WPC 2 BP Courier 10cpi3|w'le)CG Times Bold (Scalable)PCG Times (Scalable)T2 555_1)HPLAIIAD.PRSx  @HC!RX@2-< ZLH<3|jHP LaserJet IIISi LPT2 555_1)HPLAIIAD.PRSX\  P6G;HC!RPxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN0@1BRight 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 (#Right Par 7Right Par 71` hp x (#X` hp 0X` hp 0` hp x (#2M2 E3((G4$PI5$tKRight 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 (#Technical 6Technical 65` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#22Q6lM7l6N8$N9lPTechnical 2Technical 26 Technical 3Technical 37 Technical 4Technical 48` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 19 2Y:$dQ;$S<U=WTechnical 7Technical 7:` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8;` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#toc 1toc 1<` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 2toc 2=` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#2b>Z?8\@V^At`toc 3toc 3>` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4?` hp x (#  ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5@` hp x (#hh` hp x (#toc 6toc 6A` hp x (#` hp x (#2iBvbC:cDXeEvgtoc 7toc 7B toc 8toc 8C` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9D` hp x (#` hp x (#index 1index 1E` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#2nFiGkHvnIlxnindex 2index 2F` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingG` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaptionH _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionI 2pJpoKqoLeoMe\pDocument[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gJ` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gK  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gL  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gM  2#sNpOpqPqQrDocument[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gN*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gO  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gP8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gQA@` ` `  ` ` ` 2uRUsSsTtU;uDocument[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gR0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gSJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gTS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gU\` ` `  @hhh hhh 25yV#vWvXwY{xRight Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gVe` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gWn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gXw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gYF    ׃  2{Zgy[y\qz] {Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gZ&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g[&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g\*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g]''(   2"~^{_h|`}a}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`&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ga&/0  . 2MbT~ci~d<e~πfootnote tex#b'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#headercAx 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# referenced;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1e&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#2Ifig^hOFiheader2fI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3gF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!h!!#d\  PCP#HeadingChapter HeadingiJ d  ) I. ׃  2(j{kldmRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersj>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingk0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldeddl+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Datem X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟ2nZo1p1#q1TDRAFT 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;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11qL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   2;r1sntVudאLEGAL 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 HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeuB*d. 2hvjmwבxEy-;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  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatyD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   2z8{8җ| }XINVOICE 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$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle}2~[5[[[FSMALLSmall Typestyle~FINEFine TypestyleLARGELarge TypestyleEXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle2[Ӝ. VERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2r#r'a2Agendaa1AgendaAgenda Items7D yP ) I. a3Agendapage numberpage number1#XP\  P6QXP#2}aޣfhead1 #'d#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf:` ` `  2+ɥr&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[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrff  2¯KK,Kwa8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfq "i~'^#)0<8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""x/c81,c P7P?8wC;,[AXw P7XP@7zC;,ZXz_ p^7XAV"G($,hG P7hPBH<!, ,< P7,P&C6uC;,-/Xu&_ x$&7XX&Dz-b81,-b&_ x$&7X"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ82{)}+"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d<|8tddddddlLkdkd~d~d~ddddddXCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdxN`xoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddddddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddxoddddddodddddddddood8doddrddoddN8ooddddoNododdddooooȐdYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC2 m"Sh5^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx:J2J2H2H2YHC2C26&6262?2?2?2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHHx!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!d"Sh5^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYddddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdddddxdxdxdxddddddddd8ddddddddododp8p8xddddxdxddLddddodododddddodpLCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"Ȑddd尰dCCȐzȰxCdzdodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC2OXu"Sh5^18PSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Sddoxd`xx8Jo]oxdxdS]xdd]]888SS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS??.SJoJJ?JSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.dSdSdSdSdSooJdJdJdJdJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JdSxSxSxS]JxSdSdSdSdSoSoSoSxSdSdSdSdSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSS/SSSSSSSoS]S]S]/]/doSoSxSxSodSdSS?SSSS]S]S]SxSxSxSxSo]S]?8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SMMSSSSSS;SSSS;88SSS..SSffSSxSYSS8SS;"xxSxSxxS哓S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SfS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxfff]f]oJfA]JxSxJ8.oJo]]oJoSxJxffSfSS]J]Joff]fffffx8Sx]]fJffff88SSSSfxSSS]]]f8`SJ8toatoa` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#1dfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO 2Gl2Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$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 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  2H|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 Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO 2-z!(Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$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 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 2_u\%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  "Sh5^;LhddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxLdxxoxxxCCCddCddYdYFdo88d8odddLL8oYdYLdddddddddCddddddddd8dddddYYYYYL8L8L8L8oddddoooozYddddxYdxdddddddddddddddddood8ddddkdddxdxdxDx8ooddהddpLododxdxdxdooooxdxLCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddLdYYddddddCddddCCCkkd88ddzzdddsssCkdC"Ȑd~d尰dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŅzozoYNzYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddzYzYzozzzNdzzzYzzzzCCdddddddzzzzCzdYCȢ>x/c81,c P7P?8wC;,[AXw P7XP@7zC;,ZXz_ p^7XAV"G($,hG P7hPBH<!, ,< P7,P&C6uC;,-/Xu&_ x$&7XX&Dz-b81,-b&_ x$&7Xd4wC;,HXw*0 xM7X  s =% +06_<'BGI  J  K  0uH,0u,0uL,0u,0u,0u,0u,2 Y- X   r Y-  Federal Communications Commission`(# FCC 96437 ă  yxdddy (2 Before the  Federal Communications Commission  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter ofR)  Y-R)||o  Yw-Broadcast Television NationalR)||oMM Docket No. 96222 Ownership RulesR)  YI-R)||o  Y2-Review of the Commission's RegulationsR)||oMM Docket No. 91221 Governing Television BroadcastingR) R)  Y -Television Satellite StationsR)||oMM Docket No. 878 Review of Policy and RulesR)  X-n  NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING TP  Yc- |pdXL@4!(#%'p Adopted: November 5, 1996pp Released: November 7, 1996 pX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:-#C\  P6QP#э Silver King Comments at 1718.o  Y - x 19. Discussion. In our 1991 proceeding concerning satellite stations, we determined that  x,broadcast television stations could qualify as satellites, and therefore be exempt from our local  Yy- xownership rules, provided they meet certain criteria.R1yH | xPr-ԍ See TV Satellite R&O, above.R As noted, we also eliminated the local  xprogram origination limit that had formerly applied to satellite stations, but at the same time we  x stated that doing so "raised questions concerning the continued advisability of exempting satellite  xLstations from the limitations of the national multiple ownership rules." Accordingly, we  Y- xsubsequently sought comment on this issue, which was incorporated in the TV Ownership  Y- x<Further Notice and on which we now seek further comment, given the changes to our rules resulting from the 1996 Act.  Y- x 20. A satellite may operate in the same market as its parent station, i.e., intramarket, or  xthe two stations may operate in different markets. We tentatively conclude that, with respect" 1,,(,([["  x.to the intramarket situation, the public interest would be served by retaining the satellite  xexemption. However, we believe that satellite stations should be counted for purposes of the national ownership limits where they are in a separate market from the parent station.  Y- x; 21. In intramarket situations, we see no reason to count that market twice for the purposes  Y- xof determining national audience reach.2| xP- x#C\  P6QP#э As noted above, any satellite issues that might arise in the context of the local duopoly rule will be addressed in the local ownership proceeding. The national multiple ownership rule, as amended by  Yv- xthe 1996 Act, is concerned with potential audience rather than actual viewership.3v | xPG - x-#C\  P6QP#э As noted above, Section 202(c)(1) of the 1996 Act directs the Commission to increase "the national audience  zP - x=reach limitation for television stations to 35%." [emphasis added]. The term "audience reach" suggests that the  xZCommission consider the number of viewers within a station's reach, not the number of people who happen to view  x.that particular station's programming. Further, neither the 1996 Act nor the accompanying Conference Report  xindicates a desire for the Commission to conduct a stationbystation assessment of the ratings of a particular group owner's programming. Nor are we  xconcerned with the particular number of television stations owned. Indeed, the 1996 Act  xeliminated the numerical station limitations formerly in the rule and focuses solely on national  Y1- xaudience reach.L41| xP|-ԍ Section 202(c)(1) of the 1996 Act.L In this regard, if a licensee acquires a satellite television station in a market  x: within which it already operates a station, it has not extended its audience reach in that television  xmarket for purposes of the national audience reach limit; the television households in that market  xare already counted, given the existence of the licensee's nonsatellite station. This is true  xwwhether or not the satellite station is originating local programming. We seek comment on our proposal not to "double count" a satellite and its parent station in these circumstances.  Y- x 22. Notably, the above analysis would apply regardless of whether one of the commonly  xYowned stations is a satellite station, as it is based solely on the fact that both stations operate in  x;the same television market. Thus, we extend our proposal to incorporate all commonly owned  xtelevision stations within a market. Specifically, when two commonly owned stations are in the  xsame market by virtue of a waiver of the local television duopoly rule, we propose not to  x"double count" the television households within that market for national ownership purposes.  xSimilarly, should we ultimately authorize common ownership of more than one television station  xin a market in the pending local ownership proceeding, we intend not to double count the  xxtelevision households within that market for the purposes of calculating a licensee's national  xjaudience reach. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on how this  xproposal would affect programming diversity and opportunities for small stations, or stations owned by women and minorities.  Ye- x 23. We now turn to parentsatellite combinations in separate markets. We note that this  xtype of satellite provides programming to a population that otherwise would receive no"N * 4,,(,([[M"  Y- x;programming at all over the air from either the parent or the satellite station,:5| xPy- x\#C\  P6QP#э For the Commission to presume that satellite operation of a station would serve the public interest, the  xapplicant must demonstrate (among other things) that no alternative operator that would not present a conflict with  xythe multiple ownership rules is ready and able to construct or to purchase and operate the station as a fullservice  xP- xstation. TV Satellite R&O at 4215. A Moreover, the Commission has reaffirmed that the traditional purpose  xunderlying satellite authorization "is to encourage service in areas not otherwise served or capable of being served  xPa-by another fullservice station." Id.: and the licensee  Y- xof the parent station controls the programming of both the parent and the satellite station.6@| xP-#C\  P6QP#э See generally Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.  310(d).  xConsequently, the actual overtheair audience reach of the parent station's licensee is in fact  x expanded into another market by the audience reach of the satellite station. While the exemption  xJmay have encouraged the operation of satellite stations in the past, any such incentive has been  xminimized by the elimination of the 12station limit. Previously, without the exemption, a  xsatellite in an isolated area would have been regarded as being no different from a fullservice  xstation in a heavily populated area for the purpose of counting the number of stations toward the  x12station limit. However, as noted above, satellite stations typically operate in areas that are  xlikely to provide television broadcasters relatively little opportunity for growth and profit when  Y - xcompared with larger markets.l7 | xP-#C\  P6QP#э See n.  A53 .l Under these circumstances, if there had been no satellite  xexemption, a licensee would have had a disincentive to operate a satellite station, and many rural  x areas would likely not be receiving service from satellite stations that are operating today. Thus,  x+ the exemption allowed group owners to acquire and operate satellite stations without concern for the national numerical station limits.  Y- xy 24. Under the new national ownership rule, however, the equal treatment of satellite  xg stations for the purposes of national ownership would no longer provide a disincentive to satellite  xoperation. Because a satellite generally serves a sparsely populated area that is underserved, the  xpopulation of the entire market in which the satellite is located should add relatively little to a  xgroup owner's total national audience reach. Thus, we tentatively conclude that the satellite  x<exemption in cases where the parent and satellite station serve separate markets is no longer  xnecessary to encourage the operation of satellite stations. We seek comment on our tentative  xconclusion to eliminate the satellite exemption for parent/satellite combinations in different markets.  X- Local Marketing Agreements  Y|- xL 25. The question of doublecounting is also raised when a licensee programs another  xJtelevision station in the same market through an LMA. An LMA is a type of joint venture that  xgenerally involves the sale by a licensee of discrete blocks of time to a broker who then supplies"N ` 7,,(,([[M"  Y- xthe programming to fill that time and sells the commercial spot announcements to support it.8| xPy- xj#C\  P6QP#э See TV Ownership Further Notice at 358182; Report and Order in MM Docket 91140, 7 FCC Rcd 2755,  xPA-2784 (1992) (Revision of Radio Rules and Policies).  x Such agreements enable separately owned stations to function cooperatively via joint advertising,  x[shared technical facilities (including shared production facilities), and joint programming  Y-arrangements.Z9 | xP-#C\  P6QP#э Id.Z  Y- x 26. We stated in the TV Ownership Further Notice that we needed to collect more  xinformation about the extent and nature of TV LMAs before determining how they should be  x=considered for multiple ownership purposes. Several parties addressed this issue in their  xcomments, but they focused on the effects of LMAs on local, not national, competition and  x-diversity. Thus, we request comment specifically addressing how best to treat LMAs when  Y - xcalculating an entity's national audience reach. We stress that in this Notice we are not  xwaddressing the permissibility and attribution of LMAs under our local ownership rules, as these  Y - xissues are currently being analyzed in the local ownership and attribution rule makings.9:  | xPM- x#C\  P6QP#э See Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket Nos. 94150, 9251, and 87154, FCC 96436  xP- x(released November 7, 1996) (Attribution of Broadcast Interests), also adopted today (Attribution Further Notice).  xP- xAlso, for a detailed discussion of the relevance of TV LMAs to local competition and diversity, see TV Ownership  xP-Further Notice at 35813584.9 In this  xrule making, we are concerned with the treatment of LMAs for purposes of calculating the national audience reach.  Y- x 27. The doublecounting issue arises when one licensee operates as a broker to another in  xthe same television market pursuant to an LMA; in this situation it reaches the same audience  x<twice, through two different television stations. We have incorporated the general issue of  YK- xhwhether television LMAs should be attributed in the Attribution Further Notice and tentatively  xconclude in that proceeding that an LMA of another television station in the same market for  xhmore than 15% of the brokered station's weekly broadcast hours should generally be attributed  Y- xfor purposes of our ownership rules.;| xPO-#C\  P6QP#э Attribution Further Notice at  2631. However, as discussed above in the context of satellite  x,stations, the national television ownership rule now focuses solely on national audience reach.  xConsistent with that conclusion, we tentatively conclude that we should not count the TV  xhouseholds in the market twice for purposes of measuring the brokering station's national  xownership limit. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We seek comment in  x,particular on the effect of double counting for small stations, or for stations owned by women or minorities.  XN- Market Definition "7 ( ;,,(,([[L"Ԍ Y- xY 28. The definition of the relevant television market has been and continues to be critical to  x;measuring national audience reach because the number of television households in each market  xin which an entity's stations are located is used to calculate that entity's national audience reach. Specifically, the 1996 Act left unchanged a provision in our television ownership rule that states:  ^  Xx[n]ational audience reach means the total number of television households in the  0Arbitron Area of Dominant Influence (ADI) markets in which the relevant stations  are located divided by the total national television households as measured by  1ADI data at the time of a grant, transfer or assignment of a license. . . . Where  Othe relevant application forms require a showing with respect to audience reach  `and the application relates to an area where Arbitron ADI market data are  unavailable, then the applicant shall make a showing as to the number of  mtelevision households in its market. Upon such a showing, the Commission shall  |make a determination as to the appropriate audience reach to be attributed to the  Y -applicant.< +x xP7-#C\  P6QP#э 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(e)(2)(i), formerly 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(e)(3)(i).   Y- x<   29. As we stated in the 1995 Television Ownership Further Notice, Arbitron no longer  xJupdates its countybycounty determinations of each broadcast station's ADI. Accordingly, we  xproposed to use Designated Market Areas (DMAs) as compiled by A.C. Nielsen another  xcommercial ratings service where we previously relied on ADIs, noting that they are  Y4- xanalytically similar.=4X| xP=-#C\  P6QP#э 1995 Television Ownership Further Notice at 3539 n. 59. Moreover, in our companion Local TV Second Further Notice, we state  xthat the DMA provides, as a general matter, a reasonable proxy of a television station's  Y- xgeographic market.>| xP-#C\  P6QP#э Local TV Second Further Notice at  14. Consequently, we tentatively conclude in that proceeding that local  xtelevision markets should be defined on the basis of DMAs, although for purposes of the local  x,ownership rules, we further propose that we should supplement the DMA test with a Grade A  Y-signal contour criterion.i?x| xP-#C\  P6QP#э Id. at  1027.i  Y- xJ 30. While the general issue of how to delineate the geographic scope of local markets was  Y|- x addressed by several commenters in response to the 1995 Television Ownership Further Notice,@|| xP5"-#C\  P6QP#э E.g., Comments of Texas Television, Inc.; CBS; and Golden Orange Broadcasting Co., Inc.  xwe observe that it was not in the context of calculating a broadcaster's national audience reach.  xIn the absence of any comment, we tentatively conclude that we should adopt the proposal to use DMAs for calculating national audience reach.  Y - x   31. We note that in some instances the use of DMAs instead of ADIs may lead to small"  @,,(,([[;"  xvariations in the audience reach calculation of some stations. This is due to the fact that in some  xinstances Arbitron and Nielsen define markets somewhat differently. For example, Hagerstown,  xiMaryland, constitutes its own Arbitron ADI, while it is part of the Washington, D.C. DMA  xestablished by Nielsen. While we recognize that these variations occur, we believe they will  Y- xhave a minor effect on the calculation of an entity's national ownership reach.A | xP- x#C\  P6QP#э For example, if an entity were to acquire a station in Hagerstown, it would be attributed with 1.97% of the  xZU.S. population in calculating its national audience reach using DMAs, because Hagerstown is in the Washington,  xDC DMA (1.97% of the U.S. population). However, as ranked by Arbitron, Hagerstown is its own ADI and accounts for only 0.05% of the U.S. population -- a difference of 1.92%. We invite parties to comment on this assessment.  X_-&  IMPLEMENTATION AND TRANSITION ISSUES T  Y1- xTP 32.  GRAND1 In this Notice, we propose to modify the satellite exemption, but we defer consideration  x[of the UHF discount until our biennial review in 1998. We seek comment regarding the  x[implementation of any changes we may make to the satellite exemption. We also seek to  xdetermine whether a group station owner complying with the 35% limit only by virtue of the  xUHF discount could nevertheless have so high a national audience reach that it would not be in  Y - xthe public interest and, if so, how this matter is best addressed. We note that part of the 1996  Y - xYNational TV Ownership Order concerned subsequent station acquisitions (i.e., UHF or satellite  Y- xstation acquisitions made after March 15, 1996, the effective date of that Order) that comply  xwith the 35% audience reach limitation only by virtue of either or both of the UHF discount or  xwthe satellite exemption. We advised broadcasters that such transactions would be subject to the  YK- xyultimate resolution of this rulemaking.BK| xP-#C\  P6QP#э 1996 National TV Ownership Order at 1069192. We now ask commenters to address how best to effectuate that approach.  X-#G CONCLUSION T  Y- xTP  33. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 established new, relaxed limitations on national  Y- xhmultiple ownership. We have issued this Notice to update the record on subsidiary matters not  x addressed in the Act which determine how to calculate the new 35% national audience reach cap  x<ԩ whether to continue the satellite exemption, as well as issues related to LMAs and market  x.definition. In seeking comment on these issues, we wish to ensure that the new national  xaudience reach cap is effectively implemented so as to promote our competition and diversity  xwgoals. We also seek comment on the transition issues raised by any rule changes we may adopt in this proceeding.  X -[ ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS T  Y- xkTP !34. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the  xxCommission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on" @B,,(,([[!"  xwor before February 7, 1997, and reply comments on or before March 7, 1997. To file formally  xYin this proceeding, you must file an original plus four copies of all comments, reply comments,  xand supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a copy of your comments,  xyou must file an original plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments to  xjOffice of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.  xComments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business  xhours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.  Y1- xk "35. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information  xcollections are due February 7, 1997. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of  xhManagement and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or  xwbefore 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments  xKwith the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein  xZshould be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234,  x1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to dconway@fcc.gov and  xJto 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.  YK- x> #36. This is a nonrestricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte  xpresentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are  Y- xdisclosed as provided in the Commission Rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).  Y- x, $37. Additional Information: For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Paul Gordon, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 4182130.  X- INITIAL PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 ANALYSIS ĐTP  Ye- x %38. The rules proposed herein have been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction  x+ Act of 1995 and found to contain no new or modified form, information collection and/or record  xkeeping, labeling, disclosure or record retention requirements. These proposed rules would not increase or decrease burden hours imposed on the public.  Y-  INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ă  Y -  xAs required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  603, the  xCommission is incorporating an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected  Y"- xximpact on small entities of the policies and proposals in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking""B,,(,([[#"  Y- x(Notice).IC | xPy- x#C\  P6QP#э An IRFA pursuant to Pub. L. No. 96354,  603, 94 Stat. 1165 (1980) was incorporated into both the Notice  xPA- xof Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 4111 (1992) (TV Ownership Notice), and the Further Notice of Proposed  xP - xRulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 3524 (1995) (TV Ownership Further Notice), in MM Docket Nos. 91221 and 878, the national ownership aspects of which have been incorporated into this proceeding.I Written public comments concerning the effect of the proposals in the Notice,  xincluding the IRFA, on small businesses are requested. Comments must be identified as  xresponses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for the submission of comments in this  Y- xproceeding. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief  x Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a)  Y-of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.D| xP -#C\  P6QP#э Pub. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. (1981), as amended.  Y_-  K xReason for Notice: After the issuance of the TV Ownership Further Notice in 1995, the  YI- xTelecommunications Act of 1996EI@| xP:-#C\  P6QP#э Pub. L. No. 104104,  101, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (Telecommunications Act). was signed into law. Accordingly, this Notice seeks comment  xon how the Telecommunications Act of 1996 should affect our ongoing analysis of the national broadcast television ownership rules.  Y -  Y -  =x Objectives: This Notice seeks comment on modifying the national broadcast television  xiownership rules to achieve our competition and diversity goals in light of the passage of the  x-Telecommunications Act. Pursuant to the Act, a licensee may not own a station if it would  xresult in that broadcaster's owning television stations with an aggregate national audience reach  x+ exceeding 35%. A station's audience reach has traditionally been defined for national ownership  xZpurposes as the total number of television households within the station's Area of Dominant  xInfluence (ADI), an area used by Arbitron to analyze broadcast television station competition.  xWhile the Telecommunications Act set the 35% national audience reach limit, it did not address  Y6- x;how to actually measure audience reach. This Notice seeks comment on issues relating to such measurement.  x- First, we propose to eliminate the satellite exemption to the national ownership rule, by  xwhich a television satellite station is not considered when calculating a broadcaster's national  xaudience reach, in cases where the satellite operates in a different market from its parent. The  xexemption was intended to encourage the operation of satellite stations. Without the exemption,  xa satellite would have brought a group station owner closer to the 12station cap (which was  xeliminated by the Telecommunications Act) just like the acquisition of any other station, thereby  xcreating a disincentive for satellite operation. However, because the 12station cap has been  xeliminated and because incorporation of a satellite's local market should add relatively little to  xa group owner's total national audience reach, the disincentive to satellite operation has likely  xhbeen removed. When the satellite and the parent are in the same market, however, we propose  xto retain the exemption, because multiple counting of the same audience would appear unrelated to Congress's concern with national audience reach."E,,(,([[ "Ԍ Y- xԙ Second, the Notice turns to LMAs, noting that the issue is relevant only if the LMA is  xdeemed attributable, a question being resolved in the pending attribution proceeding. This  Y- xKNotice proposes that local marketing agreements (LMAs) not be counted for the purposes of  xcalculating an entity's national audience reach. When one licensee operates as a broker to  x,another in the same television market pursuant to an LMA, it reaches the same audience twice,  x,through two different television stations, and it does not allow the brokering station's licensee  xto reach any audience that it is not already reaching. Thus, it appears that Congress's concern with national audience reach, as opposed to numerical station limits, is not implicated.  Y1- x, Finally, the Notice proposes to utilize Designated Market Areas (DMAs), the areas used by  xNielsen to analyze broadcast television station competition, instead of ADIs when calculating the  x number of TV households in a station's market. Arbitron no longer updates its countybycounty  xdeterminations of each broadcast station's ADI. However, DMAs are generally similar to ADIs  xand are still updated regularly. Any effects caused by this modification of the rule are expected  Y -to be de minimis.  Y- xI  Legal Basis: Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice may be found in Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(r).  YL- xH! Recording, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: No new recording, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements are proposed.  Y- x  Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules: The  xCommission's broadcastnewspaper, television broadcastcable, local radio ownership, and local  xytelevision ownership rules also promote the same goals as the rules discussed in this item. However, they do not overlap, duplicate or conflict with the proposed rules.  X- xG" Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Would  Y- xApply: The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a television broadcasting station that  xis independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation, and has no more  YR- xthan $10.5 million in annual receipts as a small business.FxR| xP- x[#C\  P6QP#э 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 4833 (1996). For purposes of this Notice of Proposed  xP- x=Rulemaking, we are utilizing the SBA's definition in determining the number of small businesses to which the  xproposed rules would apply, but we reserve the right to adopt a more suitable definition of "small business" as  x=applied to radio and television broadcast stations and to consider further the issue of the number of small entities  xP - xthat are television broadcasters in the future. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-48 (Children's  xP!- xEducational and Informational Programming), 61 Fed. Reg. 43981, 43992 (August 27, 1996), citing 5 U.S.C.  601(3). Television broadcasting stations  xconsist of establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by television to the  Y$- xpublic, except cable and other pay television services.G$| xP%- x#C\  P6QP#э Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 1992 CENSUS OF  xP&-TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITIES, ESTABLISHMENT AND FIRM SIZE, Series UC92S1, Appendix A9 (1995).CENSUS STUDYׂ Included in this industry are"$` G,,(,([["  Y- xcommercial, religious, educational, and other television stations.ZH| xPy-#C\  P6QP#э Id.Z Also included are  xestablishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and which produce taped television  Y- xprogram materials.ZIX| xP-#C\  P6QP#э Id.Z Separate establishments primarily engaged in producing taped television  Y- xprogram materials are classified under another SIC number.ZJ| xPT-#C\  P6QP#э Id.Z There were 1,509 television  Y- d(#stations operating in the nation in 1992.!Kx| xP - x#C\  P6QP#э FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993; Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census,  xP -U.S. Dep't of Commerce, supra note CENSUS STUDY71, Appendix A9.! That number has remained fairly constant, as  Y- d(#indicated by the approximately 1,550 operating television stations in August, 1996.L| xP-#C\  P6QP#э Federal Communications Commission News Release 64958, Sept. 6, 1996. In 1992,M ` | xP- x#C\  P6QP#э Census for communications establishments are performed every five years, during years that end with a "2"  xPf- xor "7". See Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 1992 Census  xof Transportation, Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series UC92S1, Appendix A9, III (1995).  d(#there were 1,155 television station establishments that produced less than $10.0 million in  Y_-revenue.NX_H | xPX- xL#C\  P6QP#э The amount of $10 million was used to estimate the number of small business establishments because the  xrelevant 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.  d(#, We recognize that the proposed rules may also affect minority and womenowned stations,  d(#some of which may be small entities. In 1995, minorities owned and controlled 37 (3.0%) of  Y - d(#1,221 commercial television stations.O h| xP-  #C\  P6QP#эxMinority Commercial Broadcast Ownership in the United States, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, National  xTelecommunications and Information Administration, The Minority Telecommunications Development Program  x(MTDP)(April 1996). MTDP considers minority ownership as ownership of more than 50% of a broadcast  xcorporation's stock, have voting control in a broadcast partnership, or own a broadcasting property as an individual  xP<-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  d(#iwomen owned and controlled 27 (1.9%) of 1,342 commercial and noncommercial television  Y - d(#stations in the United States.KPxX | xP"-  {#C\  P6QP#эxSee Comments of American Women in Radio and Television, Inc. in MM Docket No. 94149 and MM  xPf#- xDocket No. 91140, at 4 n.4 (filed May 17, 1995), citing 1987 Economic Censuses, WomenOwned Business,  xWB871, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, August 1990 (based on 1987 Census). After the 1987  xCensus report, the Census Bureau did not provide data by particular communications services (fourdigit Standard  xIndustrial Classification (SIC) Code), but rather by the general twodigit SIC Code for communications (#48).  xConsequently, since 1987, the U.S. Census Bureau has not updated data on ownership of broadcast facilities by  xjwomen, nor does the FCC collect such data. However, we sought comment on whether the Annual Ownership"N'O,,(,(]'"  x=Report Form 323 should be amended to include information on the gender and race of broadcast license owners.  xPX- xMPolicies and Rules Regarding Minority and Female Ownership of Mass Media Facilities, Notice of Proposed  xP -Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 2788, 2797 (1995).K We recognize that the numbers of minority and women broadcast" P,,(,([[ "  d(#owners may have changed due to an increase in license transfers and assignments since the  d(#;passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. We seek comment on the current numbers of  d(#wminority and women owned broadcast properties and the numbers of these that qualify as small  d(#entities. To assist us with our responsibilities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we  d(#wspecifically request comments concerning our assessment of the number of small businesses that  d(#will be impacted by this rule making proceeding, the type or form of impact, and the advantages and disadvantages of the impact.  XH- d(#G" Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities and Consistent  Y1- d(#iwith the Stated Objectives: The proposed rules and policies would apply to full power  d(#broadcast television licensees, permittees, and potential licensees. We have proposed to not  d(#[double count commonly owned stations in the same market and LMAs for the purpose of  Y - d(#;calculating a licensee's national audience reach. See  2122, 27, above. We also propose to  d(#eliminate the satellite exemption for licensees that operate a satellite station in a separate market  Y - d(#from the parent station. See  23-24, above. We do not have sufficient information, at this  d(#time, to reach a tentative conclusion about the effect of these proposed rules, and seek comment  d(#on the potential significant economic impact of these proposals on a substantial number of small stations. We urge parties to support their comments with specific evidence and analysis.  v /We tentatively conclude that there is not a significant economic impact regarding our  d(#proposal to use Designated Market Areas (DMAs) compiled by A.C. Nielsen instead of Arbitron  d(#to calculate national audience reach. A.C. Nielsen, like Arbitron, is another commercial ratings  Y-service. They are analytically similar. See  29, above. H` ` hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` ` hhCWilliam F. Caton ` ` hhCActing SecretaryH "!P,,(,([["  X-  g!j8     1$ g!j8 SEPARATE STATEMENT ~bOF  Xv-  COMMISSIONER JAMES H. QUELLO  X_- \  X -RE:XReview of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television  X -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  XK-Broadcast Interests; Review of the Commission's Regulations and Policies Affecting Investment in the Broadcast Industry; Reexamination of the  X-Commission's CrossInterest Policy ("Attribution"), Further Notice of  X-Proposed Rulemaking   Y- 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,  Ye-and I write separately in this statement to highlight issues from each item that I consider of  YN-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  Y-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. ")P,** +"ԌI 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  Y-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 same local market. With respect to the Commission's waiver policy for this rule, the  Y1-Second 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  Yy-slight trend toward moderate decreases in the number of owners.QyW Y- d(#h#Xj\  P6G;[AXP#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  Y- 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  Y4-finding markets to be "concentrated" based solely on radio advertising, as opposed to all  Y-advertising, sources in a community. R4W Y- d(#Z#XP\  P6Q[AXP#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  Y7-marketplace.  g!j8 " R,**"  g!j8 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. "_R,**"  X-  g!j8   X-  X-  X-  X-  X- 1$ g!j8 SEPARATE STATEMENT of 8COMMISSIONER SUSAN NESS\   X -  W - Re:XReview of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting;(#  W -X("Local Ownership"), Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;  W -Broadcast Television National Ownership Rules and Review of the  W -Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting ("National  W-Ownership"), Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Attribution of Broadcast Interests; Review of the  Wb-Commission's Regulations and Policies Affecting Investment in the Broadcast  WK-Industry; Reexamination of the Commission's CrossInterest Policy  W4-("Attribution"), Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; et al.   Y-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  Y-nationwide and significantly liberalized local radio ownership rules. We had initiated these  Y|-proceedings before Congress took action last winter because we recognized that the media  Ye-markets are changing. In view of the changes mandated by Congress and to elicit comment  YN-on more specific proposals than those previously described, we now ask the public for  Y7-further comment.  Y -I am pleased to support these items for three reasons:  Y-  Y-First, I prefer to change FCC policies or set standards by rulemaking rather than through ad  Y -hoc decisions. We shouldn't delay making decisions on license transfers and other  Y!-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 done, not through unattributable interests and other "allbutownership" activities. In our attribution proposals, we are striking a balance between the goal of precisely defining")R,** +" "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. "R,**"  X-  g!j8    O g!j8 STATEMENT OF\ ( COMMISSIONER RACHELLE B. CHONG  YH-  W1-Re:XReview of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting; ("Local  W -Ownership"), Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 91 W -221;(#  W -XBroadcast Television National Ownership Rules and Review of the Commission's  W -Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting ("National Ownership"), Notice of  W -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  Wb-("Attribution"), Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 94150; et al. (#  Y4- 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.