similarly been more concerned with local markets because  X - d(#Mthe video program delivery market is a local market.r; ڣ {O7-ԍ See TV Ownership Further Notice,  31, 3645, 8788. r Following this traditional concern for local markets, we focus on JSAs in local markets. We invite comment on this approach.  Xy- v "35. We seek general information concerning the typical contractual terms of JSAs. What  d(#is the typical length of such agreements and are they automatically renewable? How are the  d(#<station owner and broker compensated? Are there package deals among several stations? Does  d(#the broker get involved in the operation of the station, including programming and finances,  d(#either directly or indirectly? As a practical matter, do typical JSAs differ from LMAs or do time  d(#\brokerage agreements usually accompany JSAs? What other arrangements typically occur  d(#lbetween parties in terms of station operations, joint sales force utilization, or joint use of  d(#-production facilities? In addition, what kind of efficiencies arise with JSAs, how are these shared  d(#among parties to the JSA, and how do these benefits differ from those of LMAs? Finally, what  d(#impact do JSAs have on competition, and under what circumstances, if any, should the interest  d(#Zof the broker/JSA holder be held attributable? If we were to consider JSAs, should such interests  d(#\be attributable in all circumstances involving stations in the same market, or only where the  d(#ibroker also has some influence over the programming or other operations of the brokered station?  d(#yAlternatively, should we apply another criterion in deciding whether to attribute JSAs, such as  d(#attributing JSAs among samemarket stations where the brokering station exceeds a specific  d(#jmarket share benchmark? We seek comment on these issues and any other relevant questions concerning whether or not JSAs should be attributable, at least under certain circumstances.  X-C. Voting Stock Benchmarks  X!- v #36. In the Notice, as discussed above, we requested comment as to whether we should  d(#increase the voting stock benchmarks from five to ten percent for active investors and from ten  d(#-to twenty percent for passive investors. In response, the majority of commenters that responded"#Z;,-(-(ZZe""  X- d(#to these issues favor increasing the benchmarks.f<zڣ {Oy- d(#ԍ See, e.g., Comments of ALTV; Comments of National Broadcasting Company, Inc. ("NBC"); Comments of  d(#Tribune Broadcasting Company; Comments of Capital Group Companies, Inc. While noting that there is room to  d(#relax the benchmarks and that the increase will not increase influence to any significant degree, CBS Inc. ("CBS")  d(#notes that the current benchmarks are not unduly restricting investment. Comments of CBS at 89. Some  d(#commenters supported raising the benchmarks even higher than we had proposed. For example, in jointlyfiled  d(#comments, M/C Partners, The Blackstone Group, and Vestar Capital Partners ("M/C") supported an increase to 50 percent for all voting stock interests. Comments of M/C at 1618. f However, commenters did not submit, in  X- d(#response to the Notice, the kind of specific, empirical evidence that we believe may be necessary  d(#before we can reasonably conclude that the benchmarks should be raised, and we invite additional  d(#comments to provide such additional evidence and economic studies. Our decision will be aided  d(#Lby additional information on the changes in the economic climate and competitive marketplace  d(#that would appear to justify raising the benchmark or explain and verify the link between raising  d(#the attribution benchmark and precipitating additional capital investment. Accordingly, we ask for specific and empirical information in a number of areas to justify raising the benchmarks.  X3- v $37. In this regard, Commission staff has conducted a study of the attributable interests in  d(#commercial broadcast television licensees, as reported in the ownership reports licensees are  d(#required to file. The results of the staff study are set forth in Appendix B. One conclusion from  d(#jthat study is that increasing the attribution benchmark for active investors from five percent to  d(#jten percent would decrease the number of currentlyattributable owners by approximately one d(#third. The number of stations for which no stockholder would be attributable would increase  d(#from 81 to 134 stations (out of 389 commercial forprofit television stations that are incorporated and are not single majority shareholder stations), under current stock distribution patterns.  Xd- v "%38. We invite comment on all aspects of this study, including its implications for our  d(#attribution rules. Does the study suggest that existing attribution criteria appropriately balance  d(#xthe goals of identifying those interests that should be counted in applying the multiple ownership  d(#rules, while not unduly disrupting capital flow? Would stockholding or investment patterns  d(#change in response to a change in the attribution rules? If so, how would they change, and why  d(#would they change? Would there be a significant impact on capital flow, given the relaxation  d(#of the multiple ownership rules resulting from passage of the 1996 Act? Is there a need to encourage additional capital investment?   X-D. Transition Issues  Xg- v 1&39. In the Notice, we stated our concern that any action taken in this proceeding not  d(#disrupt existing financial arrangements, and, accordingly, invited comment as to whether we  d(#zshould grandfather existing situations or allow a transition period for licensees to come into  X$- d(#compliance with the multiple ownership rules if we adopt more restrictive attribution rules.K=$ ڣ {O%-ԍ Attribution Notice,  15.K All  X - d(#commenters that have addressed this issue in response to the Notice urge the Commission to" =,-(-(ZZ="  d(#grandfather existing interests indefinitely if it adopts more restrictive attribution rules because of  X- d(#the disruptive effect and the unfairness to the parties of mandatory divestiture.>* ڣ {Ob- d(#Zԍ See, e.g., Comments of ALTV; Comments of Big Horn Communications, Inc. ("Big Horn"); Comments of  d(#ZABC (new attribution rules should be prospective only; interests nonattributable at the time of acquisition should  d(#;remain nonattributable); Comments of CBS; Comments of EZ Communications, Inc.; Comments of Fox Television  d(#Stations & Fox Broadcasting Company (currently nonattributable interests should continue to be treated as non d(#attributable for all purposes); Comments of New World Communications Group Incorporated; Comments of Silver  d(#King Communications, Inc. (restrictive changes to the attribution rules should be prospective only; existing  d(#>nonattributable relationships should be grandfathered; grandfathering should include entities with pending  d(#applications at the Commission where such entities have established their legal corporate existence and binding  d(#contracts are in place); Comments of Westinghouse Broadcasting Company (Group W) (existing ownership  d(#yarrangements should be grandfathered; a transition period is no more justifiable than an immediate divestiture  d(#requirement; forced divestiture covering an entire industry will negatively impact marketplace); Comments of  d(#Tribune; Reply Comments of EZ; Reply Comments of General Electric Capital Corporation; Reply Comments of the Goodman Sachs Group, L.P.; Reply Comments of Lin Television Corporation; and Reply Comments of M/C. According to  d(#CBS, the alternative of a transition period would not provide real relief from restrictive attribution  X-rule changes, such as restricting the availability of the single majority shareholder exemption.B? ڣ yO&-ԍ Comments of CBS at 1314.B  X- v |'40. We now seek additional comment on the option of a transition period, particularly  d(#since the national television multiple ownership rules have recently been relaxed, as have the  d(#local radio multiple ownership rules, and the national radio ownership limits have been  d(#jeliminated. In light of these developments, we believe that the impact of attributing previously  d(#nonattributable interests after a transition period could be far less serious than if the attribution  d(#rules were changed without a contemporaneous relaxation of the multiple ownership rules.  d(#Accordingly, we invite commenters again to address the transition/grandfathering issue in light  d(#yof these different circumstances, including the appropriate length for any transition period that  d(#.may be adopted. We reiterate that the issue of grandfathering of television LMAs, should we  d(#decide to attribute them, will be resolved in the television local ownership proceeding; in this  X - d(#jFurther Notice, we refer only to transition and grandfathering issues related to the other (nonLMA) attribution issues raised in this attribution proceeding.  Xd- v (41. If we grandfather existing interests, what grandfathering principle should we apply?  d(#We tentatively conclude that any grandfathering should only apply to the current holder. Such  d(#-grandfathering would mean that the relationship would be held attributable, but the holder would  d(#not be required to divest holdings in the event that the attribution resulted in the holder exceeding  d(#our ownership limits. If the joint holdings were later sold, that ownership grandfathering would  d(#/not transfer to the assignee or transferee. Accordingly, the holding, which was previously  d(#attributable but did not have to be divested even if it exceeded our ownership limits, would now  d(#require divestment if it exceeded our ownership limits. We seek comment on this issue. We also  d(#invite comment as to the extent of grandfathering that would be required if we restrict attribution rules. "~J ?,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- v )42. Finally, regardless of what policy we ultimately adopt with respect to either a  d(#Mtransition or grandfathering of existing interests, we tentatively conclude that any interests  X- d(#acquired on or after December 15, 1994, the date of adoption of the Notice in this proceeding,  X- d(#Kshould be subject to the final rules adopted in the Report and Order in this proceeding. We seek  d(#comment on this approach, and whether a subsequent grandfathering date would be more  d(#appropriate. In the event that we adopt a transition period, what is the appropriate length for  d(#such a transition period? We tentatively propose that any such transition period adopted to  Xc-permit divestiture of such interests should be relatively short and no longer than six months.,@cڣ {O- d(#;ԍ See, e.g,, Implementation of Sections 202(c)(1) and 202(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (National  {O -Broadcast Television Ownership and Dual Network Operations), FCC 9691, 61 Fed. Reg. 10691 (March 15, 1996).,  X5-E. Cable/MDS CrossOwnership Attribution  X - v /*43. We also take this opportunity to consider changes to the cable/Multipoint Distribution  X - d(#Service ("MDS") crossownership attribution rule.A $ڣ yO- d(##X\  P6G;/P#э For purposes of this item, MDS also includes single channel Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS") and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service ("MMDS"). Section 613(a) of the Act states that "[i]t  d(#shall be unlawful for a cable operator to hold a license for multichannel multipoint distribution  X - d(#service . . . in any portion of the franchise area served by that cable operator's cable system." 47  d(#U.S.C.  533(a) (emphasis added). The Commission may waive the requirements of this  d(#provision "to the extent the Commission determines is necessary to ensure that all significant  X}- d(#/portions of a franchise area are able to obtain video programming." 47 U.S.C.  533(a)(2).B\}|ڣ {O- d(#xԍ Compare 47 U.S.C. 537(d) (before the 1996 Act, providing broad authority for "public interest" waivers of  d(#the cable antitrafficking restriction). The cable/MMDS cross-ownership prohibition does not apply if the cable  {O<-operator is subject to "effective competition" in its franchise area. Id.  533(a)(3) (added by 1996 Act).  Xf- d(#Section 613(a) was added by Section 11(a) of the 1992 Cable Act.  In implementing Section  d(#j613(a), the Commission modified its existing cable/MDS crossownership rule in Section 21.912  X8- d(#of the rules.AC\8ڣ {O- d(#xԍ Implementation of Section 11 and 13 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of  {OS- d(#,1992, 8 FCC Rcd 6828, 6843 (1993) ("Implementation Order"), reconsidered on other grounds, 10 FCC Rcd 4654 (1995)..A Section 21.912(a) prevents a cable operator from obtaining an MDS authorization  X!- d(#if any portion of the MDS protected service area overlaps with the cable system's franchise area  d(#actually being served by cable. Section 21.912(b) also prohibits a cable operator from leasing  d(#LMDS capacity if its franchise area being served overlaps with the MDS protected service area.  d(#For purposes of this rule, "an attributable ownership interest shall be defined by reference to the definitions contained in the Notes to  76.501, provided however, that: X   QX(i) The single majority shareholder provisions of Note 2(b) to  76.501 and the   limited partner insulation provisions of Note 2(g) to  76.501 shall not apply; and   X(ii) The provisions of Note 2(a) to  76.501 regarding five (5) percent interests  shall include all voting or nonvoting stock or limited partnership equity interests"R C,-(-(ZZ"  X-of five (5) percent or more."KDڣ yOy-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  21.912 (note 1(A)).K    X- v +44. This strict attribution standard severely restricts investment opportunities that are  d(#compatible with our goal of strengthening wireless cable and providing meaningful competition  d(#to cable operators. Additionally, we see no reason to have different attribution criteria for  d(#broadcasting and MDS. We have previously observed that "the Commission could employ the  d(#broadcast attribution criteria contained in Section 73.3555 (Notes) of its Rules, or such other  X_- d(#Lattribution rules as the Commission deemed appropriate for this purpose."LE_Xڣ {Oh -ԍ Implementation Order at 6843.L Thus, the instant  d(#-proceeding provides us with an opportunity to revisit our current attribution standard consistent  d(#with our responsibility to achieve the objective of diversity while "balancing genuine and  X - d(#significant efficiencies."bF ڣ yO-ԍ S. Rep. No. 92, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 4647 (1991)b Therefore, we invite comment on whether we should apply broadcast  d(#Lattribution criteria, as modified by this proceeding, in determining cognizable interests in MDS  d(#xlicensees and cable systems for purposes of applying the ownership restrictions of Section 21.912  d(#of our Rules. In addition, we seek comment as to whether we should add an "equity or debt  d(#plus" attribution rule where the competing entity's holding exceeds 33 percent or some other  d(#benchmark. We believe that these proposed modifications of our attribution rule will increase  d(#the potential for investment consistent with our responsibility "[t]o further diversity and prevent  Xy-cable from warehousing its potential competition."2Gyzڣ {O-ԍ Id.2  XK-PIV. CONCLUSION ă  X- v ,45. By this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, we request comments to update the  d(#record in this proceeding, which is intended to determine whether the attribution rules continue  d(#to be effective in identifying those interests that should be counted for purposes of applying the  d(#multiple ownership rules. It is important to ensure that these rules operate accurately so that we  d(#=apply the multiple ownership limits, which have recently been relaxed as a result of passage of  d(#the 1996 Act, in an appropriate manner, and that the attribution rules are not used as a means to  d(#0evade or circumvent these limits. We believe that the concerns and issues raised in the  X~- d(#comments and in this Further Notice are of utmost importance, and we look forward to wellreasoned and empiricallybased comments with respect to these issues.  X;-  V. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ă  X - v |-46. Filing of Comments. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415  d(#and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file  d(#comments on or before February 7, 1997 and reply comments on or before March 7, 1997. To" G,-(-(ZZ;"  d(#yfile formally in this proceeding, you must file an original plus four copies of all comments, reply  d(#comments, and supporting comments. Parties are also asked to submit, if possible, draft rules  d(#that reflect their positions. If you want each Commissioner to receive a copy of your comments,  d(#=you must file an original plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments to  d(#Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties  d(#zshould also file one copy of any documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy  d(#Zcontractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington  d(#{D.C. 20037. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during  d(#regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 219), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.  X - v ".47. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This Further Notice contains  X - d(#either a proposed or modified information collection (i.e., revision of Annual Ownership Report,  d(#MFCC Form 323). As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the  d(#general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to  X - d(#comment on the information collections contained in this Further Notice, as required by the  d(#zPaperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 10413. Public and agency comments are due  X}- d(#at the same time as other comments on this Further Notice; OMB comments are due 60 days  Xh- d(#from the date of publication of this Further Notice in the Federal Register. Comments should  d(#address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper  d(#=performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have  d(#practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the  d(#.quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of  d(#Mthe collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  X- v A/48. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information  d(#\collections are due February 7, 1997. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of  d(#Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or  d(#before 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing  d(#comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained  d(#herein should be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room  d(#=234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington DC 20554, or via the Internet to dconway@fcc.gov and  d(#>to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov.  X - v 049. Ex Parte Rules. This is a nonrestricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding.  X!- d(#Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they  X"- d(#are disclosed as provided in the Commission's Rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.206(a).  X]%- v 150. This Further Notice is issued pursuant to authority contained in Sections 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303. "1'G,-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ X- v 251. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Mania  d(#K. Baghdadi (202) 4182130 or Berry Wilson (202) 4182024, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.  X- v N352. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. With respect to this Further Notice, an Initial  d(#Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") is contained in Appendix A. As required by Section  d(#z603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an IRFA of the expected  Xa- d(#impact on small entities of the proposals contained in this Further Notice. Written public  d(#comments are requested on the IRFA. In order to fulfill the mandate of the Contract with  d(#.America Advancement Act of 1996 regarding the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we ask  d(#a number of questions in our IRFA regarding the prevalence of small businesses in the radio and  d(#television broadcasting industries. Comments on the IRFA must be filed in accordance with the  X - d(#same filing deadlines as comments on the Further Notice, but they must have a distinct heading  X - d(#designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Further  X - d(#Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business  X -Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.H ڣ {O*-ԍ Pub. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. (1981), as amended. ` h DG` hp` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqWilliam F. Caton ` `  hhCqActing Secretary "ZH,-(-(ZZU"  X- ]APPENDIX A ă  X-   X- INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ă  v 1As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  603 ("RFA"),  d(#the Commission is incorporating an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") of the  Xv- d(#iexpected impact on small entities of the policies and proposals in this Further Notice of Proposed  Xa- d(#yRule Making in MM Docket Nos. 94150, 9251, & 87154 ("Further Notice").'Ia/ {O- d(#Kԍ An IRFA pursuant to Pub. L. No. 96354,  603, 94 Stat. 1165 (1980) was incorporated into the Notice of  {O -Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket Nos. 94150, 9251 & 87154, 10 FCC Rcd 3606 (1995) ("Notice").' Written public  XL- d(#comments concerning the effect of the proposals in the Further Notice, including the IRFA, on  d(#ismall businesses are requested. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must  X - d(#be filed by the deadlines for the submission of comments in this proceeding. The Secretary shall  X - d(#Lsend a copy of this Further Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of  d(#the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory  X -Flexibility Act.>J $/ yO-ԍ 5 U.S.C.  603(a).>  X - d(#- Reasons Why Agency Action is Being Considered: After the issuance of the Notice of  X- d(#Proposed Rule Making in this Docket, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act") was  X- d(#signed into law.SK/ yO-ԍ Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).S The Further Notice seeks comment as to how the multiple ownership rule  d(#revisions resulting from passage of the 1996 Act should affect our review of the attribution rules.  XY- d(#0The Further Notice also seeks comment on our new proposal to attribute the otherwise  d(#\nonattributable interests of holders of equity and or debt in a licensee or other media entity  d(#subject to the crossownership rules where the interest holder is a program supplier to a licensee  d(#or a samemarket broadcaster and where the equity and/or debt holding meets or exceeds  X- d(#specified thresholds. This proposal is intended to address the concerns expressed in the Notice  d(#!that the current attribution rules may not precisely or fully identify all the interests in or  d(#=relationships to broadcast stations that should be counted in applying the multiple ownership  X- d(#jrules. Additionally, the Further Notice seeks comment on proposals concerning attribution of  d(#Local Marketing Agreements ("LMAs") and joint sales agreements ("JSAs") in specified  X- d(#circumstances. Also, the Further Notice seeks comment on a study conducted by Commission  X{- d(#staff, appended to this Further Notice, on attributable interests in television broadcast licensees  d(#and on the implications of this study for our attribution rules, particularly on the voting stock  d(#benchmarks. Finally, we invite comment as to whether we should amend the cable/MDS crossownership attribution rule.  X - d(# Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules: The attribution rules seek to identify those  d(#interests in or relationships to licensees or media entities that confer on their holders a degree of  d(#influence or control such that the holders have a realistic potential to affect the programming" DK,-(-(ZZ"  X- d(#decisions of licensees or other core operating functions. The attribution rules are used to  d(#implement the Commission's broadcast multiple ownership rules. Our goals in commencing this  X- d(#kproceeding and in formulating the proposals in the Further Notice are to be to maximize the  d(#[precision of the attribution rules, avoid disruption in the flow of capital to broadcasting, afford clarity and certainty to regulatees, and ease application processing.  Xx- d(# Legal Basis: Authority for the actions proposed in this Further Notice is contained in Sections  d(#4(i), 303, 307 and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303, 307, & 310.  X - d(#  Recording, Record keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: If our attribution rules are  d(#Lmade more restrictive so as to attribute interests not now currently attributable, our ownership  d(#reporting form, FCC Form 323, will need to be modified accordingly so that such attributable  d(#interests will then be reportable on the form. We invite comment as to whether any additional professional skills would be needed to complete this form.  X- d(#, Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict with the Proposed Rules: The rules  X}- d(#proposed in the Further Notice will modify the current attribution rules, and, similarly to the  d(#.Commission's current attribution rules, will be used to implement the multiple ownership rules.  d(#Thus, the proposed rules are intended to promote the same diversity and competition goals also  d(#fostered by the multiple ownership rules. However, the proposed rules do not overlap, duplicate or conflict with the multiple ownership rules.  X- d(#v  Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules  X- d(#Will Apply: Under the RFA, small entities may include small organizations, small businesses,  d(#and small governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C.  601(6). The RFA, 5 U.S.C.  601(3), generally  d(#defines the term "small business" as having the same meaning as the term "small business  d(#concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632. A small business concern is one  d(#which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and  d(#(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration ("SBA").  XT- d(#zPursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an  d(#agency after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the SBA and after opportunity for  d(#public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the  X-activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register."w Lf / yO - d(#Kԍ While we tentatively believe that the SBA's definition of "small business" greatly overstates the number of  d(#radio and television broadcast stations that are small businesses and is not suitable for purposes of determining the  {O"- d(#Kimpact of the proposals on small television and radio stations, for purposes of this Further Notice, we utilize the  d(#SBA's definition in determining the number of small businesses to which the proposed rules would apply, but we  d(#reserve the right to adopt a more suitable definition of "small business" as applied to radio and television broadcast  {Or$- d(#stations or other entities subject to the proposed rules in this Further Notice and to consider further the issue of the  {O<%- d(#number of small entities that are radio and television broadcasters or other small media entities in the future. See  {O&- d(#Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-48 (Children's Television Programming), 11 FCC Rcd 10660, 1073738  {O&- d(#(1996), citing 5 U.S.C.  601(3). We have pending proceedings seeking comment on the definition of and data"&K,-(-(''"  {O- d(#relating to small businesses. In our Notice of Inquiry in GN Docket No. 96113 (In the Matter of Section 257  d(#Proceeding to Identify and Eliminate Market Entry Barriers for Small Businesses), FCC 96216, released May 21,  d(#1996, we requested commenters to provide profile data about small telecommunications businesses in particular  d(#services, including television, and the market entry barriers they encounter, and we also sought comment as to how  d(#to define small businesses for purposes of implementing Section 257 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which  d(#requires us to identify market entry barriers and to prescribe regulations to eliminate those barriers. Additionally,  {OB- d(#.in our Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 9616 (In the Matter of Streamlining  d(#;Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies, Vacating the EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of the  d(#Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture Guidelines), 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), we invited comment as to  d(#whether relief should be afforded to stations: (1) based on small staff and what size staff would be considered  {Od - d(#Ksufficient for relief, e.g., 10 or fewer fulltime employees; (2) based on operation in a small market; or (3) based on operation in a market with a small minority work force.w " L,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ v |ԙThe proposed rules and policies will apply to television broadcasting licensees, radio  d(#@broadcasting licensees and potential licensees of either service. The Small Business  d(#=Administration defines a television broadcasting station that has no more than $10.5 million in  X- d(#Kannual receipts as a small business.lM / yOb-ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 4833 (1996).l Television broadcasting stations consist of establishments  d(#primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by television to the public, except cable and  X- d(#other pay television services.JN / yO- d(#ԍ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 CENSUS OF  yO-TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITIES, ESTABLISHMENT AND FIRM SIZE, Series UC92S1, Appendix A9 (1995).J Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational,  Xv- d(#and other television stations.Ozv/ {O- d(#ԍ Id. See Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), at 283, which describes "Television Broadcasting Stations (SIC Code 4833) as:  XEstablishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by television to the public,  mexcept cable and other pay television services. Included in this industry are commercial, religious,  meducational and other television stations. Also included here are establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and which produce taped television program materials.  Also included are establishments primarily engaged in television  X_- d(#broadcasting and which produce taped television program materials.PP_ / yO0- d(#ԍ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 CENSUS OF  yO-TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITIES, ESTABLISHMENT AND FIRM SIZE, Series UC92S1, Appendix A9 (1995).P Separate establishments  d(#[primarily engaged in producing taped television program materials are classified under another  X1- d(#SIC number.Q1x/ {OZ!- d(#hԍ Id. SIC 7812 (Motion Picture and Video Tape Production); SIC 7922 (Theatrical Producers and Miscellaneous Theatrical Services (producers of live radio and television programs). There were 1,509 television stations operating in the nation in 1992.R1/ yO#- d(#ԍ FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993; Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census,  {O|$-U.S. Department of Commerce, supra note 78, Appendix A9. That  d(#number has remained fairly constant as indicated by the approximately 1,550 operating television" ,R,-(-(ZZ` "  X- d(#broadcasting stations in the nation as of August, 1996.SS/ yOy-ԍ FCC News Release No. 64958, Sept. 6, 1996.S For 1992(TX/ {O - d(#ԍ Census for Communications' establishments are performed every five years ending with a "2" or "7". See  {O-Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, supra note 78, III.( the number of television  X-stations that produced less than $10.0 million in revenue was 1,155 establishments.UX/ yON- d(#ԍ The amount of $10 million was used to estimate the number of small business establishments because the  d(#relevant Census categories stopped at $9,999,999 and began at $10,000,000. No category for $10.5 million existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is possible to calculate with the available information.  v Additionally, the Small Business Administration defines a radio broadcasting station that  X- d(#has no more than $5 million in annual receipts as a small business.JV/ yO) -ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC 4832.J A radio broadcasting  d(#station is an establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the  Xv- d(#]public.Wvd / {O- d(#ԍ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, supra note 78, Appendix A9. Included in this industry are commercial religious, educational, and other radio  X_- d(#ystations.2X_ / {O-ԍ Id.2 Radio broadcasting stations which primarily are engaged in radio broadcasting and  XH- d(#jwhich produce radio program materials are similarly included.2YHP / {OI-ԍ Id.2 However, radio stations which  d(#.are separate establishments and are primarily engaged in producing radio program material are  X - d(#\classified under another SIC number.2Z / {O-ԍ Id.2 The 1992 Census indicates that 96 percent (5,861 of  X - d(#6,127) radio station establishments produced less than $5 million in revenue in 1992.[ t/ yO(- d(#iԍ The Census Bureau counts radio stations located at the same facility as one establishment. Therefore, each colocated AM/FM combination counts as one establishment. Official  X - d(#jCommission records indicate that 11,334 individual radio stations were operating in 1992.S\ / yOi-ԍ FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993.S As  X - d(#of August, 1996, official Commission records indicate that 12,088 radio stations were operating.S] \/ yO!-ԍ FCC News Release No. 64958, Sept. 6, 1996.S  X -  v Thus, the proposed rules will affect approximately 1,550 television stations; approximately  X- d(#1,194 of those stations are considered small businesses.^/ yO-&- d(#ԍ We use the 77 percent figure of TV stations operating at less than $10 million for 1992 and apply it to the 1996 total of 1550 TV stations to arrive at 1,194 stations categorized as small businesses. Additionally, the proposed rules will"D^,-(-(ZZ<"  X- d(#affect 12,088 radio stations, approximately 11,605 of which are small businesses._/ yOy- d(#ԍ We use the 96% figure of radio station establishments with less than $5 million revenue from the Census data and apply it to the 12,088 individual station count to arrive at 11,605 individual stations as small businesses.  These  d(#estimates may overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figures on which they are  d(#based do not include or aggregate revenues from nontelevision or nonradio affiliated companies.  d(#ZWe recognize that the proposed rules may also impact minority and women owned stations, some  d(#of which may be small entities. In 1995, minorities owned and controlled 37 (3.0%) of 1,221  d(#kcommercial television stations and 293 (2.9%) of the commercial radio stations in the United  Xv- d(#States.`v / {OG - d(#kԍ Minority Commercial Broadcast Ownership in the United States, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, National  d(#Telecommunications and Information Administration, The Minority Telecommunications Development Program  d(#("MTDP") (April 1996). MTDP considers minority ownership as ownership of more than 50% of a broadcast  d(#corporation's stock, voting control in a broadcast partnership, or ownership of a broadcasting property as an  yOi - d(#jindividual proprietor. Id. The minority groups included in this report are Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 1987 women owned and controlled 27  d(#>(1.9%) of 1,342 commercial and noncommercial television stations and 394 (3.8%) of 10,244  XH- d(#commercial and noncommercial radio stations in the United States.aH/ yO- d(#jԍ See Comments of American Women in Radio and Television, Inc. in MM Docket No. 94149 and MM  {O[- d(#Docket No. 91140, at 4 n.4 (filed May 17, 1995), citing 1987 Economic Censuses, WomenOwned Business, WB87 d(#-1, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, August 1990 (based on 1987 Census). After the 1987 Census  d(#report, the Census Bureau did not provide data by particular communications services (fourdigit Standard Industrial  d(#Classification (SIC) Code), but rather by the general twodigit SIC Code for communications (#48). Consequently,  d(#isince 1987, the U.S. Census Bureau has not updated data on ownership of broadcast facilities by women, nor does  d(#the FCC collect such data. However, we sought comment on whether the Annual Ownership Report Form 323  {O - d(#should be amended to include information on the gender and race of broadcast license owners. Policies and Rules  {O- d(#Regarding Minority and Female Ownership of Mass Media Facilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 2788, 2797 (1995). We recognize that the  d(#knumbers of minority and women broadcast owners may have changed due to an increase in  d(#license transfers and assignments since the passage of the 1996 Act. We seek comment on the  d(#jcurrent numbers of minority and women owned broadcast properties and the numbers of these  d(#xthat qualify as small entities. To assist us with our responsibilities under the amended Regulatory  d(#.Flexibility Act, we specifically request comments concerning our assessment of the number of  d(#small businesses that will be impacted by this rule making proceeding, the type or form of  X -impact, and the advantages and disadvantages of the impact.  v {In addition to owners of operating radio and television stations, any entity who seeks or  d(#desires to obtain a television or radio broadcast license may be affected by the proposals  d(#contained in this item. The number of entities that may seek to obtain a television or radio broadcast license is unknown. We invite comment as to such number.  v \Additionally, the proposed changes to the cable/MDS crossownership attribution rule will  d(#apply to cable and MDS entities. SBA has developed a definition of small entities for cable and  d(#other pay television services under Standard Industrial Classification 4841 (SIC 4841), which"8a,-(-(ZZr"  d(#covers subscription television services, which includes all such companies with annual gross  X- d(#revenues of $11 million or less.?b/ yOb-ԍ 13 C.F.R. 121.201.? This definition includes cable systems operators, closed circuit  d(#[television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite  d(#master antenna systems and subscription television services. According to the Census Bureau,  d(#there were 1,323 such cable and other pay television services generating less than $11 million  X- d(#{in revenue that were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992.cX/ {O- d(#ԍ 1992 Census, supra, at Firm Size 1-123. See Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rule  {O` -Making in MM Docket No. 92266 and CS Docket No. 96157, 11 FCC Rcd 9517, 9531 (1996). This figure is  Xv-overinclusive since it includes other pay television services, not only cable and MDS.   v The Communications Act contains a definition of a small cable system operator, which  d(#is "a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1  d(#zpercent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities  X - d(#whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000."Bd / yOh-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  543(m)(2).B The Commission has  d(#ydetermined that there are 61,700,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we found that  d(#/an operator serving fewer than 617,000 subscribers is deemed a small operator, if its annual  d(#revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed  X - d(#$250 million in the aggregate.Ce D/ yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.1403(b).C Based on available data, we find that the number of cable  X- d(#<operators serving 617,000 subscribers or less totals 1,450.f/ yO-ԍ Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995). Although it seems certain that some  d(#of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed  d(#$250,000,000, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable  d(#!system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the  d(#Communications Act. We are likewise unable to estimate the number of these small cable operators that serve 50,000 or fewer subscribers in a franchise area.  v The Commission has developed its own definition of a small cable system operator for  d(#the purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a "small cable company," is one  X- d(#serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.g$d / yO!- d(#xԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based on its determinations that a small  {O"- d(#cable system operator is one with annual revenues of $100 million or less. Implementation of Sections of the 1992  {Oh#- d(#iCable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995). Based on our most recent information, we  d(#.estimate that there were 1,439 cable operators that qualified as small cable system operators at"P g,-(-(ZZ"  X- d(#the end of 1995.h/ yOy-ԍ Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995). Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000  d(#isubscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined  d(#Mwith other cable operators. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 small  d(#-entity cable system operators that may be affected by the proposal adopted in this Notice. Under  d(#jthe Commission's rules, a small cable system is a cable system with 15,000 or fewer subscribers  d(#owned by a cable company serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers over all of its cable systems.  d(#We are unable to estimate the number of small cable systems nationwide, and we seek comment on the number of small cable systems.  v ^The Commission refined the definition of "small entity" for the auction of MDS as an  d(#entity that together with its affiliates has average gross annual revenues that are not more than  X - d(#$40 million for the preceding three calendar years.Fi X/ yO -ԍ 47 C.F.R.  21.961(b)(1).F This definition of a small entity in the  X -context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA.j$ / {O- d(#ԍ See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules With Regard to Filing Procedures in the  d(#-Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section  {O- d(#309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 9431 and PP Docket No. 93253, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589 (1995).  v "The Commission completed its MDS auction in March 1996 for authorizations in 493  d(#.basic trading areas (BTAs). Of 67 winning bidders, 61 qualified as small entities. Five bidders  d(#xindicated that they were minorityowned and four winners indicated that they were womenowned  d(#businesses. MDS is a service heavily encumbered with approximately 1,573 previously  d(#[authorized and proposed MDS facilities and information available to us indicates that no MDS  d(#facility generates revenue in excess of $11 million annually. We tentatively conclude that for  d(#purposes of this IRFA, there are approximately 1,634 small MDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  v Some of the proposals delineated above may also apply to daily newspapers that hold or  d(#seek to acquire an interest in a broadcast station that would be treated as attributable under the  d(#-proposals. A newspaper is an establishment that is primarily engaged in publishing newspapers,  X- d(#or in publishing and printing newspapers.Kk/ yO/!-ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201 (SIC 2711).K The SBA defines a newspaper that has 500 or fewer  X- d(#employees as a small business.2ld / {O#-ԍ Id.2 Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, there are a total" l,-(-(ZZ3"  X- d(#?of approximately 6,715 newspapers, and 6,578 of those meet the SBA's size definition. mX/ yOy- d(#ԍ U.S. Small Business Administration 1992 Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Report, Table 3, SIC  d(#Code 2711 (Bureau of the Census data adapted by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration).  However, we recognize that some of these newspapers may  d(#znot be independently owned and operated and, therefore, would not be considered a "small  X- d(#business concern" under the Small Business Act.<n/ yOT-ԍ 15 U.S.C.  632.< We are unable to estimate at this time how  d(#many newspapers are affiliated with larger entities. Moreover, the proposal would apply only  d(#yto daily newspapers, and we are unable to estimate how many newspapers that meet the SBA's  d(#ysize definition are daily newspapers. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 6,578  X_- d(#newspapers that may be affected by the proposed rules in this Further Notice. We invite comment on this estimate.  X - v k Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the Initial Regulatory  X -Flexibility Analysis of the 1995 Notice of Proposed Rule Making.  v There were no comments submitted specifically in response to the IRFA. We have,  d(#however, taken into account all issues raised by the public in response to the proposals raised in  d(#this proceeding. In particular, Association of Independent Television Stations, Inc. (now known  d(#as the Association of Local Television Stations, Inc.), among others, generally notes that, given  d(#Kthe plethora of other media investment opportunities, relaxation of the attribution rules will attract  d(#capital to broadcasting while tightening of the attribution rules may restrict capital flow to  d(#[broadcasting. We note that access to capital is an issue of profound concern to small entities,  X6- d(#?and, accordingly, as discussed in the Further Notice, supra, 1, one of our goals in this  d(#lproceeding has been to avoid disruption in the flow of capital to broadcasting. National  d(#xAssociation of Black Owned Broadcasters argues that additional relaxation of the attribution rules  d(#>will increased concentration of control of the media industry, which works against minority  d(#jownership. Our goal is neither specifically to relax or to tighten the attribution rules, but rather  X- d(#to maximize their precision. Further Notice, 1, supra. Additionally, Big Horn Communications,  d(#[Inc., which notes that it is a small market television station in Montana, argues that LMAs and  d(#time brokerage agreements allow cost efficiencies in small markets that increase service to small  d(#markets and promote the economic viability of small and financially weak stations. Local Station  d(#KOwnership Coalition also urges the Commission not to make television station LMAs attributable  d(#unless it permits ownership of two television stations in a market because LMAs help financially  d(#=troubled stations achieve economic viability. We recognize that LMAs can promote economic  d(#efficiencies, and our proposal is designed to permit those benefits while providing for attribution of those television station LMAs that should be counted under our multiple ownership rules.  X- v  Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities and Consistent  X - d(#xwith the Stated Objectives : This Further Notice solicits comment on a variety of alternatives  d(#.discussed herein. Any significant alternatives presented in the comments will be considered. "! xn,-(-(ZZ "  X- d(#lIn the Attribution Notice, we invited comment on whether to restrict or eliminate current  d(#iattribution exemptions for nonvoting shares and for minority voting shareholders in a corporation  d(#with a single majority shareholder. In addition, we requested comment on whether we should  X- d(#Zadopt new attribut ion rules or policies when multiple financial or business relationships were held  X- d(#xin combination in a licensee. The "equity or debt plus" approach discussed in the Further Notice  X- d(#<is a specifically tailored approach, narrower than that discussed in the Notice. We seek comment  d(#yon whether there is a significant economic impact on any class of small licensee or permittee as  Xe-a result of our proposed "equity or debt plus" approach. See supra paras. 1215.  v OWe seek comment on whether there would be a significant economic impact on small  d(#stations resulting from the proposed attribution rules for LMAs or from the possible application of the attribution rules to JSAs.  v OWe seek comment on whether there would be a significant economic impact on small entities from the changes we have proposed to the cable/MDS crossownership attribution rules." !n,-(-(ZZN "  X- cAPPENDIX B Staff Study of the 1994/95 FCC Annual TV Ownership Reports Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau FCC   X - Executive Summary   d(#MThis study collected and analyzed ownership information from the Commission's 1994/1995  d(#annual ownership reports on the majority (1,009 out of 1,043) of forprofit TV stations. The study draws the following conclusions.  v X 64.6 percent of broadcast TV stations are closelyheld, where majority control is held by 5 or fewer owners. (#  As well, 74.9 percent of TV stations are held by groupowners.  v X Increasing the attribution benchmark for active stockholders from 5 percent to 10  v percent of voting control would decrease the number of currentlyattributable owners by  v approximately onethird. As well, the number of licensees with no attributable owners (excluding directors and officers) would increase from 81 to 134, or by 65.4 percent.(#  v @X Broadcast investment by mutual funds, life insurance companies and other passive  v investors is relatively small. The proposed change from a 10 percent to 20 percent passive  v minvestor benchmark would affect 5 of 15 currentlyattributable passive investors, and  v impact 5 stations currently with attributable passive investors. Most reported passive investment is now in the range of 5 percent to 10 percent voting control.(#  v lX Nonpassive institutional investment is also small, with only 57 such interests reported  v in total. The proposed increase from a 5 percent to 10 percent benchmark would decrease by 16, or 33.3 percent, the number of institutional interests that are currently attributable.(#  v X Only 10 instances of reported limited liability corporations (LLCs) were found among the stations sampled.(#"""n,-(-(ZZf!"  X- I. Purpose of the Study  d(#MThe present study was undertaken in conjunction with the attribution notice to analyze the  d(#potential impact of proposed rule changes on the cognizable and noncognizable interests in broadcast TV stations.  X-  X_-II. Study Population of Interest  d(#The scope of the data collection and analysis effort was limited to forprofit broadcast television  d(#xstations. Data for nonprofit TV stations, radio stations and low power stations were not collected  d(#[for several reasons. With nonprofit stations only directors and officers (D&O) are cognizable,  d(#and they remain cognizable under proposed changes. The choice to focus on broadcast TV station attribution was made to maximize the use of limited resources.  X- III. Study Design  d(#Broadcast TV station licensees are required to report cognizable ownership interests in the form of an annual ownership report. These ownership interests include Xi) "active" stockholders of 5 percent voting interest or greater in the licensee,(#  v Xii) "passive" shareholders, including mutual funds, bank trust departments and life insurance companies holding 10 percent or greater voting interest in the licensee,(#  v 0Xiii) singlemajority stockholders holding greater than 50 percent interest (in which cases all other voting interests are not attributable), (# Xiv) all general partnership interests,(# Xv) limited partnership interests that are not "sufficiently insulated" and (# vi) all directors and officers (D&O) involved in the licensee.  d(#zData collection focused on collecting data on all attributable interests, with the exception of  d(#directors and officers with less than 1 percent voting interest in the licensee. Because of their  d(#direct operational involvement with the licensee, this latter group is held attributable, regardless of the extent of their ownership stake in the station.  d(#The annual ownership reports also frequently and voluntarily report ownership percentages for  d(#-owners not attributable under current rules, in particular voting shareholders with interests in the  d(#1 percent to 5 percent ownership range. To expand the scope of our analysis, data collection was extended to include all "reported" voting ownership claims of 1 percent or greater."#'#n,-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ X- Ù  X-IV. Overall TVStation Results  d(#NOwnership information was obtained from the annual ownership reports required by the  d(#zCommission. Information from the most recent report on file was used. Essentially, data was  d(#collected manually and then computercoded from virtually all of the forprofit broadcast TV  d(#jownership filings, except with groupowned stations where a single ownership report was filed for the entire group.  XH-  d(#Of the total 1542 licensed TV stations, forprofit stations numbered 1043 and nonprofit stations  d(# numbered 499. Of the forprofit stations, 781 stations or 74.8% were held by group owners,  d(#defined as 2 or more stations owned by the same corporate holding company. The remaining 262  d(#stations were singlyowned stations. The breakdown between forprofit and nonprofit stations,  d(#and groupowned versus singlyowned stations is shown in Table I, presented at the end of this report.  d(#kTable II categorizes TV stations by owner type. Of the forprofit TV stations censused, 64.6  d(#percent are closelyheld stations, either (1) by a sole proprietor, (2) by a singlemajority  d(#shareholder, (3) majority familyowned or (4) majorityowned by a small (less than six) number  d(#of individual shareholders. Familyowned stations are those where five or fewer family members  d(#hold more than 50 percent ownership interest in a particular station. Closelyheld stations are  d(#jsimilarly defined but without the familymembership requirement. In contrast, only 20.1 percent  d(#of forprofit stations are categorized as widelyheld, where typically any one shareholder would  d(#hold only a small percent of ownership in the station. These percentages exclude stations which  d(#may be closely or widely held in the context of a general partnership (GP), limited partnership (LP) or limited liability corporation (LLC) ownership structure.  d(#As well, 4.2 percent of TV stations are organized as GPs, 8.8 percent as LPs and 1.0 percent as  d(#zLLCs. Finally of the remaining stations, 5 are international TV stations and 8 are currently in receivership.  d(#Separate results for groupowned and singlyowned stations are given in Table III. As shown in  d(#the table, groupowned stations tend to have less concentrated ownership, with 20.4 percent of these stations widely held, while only 6.8% of singlyowned stations are widelyheld.  X-  X -V. Voting Shareholders as Cognizable Interests  d(#The Commission currently attributes ownership to stockholders with 5 percent or more of voting  d(#rights in a broadcast station. Under consideration in the NPRM is a proposed increase in the  d(#yattribution benchmark for voting stockholders from its current level at 5 percent to a 10 percent  d(#jbenchmark. Of interest is the impact of a change in the attribution benchmark on the number of attributable owners. "#'$n,-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ d(#KThe distribution of ownership interests that are attributable under the 5 percent rule is given next.  d(#The number of equity holders in the 1 percent to 5 percent range is also given, although with the  d(#caveat that nonattributable interests are voluntarily reported and may undercount the true number.  d(#The table excludes "passive" shareholders, singlemajority shareholders, and partnership interests, which are governed by separate attribution rules. These groups will be separately analyzed below.  XH-o Table A  X1- Distribution of NonPassive Ownership Claims Đ\  X -Ownership Range hhCNumberPercent(#h  X - 1% < 5% hhC 274q '  X - 5% <10%hhC 438q 37.5%  X - 10% <15%hhC 183q 15.7%  X- 15% <20%hhC 129q 11.1%  Xy- 20% 50%hhC 417q 35.7%  Xb- 50% 100%hhC 0*qh 0.0%(#  X4-Total attributable  hhC1167q 100%(#h ' Not currently attributable. Also, D&Os holding less than 1 percent equity are not reported. *Singlemajority shareholders are analyzed below.  d(#[The table indicates that among attributable shareholders falling under the current 5% rule, 37.5  d(#ypercent have ownership interests between 5 percent and 10 percent, 15.7 percent with interests  d(#between 10 percent and 15 percent, 11.1 percent with interests between 10 percent and fifteen  d(#percent and 35.7 percent with interests between 20 percent and 50 percent. Interestingly, the  d(#largest concentrations of ownership are in the 5 percent to 10 percent and 20 percent to 50  d(#percent categories. Under the proposed change in the attribution benchmark from 5 percent to 10  d(#Npercent, approximately 37.5 percent of currently attributable owners would become nonattributable.  d(#Of additional interest is the impact of proposed rule changes on the number of attributable owners  d(#per broadcast station. The following table gives the distribution of the number of attributable  d(#owners per broadcast TV station under the current 5 percent benchmark and under the proposed 10 percent benchmark.""%n,-(-(ZZ!"  X-o Table B  Distribution of Number of Attributable Owners Per Station  X-Under 5 Percent and 10 Percent Benchmarks for Nonpassive Investors Đ\  Per Station  Xv-Number of CurrentqProposed  X_-Attributable 5 Percentq10 Percent  XH-Owners BenchmarkqBenchmark  X - 0* ` `   81hhCq  134  X - 1` `   41hhCq 27pp  X - 2` `   67hhCq 92  X - 3` `   56hhCq 66  X - 4` `   38hhCq 43  X - 5` `   43hhCq 19  X- 6` `   24hhCq 3  Xy- 7` `   16hhCq 5  Xb- 8` `   18hhCq 0  XK- 9` `   0hhCq 0  X4- 10` `   1hhCq 0  X- 11` `   1hhCq 0  X-  12` `    3hhCq  0  X-` ` Total stations 389hhCq 389 * D&Os holding less than 1 percent equity are excluded.  d(#The table indicates that the number of stations with no attributable owners (except directors and officers) would increase from 81 to 134, or by 65.4 percent.  X - VI. Voting Stock: Passive Investors  v A lessrestrictive 10 percent attribution benchmark is currently set for certain institutional  d(#[investors thought to be restricted by law or fiduciary responsibility from active involvement in  d(#station operations. These socalled "passive" investors include bank trust departments, mutual  d(#-funds and insurance companies. Because of their passive status, the Commission prohibits these  d(#investors from serving as directors or officers of the broadcast station, or from attempting to otherwise influence station operations.  d(#=The distribution of ownership claims for passive investors, excluding partnerships and singlemajority stockholder stations, is given next.":&&n,-(-(ZZ%"  X-o Table C  X- Distribution of Passive Ownership Claims Đ\  X-  X-Ownership RangehhCNumberPercent  Xv- 1% < 5% hhC 0q '  X_- 5% <10%hhC 28q '  XH- 10% <15%hhC 1q 6.7 %  X1- 15% <20%hhC 4q 26.7 %  X - 20% 50%hhC 10q 66.7%  X - 50% 100%hhC 0*q 0.0%  X -Total attributablehhC 15q 100% ' Not currently attributable. *Singlemajority shareholders are analyzed below.  d(#[As given in the table, the reported number of passive investors is relatively small, with only 43  d(#lsuch institutional investors reported in total for these stations. Of these 43, only 15 hold  d(#attributable equity interests. With the proposed relaxation of the attribution benchmark to 20  d(#percent, 5 of the currently attributable interests would become nonattributable. As well, the largest number of passive investors fall in the 5 percent to 10 percent range.  d(#yDespite the small number of passive institutional investors, some of these do in fact have large  d(#[equity stakes in broadcast stations. For example, one passive investor owns 50% of the parent company of a licensee.  d(#The following table gives the distribution of the number of attributable owners under the current  X7-10 percent and under the proposed 20 percent benchmark for passive investors."7'n,-(-(ZZ]"  X-o Table D  Distribution of Number of Attributable Owners Per Station  X-ZUnder 10 Percent and 20 Percent Benchmarks for Passive Investors Đ\ Per Station  Xv-Number of CurrentqProposed  X_-Attributable 10 Percentq20 Percent  XH-Owners BenchmarkqBenchmark  X - 0 ` `   376hhCq  381  X - 1` `   11hhCq 6pp  X - 2` `   2hhCq 2   X -  X-VII. Voting Stock: Other Institutional Investors  d(#Institutional investors not considered to be passive investors include commercial banks (excluding  d(#trust departments), investment banks, brokerage firms and pension funds. These investors are not  d(#!judged to be restricted by law or fiduciary responsibility from involvement in broadcast  d(#joperations, and are subject to the 5 percent attribution benchmark of other nonpassive voting shareholders. No change is currently proposed for these passive investors in the NPRM. The distribution of ownership interests for nonpassive institutional investors is given next.  X-p Table E  j Distribution of Ownership Interests of  X|-NonPassive Institutional Investors Đ\  X7-Ownership RangeNumberqPercent  X - 1% < 5%  9hhCq  X- 5% <10% 16hhCq 33.3%  X- 10% <15% 8hhCq 16.7%  X - 15% <20% 7hhCq 14.6%  X!- 20% 50% 13hhCq 27.1%  X"- 50% 100% 4hhCq 8.3%  Xh$-Total TV stations 57hhCq100.0%  d(#As with passive investors, the number of reported nonpassive institutional investors in broadcast  d(#stations is relatively small. With the proposed relaxation to 10 percent benchmark, 16 or 33.3"#'(n,-(-(ZZ%" percent of these would become nonattributable.  d(#Despite their small number, some nonpassive institutional owners have large interests in  d(#broadcast stations. For example, one bank owns 100 percent of the parent company of three TV  d(#broadcast licenses. As well, a venture capital subsidiary owns 72.05% of the parent company of two TV licensees.  XH- VIII. SingleMajority Shareholder  d(#Singlemajority shareholder investments are those where a single stockholder controls more than  d(#\50 percent of the voting interest in the licensee. All other shareholders in this case are non d(#attributable, regardless of their percent ownership, since the singlemajority shareholder is thought to hold operational control.  d(#NAs given in Table II, a total of 308, or 30.5% of forprofit TV stations, are singlemajority  d(#shareholder owned. The following table lists the distribution of voting shares for these licensees  d(#falling under the singlemajority shareholder rule. Sole proprietorships and sole owners are listed as 100 percent.  X-p Table F  j Distribution of Ownership Interests in  X- ] SingleMajority Shareholder Licensees Đ\  X-   X-` `  hhCNonPassive pppp Passive  X|-` `  hhCInvestors ppppInvestors  XN-` hp` hp xOwnership RangeNumberqPercentppNumber  )Percent  X - 1% < 5%  74hhCq 9.9pp 0  ) 0.0 %  X - 5% <10% 121hhC q 16.2pp 0  ) 0.0 %  X- 10% <15% 101hhCq 13.5pp 2  )16.7 %  X- 15% <20% 52hhCq 7.0pp 1  ) 8.3 %  X - 20% 50% 93hhCq 12.5pp 7  )58.3 %  X!- 50% <100% 305hhCq 40.9pp 2  )16.7 %  X"- 100%  162hhCq 40.9pp 0  ) 0.0 %  Xh$-` ` Total  746hhCqpp12"h$)n,-(-(ZZ(#"  d(#The distribution of nonattributable interests (excluding D&Os with less than 1 percent stake) in  d(#ksinglemajority shareholder licensees is reasonably uniform. In particular, the results do not  d(#indicate a large block of "49 %" shareholders, who might have chosen to use the singlemajority shareholder rule to circumvent attribution, while holding a large stake in the licensee.  d(#iSome instances of singlemajority shareholders involve institutional owners with large stakes. For  d(#example, three licensees are 90.0% owned by trust agreement. As cited above, 5 licensees are closely held by nonpassive institutional investors.  X - IX. Nonvoting Stock  v The attribution rules for equity interests in a broadcast station apply only to those  d(#Kstockholders holding voting control. Common or preferred stockholders without voting rights are  d(#\exempted from attribution under the premise that their lack of voting control precludes their  d(#ability to affect management or operation of a broadcast station. Nonvoting stock is a common  d(#Lmechanism for companies to raise equity capital without sacrificing voting control. Differential  d(#voting rights includes companies with dual or multiple classes of stock where one class of stock  d(#Ncarries greater voting rights than other classes of stock. For purposes of attribution, the  d(# attributable equity interests is determined by the percent of total voting rights held by any  X4-individual. In total, the study found 79 instances of nonvoting interests in TV broadcast stations.  X-X. Partnership Interests  v !Under the attribution rules governing partnership interests, general partners are always  d(#attributable, regardless of the extent of their ownership stake. Limited partners are likewise  d(#>attributable as owners, regardless of their ownership percentage, unless the licensee files a  d(#certification statement that the limited partner is "insulated", i.e., nonactive in the management  d(#or operation of the licensee. This special treatment of general and limited partners derives in part  d(#from the special role that general partners play as both owners and managers. In contrast, limited  d(#partners are restricted from involvement in operational control, and can be forced to give up  d(#zlimited liability rights if they participate in operation or management decisions. Therefore, in  d(#contrast to corporations, the separation of ownership and control is weaker for general partners,  d(#>who perform both functions and stronger for limited partners, who may lose limited liability rights if separation is not maintained.  d(#As presented in Table II, 42 in number, or 4.2% of forprofit tv stations are organized as general  d(#jpartnerships, and 89 in number or 8.8% are limited partners. In addition, another 42 of forprofit TV stations have a limited partnership involved as an equity holder.  d(#kThe following table presents the distribution of interests in stations organized as general or  d(#limited partnerships. Excluded are all nonpartnership forprofit stations, including those broadcast stations where one of the equity owners may be a limited partnership."#'*n,-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ  X-o Table G  j Distribution of Ownership Interests in  X-General and Limited Partnerships Đ\  Xv-` `  GeneralqppLimited  X_-Ownership RangePartnersqPercentppPartners  )Percent  X1- 1% < 5%  51hhCq 21.3 pp29  ) 19.7 %  X - 5% <10% 13hhCq 5.4 pp46  ) 31.3 %  X - 10% <15% 9hhCq 3.8 pp44  ) 30.0 %  X - 15% <20% 11hhCq 4.6 pp0  ) 0.0 %  X - 20% 50% 72hhCq 30.0 pp28  ) 19.0 %  X - 50% 100% 84hhCq 35.0 pp0  ) 0.0 %  X-` ` Total  240hhCqpp 147  d(#[The results indicate that the majority of general partners have either small (less than 5 percent) or very large (greater than 20 percent) ownership stakes in the licensee.  X- d(#[ The ownership files investigated also indicate that virtually all limited partners claim insulation of their partnership claim.  X-  X-XI. Limited Liability Companies and Other New Business Forms  d(#jA limited liability company (LLC) is a new hybrid form of ownership that combines advantages  d(#of both a limited partnership and corporations. Like limited partnerships, profits in an LLC are  d(#passed directly through to investors and therefore taxed only as personal income, which avoids  d(#the double taxation of corporations. However, unlike limited partnerships, LLC members may exercise management control without threat of loss of limited liability.  d(#The available ownership records show a total of 10 stations organized as LLCs and 1 station partially owned by an LLC. "+n,-(-(ZZ"  X-  Table I: Distribution of Forprofit TV Stations Across Type   X-"1994/95 Ownershipreport Data Đ\  Xv- A. Total Profit and Nonprofit Stations    X1- Forprofit TV stations :  X -` `  hhCqppNumbers Percent  X -Groupowned stationshhCqpp781 74.8%  X -Singleowned stationshhCqpp262 25.2%  X -Total Forprofit stationshhCqpp1043* 100.0%  Xy-Number of TV Groupownersqpp180  XK-  X4-Notforprofit TV stations  X-Total StationshhCqpp499*  X-  X-Total Number of Stations hhCqpp1542  X-  d(#M* This breakout between forprofit and notforprofit stations reflects the designation self d(#[reported by licensees on their annual ownership report filed with the Commission. The number  d(#of notforprofit stations exceeds the number of noncommercial stations (363 as of 11/20/95,  X7- d(#Broadcasting & Cable) by some 130 stations, representing commercialband stations that are notforprofit."",n,-(-(ZZ\"  X-  Table II: Forprofit TV stations by station type   X-"1994/95 Ownershipreport Data Đ\   Xv- B. Aggregate forprofit station results  X_-` `  hhCq Number of  XH- Type of Ownership  hhCq Stations  Percent   X -Singleowner stationshhC q 158pp15.7%  X -Singlemajorityshareholder stations 308pp30.5%  X -Familyowned stationshhCq 72pp 7.1%  X -Closelyheld stationshhCq 114pp11.3%  X -Widelyheld stationshhCq  203pp20.1%  X-General partnerships (GP)hhCq 42 pp 4.2%  Xy-Limited partnerships (LP)hhCq 89pp 8.8%  Xb-Limited liability corporations (LLC) 10pp 1.0%  X4-International StationshhCq 5pp 0.5%  X-In ReceivershiphhCq  8pp 0.8%  X-` `  hhCq1009pp 100%"-n,-(-(ZZV"  X-  Table III: Groupowned and singlyowned TV station results   X-"1994/95 Ownershipreport Data Đ\  X-  Xv-` `  hhCq GroupSingly  X_-` `  hhCq OwnedOwned  XH-` `  hhCq Stations  Stations  X1-  X - Type of Ownership  hhCq Percent  Percent   X -Singleowner stationshhC q 15.3%22.9%  X -Singlemajorityshareholder stations 32.2%30.5%  X -Familyowned stationshhCq 7.9% 4.4%  X -Closelyheld stationshhCq 10.2%18.9%  X-Widelyheld stationshhCq 20.4% 6.8%  Xb-General partnerships (GP)hhCq 4.0%  3.2%  XK-Limited partnerships (LP)hhCq 8.5% 9.6%  X4-Limited liability corporations (LLC) 1.1% 0.4%  X-International StationshhCq 0.0% 2.0%  X-In ReceivershiphhCq 0.6% 1.6%".n,-(-(ZZ7"  X- APPENDIX C: List of Commenting Parties ă  X-` Commenters ă AFLAC Broadcast Group, Inc.  X-Association of Independent Television Stations, Inc.vov yO-ԍ This commenter is now known as Association of Local Television Stations, Inc.v Big Horn Communications, Inc.  X_-California Public Employees' Retirement SystemQp_Xv yOh -ԍ Filed late, with an accompanying Motion.Q Capital Cities/ABC Inc. Capital Group Companies, Inc. CBS Inc. Communications Corporation of America Cook Inlet Region, Inc. EZ Communications, Inc. Fox Television Stations Inc. & Fox Broadcasting Company Freedom of Expression Foundation, Inc. Freeman Spogli & Co., Inc. Goldman Sachs Group, L.P. Investment Company Institute Local Station Ownership Coalition M/C Partners, The Blackstone Group, & Vestar Capital Partners Mid West Family Stations National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters National Broadcasting Company, Inc. Network Affiliated Stations Alliance New World Communications Group Incorporated Qwest Broadcasting L.L.C. Silver King Communications, Inc. Tribune Broadcasting Company Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Westinghouse Broadcasting Company  X -L Reply Commenters ă AFLAC Broadcast Group  X-Association of Independent Television Stations, Inc.vqv yOt%-ԍ This commenter is now known as Association of Local Television Stations, Inc.v CBS Inc. EZ Communications, Inc."!/xq,-(-(ZZ "ԌFox Television Stations Inc. and Fox Broadcasting Company General Electric Capital Corporation Goldman Sachs Group, L.P. LIN Television Corporation Local Station Ownership Coalition Malrite Communications Group, Inc. M/C Partners, The Blackstone Group, and Vestar Capital Partners Minority Media and Telecommunications Council Network Affiliated Stations Alliance Pappas Stations Partnership Smith Broadcasting Group, Inc. Tribune Broadcasting Company" 0q,-(-(ZZ "  X-` `  hhCqpp  )  X-5 SEPARATE STATEMENT ~bOF  X- COMMISSIONER JAMES H. QUELLO Đ\  X_-  XH-RE:XReview of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television  X1-Broadcasting; ("Local Ownership"), Second Further Notice of Proposed  X -Rulemaking    X -X Broadcast Television National Ownership Rules and Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting ("National  X -Ownership"), Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  XReview of the Commission's Regulations Governing Attribution of Broadcast Interests; Review of the Commission's Regulations and Policies Affecting Investment in the Broadcast Industry; Reexamination of the  XK-Commission's CrossInterest Policy ("Attribution"), Further Notice of  X4-Proposed Rulemaking  Today the Commission has adopted three notices seeking further comment on various aspects of its television ownership rules, specifically focusing on rules pertaining to local ownership issues, national ownership issues, and the attribution of broadcast interests. I believe that these three notices identify appropriate questions in a relatively neutral manner, and I write separately in this statement to highlight issues from each item that I consider of  X|-particular importance.  The Commission's local ownership rules currently prohibit a person or entity from having interests in two television stations whose Grade B signal contours overlap. It is  X -significant that today's Second Further Notice seeks comment on a potential change to a new standard for authorizing common ownership of television stations that are in separate DMAs (Nielsen's Designated Market Area) and whose Grade A contours do not overlap. While I am interested in seeing the response of commenters on this issue, I believe that the proposal is potentially useful to the extent that it applies a definition of a broadcasting market commonly used for advertising purposes. In this regard, the combination of the DMA and Grade A information could yield a more actual reflection of a "local market", including the unique market characteristics east and west of the Mississippi River, as well as the influence of cable carriage upon actual viewing practices. I also am pleased that the local ownership item enables the Commission to move forward, during the interim period pending the outcome of this proceeding, in processing pending assignment or transfer applications, conditioned on the stations' compliance with the outcome of the proceeding."#'1q,-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ"2q,-(-(ZZ" I would also note that the DMA/Grade A proposal is intended as an analytically reasonable step in defining local markets for broadcasting purposes, and is not intended to be applied so as to become a more restrictive standard. Accordingly, I am hopeful that commenters will identify any specific instances where particular markets or counties might experience unintended consequences under the new standard. As another local ownership issue, the radiotelevision crossownership rule, or the onetoamarket rule, generally prohibits joint ownership of a radio and television station in the  XH-same local market. With respect to the Commission's waiver policy for this rule, the Second  X1-Further Notice seeks comment on potential changes to the "five factors" typically evaluated in order to foster competition and diversity. In this context, to the extent that the Commission finds it is necessary to consider market share information in reviewing requests for waivers, I believe it is important for the Commission to analyze the appropriate definition of the relevant advertising market, as well as the necessary level of data that firms should be required to provide in order to demonstrate that common ownership would meet market share criteria. It is useful to point out that since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the radio marketplace continues to demonstrate increases in the number of stations with a slight trend  Xy-toward moderate decreases in the number of owners.ryv X- d(#L#Xj\  P6G;CXP#э Since March 1996, the number of commercial stations in the top 50 markets has increased  d(#nearly 2%, while the total number of owners of commercial stations in the top 50 markets have  X- d(#decreased over the same period by approximately 3.7%. See BIA MasterAccess Database; BIA Publications Inc., Chantilly, VA, 22021. As a result, I previously have stated that to the extent media outlets are increasing rapidly and becoming more closely related to other communications services, we must carefully weigh the longer term impact of finding  X4-markets to be "concentrated" based solely on radio advertising, as opposed to all advertising,  X-sources in a community. s4v X- d(##XP\  P6QCXP#эSee Jacor Communications, Inc., FCC 96380 (released September 17, 1996), Statement of Commissioner James H. Quello, Concurring in Part. Concerning national ownership issues, I take special interest in the treatment of the discount attributed to UHF stations in calculating a broadcasting network's national audience reach. I believe it is appropriate, at this time, for the Commission to defer consideration of the issue of the UHF discount until the Commission's biennial review of the broadcast ownership rules that will be conducted in 1998 pursuant to the 1996 Act. In addition to varying station valuations between UHF and VHF stations as well as the evolving role of UHF stations in emerging networks, I believe that it is necessary to wait in order to assess more carefully the impact of digital allocations on the role of UHF stations in the video  X7-marketplace. " 3s,-(-(ZZ\" Finally, concerning attribution of broadcast ownership interests, I am interested in the impact of the proposal to include debt and equity held by a program supplier. In particular, I question whether certain debt or equity issues, even with the limitation to those held by program suppliers, would not be conducive to establishing "control". I also am concerned that our definitions in this area must be sufficiently precise in order to avoid causing disruptions in institutional investment, or other productive ventures."4s,-(-(ZZe" ` `  hhCqpp  X-5 SEPARATE STATEMENT of "8COMMISSIONER SUSAN NESS \  X -  V - Re:XReview of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting;(#  V -X("Local Ownership"), Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Broadcast Television National Ownership Rules and Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting ("National  V -Ownership"), Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Attribution of Broadcast Interests; Review of the Commission's Regulations and Policies Affecting Investment in the Broadcast Industry; Reexamination of the Commission's CrossInterest Policy  VK-("Attribution"), Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; et al.  Today we advance towards our goal of issuing clear, simplified, and fair rules regarding broadcast media ownership. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded radio and television ownership opportunities nationwide and significantly liberalized local radio ownership rules. We had initiated these proceedings before Congress took action last winter because we recognized that the media markets are changing. In view of the changes mandated by Congress and to elicit comment on more specific proposals than those previously described, we now ask the public for further comment. I am pleased to support these items for three reasons:  X-First, I prefer to change FCC policies or set standards by rulemaking rather than through ad  X-hoc decisions. We shouldn't delay making decisions on license transfers and other transactions that come before us, but those individual cases do not give the kind of guidance that rulemakings do. A rule is clear, is predictable, and is fair to all. When we complete a rulemaking, everyone knows what the rules of the game will be. Through rulemaking, we have the benefit of hearing from all who are interested, including experts and others who may point out unintended consequences of our proposals. And best of all, transactions can then be expedited. Second, I prefer to expand market opportunities by raising ownership limits as Congress has"#'5s,-(-(ZZ%" done, not through unattributable interests and other "allbutownership" activities. In our attribution proposals, we are striking a balance between the goal of precisely defining "ownership" and the equally significant goal of not impeding capital flow. The proposals we put out for comment today are intended to be narrowly tailored to close loopholes, even as we liberalize direct ownership limits. Third, the three items include several specific concepts that further our goal of making FCC rules realistic, such as the "Grade A/DMA" duopoly proposal and the "debt and equity plus" attribution proposal. We are also asking for comments on how we might improve the "five factors" we weigh in evaluating certain onetoamarket waiver applications. These proposals, I believe, should help refine and expedite a more marketbased review process. The challenge of making decisions that are in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" has never been more difficult in the broadcasting area than it is today. I join Commissioner Chong in saying, "we should adopt new rules precisely calibrated to achieve our goals of encouraging competition and diversity in broadcasting without unduly restraining broadcast commerce." I hope that the comments we receive provide us with the strong factual basis we need to achieve these goals."y6s,-(-(ZZ" ` `  hhCqpp X-  PSTATEMENT OF \ 0 COMMISSIONER RACHELLE B. CHONG  XH-  V1-Re:XReview of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting; ("Local  V -Ownership"), Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 91 V -221;(#  V -XBroadcast Television National Ownership Rules and Review of the Commission's  V -Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting ("National Ownership"), Notice of  V -Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 96222; (# XReview of the Commission's Regulations Governing Attribution of Broadcast Interests; Review of the Commission's Regulations and Policies Affecting Investment in the Broadcast Industry; Reexamination of the Commission's CrossInterest Policy  Vb-("Attribution"), Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 94150; et al. (#  X4- Last year, we undertook a reevaluation of our television ownership and broadcast attribution rules in light of current market conditions. We recognized that the video programming market is becoming more and more competitive with each passing month. Cable channels are proliferating. In addition, there is new competition from Direct Broadcast Satellite services, MMDS providers, online services and, soon, Open Video Systems offered by the local telephone companies. In this increasingly competitive environment, broadcasters, including TV licensees, need greater ownership flexibility so that they can have a fair chance to compete. Congress recognized this fact in the 1996 Telecommunications Act by directing us to eliminate the national ownership cap and reexamine our local television ownership rules. In my view, the 1996 Act evinces Congress' clear intention that we loosen our regulatory grip on the broadcast medium. Congress signalled to us that it is time to adjust our rules to fit the new reality of the video programming marketplace. In these further NPRMs, we seek to update our record in light of the 1996 Act and other changes in the market. In my mind, our goal here is to fine tune our ownership and attribution rules. We should adopt new rules precisely calibrated to achieve our goals of encouraging competition and diversity in broadcasting without unduly restraining broadcast commerce. I encourage all commenters to examine the proposals set forth in these items and tell us how we can best reach our goal. "#'7s,-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ  X-