**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | MB Docket No. 04-233         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Broadcast Localism               | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**REPORT ON BROADCAST LOCALISM**

**AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted: December 18, 2007 Released: January 24, 2008**

**Comment Date: (30 days after publication in the Federal Register)**

**Reply Comment Date: (60 days after publication in the Federal
Register)**

By the Commission: Chairman Martin and Commissioner Tate issuing
separate statements; Commissioners Copps and Adelstein concurring in
part, dissenting in part, and issuing separate statements; Commissioner
McDowell approving in part, concurring in part, and issuing a statement.

Table of Contents

**[Heading]{.underline} [Paragraph ]{.underline}****[No.]{.underline}**

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. BACKGROUND 4

III\. DISCUSSION 11

A. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN LICENSEES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES 11

1\. Issues 11

2\. Public Comments 13

3\. Issues for Commission Action 16

B. NATURE AND AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY-RESPONSIVE PROGRAMMING 30

1\. Issues 30

2\. Public Comments 31

3\. Issues for Commission Action 40

C. POLITICAL PROGRAMMING 56

1\. Issues 56

2\. Public Comments 59

3\. Issues for Commission Action 67

D. UNDERSERVED AUDIENCES 70

1\. Issues 70

2\. Public Comments 71

3\. Issues for Commission Action 73

E. DISASTER WARNINGS 82

1\. Issues 82

2\. Public Comments 84

3\. Issues for Commission Action 87

F. NETWORK AFFILIATION RULES 89

1\. Issues 89

2\. Public Comments 92

3\. Issues for Commission Action 95

G. PAYOLA / SPONSORSHIP IDENTIFICATION 98

1\. Issues 98

2\. Public Comments 104

3\. Issues for Commission Action 108

H. LICENSE RENEWAL PROCEDURES 114

1\. Issues 114

2\. Public Comments 116

3\. Issues for Commission Action 122

I. ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM ALLOCATIONS 126

1\. Issues 126

2\. Public Comments 130

3\. Issues for Commission Action 132

IV\. CONCLUSION 143

V. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 145

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 145

B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 146

C. Ex Parte Rules 150

D. Filing Requirements 151

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES 157

Appendix A- Principal Commenters and Reply Commenters

Appendix B- Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

# INTRODUCTION

1.  This Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    (the "Report") provides an overview of the record in this docket,
    and our conclusions as the result of our review of that record. It
    also describes actions that we have taken or intend to take in this
    and the other ongoing Commission proceedings that we reference to
    ensure that broadcasters are appropriately addressing the needs of
    their local communities. Finally, the Report includes a Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking which seeks public comment on certain issues
    related to several of these actions that we propose to take. As
    described below, the voluminous record here demonstrates that some
    broadcasters devote significant amounts of time and resources to
    airing "programming that is responsive to the needs and interests of
    their communities of license."[^1] At the same time, in written
    comments and testimony received during six related field hearings,
    many other commenters have raised serious concerns that
    broadcasters' efforts, as a general matter, fall far short from what
    they should be. Specifically, the record indicates that many
    stations do not engage in the necessary public dialogue as to
    community needs and interests and that members of the public are not
    fully aware of the local issue-responsive programming that their
    local stations have aired.[^2] Against this backdrop, the Commission
    proposes certain changes to its rules and policies that will promote
    both localism and diversity. We also discuss ways to encourage
    broadcasters to improve programming targeted to local needs and
    interests, and to provide more accessible information about those
    on-air efforts to the people in their communities.

2.  The Report focuses in particular on broadcaster efforts to provide
    community-responsive programming such as news and public affairs,
    and programming targeted to the particular needs or interests of
    certain segments of the public.[^3] Because the centerpiece of
    localism is the communication between broadcasters and the members
    of the public that they are licensed to serve, the Report also
    addresses current efforts undertaken by both broadcasters and the
    Commission itself to make relevant information concerning
    broadcasters' efforts to serve their communities readily available
    to the public. The record here suggests that the dialogue between
    broadcasters and their audiences concerning stations' localism
    efforts is not ideal. Similarly, it is apparent that many listeners
    and viewers know little about Commission processes, such as the
    agency's review of license renewal applications and its complaint
    procedures, which allow the public to effectively raise concerns
    about broadcasters' performance.

3.  Given the record, we conclude that modification of certain of our
    rules, policies and practices may be necessary to address the
    deficiencies of many broadcasters in meeting their obligation to
    serve their local communities. These proposed changes are intended
    to promote localism by providing viewers and listeners greater
    access to locally responsive programming including, but not limited
    to, local news and public affairs matter. The proposed modifications
    are also designed to promote diversity by increasing and expanding
    broadcast ownership opportunities for minority- and women-owned
    businesses and small businesses. As a result, the actions discussed
    herein will allow greater diversity in what is seen and heard over
    the airwaves, and ensure that communities have access to valuable,
    locally responsive programming.

# BACKGROUND

4.  In August 2003, the Commission launched a "Localism in Broadcasting"
    initiative to review, and possibly enhance, localism practices among
    broadcasters, which are designed to ensure that each station treats
    the significant needs and issues of the community that it is
    licensed to serve with the programming that it offers.[^4] In
    addition to establishing procedures by which the Commission would
    study the state of broadcast localism and take any steps necessary
    to strengthen such efforts by licensees, on July 1, 2004, the
    Commission issued the *NOI* concerning localism. Through the *NOI*,
    the Commission sought direct input from the public on how
    broadcasters are serving the interests and needs of their
    communities; whether the agency needs to adopt new policies,
    practices, or rules designed directly to promote localism in
    broadcast television and radio; and, if so, what those policies,
    practices, or rules should be.[^5]

5.  The *NOI* observed that the concept of localism has been a
    cornerstone of broadcast regulation for decades. The concept derives
    from Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
    "Communications Act"), and is reflected in and supported by a number
    of current Commission policies and rules. Title III generally
    instructs the Commission to regulate broadcasting as the public
    interest, convenience, and necessity dictate, and Section 307(b)
    explicitly requires the Commission to "make such distribution of
    licenses, frequencies, hours of operation, and of power among the
    several States and communities as to provide a fair, efficient, and
    equitable distribution of radio service to each of the same."[^6] In
    carrying out the mandate of Section 307(b), the Commission has long
    recognized that "every community of appreciable size has a
    presumptive need for its own transmission service."[^7] The Supreme
    Court has stated that "\[f\]airness to communities \[in distributing
    radio service\] is furthered by a recognition of local needs for a
    community radio mouthpiece."[^8]

6.  The Commission has consistently held that, as temporary trustees of
    the public's airwaves, broadcasters are obligated to operate their
    stations to serve the public interest---specifically, to air
    programming responsive to the needs and issues of the people in
    their communities of license.[^9] The *NOI* noted that our broadcast
    regulatory framework is designed to foster a system of local
    stations that respond to the unique concerns and interests of the
    audiences within the stations' respective service areas.[^10]

7.  The *NOI* also took note that, during the Commission's 2002 review
    of its structural broadcast ownership rules, the agency received
    public comments indicating that many broadcasters may be failing to
    meet the needs of their local communities.[^11] In response, the
    Commission opened this separate inquiry proceeding to seek input on
    a number of issues related to broadcast localism. Among them were
    questions as to how broadcasters are communicating with the
    communities that they serve and are serving the needs of those
    communities, including whether stations are airing a sufficient
    amount of community-responsive programming, such as news, political
    material and disaster warnings, as well as the state of their
    service to traditionally underserved audiences. It also sought
    comment on the relationship between networks and their affiliated
    stations, payola and sponsorship identification, the license renewal
    process and possible additional spectrum allocations. The *NOI* also
    asked whether, based on that analysis, the Commission should take
    action to ensure that licensees meet their localism obligations or,
    in the alternative, continue to rely on market forces and the
    existing issue-responsive programming rules to encourage
    broadcasters to meet their obligations.[^12]

8.  In addition to the *NOI's* call for written comments, the Commission
    conducted six field hearings: in Charlotte, North Carolina (October
    22, 2003); San Antonio, Texas (January 28, 2004); Rapid City, South
    Dakota (May 26, 2004); Monterey, California (July 21, 2004),
    Portland, Maine (June 28, 2007), and Washington, D.C. (October 31,
    2007). During those hearings, attended by various commissioners and
    members of the Commission staff, the agency engaged in dialogue with
    industry and civic leaders, educators and broadcasters, as well as
    members of the public, to obtain information concerning the issues
    articulated in the *NOI*. The hearings included 86 formal
    presentations and remarks from community, interest group, and
    broadcaster representatives, as well as elected and appointed
    officials from state and federal governments. The proceedings also
    included testimony from 421 additional participants during "open
    microphone" sessions. The written materials and transcripts of the
    oral testimony gathered at those hearings have been placed into the
    record of this proceeding.[^13]

9.  As of December 2007, the Commission has received over 83,000 written
    submissions from commenters including broadcasters, broadcast
    industry organizations, public interest groups, and members of the
    public. Many broadcast entities submitted information with their
    comments outlining the process that each follows to determine the
    needs and interests of people within their respective communities of
    license. Licensee commenters also provided detailed data concerning
    the amount, nature, and variety of the programming that each airs to
    meet those needs and interests. A number of public interest
    organizations and educators submitted with their comments studies of
    various aspects of the nature and quality of local broadcast
    programming.

10. In the following section of this Report, we summarize the record of
    the comments and testimony amassed in this proceeding for each of
    the nine general localism areas of inquiry specified in the
    *NOI*: (1) communication between licensees and their stations'
    communities; (2) nature and amount of community-responsive
    programming; (3) political programming; (4) underserved
    audiences; (5) disaster warnings; (6) network affiliation rules; (7)
    payola/sponsorship identification; (8) license renewal procedures;
    and (9) additional spectrum allocations. We then provide our
    analysis of the pertinent record, and note those areas where we
    conclude that revision of our rules, procedures, and policies is
    called for to ensure that broadcasters effectively meet the needs
    and problems of their communities with the programming that they
    air. With regard to some areas of concern, we conclude that
    additional information and guidance is necessary before we so act,
    and pose certain questions for comment by members of the
    public.[^14]

# DISCUSSION

## COMMUNICATION BETWEEN LICENSEES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES

### Issues

11. As noted in the *NOI,* in the past, the Commission formally
    regulated the manner in which broadcasters obtained input from their
    local communities regarding matters of local interest, in order to
    ensure that they air programming that responded to those interests.
    Through its "ascertainment" requirement, the Commission directed
    broadcasters to comply with detailed procedures for determining the
    problems, needs, and interests of their communities.[^15] In
    addition, the Commission required licensees to maintain programming
    logs, which broadcasters used to inform their communities about how
    they serve the public interest, for purposes of program planning,
    and to ensure compliance with program oversight by the
    Commission.[^16] In the 1980s, the Commission eliminated these
    requirements, first for radio (in 1981), and then for television (in
    1984), concluding that market forces, in conjunction with the
    imposition of an issue-responsive programming documentation
    obligation and the petition to deny process, could be relied upon to
    ensure that broadcasters aired programming responsive to the needs
    and interests of their communities.[^17] The Commission indicated
    that it would no longer regulate how a broadcaster determined those
    needs and interests, and would require only that a station maintain
    issues/programs lists of its most significant treatment of community
    issues, updated quarterly, in its public inspection file.[^18]

12. The Commission has continued to monitor the manner by which
    broadcasters receive local community input. In the *DTV Public
    Interest NOI*, the Commission discussed the requests of certain
    groups that the agency more closely regulate the way in which
    television broadcasters determine the needs and interests of their
    communities and report on how they fulfill those needs and
    interests.[^19] Based on the comments received, the Commission
    released the *Enhanced Disclosure NPRM*, which proposed to replace
    the issues/programs lists with a standardized form.[^20] As
    discussed in more detail below, by Report and Order adopted on
    November 27, 2007, the Commission adopted a form that requires
    television licensees to report on their efforts to identify the
    programming needs of various segments of their communities, and to
    list their community-responsive programming broadcast, by
    category.[^21] The *Enhanced Disclosure Order* also requires that
    such licensees make these forms, as well as most of the rest of
    their station public inspection files, available on the Internet,
    for access by members of the public at no charge.[^22] As discussed
    *supra,* in the *NOI,* the Commission sought comment on other steps,
    beyond those contemplated in the *Enhanced Disclosure NPRM* and *DTV
    Public Interest NOI,* that the Commission could take to improve
    broadcasters' communication with their communities. The *NOI* also
    asked how effectively market forces have fulfilled the goal of
    ensuring that broadcasters air programming responsive to the needs
    and interests of their communities.[^23]

### Public Comments

13. The record before us concerning broadcaster efforts to effectively
    communicate with their audiences about local issues is decidedly
    mixed. Comments indicate that some broadcasters engage in
    substantial, inventive, and ongoing efforts to identify the needs
    and interests of the members of their communities of license as a
    first step in formulating and airing locally oriented,
    community-responsive programming that will meet those needs.[^24]
    Many licensees feel that current efforts have achieved the goal of
    ensuring that they air programming responsive to the needs and
    interests of their communities.[^25] As reported by the broadcasters
    themselves, examples of their efforts include the following:

-   Fox stations participate in formal ascertainment meetings sponsored
    by their respective state broadcasters associations at which
    community leaders, local politicians, executives of non-profit
    organizations, representatives of minority groups, and public
    interest advocates share with broadcasters the issues that they
    believe to be important with them. Many Fox stations also engage in
    less formal efforts, such as holding meetings at their studios with
    community leaders, maintaining telephone and e-mail lines of
    communication, and employing station public affairs directors who
    serve as community liaisons.[^26]

-   CBS' KEYE-TV, Austin, Texas, holds monthly meetings with
    representatives of industry, non-profit organizations, government,
    community leaders, and the general public to identify matters that
    station programming should address.[^27]

-   Station KWEX-TV, San Antonio, Texas, a Univision Spanish-formatted
    station, engages in ongoing discussions throughout the year with
    community leaders and members of the public. On average, the station
    conducts over 80 face-to-face interviews each year to determine the
    issues most important to the people of San Antonio. It takes into
    consideration the information gleaned from these interviews, as well
    as data from other sources, in making programming decisions.[^28]

-   Univision's KCOR(AM), San Antonio, Texas, provides an e-mail address
    and phone number during its public affairs programming that allow
    listeners to contact the station and communicate with its personnel
    about issues of importance to the community. Its WGBO-TV, Joliet,
    Illinois, annually conducts 60-100 formal ascertainment interviews
    with local leaders, congressmen, business officials, public safety
    officials, educators, and representatives of non-profit
    organizations.[^29]

-   Station KINY(AM), Juneau, Alaska, licensed to Alaska-Juneau
    Communications, Inc., uses the Internet to encourage listener
    feedback on local community needs and interests. The station also
    regularly interviews business and government leaders as part of a
    daily public affairs programming block. Listeners are provided time
    during a daily "Problem Corner" program to discuss issues that
    affect the community.[^30]

-   WTVD Television, LLC's WTVD-TV, Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, has
    "an organized minority board that gives the station guidance on
    issues regarding the minority community."[^31]

-   KFMB-TV, San Diego, California, licensed to Midwest Television,
    Inc., asks viewers for story ideas, which has resulted in the airing
    of a variety of local features, including an investigation of a new
    skate park that was built along a main road having no safe crossing
    for children. Viewers also identified dangerous traffic areas in
    their neighborhoods, which resulted in a series of news stories
    investigating these areas and work with police and residents to slow
    traffic and correct those problems.[^32]

14. In spite of these individual licensee efforts, many commenters see a
    need for additional efforts by broadcasters to identify the needs
    and interests of their communities of license. These proposals
    include the following:

-   Elimination of the current issues/programs lists in favor of
    reinstating the formal ascertainment process, as discussed above,
    which allows stations "to get a real understanding of the needs of
    those we would be serving."[^33]

-   Creation of advisory boards whereby stations regularly meet with
    community leaders and individuals from all sectors of the
    community.[^34]

-   Adoption of measures to increase public awareness of existing
    localism requirements with Commission-sponsored public service
    announcements, including an 800 number where consumers can find more
    information.[^35]

-   Providing for improved access to station decision-makers by the
    leadership of all local community groups.[^36]

-   Imposition of the requirement that the current issues/programs lists
    be placed on a station's website, and the use of a standardized form
    for the reporting of such information.[^37]

15. As illustrated above, some licensees strive to actively ascertain
    the needs and interests of the communities they serve and air
    programming that reflects those needs and interests. However, in
    light of the critical testimony received, including that noted
    above, there is some question as to whether these practices have
    been widespread. Moreover, many members of the public are unaware of
    these obligations of broadcasters or of the crucial role that the
    public can play in the Commission's regulation of licensees. In sum,
    commenter recommendations of improving communication with their
    local stations include changes to the disclosure process, such as
    those taken in the *Enhanced Disclosure Order;* the formation and
    utilization of community advisory boards; and the consideration of a
    repeal of the rule changes that allow for unattended station
    operation. We also propose an update of the Commission's publication
    "The Public and Broadcasting," to include additional information of
    use to the public, as well as links to the Commission website at
    which members of the public may find more detailed information on
    particular topics of interest to them.

###  Issues for Commission Action

16. We agree with the commenters about the need to improve the
    communication between broadcast licensees and their local
    communities. Accordingly, we propose for comment several additional
    methods of improving that communication. Many of these proposals are
    consistent with commenter suggestions, as discussed above. However,
    we do not agree that all of those suggestions are feasible or
    necessary, such as reinstating the formal ascertainment process,
    which, as noted above, imposed specific and detailed formal
    procedures by which applicants and licensees were required to
    consult with community leaders to determine local needs and problems
    and propose programming to meet those issues. [^38] Instead, we
    believe that Commission action in the following ways will assist
    further licensee-community communication and identification of
    community needs and interests. As detailed below, we will act
    immediately on others, such as updating "The Public and
    Broadcasting," our guide designed to assist audiences in
    scrutinizing local stations' localism performance and adherence to
    our rules. For proposals for which more input is required, we call
    for public comment.

17. *"The Public and Broadcasting."* The record in this proceeding
    reveals that there is a substantial need for greater public
    understanding of broadcaster obligations, including serving the
    needs of the local community, and of the procedures by which the
    Commission enforces those obligations.[^39] To provide this
    understanding, the Commission must better educate citizens about the
    tools available to them, should they conclude that their local
    broadcast stations are not fulfilling their service obligations.

18. The Commission's rules require each broadcast station to maintain in
    its public file, and to make available upon request, a copy of the
    Commission publication entitled "The Public and Broadcasting."[^40]
    This document can provide an effective means by which to inform
    members of the public of the specific obligations of the stations
    that are licensed to serve them, and the various operating rules
    with which licensees must comply. It also can make viewers and
    listeners aware of Commission procedures and the tools at their
    disposal in the event that they conclude that any of their local
    stations do not meet these obligations. Moreover, the Commission's
    website contains substantial information similarly of use to the
    public, much in the form of easy-to-read guides concerning the
    broadcast renewal process, applicable deadlines, and complaint
    procedures, including links to sites at which complaints may be
    electronically filed. We direct the Media Bureau to update "The
    Public and Broadcasting" publication to include this information, as
    well as links to the Commission website at which the public may find
    more detailed information on particular topics.

19. We will also establish, refer to in "The Public and Broadcasting,"
    and publicize on the Commission website and in other appropriate
    Commission publications, a contact point at the Commission,
    accessible over the Internet or via a toll-free telephone number,
    dedicated to providing information to members of the public
    regarding how they can become involved in the Commission's
    processes. We believe that having a point of contact at the
    Commission who can respond to inquiries and provide necessary
    information, such as the timing of the filing of license renewal
    applications for particular stations and details regarding our
    complaint procedures, will facilitate the public's understanding of
    broadcaster obligations and the procedures by which the Commission
    enforces those obligations.

20. *Enhanced Disclosure.* We agree with commenters' concerns regarding
    the inadequacy of the current limited disclosure by licensees of the
    locally responsive programming that they offer, and public access to
    such information. The record in this proceeding---particularly that
    portion amassed during the series of public hearings conducted
    across the country---suggests that current disclosure is inadequate
    and many individuals may be unaware of the breadth of their
    community licensees' locally oriented programming. This lack of
    knowledge apparently extends to the adequacy of so-called
    "issues/programs lists," which broadcasters long have been required
    to compile and make available to the public, upon request. [^41]
    Until recently, under the Commission's rules, commercial and
    non-commercial educational television and radio licensees had to
    create, on a quarterly basis, "a list of programs that have provided
    the station's most significant treatment of community issues during
    the preceding three month period."[^42] The rules, however, did not
    require that licensees list every program that may have contributed
    to localism during the relevant period, although, for those efforts
    that broadcasters did document, they were required to provide at
    least a minimum amount of specific information about each program,
    including air time and date and some indication of the community
    issue addressed. These lists were required to be placed in the
    station public inspection file.[^43]

21. We agree with the commenters that these rules in this area are not
    sufficient. We therefore initiated the Enhanced Disclosure
    proceeding with the goal of adopting measures that would help to
    increase public awareness of licensee localism efforts. In that
    proceeding, the Commission sought comment on adoption of a
    standardized disclosure form, including a requirement to report
    specific information pertaining to local programming. As noted
    above, the *Enhanced Disclosure Order* made changes in the licensee
    programming reporting requirement, through the use of such a
    standardized form, to replace the current issues/programs lists. The
    form, which will be filed by television licensees on a quarterly
    basis, requires the disclosure of information with regard to the
    programming aired by the station during the previous three months.
    Such information must be provided and broken down for each of the
    following programming categories: national news, local news produced
    by the station, local news produced elsewhere, identifying the
    producing entity; local civic affairs, local electoral affairs,
    independently produced, other local, public service announcements,
    paid public service announcements, directed to underserved
    communities, religious, and closed captioning.[^44] For each such
    program noted, the licensee must provide the program title, dates
    and times of airing and length of the program. It must also indicate
    whether it has undertaken any efforts to determine the programming
    needs of its community and has designed any programming based upon
    those identified needs.[^45]

22. In the *Enhanced Disclosure Order*, the Commission also required
    that television licensees place most of the contents of their public
    inspection files, including any new enhanced disclosure forms, on
    the station's website, if one exists, or on the website of their
    state broadcasters association.[^46] Internet access to such
    information will only improve the ability of members of the public
    to become educated as to broadcasters' efforts to serve them, thus
    prompting more active dialogue between licensees and their audiences
    concerning issues of public importance to local communities and how
    broadcasters might go about addressing those issues on the
    air---which may quickly lead to the airing of more responsive
    programming. The *Order* also requires that television stations
    notify viewers of the existence, location, and accessibility of
    their public files twice daily, during station identification
    announcements.[^47] As noted *supra*, in our *Digital Audio FNPRM*,
    we have inquired as to whether radio licensees should also be
    subject to enhanced disclosure requirements.[^48]

23. In addition to enhancing the dialogue between stations and members
    of the public, these measures will also help licensees document the
    kind of responsive programming that they have broadcast in a manner
    that is both understandable to the public and of use in the
    Commission's review of license renewal applications. The record here
    and in the *Enhanced Disclosure* proceeding suggests that many in
    the public do not understand the Commission's license renewal
    process or, more particularly, that the procedure affords listeners
    and viewers a meaningful opportunity to provide their input through
    the filing of a complaint, comment, informal objection, or petition
    to deny a renewal application.

24. *Renewal Application Pre- and Post-Filing Announcements.* In order
    to increase the public awareness of, and participation in our
    license renewal proceedings, we believe that we also should change
    the existing rules governing the so-called "pre-filing and
    post-filing announcements" that licensees must air in connection
    with their renewal applications,[^49] and call for comment on these
    new measures. In addition to the existing requirement for on-air
    announcements about soon-to-be-filed and pending license renewal
    applications, we seek comment on whether we should require that the
    same information be posted on a licensee's website during the
    relevant months (*i.e*., the posting begins on the sixth month
    before the license is due to expire and remains in place until after
    the deadline for filing petitions to deny the renewal application).
    We also seek comment on whether we should broaden the required
    language for these announcements contained in 47 C.F.R. §
    73.3580(d)(4)(i), which currently provides the Commission's mailing
    address as a source of information concerning the broadcast license
    renewal process, to include the agency's website address. Moreover,
    where technically feasible, we seek comment on whether a licensee's
    on-line provision of the Commission's web address could be linked
    directly to these places on the agency's website. We believe that
    such online posting is likely to be more accessible and
    understandable to the public than are the relatively few on-air
    announcements currently required, and we also request comment on
    these matters.

25. *Community Advisory Boards.* The Commission's former ascertainment
    requirement directed broadcasters to comply with detailed, formal
    procedures to determine the needs and interests of their
    communities, at the time that they initially sought their station
    authorizations, asked for approval to obtain a station, and sought
    license renewal. The record before us here shows that new efforts
    are needed to ensure that licensees regularly gather information
    from community representatives to help inform the stations'
    programming decisions, but we are not persuaded that the appropriate
    measure should be reinstatement of the former ascertainment
    mandates. As when the Commission eliminated those procedures in the
    1980s, we do not believe that their potential benefits justify the
    costs. We do tentatively conclude, however, that the same
    fundamental objectives can be achieved through other means,
    including regular, quarterly licensee meetings with a board of
    community advisors and improved access by the public to station
    decision makers.

26. As noted *supra*, a number of licensee commenters have reported the
    benefits of community advisory boards in determining matters of
    local interest for broadcasters. We tentatively conclude that each
    licensee should convene a permanent advisory board made up of
    officials and other leaders from the service area of its broadcast
    station. We believe that these boards will promote both localism and
    diversity and, as such, should be an integral component of the
    Commission's localism efforts. Accordingly, we seek comment on this
    proposal. Will such community advisory boards be able to alert each
    broadcaster to issues that are important to its community of
    license? How should members of the advisory boards be selected or
    elected? Should the former ascertainment guidelines be a starting
    point to identify those various segments in the community with whom
    the licensees should consult? [^50] How can the advisory boards be
    composed so as to ensure that all segments of the community,
    including minority or underserved members of the community, would
    also have an opportunity to voice their concerns about local issues
    facing the area? How frequently should licensees be required to meet
    with these advisory boards? We believe that, generally speaking, if
    a licensee already has formal groups in place with which it consults
    to determine the needs of its community, it should be deemed to have
    satisfied this requirement. We also seek comment on under what
    circumstances a licensee should be deemed to have satisfied this
    requirement with its current practices.

27. In addition, we recognize that additional, informal efforts to
    gather information from members of their communities could prove
    beneficial to licensees and, ultimately, the audiences that they
    serve. The record indicates that efforts such as the following have
    been successful for licensees:

-   Some stations conduct formal or *ad hoc* listener or viewer surveys,
    by telephone, Internet, or other means.[^51]

-   Similarly, some broadcasters conduct focus sessions or "town hall"
    meetings with viewers and listeners to help prioritize issues to be
    covered through news, public affairs, public service, and special
    programming.[^52]

-   Station managers and other personnel also often sit on various
    boards, committees, councils and commissions, particularly in
    sparsely populated areas in which community functions depend on
    community participation in often voluntary public efforts.[^53]

-   Some licensees use dedicated telephone numbers, websites and e-mail
    addresses, publicized during programming, to facilitate community
    dialogue.[^54]

We also call for comment on whether we should adopt rules or guidelines
that encompass these approaches, or other similar efforts, for fostering
better communication between licensees and their communities. We note
that the standardized disclosure form recently adopted by the Commission
will require broadcasters to describe any public outreach efforts
undertaken during the reporting period.

28. *Remote Station Operation.* We agree with those commenters who
    expressed concern about the prevalence of automated broadcast
    operations, which allow the operation of stations without a local
    presence, and the perceived negative impact that such remote
    operation may have on licensees' ability to determine and serve
    local needs. In 1987, the Commission eliminated its rule requiring a
    broadcast station to originate a majority of its non-network
    programming from its locally situated main studio.[^55] This action
    was based, in part, on technical advances in the production and
    distribution of programming during the prior 35 years. In 1995, in
    response to continuing improvements in the stability of station
    monitoring and transmission equipment, the Commission authorized
    unattended technical operation of broadcast stations and expanded
    the ability of stations to control and monitor station technical
    operations from remote locations.[^56] Although concerns were
    expressed that these rule revisions would result in stations
    operating on "auto-pilot with no one in charge," the Commission
    concluded that the new rules would provide licensees with important
    flexibility, without adversely affecting the public interest.[^57]
    Licensees have broadly embraced this new technical flexibility, and
    many stations now operate for extended periods without station
    personnel present at or near transmission facilities.

29. Recently, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    regarding this issue, in connection with a public interest review of
    digital audio broadcasting. The Commission asked whether it should
    review its rules and determinations that facilitated the development
    of the automated radio broadcast operations described above. It also
    asked whether changes in remote radio operation should affect
    existing rules. Comments are still being received in that
    proceeding. We are considering requiring that licensees maintain a
    physical presence at each radio broadcasting facility during all
    hours of operation.[^58] Requiring that all radio stations be
    attended can only increase the ability of the station to provide
    information of a local nature to the community of license.
    Particularly in the event of severe weather or a local emergency,
    such a requirement that all operations be attended may increase the
    likelihood that each broadcaster will be capable of relaying
    critical life-saving information to the public. Although parties
    have commented in that proceeding on this issue in the context of
    radio, we seek comment here on whether we should extend this
    requirement to television stations, as well as radio facilities.

## NATURE AND AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY-RESPONSIVE PROGRAMMING

### Issues

30. Having recognized that certain groups have long complained that
    broadcasters do not air enough community-responsive programming, the
    Commission sought comment on the nature and amount of such
    programming in the *NOI*. The Commission inquired as to how
    broadcasters were serving the needs of their communities, whether
    they were providing enough community-responsive programming, whether
    the Commission could or should take action to ensure that
    broadcasters aired programming that served their communities' needs
    and interests, and whether non-entertainment or non-locally
    originated programming should constitute local programming. The
    Commission further sought comment on whether it should continue to
    rely on market forces to encourage broadcasters to air community
    responsive programming, such as news, political, and public affairs
    programming; whether it should distinguish between radio and
    television broadcasters; whether the profitability of local news
    production should be considered; and the frequency, length, and
    availability of broadcast public service announcements.[^59]

### Public Comments

31. The record reveals that notable disparities exist among licensees
    with respect to the nature and amount of community-responsive
    programming that they air. Some broadcasters transmit substantial
    amounts of local news programming relevant to the issues that face
    their communities of license. In addition to breaking stories, many
    such broadcasts also include information concerning, crime,
    investigative features, consumer advocacy issues and segments
    focused on politics, sports and community events. Stations also
    provide vital weather information, particularly in emergency
    situations. Noteworthy examples of community-responsive programming,
    as self-reported by licensees,[^60] include the following:

-   CBS states that its owned stations air the following amounts of
    local news weekly: WFRV-TV, Green Bay, Wisconsin: 46.5 hours;
    KDKA-TV, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: 40 hours (30 percent of
    programming schedule); WJZ-TV, Baltimore, Maryland: 35 hours (21
    percent of schedule); KUTV(TV), Salt Lake City, Utah: 38 hours;
    KYW-TV and WSPG-TV, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 47 hours (combined);
    and WBZ-TV and WSBK-TV, Boston, Massachusetts: 41 hours
    (combined).[^61]

-   Media General states that WJTV, Jackson, Mississippi, airs 9.5 hours
    per weekday of news, over half of which focuses on local
    stories.[^62] Its WDEF-TV, Chattanooga, Tennessee, weekly airs 24.5
    hours of local news, using a staff of almost 50 employees dedicated
    to local newsgathering and production.[^63]

-   Entercom's KNSS(AM), Wichita, Kansas, states that it produces "The
    Morning Newswatch," a three-hour block of local news each weekday
    named by the Kansas Broadcasters Association the best newscast in
    the state. The station also says it produces a six-minute news
    update that airs five times a day, and updates the weather twice an
    hour.[^64]

-   The Arkansas Broadcasters Association states that KHTS and KTHS-FM,
    Berryville, Arkansas, licensed to Jeri Lyn Broadcasting, Inc., each
    devotes 30 percent of its broadcast day to news and information
    programming, including news and community bulletin board features,
    localized weather, emergency information, and coverage of education
    and the arts.[^65]

32. Some commenters also state that broadcasters' newscasts are not
    limited to their reporting of ongoing local news stories. They
    indicate that they include in-depth, locally oriented investigative
    reports, health advice, crime reports, weather, sports, consumer
    advocacy, family issues, cultural events, business matters, and
    topics of importance to minorities. Examples reported by licensees
    include Belo's WWL-TV preemption of scheduled programming for
    "wall-to-wall" coverage of Gulf Coast hurricanes;[^66] the efforts
    of Enchanted Air, Inc., licensee of KRTN and KRTN-FM, Raton, New
    Mexico, which broke away from local programming several years ago to
    keep listeners abreast of area forest fires and evacuation plans
    related to those events[^67]; and hurricane-preparedness specials
    aired by Post-Newsweek's Florida and Texas-based stations and
    Raycom's WFLX(TV), West Palm Beach, Florida.[^68]

33. The record further demonstrates that some broadcasters air a
    substantial amount of other local public affairs programming,
    including material involving education, minority issues, health
    matters, violence, consumer topics, women's issues, and religion.
    Some of this programming is stand-alone material; at other times, it
    is presented during segments within regularly scheduled newscasts.
    Illustrations, as self-reported by the broadcasters, include Clear
    Channel's Albany, New York, radio stations' airing of "Clear View,"
    a weekly half-hour program that highlights community organizations
    and their positive impact upon the Albany community;[^69] Gannett's
    WZZM-TV, Grand Rapids, Michigan, production of "Take Five Grand
    Rapids," a half-hour, live talk show that covers community news and
    public affairs issues;[^70] and Sierra Broadcasting's KRNV-TV, Reno,
    Nevada, which airs three 30-minute public affairs programs: "Nevada
    Newsmakers," a show featuring local politicians and community
    figures; "Community Update," a program that airs daily between 10
    a.m. and 5 p.m.; and "Lifelong Learning," a weekly program.[^71]

34. While some commenters cite such examples as evidence that further
    regulation is unnecessary,[^72] the record also reveals that others
    feel that broadcasters are not complying with their obligation, as
    public trustees, to air sufficient programming that is responsive to
    local needs and interests.[^73] These commenters question the
    validity of claims by broadcasters that they are providing
    substantial locally oriented programming, and maintain that
    financial considerations, exacerbated by the deregulation of
    broadcasting that began in the 1980s, have resulted in a critical
    decrease in the quality and quantity of programs offered by
    licensees that are responsive to the needs and interests of local
    communities that they serve. The following are examples from the
    record of commenters critical of broadcasters' localism efforts.

35. The Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union conclude that
    deregulated markets will not provide society with the responsive
    diverse local broadcast matter that our democracy needs to thrive,
    and call for an aggressive policy to promote localism and diversity
    that does not conflict with First Amendment principles.[^74] The
    American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the American
    Federation of Musicians ("AFTRA/AFM") state that broadcasters are
    failing to serve the interests of local communities in developing
    and promoting local artists and in fostering musical genres.[^75]

36. In separate comments, three groups involved in community production
    of local television programming---the Alliance for Community
    Media-Western Region, a nonprofit organization representing public,
    educational and government ("PEG") access centers that trains
    individuals in the production of such programming carried over
    dedicated cable PEG channels;[^76] Chicago Access Corporation "CAN
    TV," which provides such training in the Chicago, Illinois,
    area;[^77] and Diablo Video Arts, Inc., a volunteer-based community
    group that develops community-based programming in Contra Costa
    County, California[^78]---each maintains in its respective filing
    that broadcasters are improperly scaling back their news and public
    affairs programming. The Campaign Legal Center and The Alliance for
    Better Campaigns ("Campaign Commenters") also express their concern
    about what they perceive to be a continual decline in recent years
    in the amount of local and network broadcast news coverage of
    substantive campaign and election issues.[^79]

37. NY/PA Media Action and Binghamton Independent Media Center submitted
    a joint study of the state of broadcast localism in the Binghamton,
    New York, market.[^80] Their Reply Comments contend that area
    licensees have grossly overstated the amount of locally oriented
    news programming that they offer by including "time spent on
    commercials, weather, sports, entertainment, video news releases,
    and redundancy...."[^81] They also maintain that locally produced
    public affairs programming "is almost entirely absent."[^82] Their
    comments similarly criticize local public broadcasters for barring
    access by independent producers of programming, removing "activists"
    from community advisory boards and closing their meetings to the
    public.[^83] NY/PA/Binghamton praise the programming of two
    Binghamton area television and two area radio licensees, the local
    news and public affairs of which they state represent more than 90
    percent of that in the market by stations in their respective media.
    Nevertheless, they claim that, generally, local broadcasters are
    fixated on ratings and revenues at the expense of locally oriented
    programming.[^84]

38. The Donald McGannon Communication Research Center at Fordham
    University ("McGannon Center") submitted two studies on
    localism.[^85] The first, "Television Station Ownership
    Characteristics and Local News and Public Affairs Programming: An
    Expanded Analysis of Commission Data" (the "Expanded Analysis"), is
    a May 2003 analysis[^86] of an earlier Commission-directed study
    concerning the provision of news and public affairs programming by
    affiliates of the four major television networks (the "Spavins
    Study"). [^87] While the Expanded Analysis agrees with the Spavins
    Study's ultimate conclusion that there is a positive correlation
    between network or newspaper ownership and the provision of local
    news programming, the Expanded Analysis differs from the Spavins
    Study in finding no such correlation between such ownership and the
    provision of local public affairs programming. Instead, the Expanded
    Analysis concludes that the provision of public affairs programming
    appears to be a function of station revenues.[^88] The second study
    submitted by the McGannon Center, "Market Structure, Station
    Ownership and Local Public Affairs Programming on Local Broadcast
    Television" (the "Public Affairs Programming Study"), provides
    descriptive information on available local and non-local public
    affairs programming derived from a two-week random sample in 2003 of
    285 commercial and noncommercial television stations. The Public
    Affairs Programming Study analyzes the relationship between market
    and station characteristics and the provision of such
    programming.[^89] It concludes that half of the stations surveyed
    (and 59 percent of the surveyed commercial stations) provided no
    local public affairs programming during the two-week sample
    period.[^90] On average, commercial broadcast stations provided 45
    minutes of such programming during the period.[^91] In contrast, 90
    percent of the public stations surveyed aired some local public
    affairs programming-- 3.5 hours per week, on average.[^92] The
    Public Affairs Programming Study also finds no meaningful
    relationship between market conditions and the provision of such
    programming, but it does find a significant correlation between
    network ownership and the provision of such programming, with
    network-owned stations less likely to provide it.[^93]

39. Based on the foregoing criticisms, several commenters provided
    numerous proposals in the record for how the Commission may
    accomplish the goal of increasing the amount of locally responsive
    programming. Proposals offered by commenters included the following:
    exploring the use of the cable public, education, and government
    ("PEG") model for public access to broadcast stations;[^94]
    requiring "public interest minimums" for public affairs and
    political programming, as well as locally produced public service
    announcements;[^95] requiring standardized reporting on a quarterly
    basis so that the public and the Commission can see how community
    needs, interests, and problems are being served through local
    programming;[^96] developing a system of community access/channel
    leasing;[^97] promoting cable multicast must-carry;[^98] and
    requiring that the main broadcast studio be located in the local
    community "as part of the neighborhood," along with the imposition
    of minimum programming origination requirements.[^99]

### Issues for Commission Action

40. *Local Programming Renewal Application Processing Guidelines*. Some
    commenters argued that the Commission should require "public
    interest minimums" for public affairs and political programming, as
    well as locally produced public service announcements.[^100] We
    tentatively conclude that we should reintroduce renewal application
    processing guidelines that will ensure that all broadcasters, not
    just the ones we heard from in this proceeding, provide some
    locally-oriented programming. Renewal applications filed by
    licensees that have met or exceeded the prescribed minimum
    percentages will be processed by the Media Bureau on delegated
    authority; those that do not will require consideration by the full
    Commission. At paragraph 124 of this Report, we pose certain
    questions for comment by the public regarding this proposal.

41. *Main Studio Rule.* We share the concern underlying proposals that
    the Commission require that licensees locate their main studios
    within the local communities so that they are "part of the
    neighborhood."[^101] The main studio rule is rooted in Section
    307(b) of the Communications Act.[^102] Section 307(b) requires the
    Commission to "make such distribution of licenses, frequencies,
    hours of operation, and of power among the several States and
    communities as to provide for a fair, efficient, and equitable
    distribution of radio service to each of the same."[^103] In
    carrying out this mandate, the Commission established a method for
    distributing broadcast service in which every radio and television
    station was assigned to a community of license with a primary
    obligation to serve that community.[^104] A central component of
    this scheme required that a broadcast station\'s main studio be
    accessible to its community of license.[^105] At one time, all
    broadcasters were required to maintain their main studios in their
    communities of license. In 1987, however, the Commission changed its
    rules to allow a station to locate its main studio at any location
    within the station's principal community contour.[^106] In 1998, the
    Commission further liberalized the rule to allow the studio to be
    located within either the principal community contour of any
    station, of any service, licensed to its community of license or 25
    miles from the reference coordinates of the center of its community
    of license, whichever location the licensee chooses.[^107] We seek
    comment on whether we should revert to our pre-1987 main studio rule
    in order to encourage broadcasters to produce locally originated
    programming, and seek comment on this, and on whether accessibility
    of the main studio increases interaction between the broadcast
    station and the community of service.

42. *Enhanced Disclosure.* The record in this proceeding reveals that
    the public is concerned with the limited disclosure of local
    programming aired by broadcasters, and public access to such
    information. As we discussed above, we have enacted Enhanced
    Disclosure measures for television licensees which would help
    educate the public about existing their local programming. These
    include adoption of a standardized quarterly reporting form that
    requires broadcasters to indicate the community needs and issues
    they had identified and the programming they aired in response to
    them, and the posting of that information on the Internet. Although
    these new disclosure obligations apply only to television licensees,
    as noted *supra*, in our *Digital Audio FNPRM*, we have inquired as
    to whether radio licensees should also be subject to these
    requirements.[^108]

43. *Community Advisory Boards.* As discussed in the preceding section
    of this Report, we have tentatively concluded that licensees should
    convene permanent advisory boards comprised of local officials and
    other community leaders, to periodically advise them of local needs
    and issues, and seek comment on the matter. This mechanism will
    enhance the ability of licensees to determine those issues facing
    their communities that they should treat in their local programming.
    We believe that, generally speaking, if a licensee already has
    formal groups in place with which it consults to determine the needs
    of its community, it should be deemed to have satisfied this
    requirement. We also seek comment on under what circumstances a
    licensee should be deemed to have so satisfied this
    requirement.[^109]

44. To ensure that these discussions include representatives of all
    community elements, these boards would be made up of leaders of
    various segments of the community, including underserved groups. At
    paragraphs 26 and 27 of this Report, we have posed a series of
    questions for public comment as to the appropriate composition and
    operation of these advisory boards.

45. *"The Public and Broadcasting."* As discussed above, the record in
    this proceeding reveals that there is a substantial need for greater
    understanding of specific broadcaster obligations to air
    community-responsive programming. As indicated in paragraphs 18 and
    19 above, we direct the Media Bureau to update the Commission's "The
    Public and Broadcasting" publication, our guide designed to assist
    audiences to scrutinize local stations' adherence to our rules. The
    revised publication will provide links to the Commission website
    where the public may find more detailed information on particular
    broadcasting topics. We also will create a point of contact at the
    Commission for public inquiries about our processes.

46. *Television Market Definitions/Cable Broadcast Carriage.* Another
    way that we intend to increase access to community-responsive
    programming is by examining our rules to remedy the infrequent but
    significant situations in which cable and satellite subscribers
    often do not receive the local news and information provided by an
    in-state television station, because our rules effectively require
    carriage of an out-of-state station.[^110] Cable or satellite
    subscribers thus cannot access a station assigned to another
    "Designated Market Area" ("DMA"), as that concept is employed in our
    rules, even if the station is located in their state. We intend to
    begin a proceeding to propose rules to promote access by cable and
    satellite subscribers to the programming of television broadcast
    stations licensed to communities in the state in which they live.

47. Under the Communications Act, cable systems must carry the signals
    of local commercial and noncommercial broadcast stations in their
    local markets.[^111] Since 1996, the Commission generally has looked
    to Nielsen Media Research Company's DMAs in defining a television
    broadcast station's local market,[^112] except that, following a
    written request, the Commission may, with respect to a particular
    television broadcast station, include additional communities within
    its television market or exclude communities from such station's
    television market.[^113]

48. Satellite carriage of local broadcast stations differs from cable
    carriage in that there is no statutory "must carry" requirement,
    except in Alaska and Hawaii;[^114] rather, satellite carriage
    obligations generally arise when a carrier relies on the statutory
    copyright license to offer "local-into-local" service in a
    market.[^115] As with cable carriage, a television station's local
    market generally is the DMA in which it is located.[^116]

49. DMAs describe each television market in terms of a unique geographic
    area and are based on measured viewing patterns.[^117] In a small
    group of identifiable cases, however, general reliance on DMAs to
    define a station's market may not provide viewers with the most
    local programming. Certain DMAs cross state borders, and in such
    cases, current Commission rules sometimes require carriage of the
    broadcast signal of an out-of-state station rather than that of an
    in-state station.[^118] Such cases may weaken localism, since
    viewers are often more likely to receive information of local
    interest and relevance -- particularly local weather and other
    emergency information and local news and electoral and public
    affairs -- from a station located in the state in which they live.

50. In particular, with respect to cable carriage, Section 614(b)(5) of
    the Communications Act provides that "a cable operator shall not be
    required to carry the signal of any local commercial television
    station that substantially duplicates the signal of another local
    television station which is carried on the cable system, or to carry
    the signals of more than one local commercial television station
    affiliated with a particular broadcast network . . . ."[^119] A
    parallel rule applies to the carriage of NCE station signals.[^120]
    The Commission concluded in implementing this rule that when such
    duplication occurs, if the cable operator chooses to carry only one
    of the duplicating stations, it must carry the station whose
    community of license is closest to the cable system's principal
    headend.[^121] In general, this rule has ensured that cable
    subscribers have access to the station that is most local for
    them.[^122] However, in some cases, the station that is
    geographically closest to the headend is in a different state from
    the state in which the subscriber lives.[^123] This situation may
    occur when a cable system straddles a state line within one DMA or
    when a cable system straddles two DMAs. The situation is different
    with respect to satellite carriage, but it is no less problematic.
    Unlike rules governing cable carriage, current Commission rules
    governing satellite carriage of local broadcast stations do not
    provide for market modifications, resulting in a rigid adherence to
    DMA designations.[^124] We agree with commenters that this situation
    should be remedied and, accordingly, we will commence a rulemaking
    proceeding to address the need to ensure that all cable and
    satellite subscribers have access to television broadcast stations
    licensed to communities within the viewers' home state. This issue
    will be addressed in that rulemaking proceeding, rather than in this
    proceeding.

51. *AM Use of FM Translators.* In order to promote diversity and
    localism, we have commenced a rulemaking proceeding [^125] to
    examine our rules which prevent AM radio stations from operating FM
    translator stations as a fill-in service.[^126] In that proceeding,
    we are considering revising our rules to expand the purpose and
    permissible service of FM translator stations to allow their use to
    provide fill-in service for AM radio stations. The Commission has
    tentatively concluded that, *inter alia*, (1) daytime-only AM
    licensees should be permitted to originate programming over fill-in
    FM translators during the nighttime hours when their stations are
    not authorized to operate; and (2) any AM station should be
    permitted to operate an available FM translator to retransmit its AM
    programming as a fill-in service, as long as no portion of the 60
    dBu contour of the FM translator exceeds the lesser of: (a) the 2
    mV/m daytime contour of the AM station or; (b) the 25-mile radius of
    the AM transmitter site.[^127]

52. We recognize that AM radio stations remain an important component of
    the mass media landscape and vital providers of local broadcast
    service, commonly offering unique, community-responsive formats to
    distinguish themselves in an increasingly competitive media
    market.[^128] All-news/talk, all-sports, foreign language, and
    religious programming formats are common on the AM band, as are
    discussions of local news, politics and public affairs, traffic
    announcements and coverage of community events such as high school
    athletic events. Moreover, they frequently provide the only radio
    service to listeners in a variety of circumstances, particularly
    those living in and traveling through rural areas.[^129]

53. However, the AM band suffers from inherent technical limitations
    that threaten its viability. For example, the propagation
    characteristics of the AM band cause substantially increased
    interference among AM broadcasts at night, requiring many AM
    stations to reduce their operating power substantially (and/or
    directionalize their signals), thereby eliminating service to
    certain swaths of their audience.[^130] Others (daytime-only
    stations) are prohibited from broadcasting at night at all.[^131]
    Even beyond this significant nighttime service issue, during all
    hours of operations, increasing electromagnetic interference to AM
    transmissions emanates from power lines, electronics equipment such
    as computers and televisions, fluorescent and neon lighting and
    dimmers used for incandescent lighting, electric motors, traffic
    signal sensors, RF from cable lines and equipment, and certain kinds
    of medical equipment.[^132] The result has been a well-documented
    shift of AM listeners to newer mass media services that offer higher
    technical quality and superior audio fidelity.[^133]

54. Many commenters in that proceeding, which remains open, favor
    allowing AM stations to use FM translators to retransmit their
    signals within each AM station's current coverage area, with many
    commenters noting the potential of this proposal to expand coverage
    of local news and events by mitigating the AM band's technical
    deficiencies and permitting increased nighttime operations.[^134]
    Moreover, associations representing minority broadcasters commented
    in favor of the proposal, arguing that it would help reverse the
    sharp downward trend in minority ownership by improving the
    viability and value of AM stations.[^135] Their comments endorsed
    the following statement by the Radio Broadcasters Association of
    Puerto Rico and Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association in
    support of the NAB Petition:

    By allowing use of FM translators with AM stations to improve the
    integrity of the AM band, the Commission would enhance the ability
    of AM stations to compete with other media sources. Such
    competition, in turn, drives creativity, ingenuity and attentiveness
    to the needs of the public in the marketplace as a whole.[^136]

## POLITICAL PROGRAMMING

### Issues

55. In the *NOI,* the Commission noted that one area in which
    broadcasters have concrete, defined programming obligations is that
    of political programming. In this regard, the Commission
    specifically cited two provisions of the Communications Act: the
    reasonable access provision (the Commission is expressly empowered
    to revoke the license of a broadcast station that does not allow
    "reasonable access" to or the "purchase of reasonable amounts of
    time" on its facilities by a "legally qualified candidate for
    Federal elective office....")[^137] and the equal opportunities
    provision ("\[i\]f any licensee shall permit any person who is a
    legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a
    broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all
    other such candidates for that office in the use of such
    broadcasting station").[^138]

56. The Commission has previously noted that some broadcasters have
    aired many hours of political programming and that several
    television networks have provided free airtime to candidates for
    president in recent elections.[^139] However, the Commission has
    also referenced testimony at a Congressional hearing on localism and
    the public interest in which a witness reported research results
    suggesting a decline in political programming and that larger
    station group owners air less local campaign news than smaller and
    mid-sized station group owners.[^140] In addition, the Commission
    has cited studies suggesting that many television broadcasters have
    provided little or no political programming.[^141]

57. The *NOI* sought comment on questions regarding the Commission's
    political programming rules and whether there were ways that the
    Commission's existing rules could be revised or strengthened to
    facilitate political discourse, including creating a form to
    standardize the way in which stations disclose certain information
    to candidates and requiring the posting of certain information on a
    station's website.[^142] The Commission also asked how much program
    time in recent years has been devoted to local and to national
    political coverage, and what steps could be taken to encourage
    voluntary efforts for political and civic discourse. Given that
    Congress has enacted specific requirements governing political
    programming, the *NOI* further inquired whether it would be
    appropriate or permissible for the Commission to take additional
    steps to enhance broadcasters' coverage of local political
    candidates and issues.[^143]

### Public Comments

58. The record here reflects sharp disagreement among commenters as to
    the broadcasters' record in airing programming addressing political
    issues and the Commission's legal authority in the area. The NAB
    contends that the imposition of any political programming quota
    would exceed the Commission's authority and raise serious
    constitutional problems.[^144] Moreover, the NAB asserts that the
    Commission's discretion in the political programming area "is
    severely limited because Congress already has occupied the field"
    through specific statutory provisions, thereby barring any
    Commission efforts to insert incompatible policies.[^145]

59. The NAB also avers that new obligations in the area of political
    programming are wholly unnecessary as a matter of policy. Rather, it
    contends that broadcasters already deliver a sufficient amount of
    political coverage and takes issue with the findings of the Lear
    Center Study of broadcasters' political coverage[^146] on which the
    Commission has relied.[^147] In particular, it states that the
    Study's findings are based on an overly limited sample of time in
    the broadcast day and ignores other news coverage.[^148] The NAB
    provides examples of broadcasters who are launching or continuing
    projects that devote five minute or longer segments to discussions
    of relevant election issues. It also contends that an important
    factor overlooked by media critics is the substantial amount of free
    political airtime that goes unused because candidates frequently
    reject it. The NAB points to the offer by NBC to host debates in 13
    Senate races in which at least one candidate declined in 11 of the
    races, as well as other specific examples of offers of free airtime
    which were refused.[^149] On reply, the NAB contends that parties
    representing at least 1,472 radio and 255 television stations
    specifically discussed their coverage of political issues in
    comments in this proceeding.[^150] The NAB sets forth specific
    examples from the record concerning broadcaster coverage of
    political debates, candidate interviews, and other political
    issues.[^151]

60. The NAB also addresses two controversies concerning political
    programming that arose during the months leading up to the 2004
    election. The first concerned a decision by Sinclair Broadcast
    Group, Inc. to air a documentary critical of presidential candidate
    John Kerry. The NAB notes that, following an outpouring of
    complaints about the situation, most of which argued that Sinclair's
    action was an example of improper bias, the broadcaster decided not
    to air the documentary in its entirety. Instead, it aired a news
    program that focused on allegations of media bias and included only
    portions of the Kerry documentary.[^152] The second situation
    concerned a significant donation of airtime by Pappas Telecasting
    Companies to Republican county committees in California for use on
    behalf of Republican state and local candidates.[^153] The NAB notes
    that the Commission's Media Bureau issued a decision concluding that
    Pappas' donation had triggered the equal opportunities requirements,
    meaning that opponents of those candidates using the donated airtime
    were entitled to their own free equal time.[^154] The NAB believes
    that the resolution of these controversies "underscore\[s\] the
    wisdom of the Commission's long-standing reliance on marketplace
    incentives to govern broadcasters' programming, rather than justify
    further government regulation."[^155]

61. Several commenters describe their efforts as station licensees to
    provide coverage of local and national elections.[^156] For example,
    during the 14 weeks leading up to the November 2004 general
    election, Belo Corp., licensee of 19 television stations, states
    that its stations broadcast 338 hours of candidate debates, news
    stories, interviews, candidate forums, and other political
    programming. To increase voter awareness and education, Belo
    stations rebroadcast their political coverage on sister stations and
    on the Company's cable news channels, where available, and eight
    Belo stations posted video of local debates on their websites.[^157]
    In addition, Belo reports that its stations gave more than 20 hours
    of free airtime to Congressional and gubernatorial candidates during
    the 2004 election season as part of its continued airing of "It's
    Your Time," a program originated by Belo in 1996 to provide free
    airtime to local candidates to address viewers on issues facing
    their communities.[^158] Belo argues that market forces and
    journalistic imperatives provide ample incentive for broadcasters to
    air local news, public affairs, and other community responsive
    programming. It therefore urges the Commission to resist adopting
    new political programming rules.[^159]

62. Several public interest organizations, on the other hand, contend
    that broadcasters' current efforts to air politically oriented
    programming are insufficient. The Consumer Federation of America and
    Consumers Union ("CFA/CU") are each nonprofit organizations, the
    former an association of pro-consumer groups, the latter a
    membership organization that provides consumers with information,
    education and counsel about goods, services, and personal
    finance.[^160] CFA/CU characterizes as "severe" the gap between what
    society needs from media to ensure a vibrant democratic discourse
    and what society gets from commercial mass media."[^161] CFA/CU
    submit two studies in support of their Comments, entitled
    "Television and Political Discourse: Usage Patterns, Social
    Processes and Public Support for Broadcaster Responsibilities to
    Promote Localism and Diversity" ("Political Discourse Study") and
    Market Failures of Commercial Mass Media to Meet Society's Need for
    Localism and Diversity ("Market Failures Study").[^162] The
    Political Discourse Study recognizes the important role that
    television plays in the political process, both as a source of news
    and information for the public and as the dominant medium for public
    influence. It concludes that the pressures of commercialism in the
    media damage both journalism and democratic discourse.[^163] The
    Market Failures Study takes issue with the validity of the
    Commission's conclusion over 20 years ago in deregulating
    broadcasting that market forces in an increasingly competitive
    market would encourage broadcasters to satisfy policymakers'
    localism goals. CFA/CU conclude that deregulated markets will not
    provide society with the responsive diverse local broadcast matter
    that democracy needs to thrive. Accordingly, they call for an
    aggressive policy to promote localism and diversity that does not
    conflict with constitutional First Amendment principles.[^164]

63. Another study submitted for the record is the Lear Center Local News
    Archive's "Local News Coverage of the 2004 Campaign: An Analysis of
    Nightly Broadcasts in 11 Markets."[^165] The Lear Center Study
    examined pre-election coverage of 44 network-affiliated television
    stations in 11 major markets airing every night between 5:00 and
    11:30 p.m. from October 4 to November 1, 2004. The Lear analysis
    finds that almost two thirds of all news broadcasts contained at
    least one campaign related story. The analysis also finds that
    coverage of the presidential election dominated local station
    coverage. For example, the analysis finds that, although fifty-five
    percent of broadcasts contained a story regarding the presidential
    election, just eight percent contained a story about a local
    candidate race\--including campaigns for U.S. House, state senate,
    mayor and other regional offices. The analysis also finds that eight
    times more coverage went to stories about accidental injuries, and
    12 times more coverage to sports and weather, than to coverage of
    all local races combined.[^166]

64. Belo criticizes the Lear Center Study, contending that the Study
    captures only a limited segment of election-related programming and
    does not consider morning and daytime programming, which, according
    to Belo, constitute a significant portion of local stations'
    newscasts. [^167] Belo contends that, even for the periods it does
    analyze, the Study's figures are inconsistent with the amount of
    political programming revealed by Belo's internal analysis of its
    stations' political coverage. According to Belo, awards given to its
    station affiliates by the Lear Center and other professional
    recognition received by these stations also belie the findings of
    the Lear Center Study.[^168] Given the "methodological shortcomings
    and other limitations" of the Study, and the extensive information
    in the record of this proceeding concerning broadcasters' attention
    to local concerns, Belo argues that the Study should not be accorded
    any decisional significance, let alone provide a basis for imposing
    on broadcasters mandatory quantitative content requirements relating
    to political coverage or any other subject.[^169] Belo contends that
    such requirements would only increase the cost of complying with
    "one-size-fits-all governmental oversight" and minimize stations'
    flexibility to attract viewers and provide programming that is
    responsive to community interests and concerns.[^170]

65. The Campaign Legal Center and The Alliance for Better Campaigns
    ("Campaign Commenters") are nonpartisan, non-profit organizations
    dedicated to political broadcasting policy and revitalizing
    competition in our democratic process by ensuring that the public
    airways serve as a forum for open and vibrant political debate,
    particularly among candidates.[^171] They express concern about what
    they perceive to be a continual decline in recent years in the
    amount of local and network broadcast news coverage of substantive
    campaign and election issues.[^172] The Campaign Commenters
    recommend that the Commission adopt: (1) a policy requiring
    broadcast licensees to devote a minimum amount of air time to local
    civic and electoral affairs discourse; and (2) measures that will
    strengthen disclosure requirements for stations,[^173] including the
    obligation of broadcasters to post on their websites political
    public file information and standardized forms for stations to use
    when reporting political advertising buys and their local civic and
    public affairs programming, including local electoral affairs
    programming.[^174] In their Reply Comments, the Campaign Commenters
    question broadcasters' assertions that stations have satisfied their
    public interest obligations, including providing adequate local
    civic and political discourse, citing recent studies and submissions
    in this proceeding that conclude to the contrary.[^175] They
    criticize the poll cited in the NAB's Comments which found that a
    total of 89 percent of voters think that broadcasters spend either
    the right amount of time or too much time covering elections. The
    Campaign Commenters argue that the question posed was about the
    amount of time, not the quality of the programming, and that less
    than half those polled described broadcasters' coverage as the most
    helpful source of information. They also note that the initial
    question did not differentiate among reporting on the presidential
    race (which received enormous attention in 2004) and Congressional,
    statewide or local races. They urge the Commission to study market
    conditions and reevaluate its conclusions that led to broadcast
    deregulation in the 1980s.[^176]

### Issues for Commission Action

66. Many broadcasters take very seriously their responsibility to inform
    their viewers and listeners about political issues. We share the
    concern of many commenters and members of the public who testified
    at the field hearings, including those noted *supra,* however, that
    not all stations do as much as they can and should in this important
    area -- and that even for those that make appropriate efforts, the
    record indicates that their audiences are poorly informed about what
    the stations air in this regard. Accordingly, we intend to modify
    our rules that implicate this area.

67. We agree with the Campaign Commenters that the first step in
    ensuring that broadcasters meet the needs of their audiences is to
    "strengthen disclosure requirements for stations." Broadcasters,
    cable systems, and DBS operators have long been required to maintain
    political files.[^177] In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
    (the "BCRA") amended these requirements.[^178] In addition to
    maintaining a public record of requests to buy time made by or on
    behalf of a candidate[^179] and the disposition of such requests,
    under the BCRA, such entities must include the same specific
    information about any broadcast or cablecast that communicates "a
    message relating to any political matter of national importance
    including (i) a legally qualified candidate; (ii) any election to
    Federal office; or (iii) a national legislative issue of public
    importance."[^180] Our rules also require that stations and cable
    and DBS operators place in their political file a record of any free
    time provided for use by or on behalf of candidates[^181] and a list
    of executive officers/board members of any entity paying for a
    broadcast or cablecast concerning a political matter or
    controversial issue of public importance.[^182]

68. As discussed *supra*, in the Enhanced Disclosure proceeding, for
    television licensees, the Commission has replaced the
    issues/programs lists that broadcasters now maintain in their public
    files with a standardized form. The new form requires each
    television licensee to report on its efforts to identify the
    programming needs of various segments of their communities, and to
    list their community-responsive programming by category. Included in
    these categories of programming is local electoral affairs
    programming, defined as candidate-centered discourse focusing on the
    local, state and United States Congressional races for offices to be
    elected by a constituency within the licensee's broadcast area. Such
    programming includes broadcasts of candidate debates, interviews or
    statements, as well as substantive discussions of ballot measures
    that will be put up before the voters in a forthcoming election.
    Licensees must disclose the total average number of hours per week
    aired of such programming on each primary and non-primary channel.
    In addition, they must provide detailed information for each such
    program, including its title, dates and times of broadcast, length
    and whether it was locally produced.[^183] These new disclosure
    requirements will be of particular use in allowing the public and
    the Commission to determine the amount of critical political
    programming television stations air. As noted *supra*, in our
    *Digital Audio FNPRM*, we have inquired as to whether radio
    licensees should also be subject to enhanced disclosure
    requirements.[^184]

## UNDERSERVED AUDIENCES

### Issues

69. The principle of localism requires broadcasters to take into account
    *all* significant groups within their communities when developing
    balanced, community-responsive programming, including those groups
    with specialized needs and interests.[^185] While the Commission has
    observed that each broadcast station is not necessarily required to
    provide service to all such groups,[^186] it has nonetheless
    recognized the concerns of some that programming -- particularly
    network programming -- often is not sufficiently culturally
    diverse.[^187] Accordingly, in the *NOI*, the Commission sought
    public input on whether the agency should consider new ways,
    consistent with applicable constitutional standards, to ensure that
    broadcasters serve their communities, especially traditionally
    underserved audiences.[^188]

### Public Comments

70. Several commenters and participants at the Commission's localism
    field hearings expressed concern over the amount of programming
    being provided to various audiences. For example, the Reverend Jesse
    Jackson argues that media consolidation and low levels of minority
    ownership of broadcast stations are responsible for a "community
    crisis" concerning coverage of issues important to minorities.[^189]
    The American Farm Bureau Federation, an organization with more than
    5.5 million member farming families, cites what it characterizes as
    the elimination or curtailment of farm news by radio stations
    resulting from media consolidation and a decline in advertising
    dollars.[^190] The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
    asserts that local broadcasters display little interest in carrying
    the programs and PSAs produced by the Catholic dioceses and only do
    so at an increasingly high cost.[^191] Others decry what they view
    as a lack of programming addressing the needs and interests of
    children,[^192] low-income individuals,[^193] the blind,[^194] and
    people of color, including Asian-Americans,[^195] Hispanics,[^196]
    and Native Americans.[^197] Entravision Holdings, LLC, a
    Spanish-language broadcaster, suggests that, in order to promote
    coverage of issues important to minority communities, the Commission
    should assert itself in the area of "must-carry of television
    stations on cable systems."[^198]

71. Those communities that may be underserved in the current analog
    environment stand to benefit greatly from the transition to digital
    programming. The technical constraints of analog broadcasting limit
    a broadcaster's ability to offer programming that reflects that
    diversity among the people living in the communities served by that
    licensee. By contrast, as the Commission has noted elsewhere,
    broadcasters could use the flexibility of digital technology to
    better serve the needs of underserved communities in a number of
    ways, such as "narrowcasting" to those communities on different
    programming streams or even taking advantage of enhanced audio
    capabilities to air different soundtracks in different languages
    simultaneously.[^199] The record here suggests that some
    broadcasters would like to move in this direction.[^200] The record
    in other proceedings also indicates that commercial broadcasters are
    interested in developing "niche" programming to respond to the
    interests and needs of particular segments of their
    communities.[^201]

### Issues for Commission Action

72. Although we are encouraged by those broadcasters that are developing
    programming designed to serve the needs of the underserved segments
    of their communities, particularly those that are taking advantage
    of the flexibility inherent in digital television technology to
    provide multiple streams of programming to serve niche audiences, we
    believe that more needs to be done.

73. *Community Advisory Boards.* As discussed above, we tentatively
    conclude that licensees should convene and consult with permanent
    advisory boards made up of leaders from the community of each
    broadcast station.[^202] In addition to informing broadcasters of
    issues of importance to their communities in general, such advisory
    boards should include representatives of all segments of the
    community, to ensure that those community elements have a continuing
    opportunity to communicate their group's perceived needs and
    interests to their local broadcast station management. We believe
    that, generally speaking, if a licensee already has formal groups in
    place with which it consults to determine the needs of its
    community, it should be deemed to have satisfied this requirement.
    As discussed in paragraphs 26-28 of this Report, we seek comment on
    a number of issues arising from this proposal, including under what
    circumstances a licensee with formal groups in place should be
    deemed to have satisfied this requirement.

74. *Ownership Diversity.* We will also explore ways to increase
    participation in the broadcasting industry by Eligible Entities
    ("EEs"), comprised of new entrants and small businesses, including
    minority- and women-owned businesses. Increasing the number of
    stations licensed to such entities would add new and independent
    voices to the broadcast medium, which "for decades now . . . has
    been an essential part of the national discourse on subjects across
    the whole broad spectrum of speech, thought, and expression."[^203]
    It would further the "long-established regulatory goal\[\] in the
    field of television broadcasting" of "increasing the number of
    outlets for community self-expression...."[^204] We also expect that
    entry as broadcast licensees by EEs will not only increase
    diversity, it will also reduce the concentration of economic power
    among station owners.[^205]

75. Thus, in its *Ownership Diversity Report and Order and Third Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* adopted on December 18, 2007,[^206]
    the Commission took a number of actions and sought comment on others
    designed to make it easier for EEs to gain access to financing and
    spectrum opportunities. Actions taken by the Commission to assist
    EEs included the extension of station construction deadlines,
    adjustment of the Equity Debt Plus ownership attribution standard
    and modification of the distress sale policy. The Commission also
    proposed a number of new rules and policies, including reaffirmation
    of its commitment to bar race or gender discrimination in broadcast
    transactions, a zero tolerance policy with regard to ownership
    fraud, and the requirement that broadcasters seeking renewal of
    their licenses certify that their advertising sales contracts do not
    discriminate on the basis of race or gender.

76. In addition, in the *Diversity Order*, the Commission sought to
    facilitate the availability of funding to EEs that seek to acquire
    broadcast properties by encouraging local and regional banks to
    engage in such lending, providing incentives to licensees to finance
    or incubate EEs, considering requests to extend divestiture
    deadlines in mergers in which participants have actively solicited
    bids for divested properties from EEs, and creating a guidebook that
    focuses on what companies can do to promote diversity. The
    *Diversity Order* also sought comment on improving the process by
    which the Commission collects data regarding the gender, race and
    ethnicity of its broadcast licensees. Moreover, as proposed by the
    Commission's Advisory Committee for Diversity in the Digital Age
    ("Diversity Committee"), the *Diversity Order* committed that
    Commission staff will attempt to organize access-to-capital
    conferences to provide minority and women entrepreneurs, small
    businesses, and other EEs with the information necessary for them to
    be aware of emerging ownership opportunities in the communications
    industry. Commission staff will facilitate the development of such
    conferences to be conducted by members of the communications
    industry whenever a significant ownership-related transaction is
    proposed to the Commission.[^207] These conferences will encourage
    and facilitate communications companies that engage in transactions
    and license transfers to include small businesses, minorities and
    women entrepreneurs, and other EEs during negotiations on assets and
    properties identified for divestiture. By implementing these and
    other suggestions of the Diversity Committee, the Commission can,
    and will, have a significant impact on increasing diversity and
    localism in broadcasting, while furthering its mission of enhancing
    the ability of minorities and women to participate in
    telecommunications and related industries.

77. *Enhanced Disclosure.* As discussed *supra*, in the Enhanced
    Disclosure proceeding, for television licensees, the Commission has
    replaced the issues/programs lists that broadcasters now maintain in
    their public files with a standardized form. This new form requires
    each such licensee to report on its efforts to identify the
    programming needs of various segments of their communities, and to
    provide detailed information about its community responsive
    programming by category. Included in these categories of programming
    is that for underserved communities, defined as material aimed to
    serve the needs of demographic segments of the community to which
    little or no programming is directed. Licensees must provide
    detailed information for each such program, including its title,
    dates and times of broadcast, length and whether it was
    locally-produced.[^208] These new disclosure requirements will be of
    particular use in allowing the public and the Commission to
    determine the amount of such programming each television station
    air. Although these new disclosure obligations apply only to
    television licensees, as noted *supra*, in our *Digital Audio
    FNPRM*, we have inquired as to whether radio licensees should also
    be subject to these requirements.[^209]

78. *Commercial Leased Access.* Another means for ensuring that all
    segments of the community have an opportunity to be heard is to
    enhance independent entities' access to their local cable systems.
    On November 27, 2007, we adopted a Report and Order revising our
    leased access rules to facilitate the ability of independent
    programmers to be carried and thereby to distribute programming of
    local interest.[^210] The Commission adopted the Report and Order in
    response to comments from leased access programmers regarding slow
    response times to information requests and excessive rates and fees.
    The Commission's action will facilitate the use of leased access
    channels by adopting more specific leased access customer service
    standards for programmers and increased enforcement of those
    standards, faster cable operator response times to information
    requests from programmers and more appropriate leased access rates.
    It also will expedite the leased access complaint process and
    improve the discovery process related to leased access
    disputes.[^211]

79. The commercial leased access requirements are set forth in Section
    612 of the Communications Act.[^212] They require a cable operator
    to set aside channel capacity for commercial use by video
    programmers unaffiliated with the operator. The statutory framework
    for commercial leased access was first established by the Cable
    Communications Policy Act of 1984.[^213] Leased access is a valuable
    tool that gives programmers the ability to distribute diverse,
    locally-originated programming to viewers in the community that may
    not otherwise benefit from local culture, news, and information
    through current television sources. An effective and affordable
    process by which local programmers can access cable systems to
    provide programming of local interest is essential for many local
    programmers to distribute their programming to non-majority and/or
    underserved community groups.

80. Because programmer access to cable systems is essential to ensuring
    that diverse voices in the community have an opportunity to be
    heard, we intend that our amendment of the leased access rules will
    encourage increased diverse and local programming on cable systems.

## DISASTER WARNINGS

### Issues

81. We noted in the *NOI* that providing emergency information is a
    fundamental area in which broadcasters use their stations to serve
    their communities of license.[^214] The Commission's role in
    ensuring that broadcasters fulfill this obligation is set forth in
    Section 1 of the Communications Act, which declares that the
    Congress created the Commission "for the purpose of promoting safety
    of life and property through the use of wire and radio
    communications...."[^215] The Commission has adopted the Emergency
    Alert System ("EAS"), which "provides the President with the
    capability to provide immediate communications and information to
    the general public at the National, State and Local Area levels
    during periods of national emergency," and, in addition, "may be
    used to provide the heads of State and local government, or their
    designated representatives, with a means of emergency communication
    with the public in their State or Local Area."[^216] The Commission
    also requires TV broadcast stations that provide emergency
    information beyond compliance with EAS standards to make the
    critical details of that information accessible to people with
    hearing and visual disabilities.[^217]

82. Due to the critical and fundamental role of emergency communications
    as a component of broadcasters' local public service obligations,
    the *NOI* sought comment on broadcaster performance in this area.
    The Commission called for input on whether it should require that
    licensees make their facilities available to local emergency
    managers and, if so, what the nature and scope of any such
    requirement would be. The Commission also sought comment on whether
    voluntary arrangements with local officials to provide emergency
    information to viewers and listeners were sufficient, or whether the
    Commission should impose uniform requirements and, if so, what those
    requirements should be.[^218] The Commission further sought comment
    on how digital technology could be used to enhance warnings, and to
    what extent broadcasters were making use of such technology.[^219]

### Public Comments

83. The record reveals the importance that the public places on
    receiving timely emergency information in a time of crisis. Many
    commenters noted how invaluable local broadcast stations are in
    disseminating emergency information to the public. One described the
    important role local radio played in providing news updates and
    information on escape routes, survival tips, and recovery strategies
    in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.[^220] Another
    stated that, with the help of local broadcasters, the State of Texas
    was able to turn a local tragedy into a triumph of technology and
    cooperation by creating the nation's first Amber Alert using EAS,
    and that local broadcasters' cooperation and leadership on public
    safety matters were much appreciated.[^221] Another commenter stated
    that, without local broadcasters in North Carolina, there would be
    no Amber Alert system.[^222] Witnesses at the Rapid City hearing
    discussed the arrangement there between broadcasters and the local
    government that provides local officials expedited access to local
    stations in times of emergency.[^223] The commenter noted that local
    broadcasters have made their studios available to emergency
    management for the purpose of recording public service announcements
    ("PSAs"), and have helped with the distribution of the PSAs to other
    outlets in the area.[^224]

84. Other commenters indicated that there was still some work left to do
    to make the broadcast of emergency information easier and more
    effective. One commenter stated that emergency services management
    relies on local media to get its information to the public, but that
    local broadcast stations are getting more automated.[^225] As a
    result, such management has an increasingly difficult time getting
    emergency information to the public late at night or early in the
    morning because many stations are controlled from a remote
    location.[^226] The commenter also lamented the fact that there is
    no mechanism in place for local emergency management services to be
    informed of call station changes, licensee changes, points of
    contact changes, and that emergency management officials need more
    interface with the media on public service announcements.[^227]
    Another noted that broadcasters did a reasonable job providing
    information related to storm warnings and Amber Alerts, but was
    concerned about stations that were unattended because repeating or
    updating the warning from EAS at an unattended station would depend
    on how the automatic alert function on the EAS decoder was
    set.[^228] Another commenter opposed permitting local and state
    emergency managers unfettered access to broadcast station
    facilities.[^229] Another urges the Commission to ensure that
    physical plant and staffing policies allow emergency officials
    access to stations, yet allow broadcasters to continue the critical
    journalistic role that stations play, particularly in times of
    emergency.[^230]

85. Based on the foregoing criticisms, several commenters offered
    proposals for how the Commission could improve the efficiency and
    effectiveness of the distribution of emergency information to the
    public through local broadcasters. These proposals included taking
    action on the outstanding EAS Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking[^231] and reducing the ability of broadcasters to control
    their programming from a remote location.[^232]

###  Issues for Commission Action

86. *Emergency Alert System Rulemaking.* The record in this proceeding
    reaffirms the importance the public places on timely and accurate
    emergency information on broadcast stations. We intend to take
    action on the pending *EAS FNPRM*. Specifically, as we have
    previously stated, we are prepared to address the issues in that
    proceeding within six months.[^233] Comments received in that
    proceeding will be considered to resolve those issues.

87. *Remote Radio Station Operation.* Commenters also expressed concerns
    regarding the prevalence of automated radio broadcast operations,
    which allow the operation of stations without a local presence, and
    the perceived negative impact that they have on licensees' ability
    to serve local needs. As we previously indicated, in the Digital
    Audio proceeding, we are looking into whether we should require a
    physical presence at a broadcasting facility during all hours of
    operation.[^234] While the issue as it pertains to radio will be
    resolved in that proceeding, as discussed in paragraph 29 *supra,*
    we seek comment here on whether such a requirement should also be
    imposed on television licensees.

## NETWORK AFFILIATION RULES

### Issues

88. As noted in the *NOI,* the relationship between television networks
    and their affiliated stations carries implications regarding the
    ability of those licensees to promote and preserve localism.[^235]
    Several existing Commission rules govern the network-affiliate
    relationship, the general goal of which is to ensure that local
    stations remain ultimately responsible for programming decisions,
    notwithstanding their affiliation with a national programming
    network. Two mandates in particular are noteworthy in this context.
    First, under the "right to reject" rule, licensees are barred from
    becoming parties to a network affiliation agreement that "prevents
    or hinders the station from: (1) \[r\]ejecting or refusing network
    programs which the station reasonably believes to be unsatisfactory
    or unsuitable or contrary to the public interest, or (2)
    \[s\]ubstituting a program which, in the station's opinion, is of
    greater local or national importance."[^236] Second, the "time
    option" rule effectively prohibits any affiliation agreement term
    that "provides for optioning of the station's time to the network
    organization, or which has the same restraining effect as time
    optioning," meaning a term that "prevents or hinders the station
    from scheduling programs before the network agrees to utilize the
    time during which such programs are scheduled, or which requires the
    station to clear time already scheduled when the network
    organization seeks to utilize the time."[^237]

89. The meaning and scope of the network affiliation rules have been
    matters of dispute between the major broadcast networks and
    independently owned affiliates in recent years. Disagreements first
    came to the Commission's attention in 2001, when the Network
    Affiliated Stations Alliance ("NASA") filed a Petition for Inquiry
    into Network Practices,[^238] asking whether certain alleged
    practices of the top four television networks[^239] involving their
    affiliates were consistent with the Commission's network rules, the
    Communications Act, and the public interest. NASA shortly thereafter
    filed a Motion asking the Commission to issue a declaratory ruling
    "as to specified affiliation agreement provisions whose lawfulness
    -- disputed by the networks and NASA -- turns on the proper
    interpretation of the Communications Act and Commission
    rules."[^240] In response, the networks argued, *inter alia*,
    that (1) NASA sought, in essence, an amendment of the
    right-to-reject rule to give affiliates the "absolute" power to
    avoid their contractual obligations; (2) the evidence does not
    support NASA's argument that major networks have asserted excessive
    control over affiliates' programming decisions; and (3) the
    affiliation agreements contain language that expressly acknowledges
    that affiliate stations have a right to reject.[^241] In January
    2005, NASA filed an update to the record in which it stated that
    each network had reformed its contracts to address the central
    issues raised by the affiliates.[^242] NASA also renewed its request
    for Commission action, however, seeking to clarify the meaning of
    the existing network/affiliate rules, consistent with the reformed
    affiliation agreements. In addition, NASA urged the Commission to
    provide other guidance that would help prevent similar disputes from
    arising in the future.[^243] The proceeding remains pending.

90. In the *NOI*, issued in the midst of this dispute, the Commission
    expressed its concern over some licensees' claims that the networks
    have hindered affiliated stations' ability to preempt Network shows
    for local programming. The Commission expressed concern about
    allegations that affiliates are hindered in their ability to refuse
    to broadcast network programming that is indecent or otherwise
    deemed to be unsuitable for the station's local community.[^244]

### Public Comments

91. A relatively small number of commenters explicitly discussed the
    network-affiliate relationship or the relevant Commission rules; a
    larger number -- generally members of the public -- voiced concern
    about network-supplied programming generally.[^245] Of those who
    addressed the network affiliation rules, several stated that
    affiliation agreements undercut the ability of individual station
    licensees to exercise their discretion to program their stations to
    meet local needs and problems. For example, a group owner testified
    at the Monterey hearing that the NASA Motion highlighted the "true
    realities" of the network-affiliate relationships, including the
    contractual disincentives that make affiliates reluctant to preempt
    network programming.[^246] He called upon the Commission to act on
    the NASA Motion and thereby help to prevent local stations from
    becoming passive conduits of national network fare, thereby
    disserving their local viewers.[^247] Similarly, the director of the
    local chapter of the Parents Television Council testified at the
    Commission's San Antonio localism hearing that local broadcasters
    appear to have subordinated their obligation to serve the public
    interest in favor of yielding entirely to the will of the national
    networks.[^248] He commented that some affiliates have indicated
    that they cannot view in advance network programs and others are
    afraid to preempt network programs for fear of non-renewal of their
    affiliation agreements. He urged the Commission to grant the NASA
    Motion in order to better empower affiliates to preempt programming
    that they find objectionable or otherwise not in the interest of
    their local audiences.[^249]

92. Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc. ("Capitol"), which advocates
    adoption of a number of behavioral rules concerning local
    programming,[^250] called for the establishment of the right of
    affiliates to review network programming before airtime in order to
    determine whether the material serves the licensee's
    community.[^251] Capitol states that, if network affiliation
    agreements do not grant pre-airtime review of programming as a
    contractual right, the Commission should adopt rules to support such
    a right.

93. Other commenters, however, state that existing network-affiliate
    relationships pose no impediments to the ability of licensees to
    control their own programming decisions and thereby serve the needs
    and interests of their viewers. For example, the Walt Disney
    Company, parent of the ABC Network, states that its affiliates have
    never been prevented or hindered from preempting network shows in
    accordance with the right-to-reject rule.[^252] It cites to the
    record in the NASA proceeding, including listings of affiliate
    preemptions filed with the Commission, as support for its contention
    that "there simply is no basis for the Commission to express any
    concern over NASA's unsubstantiated and unproven claims."[^253]
    Several broadcasters noted specific examples of their preemptions of
    network programming in order to air material they deemed more
    important for their audiences, including emergency
    information.[^254]

###  Issues for Commission Action

94. We agree with commenters' concern over the relationship between
    broadcast networks and the independently owned stations affiliated
    with them because of the adverse impact that some reported practices
    may have on the ability of licensees to fulfill their localism
    obligations. We believe that it is critical to maintain a balance in
    the network-affiliate relationship that affords local broadcasters
    ultimate power over programming decisions without risking undue
    financial hardship or implicit threats of unanticipated
    disaffiliation, so that they retain unfettered discretion to select
    what they air, including network-provided programming. For that
    reason, we reiterate here that the Commission will act promptly to
    enforce its network affiliation rules whenever complaints are filed.
    Those rules include, but are not limited to, the right-to-reject
    rule, 47 C.F.R. § 73.658(e), and that imposing restraints on time
    optioning, 47 C.F.R. § 73.658(d).

95. As many commenters urge, we intend to resolve the proper scope and
    meaning of these rules in the content of the pending NASA Motion.
    Although NASA has revised its requests to the Commission over time
    to reflect the laudatory reformation of certain network affiliation
    agreements, the affiliates continue to urge that we reaffirm key
    principles underlying the existing rules and adopt additional
    guidance that should assist in preventing future disputes.

96. Finally, we agree with many commenters and seek comment on whether
    it would be useful for licensees, in fulfilling their localism
    obligations, to be able to review network programming sufficiently
    in advance of airtime to determine whether the programming is
    unsatisfactory, unsuitable or contrary to the public interest.[^255]
    Our record to date provides little information as to whether network
    affiliation agreements currently afford licensees the right to
    review in advance network programming, or whether current practices
    allow for such meaningful review. Therefore, although we do not seek
    comment here on the matters raised in the NASA Motion, we do seek
    comment here on this limited issue of affiliate review of network
    programming. Has the matter of affiliate preview of network
    programming already been addressed by existing affiliation agreement
    terms? To the degree that such private contractual arrangements have
    not addressed this issue, we seek input on whether the Commission
    should establish rules requiring such a right. How long in advance
    would affiliates need to receive program recordings in order to have
    time for a meaningful review and preemption? What difficulties would
    this pose for networks? By definition, live events cannot be
    previewed. Are there any other types of programs that should be
    exempted from the requirement? We note that the right to reject rule
    is stated as a restriction on licensees entering into contracts that
    restrict their right to reject programming. Should our rules
    similarly prohibit an affiliate from waiving its right to advance
    review, consistent with its nondelegable responsibility for the
    programming that it airs? Proponents of a right-to-advance-review
    mandate should also discuss the statutory basis for the Commission's
    authority to act on this matter.

## PAYOLA / SPONSORSHIP IDENTIFICATION

### Issues

97. *Sponsorship Identification*. As discussed in the *NOI*, the
    Commission's sponsorship identification rules are designed to alert
    listeners and viewers of a broadcast station to the fact that they
    are hearing or watching programming for which valuable consideration
    has been provided by ensuring that the station discloses that
    fact.[^256] As the Commission stated in *United States Postal
    Service*, the sponsorship identification requirement is "based on
    the principle that the public has the right to know whether the
    broadcast material has been paid for and by whom."[^257] These
    provisions are found in Sections 317 and 507 of the Communications
    Act.[^258] Section 507 requires those persons who have provided,
    accepted, or agreed to provide or accept consideration for the
    airing of certain program material to report that fact to the
    station licensee before the involved matter is broadcast.[^259] In
    turn, Section 317 requires the licensee to announce, at the time of
    broadcast, that consideration has been provided for matter contained
    in the program, and to disclose the identity of the person
    furnishing the money or other valuable consideration."[^260] Section
    73.1212 of the Commission's rules implements the requirements of
    Section 317 for broadcasters. [^261]

98. *Payola/Pay-for-Play.* As an outgrowth of the sponsorship
    identification rules, the Commission has defined "payola" as "the
    unreported payment to, or acceptance by, employees of broadcast
    stations, program producers and program suppliers of any money,
    services or valuable consideration to achieve airplay for any
    programming."[^262] The Commission observed in the *NOI* that some
    commenters had expressed the opinion that payola practices are
    particularly common with regard to the airplay of music, so-called
    "pay-for-play." The Commission noted that the activity may involve
    "independent promoters" acting as a liaison between the radio
    stations and the record labels, so that the labels themselves do not
    make the payments to the stations. In the typical case, a promoter
    pays radio stations for the exclusive right to promote music to
    them, and charges record labels an upfront fee to market songs to
    radio stations, as well as additional fees for songs that stations
    add to their playlists that the promoter recommended. In other
    words, record labels pay promoters to market their music, and for
    music that stations actually play, and promoters pay stations to
    promote music to them, thus enabling the promoters to influence the
    songs that are included on the stations' playlists. It was suggested
    that radio stations that have consolidated with concert promoters
    may tie airplay to concert performances, by refusing to give airplay
    to artists who do not appear at concerts sponsored by the stations.
    The Commission observed that these types of arrangements ultimately
    influence who chooses what the public hears on the radio and what
    station listeners may actually hear.[^263]

99. The Commission observed in the *NOI* that such practices may be
    inconsistent with localism when they cause stations to air
    programming based on their financial interests, at the expense of
    their communities' needs and interests.[^264] The *NOI* sought
    comment on the various types of these practices today, and how
    frequently they occur. The Commission asked if these practices
    comply with the disclosure requirements of the Communications Act
    and our sponsorship identification regulations and if the existing
    rules are deficient in addressing the current practices. The
    Commission also sought comment on whether we should improve our
    enforcement process, by making it easier for complainants to file
    and for us to act on complaints, or otherwise. The *NOI* inquired if
    the Commission currently has the authority to regulate in this area,
    pursuant to its general Title III public interest authority over
    broadcasters and, if so, whether it should exercise that authority.
    The Commission also asked if the current disclosure requirements are
    sufficient to ensure that listeners understand the nature of the
    programming they hear.[^265]

100. *Other Sponsorship Identification.* The provision of consideration
     for broadcast material involving the sponsorship identification
     rules is not limited to arrangements for the playing of music over
     radio stations. As noted *supra,* the rules are invoked whenever
     consideration is provided or promised for the airing of particular
     program matter. For example, the *NOI* observed that some
     television stations appear to have aired interviews with guests who
     pay for their appearances. In such cases, the station reportedly
     disclosed the payment at the end of the program in small type that
     ran for only a matter of seconds. The Commission asked for comment
     on a number of issues regarding the application and adequacy of the
     Commission's sponsorship rules in these circumstances.[^266]

101. *Voice-Tracking.* The *NOI* also sought comment on voice-tracking,
     a practice by which stations import popular out-of-town
     personalities from bigger markets to smaller ones, customizing
     their programming to make it appear as if the personalities are
     actually local residents. The Commission observed that, by
     centralizing talent and creating name recognition, the practice
     would appear to enable stations both to decrease costs and increase
     ratings and thus revenue. The Commission observed that one
     commenter stated that the practice has potential adverse
     consequences for localism, in that, when a media company uses
     voice-tracking as a strategy to eliminate live broadcasts and local
     employees altogether, the station's connection to the local
     community may be hurt. Noting the agency does not have rules that
     directly address this practice, the *NOI* sought comment on what
     steps are necessary to preserve localism in this context, what our
     statutory authority is to adopt such regulations, and what
     particular practices should be defined as inconsistent with a
     broadcaster's programming obligations.[^267]

102. *National Playlists.* The *NOI* also discussed the possible adverse
     effect on localism of national music playlists developed by large
     corporate radio licensees on the access of local talent to airtime.
     It was argued that, absent such access, local artists are stifled
     and localism accordingly suffers. The *NOI* sought comment on the
     prevalence of national playlists and their effect on localism.
     Specifically, the Commission inquired as to the extent that the use
     of such playlists prevents local stations from making independent
     decisions about airplay, thereby diminishing the diversity and
     types of music heard on the radio, including that performed by
     local artists. The *NOI* asked what steps, if any, the Commission
     should take in this area to foster localism.[^268]

### Public Comments

103. *Payola/Pay-For-Play.* The American Federation of Television and
     Radio Artists and the American Federation of Musicians characterize
     pay-for-play as stations shutting local artists out of airplay,
     depriving audiences of emerging local artists and ultimately
     squelching innovation in American music.[^269] A number of
     commenters also express concern about the prevalence of payola
     practices, and some urge that the Commission adopt additional rules
     in this area.[^270] To the contrary, a number of station licensees
     and industry organizations state that, because concerns about
     payola are not warranted, additional regulation is not
     necessary.[^271] One long-time broadcast technician indicated that
     the rules appear clear: when one airs something for payment, the
     payment must be disclosed.[^272] The Future of Music Coalition
     urges the Commission to be more vigilant in enforcing the
     rules.[^273]

104. *Other Sponsorship Identification.* The Commission did not receive
     a great number of comments regarding the operation of the
     sponsorship identification rules in matters other than music
     airplay. Brian Wallace supports strict and rigorous enforcement of
     these requirements. He indicates that sponsorship identification is
     important because it helps viewers identify the source of the
     information. In his view, if programs receive compensation for
     promoting something, disclosure of the arrangement should be made
     during the segment in question.[^274]

105. *National Playlists.* A number of commenters stated that the use of
     national playlists by stations reduces the amount of airplay of
     local musicians.[^275] The Future of Music Coalition urges that the
     Commission require basic data from broadcasters indicating what
     songs they are playing and how they determine what makes their
     playlists.[^276] Others say that, with ownership consolidation, the
     radio industry has become much less responsive to local musicians
     and programming increasingly homogenized.[^277] Several other
     musicians related experiencing difficulty in getting their music
     played over local stations.[^278] However, other witnesses praised
     the airplay of the music of local artists by area stations.[^279]
     The statement of a local singer was submitted at the Portland
     hearing noting the continued willingness of local broadcasters to
     allow him to perform his songs on their stations.[^280] Clear
     Channel indicated that it has no national playlists, that
     programming decisions are made at the local level by individual
     station managers, program directors and air talent using
     sophisticated research techniques.[^281] A representative of
     Citadel Broadcasting similarly testified at the Portland hearing,
     stating that its stations' music programming decisions are made at
     the local level, with the goal of each station to serve its local
     community.[^282] The Cromwell Group indicated that, while some of
     its stations have programs of local music, ultimately, a station
     must play whatever music its listeners want to hear.[^283] The NAB
     claims that radio stations generally devote at least a portion of
     their programming to promoting local artists. [^284]

106. *Voice-Tracking.* With regard to voice-tracking, some commenters
     also expressed concern about the practice,[^285] while others
     indicated that no new regulations are necessary,[^286] some
     questioning the Commission's authority to do so.[^287] John
     Connolly of the American Federation of Radio and Television Artists
     testified at the Monterey hearing that voice-tracking "corrodes
     local service in many radio markets.... 70 percent of Clear Channel
     radio's broadcasts are voice-tracked from distant locations."[^288]
     Another commenter indicated that the practice should be closely
     examined to the extent that it compromises local programming.[^289]
     The NAB states that the use of voice-tracking has no discernable
     negative impact on localism, and allows stations to produce higher
     quality programming at lower cost.[^290]

###  Issues for Commission Action

107. *Sponsorship Identification/Payola.* We agree with the many
     commenters who have expressed concern with reported practices
     throughout the broadcast industry that appear to violate our
     sponsorship identification rules. We also agree that we need to
     continue vigilant enforcement of our regulations, as well as impose
     strict penalties for violations of the rules.

108. We note that, particularly since the release of the *NOI*, the
     Commission has been aggressive in investigating all payola
     complaints that it has received that demonstrate that a question
     exists of whether such violations have occurred and sanctioning
     licensees found to have engaged in illegal conduct. For example, as
     a result of its investigation of allegations of payola/pay-for-play
     violations by a number of broadcasters, on April 13, 2007, the
     Commission released consent decrees that it entered into with four
     of the nation's largest radio group owners, CBS Radio, Inc.,
     Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, Clear Channel Communications,
     Inc. and Entercom Communications Corp., calling for them to make
     payments to the U.S. Treasury of \$12,500,000, in the aggregate.
     These decrees also called for each company to institute a
     compliance plan containing numerous business reforms and compliance
     measures designed to prevent future violations, plans that, among
     other things, restricted the activities of independent
     promoters.[^291] The Enforcement Bureau has a number of similar
     ongoing investigations and we will continue to aggressively proceed
     and take action, where appropriate.

109. The Commission has also acted when presented with other types of
     violations of the sponsorship identification rules. On April 13,
     2005, the Commission issued a Public Notice reminding broadcast
     licensees of the critical role that broadcasters play in providing
     information to the audiences that they serve and reminding them and
     others of their obligations under the sponsorship identification
     rules in connection with the airing of video news releases
     ("VNRs"). Therein, the Commission expressed its intention to
     investigate any situation in which it appears that these rules have
     been violated and to order appropriate sanctions.[^292] Since then,
     the Enforcement Bureau has so proceeded, aggressively investigating
     numerous complaints of wrongdoing and taking the required action.
     For example, in September 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued two
     notices of apparent liability for forfeiture against Comcast
     Corporation for its airing of a number of video news releases
     without the requisite announcements.[^293] On October 18, 2007, the
     Commission issued a notice of apparent liability against Sonshine
     Family Television, Inc. and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.[^294]
     for similar violations. Other investigations are currently
     underway.

110. Particularly as a result of our experience in these and other
     enforcement proceedings, and in light of the record here, we
     believe that our sponsorship identification rules are sufficient
     for our regulatory purposes and do not believe that we need to
     revise them, as proposed by some commenters, because they are
     sufficiently broad to cover the practices that they describe in the
     record. However, in the *VNR Notice*, the Commission sought public
     comment on the nature of practices by broadcasters that might
     invoke operation of the sponsorship identification rules.[^295] The
     Commission has received numerous filings, and the Media Bureau is
     in the process of reviewing that record and considering whether
     additional action is appropriate. Although that proceeding inquired
     only about the airing of VNRs, if necessary, we can consider
     calling for additional comments from the public on a broader set of
     issues. We intend to consider a notice of proposed rulemaking to
     seek comment on current trends in embedded advertising and the
     efficacy of the current sponsorship identification regulations with
     regard to such forms of advertising.

111. *Voice-Tracking.* With regard to the concerns raised about the use
     by stations of voice-tracking, we seek comment here on the
     prevalence of voice-tracking and whether the Commission can and
     should take steps to limit the practice, require disclosure, or
     otherwise address it. We believe that such practices may diminish
     the presence of licensees in the communities and thus hinder their
     ability to assess the needs and interests of their local
     communities. As discussed above, we have sought comment in the
     Digital Audio Broadcasting proceeding on whether we should require
     that stations maintain a physical presence at radio broadcasting
     facilities during all hours of operation and seek comment in this
     proceeding on whether such a requirement should also apply to
     television licensees. [^296]

112. *National Playlists.* Finally, we do not believe that the record
     supports our prohibiting the use of national music playlists by
     licensees, nor do we believe that we should affirmatively require
     stations to give airplay to local artists. However, we agree with
     those commenters who express concern about the lack of access to
     the airwaves by local musicians. For this reason, we seek comment
     on whether we should require licensees to provide us data regarding
     their airing of the music and other performances of local artists
     and how they compile their stations' playlists, which we would use
     in our consideration of the renewal applications of the stations to
     which they relate, in evaluating the overall station performance
     under localism. We seek comment on the appropriate form for these
     disclosures and ask commenters to state what information should be
     supplied.

## LICENSE RENEWAL PROCEDURES

### Issues

113. The *NOI* noted that the license renewal process is "perhaps the
     most significant mechanism available to the Commission and the
     public to review the performance of broadcasters and to ensure that
     licensees have served their local communities."[^297] The
     Commission's process for evaluating license renewal applications
     has changed greatly over the past 30 years. Most significantly, as
     part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress eliminated the
     Commission's authority to accept new station applications to
     compete with renewal filings and consider such mutually exclusive
     applications in comparative hearings, and increased the maximum
     term for a broadcast license to eight years.[^298]

114. In response to the criticism expressed by some that the Commission
     does not examine thoroughly enough whether a licensee has served
     the public interest in deciding whether to renew its station
     license, the *NOI* called for comment on a number of questions
     relating to our license renewal system and how it might be
     improved. Specifically, the *NO*I asked commenters to address
     whether new procedures are needed to strengthen our license renewal
     process; whether the Commission should conduct audits of stations'
     issues/programs lists and public files; how we might make the
     license renewal process more effective; what the benefits and
     burdens of any proposals for change might be; and to generally
     address the boundaries of our authority to adopt such measures
     (particularly in light of the 1996 Telecommunications Act) and what
     the scope of our evaluation should be. The Commission also
     solicited suggestions for improving the involvement of broadcast
     stations in the community and asked commenters to address whether
     the current eight-year license renewal term is appropriate, or if
     the agency should adopt more frequent review of a station's record
     of performance.[^299]

### Public Comments

115. The Commission received a number of comments addressing its license
     renewal procedures and responding to our request for suggestions on
     improving that process. Broadcasters and broadcaster organizations
     generally expressed their opposition to any modification of the
     procedures, several maintaining that, in the wake of the 1996
     Telecommunications Act's revision of the renewal procedures, the
     Commission lacks the authority to do so.[^300] However, other
     commenters, including many members of the public, expressed at
     least some dissatisfaction with the current license renewal system.
     Many requested more stringent renewal standards, better public
     disclosure of how to participate in the renewal process, or both.
     In addition, a number of members of the public participating in the
     localism field hearings expressed a general sense that our license
     renewal process should be strengthened to promote greater
     accountability to the public on the part of broadcasters.[^301] The
     streamlined license renewal procedures that the Commission adopted
     in the 1980s elicited particular criticism from some commenters.
     For example, one stated that the license renewal process should
     "involve more than a returned postcard."[^302] Similarly, at the
     Commission's hearing in Monterey, a panelist offered comments
     criticizing the current license renewal system and stating that
     stations should be held accountable for their records of public
     service at renewal time.[^303]

116. In response to our questions in the *NOI* about whether the length
     of time between renewals should be shortened or periodic mid-term
     reviews of a station's public service should be imposed,
     broadcasters generally advocated no change.[^304] However, others
     urged more frequent review of licensee performance. One filer
     commented that eight years is too great a period between renewals.
     "Reviews that are spanned too far apart cannot adequately monitor
     the current status of any broadcasting entity." He advocated
     shorter licensing terms and more frequent Commission review of
     licensee performance.[^305]

117. In addition to general criticisms and calls for improvements to the
     license renewal process, several commenters suggested specific
     measures for the Commission to consider. Several argued that the
     Commission should take steps to improve public awareness of a
     licensee's record of service to local needs by requiring enhanced
     disclosure by broadcasters. The American Federation of Television
     and Radio Artists and the American Federation of Musicians urged
     that Commission should adopt a standardized form that would require
     licensees to disclose the types and quantity of local programming
     aired during the license period. They also recommended that
     broadcasters' public files should be made available on the
     Internet.[^306] The Campaign Legal Center and the Alliance for
     Better Campaigns likewise argued in favor of adoption of a
     standardized form for stations to use in reporting their records of
     local programming service,[^307] and advocated the use of a form
     similar to the standard form proposed by the Public Interest,
     Public Airwaves Coalition in the Commission's Enhanced Disclosure
     proceeding.[^308] Ronda Orchard suggested that a "mandate requiring
     that public hearings on service and community needs assessment
     \[should\] be conducted and published for comment, criticism and
     resolution."[^309]

118. The National Federation of Community Broadcasters commented that
     "local and community-responsive programming should be considered
     when determining renewals of licenses," and suggested that the
     Commission should adopt a point system regime similar to the point
     system currently used to award noncommercial educational FM and
     television permits between mutually exclusive applicants.[^310]
     Commenter Sam Brown proposed a similar point system for assessing a
     licensee's overall commitment to localism.[^311]

119. In addition to the commenters proposing formalized localism point
     systems, several others suggested that the Commission adopt
     specific standards for service to local needs and that a station's
     license should not be renewed if the licensee fails to meet those
     standards. In addition to their recommendation that the Commission
     adopt a standard form for enhanced disclosure of a station's
     service of local needs, the Campaign Legal Center and the Alliance
     for Better Campaigns argued that the agency should amend its
     license renewal procedures to include processing guidelines taking
     into account the station's record of performance.[^312]
     Specifically, they proposed processing guidelines that would allow
     expedited license renewals for stations that air a minimum of three
     hours per week of local civic/electoral affairs programming, at
     least half of which aired in or near prime time.[^313] The
     Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern
     California argued that the Commission should require broadcasters
     to provide access to a station's public inspection file online and
     in a standard format so that the public may evaluate the extent to
     which stations are serving their local communities.[^314] It stated
     that adoption of such a measure would allow quantitative
     measurement of a station's record of localism. It also recommended
     that broadcasters be required to include in their online public
     files archives of selected audio and video programming excerpts.
     The Brennan Center for Justice, *et al.* argued that the Commission
     should "conduct rigorous review of licensee performance in all
     aspects of diversity and localism" and, if a station is found
     deficient, its license should be revoked and reassigned to
     community interest media organizations.[^315]

120. Not all of the comments received by the Commission argued in favor
     of imposing additional requirements on broadcasters. Commenter
     Thomas G. Smith, who identifies himself as a technician employed in
     the broadcast industry for the past 35 years, described the current
     license system as "realistic," but suggested that the Commission
     articulate and hold licensees to a specific standard of conduct. He
     also urged that the Commission offer aid to broadcasters to assist
     them in meeting their public service obligations because
     "\[p\]ublic file and renewal standards can be confusing and can
     cost stations money in fines and possibly their license\[s\]." He
     suggested that the Commission help broadcasters meet their
     obligations with increased communication to licensees and training
     seminars conducted by the Commission or through industry trade
     groups. He further argued that disruption of service to the public
     that would occur as a result of a station losing its license may be
     as harmful a result as having "a station that does not meet or
     barely meets its obligations" remain on the air.[^316]

###  Issues for Commission Action

121. *Shortened License Terms*. We are not persuaded by some commenters'
     suggestions that the Commission shorten broadcast license terms to
     some period less than the eight years that Congress authorized in
     the Telecommunications Act of 1996.[^317] Although we agree that
     many of the issues that commenters have raised in this proceeding
     merit Commission action, we believe that the behavioral rules
     proposed in this Report or adopted or under consideration in the
     other dockets noted herein will be sufficiently effective in
     addressing those concerns.

122. *Enhanced Disclosure*. We agree with some commenters that there is
     an apparent disconnect between broadcasters' localism efforts and
     community awareness of those efforts. We further note that, because
     we concluded in the *Enhanced Disclosure Order* that our current
     requirements are not sufficient, we adopted a standardized form to
     provide information on how stations serve the public
     interest.[^318] These new requirements, discussed in further detail
     at paragraphs 20-23 of this Report, will help educate the public
     about existing local programming and assist in our renewal
     proceedings.

123. *Increased Public Involvement in Renewal Proceedings*. We agree
     that, as we note at paragraph 15 of this Report, the record of this
     proceeding indicates that many members of the public are unaware of
     the mechanisms that are already available to them in terms of
     participation in the license renewal process. We find the
     observation of Thomas G. Smith that the Commission's "public file
     and renewal standards can be confusing" is a point well taken,
     particularly with respect to members of the general public who may
     be unfamiliar with broadcast industry practices and may find
     parsing Commission regulations on the subject a daunting task.
     Accordingly, as also described in paragraphs 18-19 above, the
     Commission directs the Media Bureau to update its "The Public and
     Broadcasting" publication to provide more straightforward guidance
     to the public on how individuals can directly participate in the
     license renewal process, and will establish a Commission point of
     contact at which members of the public can seek information about
     our processes.

124. *Renewal Application Processing Guidelines*. We believe that the
     recommendations set forth by the Campaign Commenters, USC Annenberg
     and the Brennan Center for Justice, *et al.* concerning the
     potential adoption of specific guidelines for broadcasters to
     follow may have merit and deserve further exploration. Accordingly,
     as stated in paragraph 40 *supra,* we tentatively conclude that we
     should reintroduce specific procedural guidelines for the
     processing of renewal applications for stations based on their
     localism programming performance. We seek comment on this proposal.
     Specifically, should these guidelines be expressed as hours of
     programming per week or, as in the past, percentages of overall
     programming? Should the guidelines cover particular types of
     programming, such as local news, political, public affairs and
     entertainment, or simply generally reflect locally-oriented
     programming? What should the categories and amounts or percentages
     be? Should we adopt processing guidelines regarding specific types
     of locally-oriented programming to be aired at particular times of
     the day? Should the Commission create other renewal processing
     guidelines that give processing priority to stations that meet
     certain measurable standards? How should we define local
     programming? Must it be locally produced? We seek comment on these
     questions and invite comment on any related issues that commenters
     feel the Commission should consider in connection with the possible
     adoption of specific localism processing guidelines for broadcast
     renewal applications.

## ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM ALLOCATIONS

### Issues

125. In the *NOI,* the Commission noted that, in order to enhance the
     availability of community-responsive programming, it created new
     broadcasting services, including, in 2000, the low power FM
     ("LPFM") service. It observed that LPFM stations are smaller
     noncommercial stations that may broadcast at a maximum power of 100
     watts, which corresponds to a coverage area of approximately a 3.5
     mile radius from the transmitter. The *NOI* stated that, during the
     first two years that LPFM licenses were available for application,
     eligibility for licenses was limited to local entities. In
     addition, to similarly enhance the localism of the service, in the
     case of mutually exclusive applications for LPFM stations, the
     Commission grants the license to the applicant with the greatest
     number of points, providing comparative point credit to applicants
     that have had an established community presence for two years
     preceding their application and those that pledge to originate
     locally at least eight hours of programming per day.[^319]

126. The Commission further observed that, in 2000, Congress passed an
     Act requiring the Commission to prescribe additional channel
     spacing requirements for LPFM stations, and thus provide existing
     FM stations greater interference protection, effectively limiting
     the number of LPFM stations that can fit within the FM band.
     Congress also instructed the Commission to conduct an experimental
     program to evaluate whether LPFM stations would interfere with
     existing FM stations if the LPFM stations were not subject to these
     additional channel spacing requirements, and to report to Congress
     with recommendations to reduce or eliminate the minimum separations
     for third-adjacent channels. After such a study had been completed,
     the Commission recommended that Congress "modify the statute to
     eliminate the third-adjacent channel distant separation
     requirements for LPFM stations."[^320]

127. In the *NOI*, the Commission sought comment on what additional
     steps should be taken to promote LPFM further, and how best to
     harmonize our licensing processes for FM translators and LPFM
     stations to enhance localism.[^321] In March 2005, the Commission
     released a *Second Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of
     Proposed Rulemaking* as part of its ongoing efforts to promote the
     operation and expansion of LPFM service.[^322] In the *LPFM*
     *Second Order*, the Commission made minor changes to the LPFM
     rules, including a clarification that "local program origination"
     does not include the airing of satellite-fed programming.[^323]

128. The accompanying *LPFM FNPRM* sought comment on a number of issues
     related to ownership and eligibility restrictions for LPFM
     licensees, as well as technical matters related to the LPFM service
     and interference priorities. The Commission asked whether LPFM
     licenses should be assignable or transferable and whether the
     temporary restrictions on the multiple ownership of LPFM stations
     and on non-local ownership should be extended or allowed to
     sunset.[^324] Because "introducing some level of transferability to
     the LPFM service is critical," the Commission delegated to the
     Media Bureau the authority to waive the prohibition on the
     assignment or transfer of a LPFM station contained in Section
     73.865 of the Rules on a case-by-case basis and cited examples of
     circumstances in which the grant of such a waiver might be
     appropriate.[^325] The Commission also proposed certain changes to
     the Rules governing the formation and duration of voluntary and
     involuntary time-sharing arrangements among mutually exclusive LPFM
     applicants.[^326] The *LPFM* *FNPRM* also sought comment on the
     relationship between the LPFM and full-power FM services. Noting
     that thousands of FM translator applications remained pending from
     the 2003 filing window, the Commission froze the processing of
     those applications and sought comment on possible adjustments to
     the co-equal status of LPFM stations and FM translators with regard
     to interference between them.[^327] The Commission also sought
     comment on whether LPFM stations should be protected from
     interference from subsequently authorized FM facilities.[^328]

### Public Comments

129. The record in this proceeding, as well as that in the LPFM docket,
     reflects widespread support for the service and measures that would
     enhance the stability and growth of LPFM. Commenters state that the
     creation of the LPFM service has provided an important outlet for
     the expression of community needs and interests, and the creation
     of locally oriented, community-responsive programming. A Ph.D.
     candidate whose dissertation research centers on the phenomenon of
     LPFM and its impact on local communities, focusing on LPFM Station
     KRBS-LP in Oroville, California, reports that in an era of decline
     in civic participation, those volunteering at the station report a
     feeling of increased civic engagement and participation. The
     station has developed programming of local interest, including new
     and valuable information for the sizeable immigrant population in
     the area.[^329] Another commenter from Carbondale, Illinois,
     praised the all-volunteer LPFM station in his community, which
     provides a broad representation of the many cultures of the
     international students that have come from around the world to
     study in Carbondale, and local news and sports events that would
     otherwise be unavailable.[^330] Many commenters noted the presence
     of local music on LPFM facilities;[^331] one stated that "\[i\]t
     would be an injustice to disallow the public a right to expand its
     LPFM participation."[^332] A speaker at the Washington, D.C.
     hearing noted the five-year partnership between LPFM Station WRIR
     and the City of Richmond, Virginia, its community of license, to
     provide local emergency officials the ability to immediately
     provide emergency information in times of crisis.[^333]

130. Other commenters provided suggestions for improving the viability
     of the LPFM and low power television ("LPTV") services, and other
     ways of enhancing localism through the spectrum allocation
     procedures. These proposals include the following: elimination of
     the third adjacent channel protection, consistent with the
     Commission's recommendation to Congress in 2004;[^334]
     establishment of a low power AM service;[^335] grant of primary
     service status to LPFM over FM translators;[^336] reform of the
     LPFM rules to allow a relaxed policy toward minor facility changes
     involving LPFM stations that have already been approved or are
     still being actively processed by the Commission;[^337]
     modification of the translator rules to eliminate speculative
     filings;[^338] the licensing of more LPFM stations;[^339]
     encouraging the development of LPFM stations, particularly in more
     populated areas;[^340] enhancement of the ability of low power
     television stations to transition to Class A stations;[^341] and
     assignment of more broadcast licenses to nonprofit, independent
     media that serve the needs and interests of diverse social,
     economic, ethnic, and racial groups within local communities,
     including more licenses for low power broadcasting, and more
     spectrum availability for unlicensed community broadcasting.[^342]
     However, other commenters state that LPFM facilities should not
     receive interference priority over that accorded to FM
     translators.[^343] National Public Radio urges that, given the
     importance of both LPFM and translator facilities to providing
     service to the public, the Commission should not alter its current
     regulations and the reasonable balance that it has achieved between
     the two services.[^344] The National Federation of Community
     Broadcasters suggests that the Commission facilitate the
     development of LPFM by extending the construction periods for such
     stations.[^345]

###  Issues for Commission Action

131. The record compiled in this docket establishes that many of the
     over 1,275 authorized LPFM stations offer substantial service
     specifically tailored to meet the specific needs and issues of
     their communities of license. Particularly in light of record of
     service, we agree with many commenters that expanding opportunities
     for LPFM stations would ensure that more local voices are available
     in communities. As noted *supra*, in response to the concerns
     raised in the LPFM proceeding and echoed by the record here, we
     recently adopted a number of measures raised in the *LPFM* *FNPRM*
     to help the LPFM service to thrive and remain local. In addition,
     we issued a *Second FNPRM* to advance our goal "to ensure that we
     maximize the value of the LPFM service without harming the
     interests of full-power FM stations or other Commission
     licensees."[^346] Beyond action in that proceeding, we also will
     seek to increase the number of LPFM stations that are on the air
     and providing service to the public, and to promote the continued
     operation of LPFM stations already broadcasting, while avoiding
     interference to existing FM service.

132. Specifically, by the *LPFM Third R&O*, we have taken a number of
     actions to help the LPFM service to thrive and to enhance
     localism.[^347] First, the *LPFM Third R&O* adopted the proposal
     that sudden changes of more than 50 percent of the membership of
     governing boards would no longer cause a substantial change in
     ownership or control of a LPFM station.[^348] This measure can
     assist in the viability of LPFM operations, since frequent
     elections and changes in governing board membership are common
     among the volunteer organizations and other similar entities to
     which LPFM stations are commonly licensed. We also took action on
     the *LPFM* *FNPRM* proposal to eliminate the existing rule
     prohibiting LPFM transfers and assignments and allow the sale of
     LPFM licenses, subject to certain limitations.[^349] Allowing for
     the alienability of LPFM licenses, with some restrictions, will
     help ensure the longevity and success of the service, which in turn
     will promote localism.

133. In order to promote diverse and local ownership in the LPFM
     service, the *LPFM Third R&O* reinstated the original rule limiting
     ownership to one station per licensee and requiring that all
     authorization holders be local to the community of the
     station.[^350] It also clarified the definition of local program
     origination, to state that repetitious automated programming, and
     programs broadcast more than twice do not meet the local
     origination requirement.[^351] Finally, we expanded the definition
     of local for rural communities. The existing rule, by which an LPFM
     applicant is deemed "local" if it is physically headquartered or
     has a campus within ten miles of the proposed LPFM transmitter
     site, or if 75 percent of its board members reside within ten miles
     of the proposed LPFM transmitter site, is extended to 20 miles for
     rural communities outside the top fifty urban markets, for both the
     distance from transmitter and residence of board member
     standards.[^352] Furthermore, we took action to encourage voluntary
     time-sharing agreements between applicants for particular LPFM
     facilities that are tied under the comparative point system.[^353]

134. The *LPFM Third R&O* also adopted changes to the LPFM technical
     rules. While the *LPFM NPRM* proposed to extend the current
     18-month LPFM construction period to 36 months, we determined that
     a better course of action would be to maintain the 18 month
     construction period, and allow permittees the opportunity to seek
     an additional 18 months to complete construction of their
     facilities upon a showing of good cause.[^354]

135. Regarding interference issues, the *LPFM Third R&O* deferred a
     decision on whether to modify the "co-equal" status between FM
     translator and LPFM stations.[^355] Nevertheless, the Commission
     concluded that it should develop a more complete record on this
     issue, and issued the *LPFM SFNPRM* regarding this issue.[^356]
     However, in order to further our twin goals of increasing the
     number of LPFM stations and promoting localism, we determined it
     was necessary to limit the preclusive impact of the 2003 FM
     translator application filing window, in which over 13,000
     applications were filed. As such, the *LPFM Third R&O* imposes a
     10-application cap with respect to the remaining 7,000 pending
     applications.[^357] Implementation of the cap will result in the
     dismissal of approximately 4,500 applications but will affect fewer
     than 20 percent of all translator window filers.[^358] Our
     imposition of a 10-application cap will limit the preclusive impact
     of Auction No. 83 filings on LPFM licensing opportunities by
     barring the processing of thousands of FM translator applications
     filed by a very small number of FM translator applicants.[^359]

136. The *LPFM Third R&O* also adopted a proposal contained in the
     *LPFM* *FNPRM* to narrow the current rule which requires an LPFM
     station to cease operations if it cannot resolve interference
     complaints within the 70 dBµ contour of a subsequently authorized
     full power station.[^360] The modified rule requires LPFM stations
     to resolve only co- and first-adjacent channel interference
     complaints or cease operations.[^361] The *LPFM Third R&O* also
     adopted an interim processing policy for the consideration of a
     second-adjacent channel short-spacing waiver sought in an LPFM
     displacement application to change channels.[^362] An impacted full
     service station will be provided an opportunity to show cause why
     waiving the rules and granting the LPFM modification application is
     not in the public interest.[^363] In considering the LPFM request,
     the Commission would balance the potential for new interference to
     the full service station against the potential displacement of the
     LPFM station.[^364] If a waiver is warranted, the Media Bureau will
     issue a Special Temporary Authorization to the LPFM licensee.[^365]

137. The *LPFM Third R&O* also establishes an interim processing policy
     for certain LPFM stations threatened with displacement. In
     circumstances in which there are no other technical options, the
     Commission will presumptively favor those LPFM stations that have
     regularly provided eight hours of locally originated programming
     daily over an encroaching full service station application.[^366]
     The presumption is rebuttable, and the Commission will consider
     many factors in considering an LPFM station's request for a limited
     waiver of secondary status, including the Section 307(b) benefits
     of the city of license modification and the extent to which other
     NCE and LPFM stations provide locally originated programming in the
     LPFM station's service area.[^367]

138. In the *LPFM SFNPRM*, we also renewed our recommendation that
     Congress eliminate the statutory provision requiring third adjacent
     channel protection by LPFM facilities.[^368] As we reported to
     Congress in 2004, LPFM stations do not pose a significant risk of
     causing interference to existing full-service FM stations or FM
     translator and booster stations operating on third-adjacent
     channels.[^369] If such interference were to occur, the Commission
     can address it on a case-by-case basis using the third-adjacent
     channel LPFM interference complaint and license modification
     procedures adopted in September 2000.[^370] Eliminating this
     restriction, which must come with Congressional action, would be a
     significant step toward substantially increasing the number of LPFM
     stations potentially available for authorization.

139. The *LPFM SFNPRM* asks for comment on issues of interference in
     order to determine whether additional rule changes are warranted to
     enhance the LPFM service's long-term viability and advance the
     Commission's localism goals. First, it seeks comment on whether to
     modify the LPFM technical rules to codify the second-adjacent
     channel waiver and displacement policies adopted in the *LPFM Third
     R&O,* as discussed above.[^371] It also tentatively concludes that,
     when implementation of a full service station facility proposal
     would impact an LPFM station, the full service station will be
     required to provide the LPFM station notice of its application
     filing, technical assistance in identifying alternative channels,
     and reimbursement for any resulting LPFM facility
     modifications.[^372] The *LPFM SFNPRM* tentatively concludes that
     the LPFM technical rules should be modified to permit the licensing
     of LPFM stations by using a contour, as opposed to a distance
     separation, methodology in order to expand LPFM station licensing
     opportunities.[^373] It also tentatively concludes that the
     Commission should retain as an alternate licensing scheme the
     current LPFM distance separation rule in the event that a contour
     rule is adopted.[^374] Finally, the *LPFM SFNPRM* seeks additional
     comment on the issue whether the Commission should retain the
     current "co-equal" status between the LPFM and FM translator
     services.[^375]

140. With regard to other services, we direct the Media Bureau's Audio
     Division to develop a new computer program to assist potential
     radio applicants in identifying suitable available commercial FM
     spectrum in the location from which they desire to operate. Because
     the first step in obtaining a license for a new FM station is to
     add a new allotment to the FM Table of Allotments, to do so, a
     prospective applicant must determine an available community of
     license, frequency and the transmitter site geographic coordinates
     for its planned station. Once this has been done, the proponent
     must file a petition for rulemaking to add the allotment and an FCC
     Form 301 application for a construction permit for the proposed
     facility.[^376] The new Allotment Channel Finder program, designed
     to help potential applicants identify available FM allotments
     throughout the nation, would be accessed on the Commission's
     website. Our making such software available to the public free of
     charge will render the process of finding potential frequencies
     amid the congestion of the spectrum much easier. Because the
     program will make certain assumptions about the identification of
     the FM licensees, applicants, and rulemaking proponents whose
     facilities a new applicant must protect, before filing a petition
     and application for a new station, a party seeking to commence this
     process should retain the services of a consulting engineer to
     confirm the availability of the authorization sought. Nevertheless,
     by facilitating the identification of available frequencies by
     potential new broadcasters, the Commission will reduce the cost of
     performing a frequency search, which will likely lead to increased
     localism in broadcasting, as well as diversity in radio ownership
     and programming.

141. As a final matter, we understand the concerns of commenters that
     would like to upgrade LPTV stations to Class A status. We agree
     that this action would provide investment protection for low power
     TV stations looking to make investments in the DTV transition.
     Because the Class A rules require such stations to provide locally
     produced programming, increasing the number of Class A stations
     would ensure the existence of continued community
     programming.[^377] We tentatively conclude that we should allow
     additional qualified LPTV stations to be granted Class A status. We
     seek comment on this tentative conclusion, as well as on how to
     define eligibility and our statutory authority to take this action.

# CONCLUSION

142. As we observed in the *NOI* in this proceeding, the concept of
     creating and maintaining a system of radio and television stations
     that offer programming responsive to the unique needs and issues
     facing the communities that they are licensed to serve is the
     centerpiece of the Commission's regulation of the broadcast
     industry. The fact that we have received over 83,000 comments and
     heard from hundreds of participants at the six field hearings that
     we have conducted throughout the country eloquently demonstrates
     the importance with which the public views the concept of localism:
     the obligation of stations to provide service vital to their
     communities. In particular, the often passionate testimony that we
     received from the "open microphone" participants at these hearings,
     generally private citizens who stayed until well into the night
     often and came a long way to make known their carefully crafted
     observations, underscores the significance to them of this issue.

143. We hope to move quickly to adopt the rule modifications that we
     propose in this Report. The Commission must do its part to educate
     and mobilize members of the public to become actively involved in
     ensuring, and assisting us in ensuring, that the stations licensed
     to serve them do so in the best possible manner. We urge members of
     the public to become actively involved in this process and to
     communicate with their local broadcasters as to how their stations
     can better do so. Only if this dialogue occurs can broadcasters
     translate those communicated needs into meaningful programming that
     can make a difference. It is our intention that the steps that we
     take in this Report and elsewhere will assist in that process.

# ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

144. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is attached to this
     document as Appendix B.

## Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

145. This document has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork
     Reduction Act of 1995 ("PRA"),[^378] and contains proposed
     information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its
     continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general
     public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on
     the proposed information collection requirements contained in this
     Notice, as required by the PRA.

146. Written comments on the PRA proposed information collection
     requirements must be submitted by the public, the Office of
     Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or
     before **\[60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
     REGISTER\]**. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed
     collection of information is necessary for the proper performance
     of the functions of the Commission, including whether the
     information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
     Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
     utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
     minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
     respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques
     or other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to
     the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,[^379] we seek
     specific comment on how we might "further reduce the information
     collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
     employees."

147. In addition to filing comments with the Office of the Secretary, a
     copy of any comments on the proposed information collection
     requirements contained herein should be submitted to Cathy
     Williams, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St, S.W.,
     Room 1-C823, Washington, D.C., 20554, or via the Internet to
     [Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov;](mailto:Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov) and also
     to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th
     Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, or via Internet to
     Kristy_L.\_LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, or via fax at 202-395-5167.

148. *Further Information.* For additional information concerning the
     PRA proposed information collection requirements contained in this
     document, contact Cathy Williams at 202-418-2918, or via the
     Internet to <Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov>.

## Ex Parte Rules

149. *Permit-But-Disclose.* This is a permit-but-disclose notice and
     comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are
     permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, if they are
     disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules.[^380]

## Filing Requirements

150. *Comments and Replies*. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
     Commission's rules,[^381] interested parties may file comments and
     reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page
     of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's
     Electronic Comment Filing System ("ECFS"), (2) the Federal
     Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper
     copies.[^382]

151. *Electronic Filers:* Comments may be filed electronically using the
     Internet by accessing the ECFS: <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/> or
     the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
     [http://www.regulations.gov](http://www.regulations.gov/). Filers
     should follow the instructions provided on the website for
     submitting comments. For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or
     rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers
     must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket
     or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the
     transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S.
     Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
     rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by
     Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an
     e-mail to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and include the following words in the
     body of the message, "get form." A sample form and directions will
     be sent in response.

152. *Paper Filers:* Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
     original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
     rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
     must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
     rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger
     delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or
     overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to
     experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All
     filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of
     the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

-   The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
    messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at
    236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The
    filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
    deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
    envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.

-   Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express
    Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
    Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

-   U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should
    be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.

153. *Availability of Documents*. Comments, reply comments, and *ex
     parte* submissions will be available for public inspection during
     regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
     Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., CY-A257,
     Washington, D.C., 20554. These documents will also be available via
     ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97,
     and/or Adobe Acrobat.

154. *Accessibility Information.* To request information in accessible
     formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and
     Braille), send an e-mail to <fcc504@fcc.gov> or call the FCC's
     Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
     (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document can also be downloaded
     in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at:
     [http://www.fcc.gov](http://www.fcc.gov/).

155. *Additional Information*. For additional information on this
     proceeding, contact Jeremy Kissel, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-2896,
     or at jeremy.kissel@fcc.gov.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

156. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority found in
     Sections 4(i), 303, 612, and 616 of the Communications Act of 1934,
     as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303, 532 and 536, this Report on
     Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.

157. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (j),
     301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 324 of the Communications
     Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C §§ 151, 154(i) and (j), 301, 302, 303, 307,
     308, 309, 319, and 324 that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the proposals
     and tentative conclusions described in this Report on Broadcast
     Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

158. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Reference Information Center,
     Consumer Information Bureau, shall send a copy of this Report on
     Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
     Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
     Small Business Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**Principal Comments Filed in MB Docket No. 04-233\***

Jesse Aguirre

Akaku: Maui Community Television

Alaska Broadcasters Association

Margarita Allen

Alliance for Community Media

American Farm Bureau Federation

American Federation of Television and Radio Artists & American
Federation of Musicians

The Amherst Alliance

Arkansas Broadcasters Association

Arizona, Kentucky and Montana Broadcasters Associations

Gwen Arnold

The Association of Public Television Stations

BAS Broadcasting, Inc.

Frederick M. Baumgartner and Nickolaus Leggett

Belo Corporation

Tom Bik

Bonneville International Corporation

Phil Bowler

David Bracher

Robert Branch, Jr.

Brennan Center for Justice, Consumer Federation of America, *et al.*

Betty Briggs

Daniel Brown

Sam Brown

Buckley Radio

California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing,
Inc.

California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc

The Campaign Legal Center and The Alliance for Better Campaigns

Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.

Cascade Radio Group

Chicago Access Corporation

Reverend Robert P. Chrysafis

Laurie Cirivello

Citadel Broadcasting Company

Citizens Media Corps and Commonwealth Broadband Collaborative

Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

Collegiate Broadcasters Inc.

Russell Collins

Columbus Radio Group

The Community Broadcasters Association

The Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union

Mark Conzemius

Corporation for Public Broadcasting

Cox Radio Orlando

Richard Crandall

The Cromwell Group, Inc.

William H. Cullin

Val Curtis

Drew Daniels

Delmarva Broadcasting Company

Desert Television, LLC

Diablo Video Arts, Inc.

Cathy M. Dillon

The Donald McGannon Communication Research Center

Terri Dourian

EchoStar Satellite, LLC

Educational Media Foundation

Various Emmis Licensee Subsidiaries

Various Entercom Licensee Subsidiaries

Lida Lee Denney Erben

James F. Evans

Lincoln Farnum

Fox Television Stations, Inc. and Fox Television Holdings, Inc.

Franklin Communications, Inc.

John B. Freeman, Jr.

William R. Fritsch, Jr.

The Future of Music Coalition

Colin Gallagher

Alice Gallio

Gannett Broadcasting

Robert M. Goldberg

Linda Goslin

Gray Television Group, WKBO-TV

Julie Grisham

Howard Gustafson

Patricia Hackney

Kirby and Kathy Haertner

Frank Hansche

Douglas Hartner

Rachel Hern

Inez B. Hinchcliff

Marilyn Hinton

Lucinda Hormel

Christina Hughes

Bonnie Hutcheon

Illini Media Company

Illinois Farm Bureau

Independence Television Company

Infinity Broadcasting Corporation

Jackson Radio Works, Inc.

Jewish Family and Children's Service

Joint Broadcasters

Julie Jones

Philip M. and Dorothy Jones

Various Journal Broadcast Group Licensee Subsidiaries

Junior Achievement of South Dakota, Inc.

KAAR-FM, KMBR-FM and KXTL-AM

Mike Kanalakis

Judy Karas

KBZS-FM, KWFS-FM, and KNIN-FM

KIMT-TV

KISS-FM

KIVI-TV

KLEW-TV

KLKN-TV

Jeannette Knapp

KOLN-TV/KGIN-TV

KRNV-TV

KTNV-TV

KTRE-TV

KTVL-TV

KVOO, KXBL and KFAQ

KXLO/KLCM Radio

KZLA-FM

Lakefront Communications

Ted Langell

James D. Leach

League of Woman Voters

Clayton Leander

Nickolaus Leggett

Livingston Radio Company

Mary Lodes

Daniel Lopez

Low Power AM Team

Max Media of Montana LLC

Media General/WJTV

Media General Broadcasting of South Carolina Holdings, Inc.

Meyer Communications, Inc.

Michigan Music Is World Class! Campaign

Midwest Christian Media, Inc.

Various Midwest Communications licensee subsidiaries

Mission Broadcasting, Inc.

The Mississippi Association of Broadcasters

Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce

Roseanne Morton

Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission

National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Inc.

National Association of Broadcasters

Named State Broadcasters Associations

National Public Radio, Inc.

Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation

The New Mexico Broadcasters Association

Michael R. Newell

NewRadio Group

Newton Communications Access Center

Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc.

Norman Broadcasting Company, Inc.

North Carolina Association of Broadcasters

North Dakota Farm Bureau

Northwestern College and Radio

NY/PA Media Action/Binghamton Independent Media Center

Ohio Farm Bureau Federation

Jeff Ogden

Ronda Orchard

Susie Pajak

Amy Parenti

Bob Parker

Robert Peckman

Grant E. Peterson

Poor Magazine

Andrew Potter

Lee Pratt

Anna Price

Mrs. Andrew Price

Prometheus Radio Project

The Radio-Television News Directors Association

Rancho Palos Verdes Broadcasters, Inc.

Louise Rauch

Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc.

Recording Industry Association of America, Inc.

REC Networks

Naomi Rhodes

Grace R. Rips

Lois Robin

Jack E. Rooney

Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce

San Antonio AIDS Foundation

San Manuel Economic Development Foundation, Inc.

Sarkes Tarzian, Inc.

Don Schellhardt, Esq.,Schellhardt Advocacy Services

Edward Schober

Arthur Schwartz

Lucille Seidenberger

Service Employees International Union

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.

Thomas C. Smith

Wolf Snider

Southeastern Media/WFXG

Jean Stiles

Summit Media Broadcasting

Sunbelt Communications Company

David Sywak

Deborah Taggert

Mary Tedder

Texas Association of Broadcasters

Kathryn Thomas

Three Eagles Communications, Inc.

William W. Tinsley III

TK Associates International

Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc.

Sherry Tschirhart

Roy Turner

Univision Communications, Inc.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

United Way of Santa Cruz County

USC Annenberg School for Communication

USS Lexington, Museum on the Bay

Cuauhtemoc Valencia

John P. Valentine

VCY America, Inc.

Viacom Inc.

Emily Viglielmo

Virden Broadcasting Corporation, Kaskaskia Broadcasting, Inc., and
Miller Communications, Inc.

WAITT Radio -- Omaha

The Walt Disney Company

WAGT

WALA-TV

Jennifer Walford

Brian Wallace

Washington State Broadcasters Association

WAVE-TV

WAVY-TV

WBHK Radio

WBKO

WBNG-TV

WBNX-TV

WBRZ

WBTS

WCDB

WDSI

R.E. Wendell

WFMS

WGLD

WHBF-TV

WHTM-TV

WHVO-AM

W. Wilson

WISC-TV

WISG

WISH-TV

WKBT

WKDZ-FM/AM

WKRG-TV

WLBT

WMOJ-FM

WOI-TV

Arnold Wolf

Sandra Woodruff

Mark Wooldridge

Darby Moss Worth

WOSU Stations

WQOM-TV

WRRM-FM

WSB

WSET

WSJV

WSLS/Newschannel 10

WSYM-TV

WTHI-TV

WTKM_FM

WTMJ/WKTI Radio

WUCZ-FM

WVBT-TV

WWCD

WWST, WMYU, WKHT, WQBB

WWVR-FM

WXOW-TV

WYFF-TV

WYGY-TV

Julie Ybarra

William Yeager

Louis A. Zanoni

**PRINCIPAL REPLY COMMENTS FILED IN MB DOCKET NO. 04-233\***

American Federation of Musicians, American Federation of Television and
Radio Artists

Future of Music Coalition, The Recording Academy, and Recording Artists
Coalition

The Arizona Broadcasters Association

Barnstable Broadcasting, Inc.

Belo Corporation

Campaign Legal Center and Alliance for Better Campaigns

Sam Brown

Chicago Access Corporation

Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

Cox Broadcasting, Inc.

David R. Fertig

Gamecock Alumni Broadcasters, LLC

Andrew George

Greater Media Boston

Greater Media, Inc.

Greater Media New Jersey

Greater Media Philadelphia

Illini Media Company

Kentucky Broadcasters Association

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

Rick London

Mercer Island School District #400

The Montana Broadcasters Association

Geno Munari

National Association of Broadcasters

National Federation of Community Broadcasters

National Public Radio, Inc.

NY/PA Media Action and Binghamton Independent Media Center

The Post Company

The Prometheus Radio Project

REC Networks

The Recording Artist Groups

J. Zach Schiller

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.

Televicentro of Puerto Rico, LLC

Univision Communications, Inc.

**\***The Commission has also received thousands of additional comments
and reply comments from concerned parties in this proceeding, some by
e-mail and others submitted after the respective comment and reply
comment filing deadlines. All such filings are available through the
Commission's electronic comment filing system.

**APPENDIX B**

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended
    ("RFA"),[^383] the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") of the possible significant economic
    impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and
    rules considered in the attached Report on Broadcast Localism and
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making ("*Notice*"). Written public comments
    are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses
    to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the
    *Notice* as indicated on the first page of the *Notice.* The
    Commission will send a copy of the *Notice*, including this IRFA, to
    the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
    ("SBA").[^384] In addition, the *Notice* and the IRFA (or summaries
    thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.[^385]

## Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

159. In August 2003, the Commission launched a Localism in Broadcasting
     initiative designed to review, and possibly enhance, localism
     practices among broadcasters which are designed to ensure that each
     station treats the significant needs and issues of the community
     that it is licensed to serve with the programming that it offers.
     The Commission subsequently issued a *Notice of Inquiry* ("*NOI*")
     concerning localism.[^386] Through the *NOI*, the Commission sought
     direct input from the public on how broadcasters are serving the
     interests and needs of their communities; whether the agency needs
     to adopt new policies, practices, or rules designed directly to
     promote localism in broadcast television and radio; and, if so,
     what those policies, practices, or rules should be. The *Notice*
     invites comment on several proposals designed to enhance broadcast
     localism and diversity, including increasing and improving the
     amount and nature of broadcast programming that is targeted to the
     local needs and interests of a licensee's community of service, and
     providing more accessible information to the public about
     broadcasters' efforts to air such programming.

160. The record in the proceeding demonstrates that some broadcasters
     devote significant amounts of time and resources to airing
     programming that is responsive to the needs and interests of
     broadcasters' communities of license, while many other commenters
     raised serious concerns that broadcasters' efforts, as a general
     matter, fall far short from what they should be. In the *Notice*,
     the Commission details several proposals that will promote both
     localism and diversity in broadcasting, and seeks comment on same.

## Legal Basis

161. This *Notice* is adopted pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303, 612, and
     616 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
     154(i), 303, 532 and 536.

## Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

162. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
     feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
     affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^387] The RFA defines
     the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms
     "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental
     entity" under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.[^388] In
     addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the
     term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.[^389] A
     small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and
     operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
     satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.[^390]

163. **Television Broadcasting.** In this context, the application of
     the statutory definition to television stations is of concern. The
     Small Business Administration defines a television broadcasting
     station that has no more than \$13 million in annual receipts as a
     small business. Business concerns included in this industry are
     those "primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with
     sound."[^391] According to Commission staff review of the BIA
     Financial Network, Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database as of
     February 5, 2007, 872 (about 70 percent) of the 1,260 commercial
     television stations in the United States have revenues of \$13
     million or less. However, in assessing whether a business entity
     qualifies as small under the above definition, business control
     affiliations[^392] must be included. Our estimate, therefore,
     likely overstates the number of small entities that might be
     affected by any changes to the attribution rules, because the
     revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or
     aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

164. An element of the definition of "small business" is that the entity
     not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable
     at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria
     that would establish whether a specific television station is
     dominant in its market of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing
     estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not
     exclude any television stations from the definition of a small
     business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that
     extent. An additional element of the definition of "small business"
     is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. It is
     difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media
     entities, and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply
     may be over-inclusive to this extent.

165. **Radio Broadcasting.** The Small Business Administration defines a
     radio broadcasting entity that has \$6.5 million or less in annual
     receipts as a small business.[^393] Business concerns included in
     this industry are those "primarily engaged in broadcasting aural
     programs by radio to the public."[^394] According to Commission
     staff review of the BIA Financial Network, Inc. Media Access Radio
     Analyzer Database as of February 5, 2007, 10,442 (about 95 percent)
     of 10,962 commercial radio stations in the United States have
     revenues of \$6.5 million or less. We note, however, that in
     assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the
     above definition, business control affiliations[^395] must be
     included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of
     small entities that might be affected by any changes to the
     ownership rules, because the revenue figures on which this estimate
     is based do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated
     companies.

166. In this context, the application of the statutory definition to
     radio stations is of concern. An element of the definition of
     "small business" is that the entity not be dominant in its field of
     operation. We are unable at this time and in this context to define
     or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific
     radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly,
     the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may
     apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a
     small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to
     that extent. An additional element of the definition of "small
     business" is that the entity must be independently owned and
     operated. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these
     criteria in the context of media entities, and our estimates of
     small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this
     extent.

167. **FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM Stations***.* The
     proposed rules and policies could affect licensees of FM translator
     and booster stations and low power FM (LPFM) stations, as well as
     to potential licensees in these radio services. The same SBA
     definition that applies to radio broadcast licensees would apply to
     these stations. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a
     small business if such station has no more than \$6.5 million in
     annual receipts.[^396] Currently, there are approximately 4131
     licensed FM translator and booster stations and 771 licensed LPFM
     stations.[^397] Given the nature of these services, we will presume
     that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA
     definition.

168. **Cable Television Distribution Services***.* Since 2007, these
     services have been defined within the broad economic census
     category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is
     defined as follows: "This industry comprises establishments
     primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to
     transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or
     lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video
     using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities
     may be based on a single technology or a combination of
     technologies."[^398] The SBA has developed a small business size
     standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500
     or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these
     cable services we must, however, use current census data that are
     based on the previous category of Cable and Other Program
     Distribution and its associated size standard; that size standard
     was: all such firms having \$13.5 million or less in annual
     receipts.[^399] According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there
     were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous category that operated
     for the entire year.[^400] Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual
     receipts of under \$10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of \$10
     million or more but less than \$25 million.[^401] Thus, the
     majority of these firms can be considered small.

169. **Cable Companies and Systems**. The Commission has also developed
     its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable
     rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a "small cable
     company" is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers,
     nationwide.[^402] Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable
     operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size
     standard.[^403] In addition, under the Commission's rules, a "small
     system" is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer
     subscribers.[^404] Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems
     nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an
     additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers.[^405] Thus,
     under this second size standard, most cable systems are small.

170. **Cable System Operators**. The Communications Act of 1934, as
     amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system
     operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an
     affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
     subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any
     entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate
     exceed \$250,000,000."[^406] The Commission has determined that an
     operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a
     small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the
     total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed \$250
     million in the aggregate.[^407] Industry data indicate that, of
     1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this
     size standard.[^408] We note that the Commission neither requests
     nor collects information on whether cable system operators are
     affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed \$250
     million,[^409] and therefore we are unable to estimate more
     accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify
     as small under this size standard.

171. **Open Video Services**. Open Video Service ("OVS") systems provide
     subscription services.[^410] The SBA has created a small business
     size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution.[^411] This
     standard provides that a small entity is one with \$13.5 million or
     less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified a large
     number of OVS operators, and some of these are currently providing
     service.[^412] Affiliates of Residential Communications Network,
     Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York
     City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas. RCN has sufficient
     revenues to assure that it does not qualify as a small business
     entity. Little financial information is available for the other
     entities that are authorized to provide OVS. Given this fact, the
     Commission concludes that those entities might qualify as small
     businesses, and therefore may be affected by the rules and policies
     adopted herein.

## Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

172. The *Notice* proposes a number of rule changes that, if adopted and
     implemented, may affect reporting, recordkeeping, and other
     compliance requirements on small entities. As noted above, we
     invite small entities to comment in response to the rules proposed
     in the *Notice*. Each of the proposals is described below.

173. The *Notice* seeks comment on whether the existing rules governing
     so-called "pre-filing and post-filing announcements" that licensees
     must air in connection with their license renewal applications
     should be changed. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on
     whether the same information that is currently required for on-air
     announcements about soon-to-be-filed and pending renewal
     applications should be posted on a licensee's website during the
     relevant months (*i.e.*, the posting begins on the sixth month
     before the license is due to expire and remains in place until
     after the deadline for filing petitions to deny). The *Notice* also
     seeks comment on whether to broaden the required language for these
     announcements contained in 47 C.F.R. § 73.3680(d)(4)(i), which
     currently provides the Commission's mailing address as a source for
     information concerning the broadcast license renewal process, to
     include the agency's website address and, where technically
     feasible, to provide a link directly to the agency's website.

174. The *Notice* invites comment on the Commission's tentative
     conclusion that licensees should convene and periodically consult
     with permanent community advisory boards made up of officials and
     other leaders from the community of each broadcast station for the
     purpose of determining significant community needs and issues, and
     whether the Commission should adopt similar rules or guidelines to
     foster licensees' communication with members of their stations'
     communities. It also seeks comment on whether television licensees
     should be required to maintain a physical presence at each
     television broadcasting facility during all hours of station
     operation. The *Notice* further seeks comment on the Commission's
     tentative conclusion that it should adopt specific procedural
     guidelines for the processing of license renewal applications for
     stations based upon their localism programming performance during
     the preceding license term. The *Notice* also seeks comment on
     whether a licensee should be required to situate its station main
     studio within the station's community of license to encourage
     production of locally originated programming, and whether
     accessibility of the main studio increases interaction between the
     licensee and its station's community of service.

175. The *Notice* also seeks comment on whether it could be useful for
     licensees of stations affiliated with networks, in fulfilling their
     localism obligations, to be able to review network programming at
     some point sufficiently in advance of airtime and whether existing
     affiliation agreements address such matters. It also seeks comment
     on the prevalence of voice-tracking, and whether the Commission can
     and should take steps to limit the practice, require disclosure, or
     otherwise address it. The *Notice* also seeks comment on whether
     the Commission should require licensees to provide the agency with
     data regarding their airing of the music and other performances of
     local artists and how they compile their stations' playlists. It
     also seeks comment on the appropriate form of such disclosures and
     in what manner, if any, the local nature of a station's music
     programming should be considered in any renewal application
     processing guidelines. Finally, the *Notice* seeks comment on the
     Commission's tentative conclusion that it should allow additional
     qualified LPTV stations to be granted Class A status, as well as on
     how to define eligibility and the Commission's statutory authority
     to take such action.

## Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 

176. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
     that might minimize any significant economic impact on small
     entities. Such alternatives may include the following four
     alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing
     compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
     account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
     clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
     reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the
     use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
     exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
     entities.[^413]

177. As noted, we are directed under law to describe any such
     alternatives we consider, including alternatives not explicitly
     listed above.[^414] The *Notice* describes and seeks comment on
     several possible ways to enhance broadcast localism and diversity,
     including increasing and improving the amount and nature of
     broadcast programming that is targeted to the local needs and
     interests of a licensee's community of service, and providing more
     accessible information to the public about broadcasters' efforts to
     air such programming. The *Notice* seeks comment on how the
     proposals described herein will achieve that goal, and commenters
     are invited to propose steps that the Commission may take to
     minimize any significant economic impact on small entities.

## Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

None.

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

Re: *Broadcast Localism*, *Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.*

Establishing and maintaining a system of local broadcasting that is
responsive to the unique interests and needs of individual communities
is an extremely important policy goal for the Commission. Indeed, a
strong commitment to serving their local communities is at the heart of
broadcasters' requirement to serve the public interest.

Moreover, along with competition and diversity, localism is one of the
three goals underlying all of our media ownership rules. In the context
of our media ownership review, I was asked by my colleagues and members
of Congress to revive the localism proceeding initiated and stopped
under the previous Chairman several years ago. I agreed doing so would
be an important and responsible step for the Commission to take.

First, I completed the remaining two hearings the previous Chairman
committed to holding back in 2003. The Commission devoted more than
\$160,000 to hear from expert witnesses and members of the public on
broadcasters' service to their local communities. We also spent
approximately \$350,000 to gather data on localism much of which was
used in the studies conducted on media ownership. In addition, the
Commission paid Professor Simon Anderson of the University of Virginia
to produce an academic paper on "Localism and Welfare", which was made
available on our website last December.

Last month, the Commission took an important step in promoting localism
when we adopted an order requiring television broadcasters to better
inform their communities about how the programming they air serves them.
Specifically, television stations will file a standardized form on a
quarterly basis that details the type of programming that they air and
the manner in which they do it. This form will describe a host of
programming information including the local civic affairs, local
electoral affairs, public service announcements (whether sponsored or
aired for free) and independently produced programming. With a
standardized form and public Internet access to it, the public and
government officials will now be able to engage directly in a discussion
about exactly what local commitments broadcasters are and/or should be
fulfilling.

    

Today we take the next important step of adopting a Report summarizing
the record in this proceeding and an NPRM that includes specific
recommendations as to what broadcasters should be, and most frequently
are, doing to serve the interests and needs of their local communities.
The changes we propose are intended to promote localism by providing
viewers and listeners greater access to locally responsive programming
including, but not limited to, local news and other civic affairs
programming.  Most importantly, we tentatively conclude that *all*
broadcasters must air a certain amount of local programming. I believe
such a requirement is at the heart of what it means to be a local
broadcaster.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

**CONCUR IN PART, DISSENT IN PART**

*Re: Broadcast Localism, Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.*

Today's decision would make George Orwell proud. We claim to be giving
the news industry a shot in the arm---but the real effect is to reduce
total newsgathering. We shed crocodile tears for the financial plight of
newspapers---yet the truth is that newspaper profits are about double
the S&P 500 average. We pat ourselves on the back for holding six field
hearings across the United States---yet today's decision turns a deaf
ear to the thousands of Americans who waited in long lines for an open
mike to testify before us. We say we have closed loopholes---yet we have
introduced new ones. We say we are guided by public comment---yet the
majority's decision is overwhelmingly opposed by the public as
demonstrated in our record and in public opinion surveys. We claim the
mantle of scientific research---even as the experts say we've asked the
wrong questions, used the wrong data, and reached the wrong conclusions.

I am not the only one disturbed by this illogical scenario. Congress and
the American people have done everything but march down to Southwest DC
and physically shake some sense into us. Everywhere we go, the questions
are the same: Why are we rushing to encourage more media merger frenzy
when we haven't addressed the demonstrated harms caused by previous
media merger frenzy? Women and minorities own low single-digit per
centages of America's broadcast outlets and big consolidated media
continues to slam the door in their faces. It's going to take some major
policy changes and a coordinated strategy to fix that. Don't look for
that from this Commission.

Instead we are told to be content with baby steps to help women and
minorities---but the fine print shows that the real beneficiaries will
be small businesses owned by white men. So even as it becomes abundantly
clear that the real cause of the disenfranchisement of women and
minorities is media consolidation, we give the green light to a new
round of---yes, you guessed it---media consolidation.

Local news, local music and local groups so often get shunted aside when
big media comes to town. Commissioner Adelstein and I have heard the
plaintive voices of thousands of citizens all across this land in dozens
of town meetings and public forums. From newscasters fired by chain
owners with corporate headquarters thousands of miles away to local
musicians and artists denied airtime because of big media's
homogenization of our music and our culture. From minorities reeling
from the way big media ignores their issues and caricatures them as
people to women saying the only way to redress their grievances is to
give them a shot to compete for use of the people's airwaves. From
public interest advocates fighting valiantly for a return of localism
and diversity to small, independent broadcasters who fight an uphill
battle to preserve their independence. It will require tough rules of
the road to redress our localism and diversity gaps. Do you see any such
rules being passed today? To the idea that license holders should give
the American people high quality programming in return for free use of
the public airwaves, the majority answers that we need more study of
problems that have been documented and studied to death for a decade and
more. Today's outcome is the same old same old: one more time, we're
running the fast-break for our big media friends and the four corner
stall for the public interest.

It is time for the American people to understand the game that's being
played here. Big media doesn't want to tell the full story, of course,
but I have heard first-hand from editorial page editors who have told me
they can cover any story, save one---media consolidation, and that they
have been instructed to stay away from that one. But that's another
story.

Today's story is a majority decision unconnected to good policy and not
even incidentally concerned with encouraging media to make our democracy
stronger. We are not concerned with gathering valid data, conducting
good research, or following the facts where they lead us.

Our motivations are less Olympian and our methodology far simpler---we
generously ask big media to sit on Santa's knee, tell us what it wants
for Christmas, and then push through whatever of these wishes are
politically and practically feasible. No test to see if anyone's been
naughty or nice. Just another big, shiny present for the favored few who
already hold an FCC license---and a lump of coal for the rest of us.
Happy holidays!

If you need convincing of just how non-expertly this expert agency has
been acting lately, you couldn't have a better example than the
formulation of the cross-ownership rule that the majority is adopting
today. I know it's a little detailed to see how the sausage is made, but
it's worth a listen.

On November 2, 2007---with just a week's notice---the FCC announced that
it would hold its final media ownership hearing in Seattle. Despite the
minimal warning, 1,100 citizens turned out to give intelligent and
impassioned testimony on how they believed the agency should write its
media ownership rules. Little did they know that the fix was already in,
and that the now infamous *New York Times* op-ed was in the works
announcing a highly-detailed cross-ownership proposal.

Put bluntly, those Commissioners and staff who flew out to Seattle with
staff, the sixteen witnesses, the Governor, the State Attorney General
and all the other public officials who came, plus the 1,100 Seattle
residents who had chosen to spend their Friday night waiting in line to
testify were, as Rep. Jay Inslee put it, treated like "chumps." Their
comments were not going to be part of the agency\'s formulation of a
draft rule---it was just for show, to claim that the public had been
given a chance to participate. The agency had treated the public like
children allowed to visit the cockpit of an airliner---not actually
allowed to fly the plane, of course, but permitted for a brief, false
moment to imagine that they were.

The *New York Times* op-ed appeared on November 13, the next business
day after the Seattle hearing. That same day, a unilateral public notice
was issued, providing just 28 days for people to comment on the specific
proposal, with no opportunity for replies. The agency received over 300
comments from scholars, concerned citizens, public interest advocates,
and industry associations---the overwhelming majority of which condemned
the Chairman's plan. But little did these commenters know that on
November 28, two weeks ***before*** their comments were even due, the
draft Order on newspaper-broadcast cross ownership had already been
circulated. Once again, public commenters were treated as unwitting and
unwilling participants in a Kabuki theater.

Then, last night at 9:44 pm---just a little more than twelve hours
before the vote was scheduled to be held and long after the Sunshine
period had begun---a significantly revised version of the Order was
circulated. Among other changes, the item now granted all sorts of
permanent new waivers and provided a significantly-altered new
justification for the 20-market limit. But the revised draft
mysteriously deleted the existing discussion of the "four factors" to be
considered by the FCC in examining whether a proposed combination was in
the public interest. In its place, the new draft simply contained the
cryptic words "\[Revised discussion to come\]." Although my colleagues
and I were not apprised of the revisions, *USA Today* fared better
because it apparently got an interview that enabled it to present the
Chairman's latest thinking. Maybe we really are the Federal Newspaper
Commission.

At 1:57 this morning, we received a new version of the proposed test for
allowing more newspaper-broadcast combinations. I can't say that I fully
appreciate the test's finer points given the lateness of the hour and
the fact that there was no time afforded to parse the finer points of
the new rule. But this much is clear: the new version keeps the old
loopholes and includes two new one pathways to cross ownership approval.
So please don't buy the line that the rule we adopt today involves fewer
loopholes---it adds new ones. Finally, this morning at 11:12 a.m. as I
was walking out my office door to come to this meeting, we received an
e-mail containing additional changes. The gist of one of these seems to
be that the Commission need not consider all of the "four factors" in
all circumstances.

This is not the way to do rational, fact-based, and public
interest-minded policy making. It's actually a great illustration of why
administrative agencies are required to operate under the constraints of
administrative process---and the problems that occur when they ignore
that duty. At the end of the day, process matters. Public comment
matters. Taking the time to do things right matters. A rule reached
through a slipshod process, and capped by a mad rush to the finish line,
will---purely on the merits---simply not pass the red face test. Not
with Congress. Not with the courts. Not with the American people.

It's worth stepping back for a moment from all the detail here to look
at the fundamental rationale behind today's terrible decision.
Newspapers need all the help they can get, we are told. A merger with a
broadcast station in the same city will give them access to a revenue
stream that will let them better fulfill their newsgathering mission. At
the same time, we are also assured, our rules will require "independent
news judgment" (at least among consolidators outside the top 20
markets). In other words, we can have our cake and eat it too---the
economic benefits of consolidation without the reduction of voices that
one would ordinarily expect when two news entities combine.

But how on earth can this be? To begin with, to the extent that the two
merged entities remain truly "independent," then there won't be the cost
savings that were supposed to justify the merger in the first place. On
the other hand, if independence merely means maintaining two
organizational charts for the same newsroom, then we won't have any more
reporters on the ground keeping an eye on government. Either way, we
can't have our cake and eat it, too.

Also, since when do unprofitable businesses support themselves by
merging with profitable ones---and then sink ***more*** resources into
the money-losing division simply as a public service? Think about it
this way. If any of us were employed by a struggling company, and we
suddenly learned that a Wall Street financier had obtained control,
would we (1) clap our hands with joy because we expect the new owner is
going to throw a bunch of cash our way and tell us to keep on doing what
we'd been doing, except more lavishly or (2) start to fear for our jobs
and brace for a steady diet of cost cutting?

Here's my prediction on how it will really work. Mergers will be
approved in both the top 20 and non-top-20 markets---towns big and
small---because the set of exceptions we announce today have all the
firmness of a bowl of Jell-O. Regardless of our supposed commitment to
"independent news judgment" the two entities' newsrooms will be almost
completely combined, with round after round of job cuts in order to cut
costs. It's interesting to hear the few proponents of this rule bemoan
the lost jobs that they say result from failing newspapers. Ask them
this: in this era of consolidation in so many industries, isn't cutting
jobs about the first thing a merged entity almost always does so it can
show Wall Street it is really serious about cutting costs and polishing
up the next quarterly report? These job losses are the ***result*** of
consolidation. And more consolidation will mean more lost jobs.
Newly-merged entities will attempt to increase their profit margins by
raising advertising rates and relentless cost-cutting. Herein is the
***real*** economic justification for media consolidation within a
single market.

The news isn't so good for other businesses in the consolidated market,
either. Think about the other broadcast stations there. It's just like
Wal-Mart coming to town---the existing news providers look around at the
new reality and figure out pretty fast that they ought to head for the
exit when it comes to producing news. Now, it may not be as stark as
actually cancelling the evening news---it could just mean doing more
sports or more weather or more ads during that half hour. But at the end
of the day, the combined entity is going to have a huge advantage in
producing news---and the other stations will make a reasonable
calculation to substantially reduce their investment in the business.
This is why, by the way, experts have been able to demonstrate---***in
the record before the FCC, using the FCC's own data**---*that cross
ownership leads to ***less*** total newsgathering in a local market. And
that has large and devastating effects on the diversity and vitality of
our civic dialogue.

Let's also be careful not get too carried away with the supposed premise
for all this contortionism, namely the poor state of local newspapers.
The death of the traditional news business is often greatly exaggerated.
The truth remains that the profit margins for the newspaper industry
last year averaged around 17.8%; the figure is even higher for broadcast
stations. As the head of the Newspaper Association of America put it in
a Letter to the Editor of the *Washington Post* on July 2 of this year:
"The reality is that newspaper companies remain solidly profitable and
significant generators of free cash flow." And as Member after Member
Congress has reminded us, our job is not to ensure that newspapers are
profitable---which they mostly are. Our job is to protect the principles
of localism, diversity and competition in our media.

Were newspapers momentarily discombobulated by the rise of the Internet?
Probably so. Are they moving now to turn threat into opportunity? Yes,
and with signs of success. Far from newspapers being gobbled up by the
Internet, we ought to be far more concerned with the threat of big media
joining forces with big broadband providers to take the wonderful
Internet we know down the same road of consolidation and control by the
few that has already inflicted such heavy damage on our traditional
media.

In the final analysis, the real winners today are businesses that are in
many cases quite healthy, and the real losers are going to be all of us
who depend on the news media to learn what's happening in our
communities and to keep an eye on local government. Despite all the talk
you may hear today about the threat to newspapers from the Internet and
new technologies, today's *Order* actually deals with something quite
old-fashioned. Powerful companies are using political muscle to sneak
through rule changes that let them profit at the expense of the public
interest. They are seeking to improve their economic prospects by
capturing a larger percentage of the news business in communities all
across the United States.

Let's get beyond the weeds of corporate jockeying and inking up our
rubber stamps for a new round of media consolidation to look for a
moment at what we are ***not*** doing today. That's the real story, I
think---that the important issues of minority and female ownership and
broadcast localism and how they are being short-changed by today's rush
to judgment.

[Minority and Female Ownership]{.underline}

Racial and ethnic minorities make up 33 percent of our population. They
own a scant 3 percent of all full-power commercial TV stations.  And
that number is plummeting.  Free Press recently released a study showing
that during just the past year the number of minority-owned full-power
commercial television stations declined by 8.5%, and the number of
African American-owned stations decreased ***by nearly 60%***.  It is
almost inconceivable that this shameful state of affairs could be
getting worse; yet here we are.

In most places there is something approaching unanimity that this has to
change. Broadcasters, citizens, Members of Congress, and every leading
civil rights organization agree that the status quo is not acceptable.
Each of my colleagues has recognized, I believe, that paltry levels of
minority and female ownership are a reality---which makes today's
decision all the more disappointing. There was a real opportunity to do
something meaningful today after years of neglect, and we blew it.

It didn't have to be this way. I proposed both a process and a solution.
We should have started by getting an accurate count of minority and
female ownership---the one that the Congressional Research Service and
the Government Accountability Office both just found that we didn't
have. The fact that we don't even know how many minority and female
owners there are is indicative of how low this issue is on the FCC's
list of priorities. We also should have convened an independent panel
proposed by Commissioner Adelstein, and endorsed by many, that would
have reviewed all of the proposals before us, prioritized them, and made
recommendations for implementation. We could have completed this process
in ninety days or less and then would have been ready to act.

Today's item ignores the pleas of the minority community to adopt a
definition of "Eligible Entity" that could actually help their plight.
Instead, the majority directs their policies at general "small
businesses"--- a decision that groups like Rainbow/Push and the National
Association of Black Owned Broadcasters assert will do little or nothing
for minority owners. Similarly, MMTC and the Diversity and Competition
Supporters conclude that they would rather have no package at all than
one that includes this definition. Lack of a viable definition poisons
the headwaters. Should we wonder why the fish are dying downstream?

So while I can certainly support the few positive changes in this item
that do not depend on the definitional issue---such as the adoption of a
clear non-discrimination rule---these are overshadowed by the truly
wasted opportunity to give potential minority and female owners a seat
at the table they have been waiting for and have deserved for far too
long. My fear now is that with cross ownership done, the attentions of
this Commission will turn elsewhere.

[Localism]{.underline}

At the same time that we have shamefully ignored the need to encourage
media ownership by women and minorities, we have also witnessed a
dramatic deterioration of the public interest performance of all our
licensees. We have witnessed the number of statehouse and city hall
reporters declining decade after decade, despite an explosion in state
and local lobbying. The number of channels have indeed multiplied, but
there is far less local programming and reporting being produced.

Are you interested in learning about local politics from the evening
news? About 8 percent of such broadcasts contain any local political
coverage at all, including races for the House of Representatives, and
that was during the 30 days before the last presidential election.
Interested in how TV reinforces stereotypes? Consider that the local
news is four times more likely to show a mug shot during a crime story
if the suspect is black rather than white.

The loss of localism impacts our music and entertainment, too. Just this
morning, I had an e-mail from a musician who took a trip of several
hundred miles and heard the same songs played on the car radio
everywhere he traveled. Local artists, independent creative artists and
small businesses are paying a frightful price in lost opportunity. Big
consolidated media dampens local and regional creativity, and that
begins to mess around pretty seriously with the genius of our nation.

All this is a travesty. We allow the nation\'s broadcasters to use half
a trillion dollars of spectrum---for free. In return, we require that
they serve the public interest: devoting at least some airtime for
worthy programs that inform viewers, support local arts and culture, and
educate our children---in other words, that aspire to something beyond
just minimizing costs and maximizing revenue.

Once upon a time, the FCC actually enforced this bargain by requiring a
thorough review of a licensee\'s performance every three years before
renewing the license. But during decades of market absolutism, we pared
that down to "postcard renewal," a rubber stamp every eight years with
no substantive review.

To begin with, the FCC needs to reinvigorate the license-renewal
process. We need to look at a station\'s record every three or four
years. I am disappointed that the majority so cavalierly dismisses this
idea. And we should be actually ***looking*** at this record. Did the
station show original programs on local civic affairs? Did it broadcast
political conventions? In an era where too many owners live thousands of
miles away from the communities they allegedly serve, do these owners
meet regularly with local leaders and the public to receive feedback?
Why don't we make sure that's done ***before*** we allow more
consolidation?

In 2004, the Commission opened up a Notice of Inquiry to consider ways
to improve localism by better enforcing the *quid pro quo* between the
nation's broadcasters and the public. The Notice addressed many of the
questions raised by earlier, dormant proceedings dating from years
before. Today's Localism Notice asks more questions and tees up
meritorious ideas---but again my question: why the rush to vote more
consolidation now, consolidation that has been the bane of localism, and
why put off systematic actions to redress the harms consolidation has
inflicted?

Our FCC cart is ahead of our horse. Before allowing Big Media to get
even bigger---and to start the predictable cycle of layoffs and
downsizing that is the inevitable result of, indeed the economic
rationale for, many types of mergers---we should be enforcing clear
obligations for each and every FCC licensee.

[Conclusion]{.underline}

Those who look for substantive action on these important issues
concerning localism and minorities will look in vain, I predict, once
the majority works its way on cross ownership. We are told that we
cannot deal with localism and minority ownership because that would
require ***delay***. But these questions have been before the Commission
for almost a decade---and they have been ignored year after year. These
issues could have been---should have been---teed up years ago. We begged
for that in 2003 when we sailed off on the calamitous rules proposed by
Chairman Powell and pushed through in another mad rush to judgment.
Don't tell me it can't be done. It should have been done years ago. And
we had the chance again this time around. Now, because of a situation
not of Commissioner Adelstein's or my making, we are accused of delaying
just because we want to make things better before the majority makes
them far worse. I see.

When I think about where the FCC has been and where it is today, two
conclusions:

First, the consolidation we have seen so far and the decision to treat
broadcasting as just another business has ***not*** produced a media
system that does a better job serving most Americans. Quite the
opposite. Rather than reviving the news business, it has led to
***less*** localism, ***less*** diversity of opinion and ownership,
***less*** serious political coverage, ***fewer*** jobs for journalists,
and the list goes on.

Second, I think we have learned that the purest form of commercialism
and high quality news make uneasy bedfellows. As my own hero, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, put it in a letter to Joseph Pulitzer, "I have always
been firmly persuaded that our newspapers cannot be edited in the
interests of the general public from the counting room." So, too, for
broadcast journalism. This is not to say that good journalism is
incompatible with making a profit---I believe that both interests can
and must be balanced. But when TV and radio stations are no longer
required by law to serve their local communities, and are owned by huge
national corporations dedicated to cutting costs through economies of
scale, it should be no surprise that, in essence, viewers and listeners
have become the products that broadcasters sell to advertisers.

We could have been---should have been---here today lauding the best
efforts of government to reverse these trends and to promote a media
environment that actually strengthens American democracy rather than
weakens it. Instead, we are marking not just a lost opportunity but the
allowance of new rules that head media democracy in exactly the wrong
direction.

I take great comfort from the conclusion of another critic of the
current media system, Walter Cronkite, who said, \"America is a powerful
and prosperous nation. We certainly should insist upon, and can afford
to sustain, a media system of which we can be proud.\"

Now it's up to the rest of us. The situation isn't going to repair
itself. Big media is not going to repair it. This Commission is not
going to repair it. But the people, their elected representatives, and
attentive courts ***can*** repair it. Last time the Commission went down
this road, the majority heard and felt the outrage of millions of
citizens and Congress and then the court. Today's decision is just as
dismissive of good process as that earlier one, just as unconcerned with
what the people have said, just as heedless of the advice of our
oversight committees and many other Members of Congress, and just as
stubborn---perhaps even more stubborn---because this time it knows, or
should know, what's coming. Last time a lot of insiders were surprised
by the country's reaction. This time they should be forewarned. I hope,
I really hope, that today's majority decision will be consigned to the
fate it deserves and that one day in the not too distant future we can
look back upon it as an aberration from which we eventually recovered.
We have had a dangerous, decades-long flirtation with media
consolidation. I would welcome a little romance with the public interest
for a change.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

**CONCUR IN PART, DISSENT IN PART**

*Re: Broadcast Localism*, *Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.*

After four and a half years, during three of which the Commission did
nothing on this proceeding, today we finally adopt this *Report and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*. Regrettably, it merely recites the
issues of public concern, repackages previous Commission actions, and
proffers yet another set of proposals. There are no final rules --
nothing concrete to foster a better relationship between broadcast
licensees and the public they are licensed to serve.

Today's item literally does nothing meaningful to promote localism. It
is as if we promised to deliver a book but produced only the cover.
While some may contend that this *Report and Notice* is the conclusion
of the 2003 localism proceeding, in meeting the Commission's commitment
to Congress and the American people, it is really only the beginning. We
have not met the demand from leading members of Congress that we
conclude our localism proceeding before acting on media ownership.

When the Localism Task Force was launched, we were promised "rigorous
studies" and legislative recommendations. We have seen neither studies
nor any recommendations to Congress. After the expenditure of over
\$350,000 of taxpayer funds and valuable staff resources, the Task Force
-- if it still exists -- owes the American people and Congress completed
studies and solid recommendations on which to base immediate action by
the Commission and Congress.

We heard from citizens at hearings across the country that there is a
real urgency to improve the responsiveness of local broadcast stations
to the needs, interests, tastes and values of local communities. Rather
than a serious effort to address these concerns, the localism proceeding
from its inception in 2003 appears to have been a political tactic -- a
means to deflect attention away from the fact that the Commission, in
spite of strong public and congressional opposition, had just passed the
most reckless set of media ownership rules in history. Sadly, today the
Commission is paving the same road towards consolidation. This localism
proceeding continues to be used as political cover for the Commission to
weaken broadcast ownership rules and permit more media consolidation.
Make no mistake, the only real actions we are taking today will
[undercut]{.underline} localism, diversity and competition.

I concur in part to this *Report and Notice* because -- in word, if not
in deed \-- it represents a shift from the Commission's earlier
miscalculation that market forces alone will ensure broadcasters promote
quality local news, local artists, and informative local political and
civic affairs programming. For over a quarter century, the Commission
has outsourced its obligation to ensure that broadcasters will address
the programming needs and interests of the people in their communities
of license. Today, we take a small step towards correcting the
Commission's past failings that produced a regulatory environment that
limited citizen involvement and participation, provided broadcasters
with virtually no guidance, and expected little, if any, accountability.

We learned from our localism hearings that there is far too little
coverage of local issues voters need to know about in a way that
prepares them to make educated decisions. We heard that "breaking news"
is being replaced with "breaking gossip." In community after community,
we heard from citizens that serious coverage of local and state
government has diminished. In many respects, there was a virtual
blackout of coverage of state and local elections. And while networks
and stations say they have to slash news resources, some were offering
up to one million dollars for an interview with Paris Hilton. Real
investigative journalism and thoughtful reporting have given way to an
"if it bleeds, it leads" mentality.

Sadly, today, quality journalism is too often sacrificed to meet
quarterly earnings numbers for Wall Street. Owners of multiple media
outlets lose incentive to invest in independent and competitive news
operations in the same market. The Commission's own study, which was
originally buried until Senator Boxer demanded that the FCC publicly
release it, shows that locally owned TV stations provide more local
news. And while the Commission has failed to complete a similar study of
radio, we have heard across the country that homogenized playlists and
payola are shutting out local musicians, and unmanned radio stations
have replaced local DJs.

Historically, the Commission had looked for ways to promote localism in
broadcasting to ensure that broadcasters were accountable and serving
the public interest. Since the 1980s, however, the Commission has gutted
those protections and embarked on a destructive path to treat television
like "a toaster with pictures."

With the encouragement of the broadcasting industry, the Commission has
systematically removed the public from meaningful points of interaction
between broadcasters and the communities that they are licensed to
serve. For example, broadcast stations are permitted to maintain main
studios and their public files well beyond communities of license, so
the public cannot effectively monitor the programming of local
broadcasters. Today, few broadcasters have citizen agreements with local
community organizations. Few broadcasters hold meetings with members of
the community to determine the community's interests and needs.
Enforceable public interest obligations that required broadcasters to
maintain logs of programming that are responsive to local, civic,
national or religious concerns have been decimated. And, the
once-substantive license renewal process conducted by the FCC has been
ratcheted down to a postcard, rubber-stamp process.

The end result is that today many stations are unattended and operated
from remote locations, residents are discouraged from monitoring a
station's performance, and dialogue between the station and its
community is often non-existent. Simply put, the FCC has failed to
protect the interests of the American people.

While few Americans are familiar with the term "localism," most
understand that providing "local" service to a "local" community is the
essential purpose of broadcast radio and TV. Broadcasting in America is
and will always be a local medium. Many broadcasters understand that and
often deliver critical service to local communities. Even today, the FCC
continues to license valuable public airwaves -- for free -- to
broadcasters, in exchange for service to local communities. Localism is,
therefore, the central obligation of every broadcast licensee to air
programming that is relevant and responsive to the local community's
interests, tastes and needs. As this Commission moves forward in the
proceeding, it is important that we remember that localism is the
cornerstone of American broadcasting and the Commission has an
unquestionable obligation to protect the needs and interests of local
communities.

While there are no new rules established in this Notice, there are
proposals worthy of adoption. I fully support the tentative conclusion
in this Notice that each licensee should establish a permanent community
advisory board. This approach would help broadcasters determine the
local needs and interests of their communities, and should be an
integral part of a final plan for addressing localism. I also support
the Notice's tentative conclusion that specific procedural guidelines
for processing broadcasters' license renewal applications. Assessing
licensees' local programming performance would provide additional
incentive for broadcasters to meet this fundamental obligation. Although
I and others will once again encourage the Commission to act immediately
on these proposals, one can't help but regard the prospects for quick
implementation with a healthy degree of skepticism. If history is any
guide, the odds are that the Commission will either neglect to finalize
these proposals, or when it comes time to finalize them, they may be so
diluted as to render them meaningless.

We need to put the meat in the sandwich we promised to deliver. It is
high time we put this notice out for comment, but we should have
actually implemented improvements to localism before we completed the
media ownership item. Now that the Commission has acted to loosen the
media ownership rules, it is all the more imperative we move immediately
to implement some of the useful ideas broached here and others that we
learn about in the comment period. We are already too late to have done
this right.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

*Re: Broadcast Localism*, *Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.*

In today's cross-platform, convergent mass media environment, ownership
may be an imprecise measure of the Commission's major policy goals-
competition, diversity, and localism. With the explosion of online news
and information, diversity of voices no longer depends solely on the
number of broadcasting companies or media outlets in a certain DMA. The
Internet allows residents of even the smallest towns, with perhaps only
one daily newspaper, to have access to hundreds of news outlets,
twenty-four hours a day. In terms of purely local news and information,
the opportunities for resource-sharing and capital investment that occur
when a broadcaster purchases a newspaper, in fact often lead to more
local news---not less. Specifically, three of the studies commissioned
by the FCC in our media ownership proceeding, which were based on actual
evidence from various areas of the country, showed that cross-ownership
of broadcast and newspaper results in *more* local news.

However, as public servants we hold positions of public trust, and it is
our responsibility to take heed of the public interest. Over the past
four years, from October 2003 to October 2007, the FCC heard from
citizens across this entire country, during 6 localism hearings in which
hundreds of thousands of comments were compiled. Overwhelming concern
about the lack of what is generally known as "localism" was expressed.
This concept of "localism" has come to mean many things to many people.
Historically, the FCC sought to preserve what we believe is true
"localism," by imposing public interest obligations on broadcasters,
making license renewals contingent on fulfilling these obligations, and
protecting the rights of local stations to air "programming that is
responsive to the needs and interests of their local communities of
license."

In addition, many local broadcasters already seek regular public input
and provide substantial hours each week for local programming,
ostensibly based on dialogue with their local communities. In my
hometown, *The Tennessean* announced just last week that it is forming
several advisory groups to help better understand the news and
information needs of the local community. Some of these groups will be
organized by geography and some by subject. Much of the groups'
discussions will take place online, allowing advisory group members to
participate more easily, at any time and any place they are available.
*The Tennessean* is also convening a group of local citizens with
specific expertise in areas like urban planning, accounting, and the
law, to provide advice on how to broaden and deepen their investigations
and reporting.

In addition, local Tennessee broadcasters have also demonstrated
interest in the needs of the community. They have hosted numerous
debates---most recently in our mayoral election -- and local political
experts have regular shows to discuss issues facing the community. As a
state official, I often participated in these "open mic" sessions in
order to discuss consumer protection issues such as phone scams, or to
educate our citizens on new programs like the Do Not Call or Do Not Fax
registries.

The FCC should encourage local broadcasters to continue these practices
and require those that do not, to start. However, I also think it is
important for local news outlets to establish processes that work best
in their own communities, rather than being forced to implement an edict
from Washington, DC.

In addition to these outreach measures broadcasters have undertaken to
connect with their local community, the FCC just last month passed an
order requiring that all television broadcasters make their public
inspection files available online. This will allow citizens to get
information about a broadcaster's community service efforts with just
the click of a mouse, and will also save broadcasters time and energy in
responding to in-person requests for station information.

The FCC has also expedited the settlement window for low power FM
applications and continues to resolve pending applications to further
their construction and broadcasting to local communities. This promotes
a community presence which can provide daily locally produced
programming at costs far below those of starting a full-power
broadcasting station. I hope this will not only impact localism, but
also provide opportunities for female and minority ownership.

Despite all that broadcasters are already doing, and the new
requirements we impose today, this Order should not be viewed as a final
step, but a progression. The Commission is **always** seeking public
input and listening to public comment regarding how local broadcasters
are meeting their goals. The use of the public's airwaves comes with
weighty responsibilities and I will continue to encourage the
furtherance of the goals of competition, diversity, and localism.

Thank you to all those citizens in every corner of America who have
voiced their opinions on how to best achieve these goals, especially
those in Charlotte, San Antonio, Rapid City, Monterey, Portland, and
right here in Washington, D.C., both experts and laypersons. Thank you
especially to those individuals who have served on our Localism Task
Force during Chairman Powell's tenure, particularly co-chairs Michele
Ellison and Robert Ratcliffe. Thank you also to the Media Bureau staff
for organizing our localism hearings, and for continuing to focus our
attention on what has been a cornerstone of broadcast regulation for
decades.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. MCDOWELL**

**CONCURRING IN PART**

*Re: Broadcast Localism*, *Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.*

I support today's report, which provides a comprehensive overview of the
issues raised by commenters, and the public at our field hearings
regarding how broadcasters address the needs of their local communities.
In reaction to their data and opinions, today we decide to make some
improvements. Specifically, in the report we commit to:

-   better inform the public about our broadcast renewal process;

-   encourage our Diversity Committee to work with industry trade
    associations to learn of emerging ownership opportunities, and to
    create educational conferences regarding broadcast transactions; and

-   investigate technical options for potential radio applicants to find
    available FM spectrum.

I am pleased that we are moving forward to encourage public
participation in our license renewal process, and providing
opportunities for people of color and women to learn more about emerging
broadcast transactions, as well as access to more FM spectrum.

I have concerns, however, about the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
There, we tentatively conclude that broadcast licensees should convene
permanent advisory boards made up of community officials and leaders to
help the licensees ascertain the programming needs of the community. We
also tentatively conclude that the Commission should adopt processing
guidelines, such as minimum percentages to ensure that stations produce
a certain amount of locally-oriented programming.

As I noted when the majority adopted the Enhanced Disclosure order at
last month's agenda meeting, the Commission eliminated ascertainment
requirements for television and radio stations in 1984 after a thorough
examination of the broadcast market. Today, we are again heading back in
time \-- in the wrong direction. Vigorous competition motivates
broadcasters to serve their local communities. I do not believe that
government needs to, or should, foist upon local stations its
preferences regarding categories of programming. We risk treading on the
First Amendment rights of broadcasters with unnecessary regulation. An
order reflecting these conclusions will be overturned in court.

Finally, I am also concerned about the tentative conclusion that we
should grant Class A status to certain LPTV stations. While this idea
may be beneficial, the conclusion is premature without closer
examination. Accordingly, I concur with the NPRM section of today's
item, and look forward to reviewing these issues carefully after
receiving public comment.

[^1]: ^?^ *Broadcast Localism*, Notice of Inquiry, 19 FCC Rcd 12425 ¶ 1
    (2004) (the "*NOI*").

[^2]: *See, e.g.* Testimony of Martin Kaplan, Associate Dean, Annenberg
    School for Communication, University of Southern California
    (delivered by Joseph Salzman, Associate Dean, Annenberg School for
    Communication) (Monterey Tr. 63-68).

[^3]: The *NOI* specifically excluded from consideration in this inquiry
    the subject of the Commission's structural broadcast ownership
    rules. *NOI,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12427 ¶ 5. These rules are considered in
    *2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review-Review of the Commission's
    Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to
    Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996* (MB Docket No.
    06-121); *2002 Quadrennial Regulatory Review-Review of the
    Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted
    Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996* (MB
    Docket No. 02-277); *Cross-Ownership of Broadcast Stations and
    Newspapers* (MM Docket No. 01-235*); Rules and Policies Concerning
    Multiple Ownership of Radio Broadcast Stations in Local Markets* (MM
    Docket No. 01-317); *Definition of Radio Markets* (MM Docket No.
    00-244); *Ways to Further Section 257 Mandate and To Build on
    Earlier Studies* (MB Docket No. 04-228); *Public Interest
    Obligations of TV Broadcast Licensees* (MM Docket No. 99-360),
    Report and Order (adopted Dec. 18, 2007).

[^4]: *FCC Chairman Powell Launches "Localism in Broadcasting"
    Initiative,* News Release (Aug. 20, 2003), *available at*
    http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238057A1.pdf.

[^5]: *NOI*, 19 FCC Rcd at 12427 ¶ 7.

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. § 307(b).

[^7]: *Pacific Broadcasting of Missouri LLC*, 18 FCC Rcd 2291, 2293
    (2003) (*quoting* *Public Service Broadcasting of West Jordan,
    Inc.*, 97 F.C.C. 2d 960, 962 (Rev. Bd. 1984)).

[^8]: *FCC v. Allentown Broadcasting Corp*., 349 U.S. 358, 362 (1955).

[^9]: *See, e.g., NOI,* 19 FCC Rcd 12425 ¶1.

[^10]: *NOI*, 19 FCC Rcd at 12426 ¶ 2.

[^11]: *Id.* at 12427 ¶ 5.

[^12]: *Id.* at 12427-28 ¶ 7.

[^13]: References to testimony received at the six localism hearings are
    made herein by the page(s) of the transcript of the hearing at which
    the testimony was given (*i.e.,* "Charlotte Tr. \_\_," " San Antonio
    Tr. \_\_," "Rapid City Tr. \_\_," "Monterey Tr. \_\_," "Portland Tr.
    \_\_," or "Washington, D.C. Tr. \_\_").

[^14]: Commenters should confine their submissions to the specific
    issues for which comment is sought herein. With regard to the issues
    raised in the other ongoing or contemplated Commission proceedings
    discussed in this Report, because those matters will be resolved
    with the record of each such proceeding, they should not be
    addressed in comments filed in the above-captioned rulemaking
    proceeding.

[^15]: *See generally, Primer on Ascertainment of Community Problems by
    Broadcast Applicants*, Report and Order, 27 F.C.C. 2d 650 (1971);
    *Ascertainment of Community Problems by Broadcast Applicants*, First
    Report and Order, 57 F.C.C. 2d 418, 442 (1976) ("*Renewal Primer*").

[^16]: *See, e.g., Amendment of Section 3.663(a) (Now § 73.670), the
    Program Logging Rules for Television Broadcast Stations*, Report and
    Order, 5 F.C.C.2d 185 (1966); *Revision of Programming Policies and
    Reporting Requirements Related to Public Broadcasting Licensees,*
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 87 F.C.C.2d 716, 721 ¶ 12 (1981).

[^17]: *See* *Deregulation of Radio,* Report and Order, 84 F.C.C.2d 968,
    997-98 (1981) ("*Radio Deregulation Order*"); *Revision of
    Programming and Commercialization Policies, Ascertainment
    Requirements and Program Log Requirements for Commercial Television
    Stations*, Report and Order, 98 F.C.C. 2d 1075, 1099 (1984)
    ("*Commercial Television Deregulation Order*").

[^18]: *See* *Radio Deregulation Order*, 84 F.C.C.2d at 1009-10 ¶¶
    103-05; *Commercial* *Television Deregulation Order*, 98 F.C.C.2d at
    1107-08 ¶ 71. *See also* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3526(e)(11)(i) (commercial
    television issues/program lists); 73.3526(e)(12) (commercial radio
    issues/programs lists); 73.3527(e)(8) (noncommercial radio and
    television issues/programs lists).

[^19]: *See* *Public Interest Obligations of TV Broadcast Licensees*,
    Notice of Inquiry, 14 FCC Rcd 21633, 21640-41 ¶ 15 ("*DTV Public
    Interest NOI*").

[^20]: *See S**tandardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for
    Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations*, Notice
    of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 19816, 19819-22 ¶¶ 7-14 (2000)
    ("*Enhanced Disclosure NPRM*").

[^21]: *See Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for
    Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations*, Report
    and Order (adopted Nov. 27, 2007) ("*Enhanced Disclosure Order*").

[^22]: *See id.*

[^23]: *NOI*, 19 FCC Rcd at 12429 ¶ 11.

[^24]: At the localism field hearings, many local officials commended
    their area broadcasters for their interaction with their communities
    and provision of locally oriented programming. *See, e.g.,*
    Testimony of Doug Echols, Mayor, Rock Hill, South Carolina
    (Charlotte Tr. 80-82); Testimony of Daniel Albert, Mayor, Monterey,
    California (Monterey Tr. 32-36); Testimony of Jim Shaw, Mayor, Rapid
    City, South Dakota (Rapid City Tr. 28-33); Testimony of Aimee
    Turner, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Maine
    Department of Health and Human Services (Portland Tr. 95-96);
    Testimony of Dan Paradee, Public Affairs Manager, Maine Turnpike
    Authority (Portland Tr. 147-49); Letter from Robin Chibroski,
    Executive Director, Ronald McDonald House of Portland, Maine (June
    28, 2007).

[^25]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (Nov.
    1, 2004) ("Clear Channel Comments") at 29; Comments of Collegiate
    Broadcasters Inc. (Nov. 1, 2004) at 8.

[^26]: Comments of Fox Television Stations, Inc. and Fox Television
    Holdings, Inc. (Nov. 1, 2004) ("Fox Comments") at 9-10.

[^27]: Comments of Viacom, Inc. (Nov. 1, 2004) ("Viacom Comments") at
    Att. 1. After Viacom submitted its Comments in this proceeding,
    effective December 31, 2005, it effectuated a corporate
    reorganization that resulted in the change of the name of the parent
    of the licensees of all of its broadcast stations to CBS
    Corporation. For purposes of simplicity, we will refer to those
    stations herein as CBS stations.

[^28]: Testimony of Steve Guist, General Manager, KWEX-TV, San Antonio,
    Texas (San Antonio Tr. 46-50).

[^29]: Comments of Univision Communications, Inc. (Nov. 1, 2004) at 4.

[^30]: Comments of The Alaska Broadcasters Association (Nov. 1, 2004) at
    3-4.

[^31]: Comments of The Walt Disney Company (Nov. 1, 2004) ("Disney
    Comments") at 37.

[^32]: Comments of Joint Broadcasters (Nov. 1, 2004) at 17.

[^33]: Statement of Maynard Meyer, General Manager, and President,
    licensee of KLQP-FM, Madison, Minnesota (Oct. 20, 2006) at 2;
    Testimony of same (Rapid City Tr. 74).

[^34]: Statement of Joe Linson, Vice President of the San Antonio Branch
    of the NAACP (October 20, 2006); Testimony of same (San Antonio, Tr.
    52-53) ("This would allow individuals from all sectors of the
    community to provide input and to help shape the message for their
    areas").

[^35]: Comments of Brian Wallace (Aug. 18, 2004) at 7 ("\[t\]he FCC
    needs a much better way of requesting frequent input from the
    public. . . and \[m\]ake it easier for the public to communicate
    with the FCC, especially when it comes to making complaints").

[^36]: Testimony of Blanca Zarazua, Chair, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
    of Monterey County (Monterey Tr. 48); Testimony of Gray Newman,
    Member, Mecklenburg Soil and Water Conservation Board (Charlotte Tr.
    68-69); Testimony of "Davey D" (Monterey Tr. 112-22); Testimony of
    Charlie O'Douglas, Operations Manager, Rushmore Radio (Rapid City
    Tr. 160-61).

[^37]: Comments of Annenberg School for Communications, University of
    Southern California (Sept. 1, 2004) at 2-4 ("Annenberg Comments");
    Comments of Arnold Wolf (Sept. 15, 2004) at 2. *See also Enhanced
    Disclosure Order*; *Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their
    Impact on the Terrestrial Broadcast Service,* Second Report and
    Order First Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 10344, 10390 ¶¶ 116-17 (2007)
    ("*Digital Audio FNPRM*"), in the proceeding in which the Commission
    adopted the IBOC standard for digital broadcasting by AM and FM
    stations, seeking comment on application of the Enhanced Disclosure
    requirements to radio stations, operating in analog or digital.

[^38]: As noted in paragraph 9 the *NOI* and at paragraph 11 of this
    Report, in the 1980s, the Commission eliminated its formal
    ascertainment requirements, concluding that the benefits from the
    procedures did not justify the costs. Instead, the Commission
    indicated that the focus of its inquiry in the future "would be upon
    the responsiveness of a licensee's programming, not the methodology
    utilized to arrive at those programming decisions." *See NOI,* 19
    FCC Rcd 12428-12429 ¶ 9; *see also* *Commercial* *Television
    Deregulation Order,* 98 F.C.C. 2d at 1100-01.

[^39]: Commenters in the proceeding indicate that many members of the
    public are unaware of these obligations and of the Commission's
    processes. For example, in his November 1, 2004, Comments, Sam Brown
    indicated that the Commission's requirement that licensees maintain
    a detailed public file for interested members of the public is a
    meaningless administrative exercise that does not ensure local
    service because the average person does not know the files exist.
    Brian Wallace noted in his August 18, 2004, Comments that, until he
    had read the *NOI*, he was unaware that citizens may petition the
    Commission to deny a licensee's renewal application. He cited the
    need to educate the public as to when a particular license is up for
    renewal so that interested members of the public an become involved
    in the process.

[^40]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3526(e)(8); 73.3527(e)(7); *Review of the
    Commission's Rules Regarding the Main Studio and Local Public
    Inspection Files of Broadcast Television and Radio Stations*, Report
    and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15691, 15702 ¶ 24 (1998).

[^41]: As noted in paragraph 9 of the *NOI* and at paragraph 11 of this
    Report*,* in the 1980s, the Commission eliminated its formal
    ascertainment requirements, which required broadcasters comply with
    detailed procedures for determining the problems, needs and
    interests of their communities. In place of ascertainment, the
    Commission imposed the requirement that, on a quarterly basis, each
    broadcaster prepare and maintain, in its station public inspection
    file, an issues/programs list specifying the what community issues
    were given significant treatment by programs aired over the station
    during the past three months, and including specific information
    about each such program. The Commission concluded that this
    requirement, combined with market forces, would ensure that
    broadcasters provide locally oriented programming. *See NOI,* 19 FCC
    Rcd 12428-12429 ¶ 9, *citing* *Radio Deregulation Order,* 84 F.C.C.
    2d at 997-998; *Commercial Television Deregulation Order,* 98 F.C.C.
    2d at 1099.

[^42]: 47 C.F.R.§ § 73.3526(e)(11)(i) (commercial television);
    73.3526(e)(12) (commercial radio); 73.3527(e)(8) (non-commercial
    educational radio and television).

[^43]: *Id.*

[^44]: *See Enhanced Disclosure Order*.

[^45]: *Id*.

[^46]: Under the new Enhanced Disclosure requirements, a television
    licensee need not post its political file on the Internet, nor must
    it post "hard copy" letters received from the public as long as it
    includes them in its station's "hard copy" public file that it makes
    available for public inspection. In contrast, e-mailed letters must
    be posted, and also printed out and placed in the station public
    file. *See Enhanced Disclosure Order*.

[^47]: *See id*.

[^48]: *See, supra* note 37.

[^49]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3580(d).

[^50]: In its ascertainment Primer for broadcast renewal applicants, the
    Commission directed such applicants to consult, throughout their
    license terms, "a representative cross-section" of community leaders
    "who speak for the interests of the \[station's\] service area." It
    stated that the requirement may be met by interviews with leaders of
    the following institutions and elements found in the community:
    agriculture, business, charities, civic, neighborhood and fraternal
    organizations, consumer services, culture, education, environment,
    government (local, county, state and federal), labor, military,
    minority and ethnic groups, organizations of and for the elderly,
    organizations of and for women, organizations of and for youth
    (including children) and students, professions, public safety,
    health and welfare, recreation, and religion. *See Renewal Primer*,
    57 F.C.C.2d at 442.

[^51]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of the Alaska Broadcasters Association
    (Nov. 1, 2004) at 3-4.

[^52]: *See, e.g.*, Comments of Gannett Broadcasting (Nov. 1, 2004) at
    2-5.

[^53]: *See, e.g.,* Reply Comments of the Arizona Broadcasters
    Association (Jan. 3, 2005) at 3.

[^54]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Univision Communications (Nov. 1, 2004)
    at 4.

[^55]: *See Amendment of Sections 73.1125 and 73.1130 of the
    Commission's Rules, the Main Studio and Program Origination Rules
    for Radio and Television Broadcast Stations*, Report and Order, 2
    FCC Rcd 3215 (1987) ("*Main Studio R&O*").

[^56]: *See Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to
    Permit Unattended Operation of Broadcast Stations and to Update
    Broadcast Station Transmitter Control and Monitoring Requirements*,
    Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 11479 (1995).

[^57]: *Id.* at 11479-80 ¶¶ 5-7.

[^58]: *Digital Audio FNPRM* at 10391 ¶ 119. We note that we do not seek
    comment on this issue here; these issues will be resolved in the
    Digital Audio Broadcasting docket (MM Docket No. 99-325).

[^59]: *NOI*, 19 FCC Rcd at 12431-32 ¶¶ 14-18.

[^60]: We note that several commenters have criticized as inflated the
    broadcasters' self-reported estimates of the hours devoted to news
    and public affairs programming. Among other issues, critics call
    into question the quality of some programming categorized as news or
    public affairs, and they question whether time devoted to public
    service announcements or commercials should be included in the
    totals. *See, e.g.,* Comments of the Donald McGannon Communication
    Research Center (Oct. 28, 2004) ("McGannon Comments"); Testimony of
    Martin Kaplan, Associate Dean of the Annenberg School for
    Communications, University of Southern California (delivered by
    Joseph Salzman, Associate Dean, Annenberg School for Communication)
    (Monterey Tr. 62-68) (testifying that "\[o\]nly 44 percent of
    \[local news\] broadcasts contained any campaign coverage at all").

[^61]: Viacom Comments at 2-3.

[^62]: Comments of WJTV/Media General (Oct. 29, 2004) at 1.

[^63]: Comments of WDEF-TV/Media General (Oct. 29, 2004) at 1.

[^64]: Comments of Entercom Wichita License, LLC (Nov. 2, 2004) at Att.
    A.

[^65]: Comments of Arkansas Broadcasters Association (Oct. 29, 2004) at
    6.

[^66]: Comments of Belo Corp. (Nov. 1, 2004) ("Belo Comments") at 12-13;
    *see* other examples of similar programming at Testimony of Dr.
    William F. Duhamel, President, Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises
    (Rapid City Tr. 48-52); NAB Comments at 18, Ex. C; Testimony of
    James M. Keelor, President and COO, Liberty Corporation (Charlotte
    Tr. 32-34); Viacom Comments at 3. It should be noted that the
    comment period in this proceeding predated the 2005 hurricanes that
    devastated areas of the Gulf Coast and Florida, and the wildfires
    that recently struck major parts of California, but we also note the
    substantial broadcaster public service efforts in the wake of those
    emergencies. *See, e.g.,* Testimony of Marcellus Alexander,
    Executive Vice President for Television, National Association of
    Broadcasters (Washington, D.C. Tr. 23-27).

[^67]: Comments of New Mexico Broadcasters Association (Nov. 1, 2004) at
    5.

[^68]: Joint Broadcasters Comments, at 3, Att.

[^69]: Clear Channel Comments at 11.

[^70]: Comments of Gannett Broadcasting (Nov. 1, 2004) at 54.

[^71]: Comments of KRNV/News 4 Television (October 28, 2004) at 1.

[^72]: Comments of the Radio-Television News Directors Association (Nov.
    1, 2004). at 1-2 ("local broadcasters are overwhelmingly responsible
    and responsive to their communities \[and\] voluntarily provide a
    wealth of news, information, public affairs and other programming
    reflective of the desires of their listeners and viewers").

[^73]: *See, e.g.* Reply Comments of National Federation of County
    Broadcasters (Jan. 3, 2005) ("NFCB Reply Comments") at 10.

[^74]: Comments of the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers
    Union (Nov. 1, 2004) ("CFA/CU Comments") at Att. B 36-42.

[^75]: Comments of the American Federation of Television and Radio
    Artists and the American Federation of Musicians (Nov. 1, 2004)
    ("AFTRA/AFM Comments") at 15-25. In Section III.G of this Report, we
    address issues relating to airplay of the music of local artists.

[^76]: Comments of the Alliance for Community Media-Western Region (Nov.
    1, 2004).

[^77]: Comments of Chicago Access Corporation "CAN TV" (Oct. 19, 2004)
    ("CAN TV Comments").

[^78]: Comments of Diablo Video Arts, Inc. (Nov. 1, 2004) ("Diablo
    Comments").

[^79]: Comments of the Campaign Legal Center and The Alliance for Better
    Campaigns (Nov. 1, 2004) ("Campaign Comments") at 1-4.

[^80]: Reply Comments of NY/PA Media Coalition and Binghamton
    Independent Media Center (prepared by William Huston) (Dec. 30,
    2004). *See* Section III.C of this Report for a discussion of issues
    relating to political programming.

[^81]: *Id.* at 3, 20-21.

[^82]: *Id.* at 3.

[^83]: *Id*. at 18.

[^84]: *Id*. at 3, 22.

[^85]: *See* McGannon Comments at 4-30 (study one), 31-60 (study two).

[^86]: Napoli, Philip M., "Television Station Ownership Characteristics
    and Local News and Public Affairs Programming: An Expanded Analysis
    of FCC Data" (2003).

[^87]: Spavins, Thomas, Dennison, Loretta, Frenette, Jane and Roberts,
    Scott, "The Measurement of Local Television News and Public Affairs
    Programs" (2002), *available at*
    http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/studies.html. []{.mark}

[^88]: McGannon Comments at 20-21.

[^89]: Yan, Michael and Napoli, Philip M., "Market Structure, Station
    Ownership, and Local Public Affairs Programming on Local Broadcast
    Television" (2004).

[^90]: McGannon Comments at 46.

[^91]: *Id.*

[^92]: *Id.* at 46-47.

[^93]: *Id.* at 47-48.

[^94]: Comments of The Alliance for Community Media-Western Region (Nov.
    1, 2004) at 1-2; CAN TV Comments at 1; Comments of Laurie Cirivello
    (Nov. 1, 2004) at 1-3; Comments of Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory
    Commission (Oct. 29, 2004); Comments of The Alliance for Community
    Media (Oct. 27, 2004) at 1; Comments of Newton Communications Access
    Center, Inc. (Oct. 18, 2004) at 1; Comments of Ronda Orchard (Sept.
    20, 2004) at 1-2; Diablo Comments at 2; Comments of Maui Community
    Television (Oct. 27, 2004) at 1-2; Testimony of Tony Vigue,
    President, Community Television Network (Portland Tr. 42-43).

[^95]: Comments of Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc. (Nov. 1, 2004)
    ("Capitol Comments") at 4-5; see also Testimony of Daniel Albert,
    Mayor, Monterey, California (Monterey Tr. 34-36).

[^96]: *Id.* at 4; Testimony of James Goodmon, President and CEO,
    Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc. (Charlotte Tr. 130-33) (calling
    for minimum public interest standards and a standardized reporting
    form); *see also* Testimony of Andrew Schwartzman, President and
    CEO, Media Access Project (Washington, D.C. Tr. 43); Comments of
    Arnold Wolf (Sept. 15, 2004) at 2 ("define more clearly the minimum
    public interest obligations that radio and television media owners
    must meet. . .with unequivocal implications for license renewal").

[^97]: Comments of The Brennan Center for Justice, The Consumer
    Federation of America, *et al.* (Nov. 1, 2004) ("Brennan Center
    Comments") at 42-47; Testimony of Sally Hebert (Portland Tr.
    120-22); Testimony of Donna Frisoli (Portland Tr. 142-43); Testimony
    of Pat Bonsant, Manager, Saco River Community Television (Portland
    Tr. 174-75).

[^98]: NAB Comments at 26-30; Capitol Comments at 3, Comments of The
    Association of Public Television Stations (Nov. 1, 2004) at 7-9
    (Apr. 8, 2005) ("APTS Comments") (providing information concerning
    the projects that local public television stations are implementing
    to use the additional programming streams made possible by the
    digital conversion); Statement of Joseph W. Heston, President and
    General Manager, KSBW-TV (Monterey Tr. 61); Testimony of Elsie
    Garner, President and CEO, WTVI(TV) (Charlotte Tr. 102-03);
    Testimony of Steve Giust, General Manager, Station KWEX-TV (San
    Antonio Tr. 49); Testimony of Joseph W Heston, President and General
    Manager, Station KSBW-TV (Monterey Tr. 61-62).

[^99]: Testimony of Blanca Zarazua, Chair, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
    of Monterey, California (Monterey Tr. 48).

[^100]: Capitol Comments at 4-5.

[^101]: *See, e.g.,* Testimony of Blanca Zarazua, Chair, Hispanic
    Chamber of Commerce of Monterey, California (Monterey Tr. 48-49).

[^102]: 47 U.S.C. § 307(b).

[^103]: *Id.*

[^104]: *See M**ain Studio R&O,* 2 FCC Rcd 3215.

[^105]: *See Review of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Main Studio
    and Local Public Inspection Files of Broadcast Television and Radio
    Stations*, Report & Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15691, 15692 ¶ 2 (1998).

[^106]: *Id.* at 15693, ¶ 3 (*citing Main Studio R&O,* 2 FCC Rcd at
    3217-18).

[^107]: *Id.,* 13 FCC Rcd 15694 ¶ 7; *see* 47 C.F.R. §73.1125.

[^108]: *See supra* note 37.

[^109]: *See supra* para. 26.

[^110]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§76.55(cable); 76.66 (satellite).

[^111]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 534 (local commercial television stations); 47
    U.S.C. § 535 (noncommercial educational television stations);
    *Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
    Competition Act of 1992 Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues*, Report
    and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2965 (1993) ("*Cable Must Carry Order*"). *See*
    *also* *Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection
    and Competition Act of 1992 Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6723 (1994) ("*Cable Must
    Carry Reconsideration Order*").

[^112]: *See* *Definition of Markets for Purposes of The Cable
    Television Mandatory Television Broadcast Signal Carriage Rules*,
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC
    Rcd 6201 (1996); *Definition of Markets for Purposes of The Cable
    Television Mandatory Television Broadcast Signal Carriage
    Rules*, Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, 14 FCC
    Rcd 8366 (1999). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 76.55(e).

[^113]: 47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(1)(C). These market additions and deletions
    are called "market modifications" and apply only to commercial
    stations. Noncommercial educational ("NCE") stations are eligible
    for mandatory cable carriage based on their geographic relationship
    to a cable system's headend, not on commercial publications'
    delineations of local market areas. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 535(l)(2)
    (defining "qualified local noncommercial educational television
    station" as such stations licensed to a community within 50 miles of
    the principal headend of the cable system or whose Grade B service
    contour, as defined in 47 C.F.R. § 73.683(a), encompasses the
    principal headend of the cable system). *See also* 47 C.F.R. §
    76.55(b).

[^114]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 338(a)(4). *See also Implementation of Section
    210 of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act
    of 2004 to Amend Section 338 of the Communications Act*, Report and
    Order*,* 20 FCC Rcd. 14242 (2005); 47 C.F.R. § 76.66(b)(2).

[^115]: A satellite carrier provides "local-into-local" service when it
    retransmits a local television station's signal back into the local
    market of the television station for reception by subscribers. 47
    C.F.R. § 76.66(a)(6). Local-into-local service is designed to
    increase the local programming choices available to television
    households by allowing satellite operators to provide the signal of
    a television station to subscribers residing in the station's local
    market.

[^116]: 47 U.S.C. § 338(k)(3) defines the term "local market" by using
    the definition found in 17 U.S.C. § 122(j)(2): "The term 'local
    market,' in the case of both commercial and noncommercial television
    broadcast stations, means the designated market area in which a
    station is located, and -- (i) in the case of a commercial
    television broadcast station, all commercial television broadcast
    stations licensed to a community within the same designated market
    area are within the same local market; and (ii) in the case of a
    noncommercial educational television broadcast station, the market
    includes any station that is licensed to a community within the same
    designated market area as the noncommercial educational television
    broadcast station."

[^117]: *See* 17 U.S.C. § 122(j)(2)(A)-(C). There are 210 DMAs that
    encompass all counties in the 50 United States, except for certain
    areas in Alaska. *See* Nielsen Station Index Directory and Nielsen
    Station Index United States Television Household Estimates (2006-07
    ed.). Congress created a special local market definition for these
    counties in Alaska. *See* 17 U.S.C. § 122(j)(2)(D).

[^118]: A review of the 210 Nielsen DMAs shows that more than 400
    counties are in DMAs in which all or virtually all the stations
    deemed "local" are actually located in a different state. More than
    one-third of these counties are in DMAs that do not have any
    stations assigned by Nielsen from the home state. *See* R.R. Bowker,
    *Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2008*, B-146-230 (2007).

[^119]: 47 U.S.C. § 534(b)(5).

[^120]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §§ 535(b)(3)(C) and 535(e).

[^121]: *See Cable Must Carry Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 2979-81 ¶¶ 55-56.
    *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 76.56(b)(4)(ii).

[^122]: We note that there is nothing in the statute that would preclude
    a cable operator from carrying duplicating stations and considering
    both stations as local. *See, e.g.,* 47 U.S.C. §§ 533(b)(3)(C),
    535(e). The statute merely provides that the cable system is not
    required to carry both.

[^123]: For example, under our current rule, several cable systems
    serving subscribers in Indiana are required to carry stations
    licensed to communities in Illinois, Ohio, and Kentucky, rather than
    stations located in Indiana because the out-of-state stations are
    closer to the cable headends than stations licensed to communities
    in Indiana.

[^124]: *See Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act
    of 1999: Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues*, Report and Order, 16 FCC
    Rcd 1918, 1937 ¶ 41 (2000).

[^125]: *Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast
    Translator Stations*, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No.
    07-172, 22 FCC Rcd 15890 (2007) ("*FM Translator NPRM*"). The
    Commission previously solicited comments and reply comments by
    public notice on the "Petition for Rulemaking of the National
    Association of Broadcasters," RM Docket No. 11338 (July 14, 2006)
    ("NAB Petition"). *See* Public Notice, Report No. 2782 (rel. July
    25, 2006). *See* Sections 1.4 and 1.405 of the Commission's rules,
    47 C.F.R. §§ 1.4, 1.405.

[^126]: FM translator stations are low power facilities currently
    licensed for the limited purpose of retransmitting the signals of
    either an FM radio station or another FM translator station. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 74.1201(a).

[^127]: *FM Translator NPRM*, 22 FCC Rcd at 15890-92 ¶¶ 1-6.

[^128]: *Id*. at 15891-93 ¶ 5.

[^129]: *Id*; *see also* *Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria
    for the AM Broadcast Service*, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 6273,
    6275 ¶ 3 (1991) ("*Expanded Band R&O").*

[^130]: *See* NAB Petition at 4 (some stations lose 80-95% of their
    coverage area to protect clear channel AM stations often located
    hundreds of miles away).

[^131]: Some daytime-only stations are permitted to operate during
    sunrise and sunset hours at extremely low power levels. *Id.* at 4
    n.7.

[^132]: *FM Translator NPRM*, 22 FCC Rcd at 15891 ¶ 4.

[^133]: *Expanded Band R&O*, 6 FCC Rcd at 6275 ¶ 2.

[^134]: *See, e.g.*, Comments of the AM Daytimers Association (Aug. 24,
    2006) at 1-2; Comments of Don Moore, WAWK Radio (Aug. 24, 2006) at
    2-3; Comments of Jane Elizabeth Davis Pigg, WCRE(AM) (Aug. 7, 2006)
    at 1; Comments of Debbie Beal, WRGS(AM) (Aug. 11, 2006) at 1;
    Comments of Chris McGinnis, WRUS(AM) (Aug. 22, 2006) at 1; Comments
    of C.R. Communications, Inc. (Aug. 23, 2006) at 1-3; Comments of
    Richard A. Ford, WERT(AM) (Aug. 22, 2006) at 1; Comments of Mark and
    Arlene Bohach, WLOH(AM) (Aug. 22, 2006) at 1; Comments of Beverly
    Broadcasting Company, LLC (Aug. 22, 2006) at 1-2; Comments of
    WLDS-AM (Jerdon Broadcasting) (Aug. 11, 2006) at 1; Comments of
    Miller Communications, Inc., *et al*. (Aug. 17, 2006) at 1-2.

[^135]: *See* Reply Comments of the National Association of Black Owned
    Broadcasters and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
    (Sept. 6, 2006) at 3-4.

[^136]: *Id*. at 1.

[^137]: 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7).

[^138]: 47 U.S.C. § 315(a).

[^139]: *See* *DTV Public Interest NOI*, 14 FCC Rcd at 21647-48 ¶ 35.

[^140]: Testimony of Martin Kaplan, Director, Annenberg Norman Lear
    Center, Associate Dean USC Annenberg School for Communication, on
    Local TV News Coverage of Politics and the Public Interest
    Obligations of Broadcasters, Before the United States Senate
    Commerce Committee, July 23, 2003, *available at*
    <http://www.learcenter.org/pdf/SenateTestimony.pdf>.

[^141]: *See DTV Public Interest NOI,* 14 FCC Rcd at 21648 ¶ 36.

[^142]: *NOI*, 19 FCC Rcd at 12433-34 ¶ 23.

[^143]: *Id.* at 12433 ¶ 22.

[^144]: NAB Comments at 36.

[^145]: *Id*. at 37.

[^146]: *See infra*, para. 63.

[^147]: *See NOI*, 19 FCC Rcd at 12433 ¶ 21.

[^148]: NAB Comments at 42-43.

[^149]: *Id*. at 48-50; Reply Comments of the National Association of
    Broadcasters (Jan. 3, 2005) at 15.

[^150]: *Id.* at 14.

[^151]: *Id*. at 14-15.

[^152]: *Id*. at 25-26.

[^153]: *Id*. at 25.

[^154]: *Id*. at 26-27.

[^155]: *Id*. at 28.

[^156]: *See, e.g.,* Further Comments of Belo Corp. (Jan. 3, 2005);
    Testimony of Jim Keelor, President and COO, Liberty Corporation
    (licensee of 15 television stations) (Charlotte Tr. 32-34);
    Testimony of Jeff Wade, Saga Communications (Portland Tr. 74-76);
    Clear Channel Comments at 22-24.

[^157]: Further Comments of Belo Corp. (Jan. 3, 2005) at 1.

[^158]: *Id.* at 2, and at appended November 16, 2004 News Release.

[^159]: *Id.* at 3.

[^160]: CFA/CU Comments (Nov. 1, 2004) at 1.

[^161]: *Id*. at 2.

[^162]: *Id.* at Att. A and B.

[^163]: *Id.* at 2, Att. A.

[^164]: *Id*. at Att. B 36-42.

[^165]: Comments of Martin Kaplan, Associate Dean, Annenberg School for
    Communication, University of Southern California (Feb. 7, 2005),
    submitting *Local News Coverage of the 2004 Campaigns, An Analysis
    of Nightly Broadcasts in 11 Markets*, report released by the Lear
    Center Local News Archive, a collaboration between the Annenberg
    School for Communication and the NewsLab of the Department of
    Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (the "*Lear
    Center Study*"), *also available at*
    <http://www.localnewsarchive.org/pdf/LCLNAFinal2004.pdf>.

[^166]: *Lear Center Study* at 3.

[^167]: Supplemental Comments of Belo Corp. in Response to the Lear
    Center Study (Apr. 19, 2005) ("Supplemental Belo Comments") at 1-3.

[^168]: *Id.* at 2.

[^169]: *Id*.

[^170]: *Id*. at 5.

[^171]: Campaign Comments at 1.

[^172]: *Id.* at 1-4. Statement of Mary Klenz, Co-President of the
    League of Women Voters of North Carolina (Oct. 24, 2003) at
    Testimony of same (Charlotte Tr. 134-35); *see also* Testimony of
    Kathy Walker (Charlotte Tr. 75-76).

[^173]: Campaign Comments at 1. Martin Kaplan, Associate Dean of the
    Annenberg School for Communications, University of Southern
    California, similarly argues that the lack of political coverage and
    localism by stations (as evidenced by the results of an analysis of
    the Annenberg School of 10,000 news broadcasts that aired during the
    last seven weeks of the political campaign season in 2002) must be
    addressed by establishing standards of performance for local news
    and requiring stations to record their public affairs programming,
    including their news programming. In addition, he contends that
    stations' performance on the public interest obligation should be
    linked to the renewal of their licenses. Testimony of Martin Kaplan,
    Associate Dean of the Annenberg School for Communications,
    University of Southern California (delivered by Joseph Salzman,
    Associate Dean, Annenberg School, USC) (Monterey Tr. 62-67).

[^174]: Campaign Comments at 5-6. The Campaign Commenters also urge the
    Commission to remove the word "class" from its lowest unit charge
    regulation, which requires stations to charge "the lowest charge of
    the station for the same class and amount of time for the same
    period." *Id*. at 7. They argue that the current pricing structure
    allowing stations to have a lowest unit rate for every class of time
    they sell steers candidates towards the most expensive time. We note
    that the language quoted by the Campaign Commenters originates in a
    statute (47 U.S.C. § 315(b)) and, therefore, cannot be altered by
    the Commission. Mary Klenz, Co-President of The League of Women
    Voters of North Carolina, also expressed concern about the high cost
    of election campaigns which she argues is directly related to the
    cost of television advertising and declares it "unfair that
    broadcasters charge such high prices for political ads the closer it
    gets to election day." (Charlotte Tr. 134-35).

[^175]: Reply Comments of The Alliance for Better Campaigns and The
    Campaign Legal Center (Jan. 3, 2005) at 4-7.

[^176]: *Id*. at 5-11.

[^177]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§73.1943, 73.3526(e)(6), 73.3527(e)(5),
    76.1701, 25.701(d).

[^178]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 315(e).

[^179]: 47 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1)(A).

[^180]: 47 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1)(B).

[^181]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1943 (broadcast); 47 C.F.R. § 76.1701 (cable); 47
    C.F.R. § 25.701(d) (DBS).

[^182]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212(e).

[^183]: *See* *Enhanced Disclosure Order*.

[^184]: *See supra* note 37.

[^185]: *See NOI*, 19 FCC Rcd at 12434 ¶ 24.

[^186]: *See Radio Deregulation Order*, 84 F.C.C.2d at 997 ¶ 66 ("What
    is important is that broadcasters present programming relevant to
    public issues both of the community at large or, in the appropriate
    circumstances, relevant primarily to the more specialized interests
    of its own listenership. It is not necessary that each station
    attempt to provide service to all segments of the community where
    alternative radio sources are available.").

[^187]: *See* *DTV Public Interest NOI*, 14 FCC Rcd at 21646-47 ¶ 32.

[^188]: *NOI*, 19 FCC Rcd at 12435 ¶ 26.

[^189]: Testimony of the Reverend Jesse Jackson (Washington, D.C. Tr.
    40-42); *see also* Comments of Tri State "Like It Is" Support
    Coalition (Jan. 17, 2006) (providing copies of over 1,000 letters
    protesting cancellation of public affairs program oriented to people
    of color); Testimony of Lisa Fager Bedakio, President and
    Co-Founder, Industry Ears (Washington, D.C. Tr. 29-31); Testimony of
    Wade Henderson, President, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
    (Washington, D.C. Tr. 35-37).

[^190]: Comments of The American Farm Bureau Federation (Aug. 31, 2004)
    at 1-3; *see also* Comments of Illinois Farm Bureau (Aug. 31, 2004)
    at 1-2; Comments of Nebraska Farm Bureau (Aug. 30, 2004) at 1-2;
    Comments of Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (Aug. 27, 2004) at 1-2.

[^191]: Comments of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Nov.
    1, 2004) at 1-3.

[^192]: Testimony of Patti Miller, Director of Children & the Media
    Program, Children NOW, Oakland, California (delivered by Seeta
    Gangadharan) (Monterey Tr. 186-88).

[^193]: Comments of T.J. Johnson for Poor Magazine.org and Poor News
    Network (July 20, 2004) at 1.

[^194]: Testimony of Mary Lee O'Daniel (Charlotte Tr. 66-67)

[^195]: Comments of Rancho Palos Verdes Broadcasters, Inc. (Nov. 1,
    2004) at 1-3; Testimony of Tran Lin (Monterey Tr. 169-71).

[^196]: Testimony of Blanca Zarazua, Chair, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
    of Monterey County (Monterey Tr. 44-50); Testimony of Louise
    Rocha-McCarthy (Portland Tr. 167-69); Testimony of Unidentified
    Audience Member (San Antonio Tr. 147-48).

[^197]: Testimony of Hazel Bonner, Charmaine White Face and Randy Ross
    (Rapid City Tr. 180-82, 212, and 266-67, respectively).

[^198]: Comments of Entravision Holdings, LLC (Nov. 1, 2004) at 4.

[^199]: *DTV Public Interest NOI*, 14 FCC Rcd at 21646-47 ¶ 32.

[^200]: For example, WNYE-TV, New York, N.Y., plans to broadcast a
    dedicated foreign language channel, featuring programming in at
    least 12 languages, "complete with local news, international news
    and cultural programming of various countries." APTS Comments at 9.
    In a number of presentations submitted along with the APTS Comments,
    noncommercial broadcasters discussed their plans to offer
    \"\[c\]ustomized TV channels for niche audiences.\" *See* WHYY
    Presentation at 17 (attached to APTS Comments).

[^201]: For example, broadcasters have advised the Commission that they
    are formulating plans to introduce "language training, employment
    updates, and immigration information in Spanish." The NAB and the
    Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc, Petition for
    Reconsideration in CS Docket No. 98-120 (Apr. 21, 2005) at 23. Other
    licensees see possibilities in health outreach programs directed to
    specific underserved populations. ABC Television Affiliates
    Association, CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, NBC
    Television Affiliates, ABC Owned Television Affiliates, NBC and
    Telemundo Stations, Petition for Reconsideration in CS Docket No.
    98-120 (Apr. 21, 2005) (\"Network Affiliates Petition\") at 10. With
    multicasting, both commercial and noncommercial radio and television
    broadcasters can serve several distinct communities while still
    ensuring that public safety information, such as AMBER alerts,
    reaches as many people as possible in an affected area. Indeed,
    broadcasters report that they currently are developing multicasting
    and "datacasting" capabilities to accomplish that public safety
    objective. APTS Comments at 12-13; Network Affiliates Petition at
    21.

[^202]: *See supra,* paras. 25-26.

[^203]: *See Turner Broadcasting Sys. v. FCC*, 520 U.S. 180, 194 (1997)
    ("*Turner II*").

[^204]: *United States v. Midwest Video Corp.*, 406 U.S. 649, 654
    (1972).

[^205]: *See FCC v. National Citizens Comm. for Broadcasting,* 436 U.S.
    775, 780 (1978). *Cf.* 47 U.S.C. § 307(b) ("In considering
    applications for licenses, and modifications and renewals thereof,
    when and insofar as there is demand for the same, the Commission
    shall make such distribution of licenses, frequencies, hours of
    operation, and of power among the several States and communities as
    to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio
    service to each of the same.").

[^206]: *Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting
    Services* (MB Docket No. 07-294), Report and Order and Third Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (adopted Dec. 18, 2007) ("*Diversity
    Order*").

[^207]: *See Letter from Chairman Kevin J. Martin to the Hon. Henry
    Rivera, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Diversity for
    Communications in the Digital Age* (Sept. 27, 2007), *available at*
    <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276984A1.pdf>.

[^208]: *See Enhanced Disclosure Order*.

[^209]: *See supra,* note 37.

[^210]: *Leased Commercial Access; Development of Competition and
    Diversity in Video Programming Distribution and Carriage,* Report
    and Order (MB Docket No. 07-42) (adopted Nov. 27, 2007) ("*Leased
    Access Order*").

[^211]: *See id*.

[^212]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 532. The Commission adopted leased access
    rules in its *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making*, 8 FCC Rcd 5631 (1993); *Order on Reconsideration of the
    First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    11 FCC Rcd 16933 (1996); and *Second Report and Order and Second
    Order on Reconsideration of the First Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd
    5267 (1997).

[^213]: Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-549, 98
    Stat. 2779 (1984), 47 U.S.C. § 521 *et seq*.

[^214]: *See NOI*, 19 FCC Rcd at 14235 ¶ 27.

[^215]: 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^216]: 47 C.F.R. § 11.1. Part 11 of the Commission's rules "describe
    the required technical standards and operational procedures of the
    EAS for AM, FM, and TV broadcast stations, digital broadcast
    stations, analog cable systems, digital cable systems, wireline
    video systems, wireless cable systems, Direct Broadcast Satellite
    (DBS) services, Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS), and
    other participating entities." *Id*.

[^217]: 47 C.F.R. § 79.2(b).

[^218]: *NOI,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12435-36 ¶28.

[^219]: *Id.* at 12435-36 ¶ 29.

[^220]: Comments of United Radio Broadcasters of New Orleans (Dec. 8,
    2005) at 2. The commenter noted how local radio stations worked
    together to give New Orleans and the surrounding community the
    "information, hope, and reassurance when it was needed most
    desperately by local residents." *Id*.

[^221]: Testimony of Jay Kimbrough, Director of Homeland Security for
    the State of Texas (San Antonio Tr. 17).

[^222]: Testimony of Bob Forcello (Charlotte Tr. 109).

[^223]: Statement of Park Owens, Director of Emergency Management, Rapid
    City and Pennington County, South Dakota (Oct. 20, 2006); Testimony
    of same (Rapid City Tr. 57-59); Testimony of Rapid City, South
    Dakota Mayor Jim Shaw (Rapid City Tr. 107).

[^224]: *Id.* At the Washington, D.C. localism hearing, the NAB offered
    testimony describing the efforts of local television stations in the
    wake of the wildfires that recently plagued much of California.
    *See* Testimony of Marcellus Alexander, Executive Vice President for
    Television, National Association of Broadcasters (Washington, D.C.
    Tr. 23-27).

[^225]: Testimony of Harry B. Robins, Emergency Services Manager for
    Monterey County (Monterey Tr. 130-31).

[^226]: *Id.* at 131

[^227]: *Id.* at 132.

[^228]: Comments of Thomas C. Smith (Nov. 2, 2004) at 3-4.

[^229]: Comments of Washington State Association of Broadcasters (Oct.
    28, 2004) at 20-21.

[^230]: NFCB Reply Comments at 16.

[^231]: *Review of the Emergency Alert System; Independent Spanish
    Broadcasters Association, the Office of Communication of the United
    Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and
    Telecommunications Council, Petition for Immediate Relief*, Second
    Report & Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd
    13275 (2007) ("*EAS FNPRM*").

[^232]: Testimony of Harry B. Robins, Emergency Services Manager for
    Monterey County (Monterey Tr. 131).

[^233]: *EAS NPRM* at 13295 ¶ 41.

[^234]: *See supra,* paras. 28-29.

[^235]: *See NOI*, 19 FCC Rcd at 12436 ¶ 30.

[^236]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.658(e).

[^237]: *Id*. § 73.658(d).

[^238]: Petition for Inquiry Into Network Practices filed by Network
    Affiliated Stations Alliance (Mar. 8, 2001).

[^239]: Those networks are: ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX.

[^240]: Motion for Declaratory Ruling filed by Network Affiliated
    Stations Alliance (June 22, 2001) (the "NASA Motion"). In that
    Motion, NASA alleged that the Networks: (1) assert excessive control
    over affiliates' programming decisions; (2) assert excessive control
    over affiliates' digital spectrum; and (3) use their affiliation to
    interfere with or manipulate station sales in a manner inconsistent
    with section 310(d) of the Act. *Id*. at 11.

[^241]: *See, NOI,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12436, n. 73, and pleadings filed by
    various networks in the NASA proceeding cited therein.

[^242]: Third Update of Record and Continued Request That Commission
    Issue Declaratory Ruling on Basic Principles filed by Network
    Affiliated Stations Alliance (Jan. 19, 2005).

[^243]: *Id.*

[^244]: *NOI,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12437 ¶ 32.

[^245]: *See, e.g*., Comments of William Yeager (Nov. 1, 2004) at 1
    ("make it easier for network television stations to preempt network
    programming. This will provide the biggest boost to localism on
    television."). Another commenter praised the preemption of
    objectionable network programming by certain affiliated stations.
    Statement of John Rustin, North Carolina Family Policy Council (Oct.
    22, 2003 ) at 1.

[^246]: Testimony of Harry Pappas, President and CEO, Pappas Telecasting
    Companies (Monterey Tr. 97-99).

[^247]: *Id.* at 97-98.

[^248]: Testimony of Ray Rossman, Director of the San Antonio Chapter of
    the Parent's Television Council (San Antonio Tr. 55-60).

[^249]: *Id.* at 58.

[^250]: Capitol Comments at 5 (urging, *e.g.,* adoption of a required
    minimum number of hours of local programming, including public
    affairs material).

[^251]: *Id.* at 5; *see also* Testimony of Jim Goodmon, President and
    CEO, Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc. (Charlotte Tr. 144-45).

[^252]: Disney Comments (Nov. 1, 2004) at 19-20.

[^253]: *Id.* at 20.

[^254]: *See, e.g*., Comments of Rosetta Rolan, WAVY-TV, Portsmouth,
    Virginia (Nov. 1, 2004) at 2 (preempting for coverage of Hurricane
    Isabel); Comments of Joseph P. McNamara, WBNG-TV, Binghamton, New
    York (Oct. 21, 2004) at 2 (preempting for programming of more local
    interest); Comments of WBRZ, Baton Rouge, Louisiana (Nov. 16, 2004)
    at 4 (preempting for local political events, parades, charitable
    fundraising, and crime safety programs); Comments of WISC-TV,
    Madison, Wisconsin (Nov. 23, 2004) at 2 (preempting for political
    debates and University of Wisconsin sporting events); Testimony of
    Michael Ward, General Manager, WNCN-TV, Raleigh-Durham, North
    Carolina (Charlotte Tr. 140) (preempting for mayoral debates).

[^255]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §73.658(e)(1).

[^256]: *NOI,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12437 ¶ 33.

[^257]: *United States Postal Service*, FCC 77-645, 41 RR 2d 877, 878
    (1977) (*citing Sponsorship Identification*, 40 FCC 2 (1950)).

[^258]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 317, 508.

[^259]: 47 U.S.C. § 508.

[^260]: 47 U.S.C. § 317(a)(1).

[^261]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212. Particular requirements are imposed for the
    airing of political programming or that involving the discussion of
    a controversial issue of public importance. *See* 47 U.S.C. §
    317(a)(2); 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212(d)

[^262]: *Commission Warns Licensees About Payola and Undisclosed
    Promotion*, Public Notice, 4 FCC Rcd 7708 (1988).

[^263]: *NOI*, 19 FCC Rcd at 12437-38 ¶ 34.

[^264]: *Id.* at 12437 ¶ 33.

[^265]: *Id*. at 12438 ¶ 35.

[^266]: *Id*. at 12439 ¶ 36.

[^267]: *Id.* at 12440 ¶ 38.

[^268]: *Id.* ¶ 39.

[^269]: AFTRA/AFM Comments at 17-18; *see also* Comments of the National
    Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (Nov. 1, 2004) ("NARAS
    Comments") at 5, Attachment 2 (statements of music industry
    participants, including musicians, composers, entertainment
    attorneys, producers and others, regarding station practices).

[^270]: *See, e.g.,* *id.* at 24-25; Reply Comments of American
    Federation of Musicians, American Federation of Television and Radio
    Artists, Future of Music Coalition, The Recording Academy and
    Recording Arts Coalition (Jan. 3, 2005) at 12; NARAS Comments at
    3-4. At the Charlotte, North Carolina Localism hearing, recording
    artist Tift Merritt indicated that "it's absolutely naive to think
    that pay for play doesn't go on. There are elaborate ways of
    independent promotion, that this completely happens. . .I've heard
    of people getting a bill from a radio station when they are played."
    Testimony of Tift Merritt (Charlotte Tr. 51-52); *see also*
    Testimony of Manny Garcia, Academy of Tejano Artists and Musicians
    (San Antonio Tr. 194-96); Testimony of Anthony Quintree ("payola
    does exist") (Charlotte Tr. 121).

[^271]: *See, e.g.,* Clear Channel Comments at 31-32; NAB Comments at
    53; Named State Broadcasters Associations Comments at 31-32.

[^272]: Comments of Thomas C. Smith (Nov. 2, 2004) at 4; *see also*
    Comments of The Cromwell Group, Inc. (d/b/a Cromwell Radio Group)
    (Nov. 1, 2004) at 4-5; Disney Comments at 19.

[^273]: Comments of Future of Music Coalition (Nov. 1, 2004) at 5.

[^274]: Comments of Brian Wallace (Aug. 18, 2004) at 4-5 ("We as the
    public have a right to know who is renting OUR airwaves from the
    people that are licensed to use it."); *see also* AFTRA/AFM Comments
    at 17-18.

[^275]: Comments of Jack E. Rooney (Nov. 1, 2004) at 2-3; Comments of
    Richard Crandall (Mar. 16, 2004) at 1-2; Statement of Ray Benson,
    founder, "Asleep at the Wheel" and Board Member, Texas Chapter of
    The Recording Academy (Oct. 20, 2006); Testimony of same (San
    Antonio Tr. 113-21); Testimony of Matthew Gonzalez (San Antonio Tr.
    211-13); AFTRA/AFM Comments at 15-17 (adverse impact on local news
    coverage, ability of stations to provide emergency information,
    timeliness and local orientation of music programming); NARAS
    Comments at 3.

[^276]: Comments of The Future of Music Coalition (Nov. 1, 2004) at 5-6.

[^277]: Testimony of "Davey D" (Monterey Tr. 113-22); Testimony of Ray
    Hair, President, Dallas-Fort Worth Professional Musicians
    Association (San Antonio Tr. 129-36).

[^278]: Comments of Robert Peckman (Nov. 1, 2004); Comments of Douglas
    R. Stevens (Nov. 1, 2004); Testimony of Tift Merritt (Charlotte Tr.
    37-41); Testimony of Anthony Quintee (Charlotte Tr. 121); Testimony
    of Jake Delily (Charlotte Tr. 119); Testimony of Mike Reardon (Rapid
    City Tr. 276-77); Statement of Ray Benson, founder, "Asleep at the
    Wheel" and Board Member, Texas Chapter of The Recording Academy
    (Oct. 20, 2006); Testimony of same (San Antonio Tr. 113-21);
    Testimony of Manny Garcia, Academy of Tejano Artists and Musicians
    (San Antonio Tr. 194-96); Comments of Michael Keegan (Nov. 1, 2004);
    Testimony of T.C. Smythe (San Antonio Tr. 156). Some witnesses
    testified that community radio is necessary to achieve music
    diversity*. See, e.g.,* Testimony of Leslie Shull (Monterey
    Tr.178-79).

[^279]: *See, e.g*., Testimony of Barb Evenson (Rapid City Tr. 148-50).

[^280]: Testimony of Lara Seaver of the Portland Radio Group, reading
    statement of local musician Don Campbell (Portland Tr. 159-60); *see
    also* Testimony of Spencer Albee (Portland Tr. 3-8); Testimony of
    Charlie Gaylord (Portland Tr. 137-39)

[^281]: Clear Channel Comments at 30.

[^282]: Testimony of Tim Moore, Citadel Broadcasting (Portland Tr.
    153-54); Testimony of Herb Ivy, Citadel Broadcasting (Portland Tr.
    64-66).

[^283]: Comments of The Cromwell Group (Nov. 1, 2004)

[^284]: NAB Comments at 58.

[^285]: NFCB Reply Comments at 19-20; AFTRA/AFM Comments at 15-17;
    Comments of Thomas C. Smith (Nov. 2, 2004) at 4; Comments of Bonnie
    Hutcheon (Aug. 23, 2004).

[^286]: Reply Comments of Barnstable Broadcasting, Inc. (Jan. 3, 2005)
    at 2-3; Clear Channel Comments at 32.

[^287]: Reply Comments of the Arizona Broadcasters Association (Jan. 3,
    2005) at 13-14.

[^288]: Testimony of John Connolly, American Federation of Radio and
    Television Artists (Monterey Tr. 106).

[^289]: Comments of James F. Evans (Oct. 21, 2004).

[^290]: NAB Comments at 53-55; *see also* Named State Broadcasters
    Associations Comments at 32; Comments of Randal J. Miller,
    President, Miller Communications, Inc. (July 12, 2004) at 3.

[^291]: *See CBS Radio, Inc.,* Order, 22 FCC Rcd 7026 (2007); *Citadel
    Broadcasting Corp.,* Order, 22 FCC Rcd 7045 (2007); *Clear Channel
    Communications, Inc.,* Order, 22 FCC Rcd 7064 (2007); *Entercom
    Communications Corp.,* Order, 22 FCC Rcd 7121 (2007).

[^292]: *Commission Reminds Broadcast Licensees, Cable Operators and
    Others of Requirements Applicable to Video News Releases, and Seeks
    Comment on the Use of Video News Releases by Broadcast Licensees and
    Cable Operators*, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 8593 (2005) ("*VNR
    Notice"*).

[^293]: *Comcast Corporation*, Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, DA 07-4005 (rel. Sept. 21, 2007); *Comcast Corporation*,
    Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-4075 (rel. Sept.
    26, 2007) (responses pending).

[^294]: *Sonshine Family Television, Inc. and Sinclair Broadcast Group,
    Inc.,* Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 07-152 (rel.
    Oct. 18, 2007) (responses pending).

[^295]: *VNR Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 8596-97.

[^296]: *See* *supra,* para. 29.

[^297]: *NOI*, 19 FCC Rcd at 12440 ¶ 40.

[^298]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 307(c).

[^299]: *NOI*, 19 FCC Rcd at 12441 ¶ 42.

[^300]: *See, e.g.,* NAB Comments at 68; Named State Broadcasters
    Associations Comments at 32-33.

[^301]: *See, e.g.,* Testimony of Jeff Perlstein, Executive Director,
    Media Alliance (Monterey Tr. 64): Testimony of Tony Acosta (Monterey
    Tr. 229): Testimony of Kathy Bissi (Monterey Tr. 230-31).

[^302]: Comments of John P. Valentine (Oct. 18, 2004) at 1.

[^303]: Statement of Martin Kaplan, Associate Dean, Annenberg School for
    Communication, University of Southern California (July 21, 2004) at
    3; Testimony of same (delivered by Joseph Salzman, Associate Dean,
    Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern
    California) (Monterey Tr. 62-68).

[^304]: *See, e.g.,* NAB Comments at 63-64; Named State Broadcasters
    Associations Comments at 32-34.

[^305]: Comments of Brian Wallace (Aug. 18, 2004) at 5; *see also*
    Testimony of Andrew Schwartzman, President and CEO, Media Access
    Project (Washington, D.C. Tr. 43).

[^306]: AFTRA/AFM Comments at 25-26.

[^307]: Campaign Comments at 6; Reply Comments of the Campaign Legal
    Center and the Alliance for Better Campaigns at 16-19.

[^308]: *Enhanced Disclosure NPRM*, 15 FCC Rcd 19816 (2000).

[^309]: Comments of Ronda Orchard (Sept. 20, 2004) at 3.

[^310]: National Federation of Community Broadcasters Comments at 16-17.

[^311]: Comments of Sam Brown (Nov. 1, 2004) at 4.

[^312]: Reply Comments of the Campaign Legal Center and the Alliance for
    Better Campaigns (Jan. 3, 2005) at 19-22.

[^313]: *Id.* at 19-20. As noted in the *NOI,* until the deregulation of
    radio and television in the 1980s, the Commission authorized the
    staff to act, by delegated authority, on renewal applications for
    stations that had aired at least minimum amounts of specified
    programming, expressed as percentages of their overall programming.
    Applications for stations that failed to meet these thresholds were
    considered, on a less streamlined basis, by the full Commission. At
    the time that these guidelines were eliminated, they were: eight
    percent non-entertainment programming (including news, public
    affairs, and other non-entertainment programming) for AM stations;
    six percent of such programming for FM stations; and, for TV
    stations, ten percent non-entertainment programming, five percent
    local programming and five percent informational (news plus public
    affairs) programming. *NOI,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12430 ¶12, n.34.

[^314]: Annenberg Comments at 2-7.

[^315]: Brennan Center Comments at 35.

[^316]: Comments of Thomas C. Smith (Nov. 1, 2004) at 5.

[^317]: *See* Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 203, 110 Stat. 56, 112 (1996);
    *see, e.g.* Testimony of Andrew Schwartzman (Washington, D.C. Tr.
    43).

[^318]: *See Enhanced Disclosure Order*.

[^319]: *NOI,* 19 FCC Rcd 12441-42 ¶ 43.

[^320]: *Id.* at 12442 ¶ 44.

[^321]: *Id.* FM translators were originally envisioned as a "fill-in"
    service for full-power FM stations. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.1231(a).
    The Commission permits noncommercial FM translators operating in the
    bands reserved for noncommercial FM stations to be fed programming
    by satellite from commonly owned stations, with the result that
    their associated stations may be many miles away. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    74.1231(b). FM translators are not permitted to originate
    programming themselves, except under limited circumstances. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 74.1231(g). LPFM stations, by contrast, often originate
    local programming, because the mechanism we use to resolve mutually
    exclusive LPFM applications awards a point to applicants that
    "pledge to originate locally at least eight hours of programming per
    day." *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(b)(3).

[^322]: *Creation of Low Power Radio Service*, Second Order on
    Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC
    Rcd 6763 (2005) ("*LPFM Second Order*" and "*LPFM* *FNPRM*").

[^323]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.872(b)(3).

[^324]: *LPFM FNPRM*, 20 FCC Rcd at 6770-73 ¶¶ 17-23. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§
    73.853(b) (restricting applicant pool to local applicants for the
    first two years after LPFM licenses are made available for
    application); 73.855(b) (setting forth the phased-in ownership
    restrictions for LPFM).

[^325]: *See LPFM FNPRM*, 20 FCC Rcd at 6772 ¶ 20.

[^326]: *Id.* at 6774 ¶¶ 24-25.

[^327]: *Id.* at 6777-81 ¶¶ 31-36.

[^328]: *Id.* at 6780-81 ¶¶ 37-39. As discussed in paragraphs 131-39 of
    this Report, by a Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking released on December 11, 2007, we have
    adopted "a series of wide-ranging rule changes to strengthen and
    promote the long-term viability of the LPFM service and the localism
    and diversity goals that this service was intended to advance."
    *Creation of a Low Power Radio Service*, Third Report and Order and
    Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-204 (MM Docket
    No. 99-25) ¶ 72 (rel. Dec. 11, 2007) ("*LPFM Third R&O*" and "*LPFM
    SFNPRM*"). Therein, the Commission also sought additional comment on
    various technical issues, including LPFM-FM translator interference
    priorities. *Id.* at ¶¶ 72-84.

[^329]: Reply Comments of J. Zach Schiller (Jan 3, 2005) at 1-2;
    Testimony of same (Monterey Tr. 221-23); *see also* Testimony of
    Margaret Avener (Portland Tr. 117-19); Testimony of Tim Stone,
    Founder, Station WSCA-LP (Portland Tr. 37-39); Testimony of Emily
    Sapienza, General Manager, WRFR-LP (Portland Tr. 103-04); Testimony
    of Zoe Armstrong, WRFR-LP (Portland Tr. 104-06); Testimony of Liz
    Wright, Associate Professor of Communication, Rivier College,
    Co-Producer, Portsmouth Community Radio (Portland Tr. 154-55).

[^330]: Reply Comments of Tom Bik (Jan. 3, 2005) at 1-2.

[^331]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Future of Music Coalition (Nov. 1,
    2004) at 6; Comments of Nickolaus E. Leggett (July 29, 2004) at 1;
    Comments of Michigan Music Is World Class Campaign (Dec. 22, 2003);
    Reply Comments of Recording Artist Groups (Jan. 3, 2005) at 19-22

[^332]: Comments of John B. Freeman, Jr. (Dec. 20, 2004) at 1.

[^333]: Testimony of Liz Humes, who read into the record a letter from
    former Richmond Mayor and Virginia Governor Doug Wilder praising the
    station for its efforts and characterizing locally-operated stations
    like it as "an ideal tool for communication between municipalities
    and the communities they serve." (Washington, D.C. Tr. 64-65).

[^334]: Comments of AFTRA (Nov. 1, 2004) at 27; Comments of Midwest
    Christian Media, Inc. (Nov. 1, 2004) at 1-2; Comments of National
    Religious Broadcasters (July 26, 2004) at 2-3; Comments of San
    Manuel Economic Development Foundation, Inc. (November 30, 2004) at
    3; Testimony of John B. Freeman Jr., Chief Operating Officer,
    Southern Development Foundation, licensee of KOCZ-LP, Opelousas,
    Louisiana (San Antonio Tr. 121-23); Comments of REC Networks (Dec.
    16, 2003) at 3-4; Comments of Edward A. Schober (Sept. 1, 2004) at
    1; Testimony of Dennis Ross, Founder and President, WJZP-LP
    (Portland Tr. 80-82).

[^335]: Comments of Frederick M. Baumgartner and Nickolaus E. Leggett
    (Oct. 23, 2003) at 2-8; Comments of the Amherst Alliance (Mar. 15,
    2004) at 7-8; Comments of Citizens Media Corps. and the Commonwealth
    Broadband Collaborative (Jan. 20, 2004) at 2-5; Comments of Lee W.
    Pratt (July 23, 2004) at 1-4; Comments of Daniel Brown (Dec. 31,
    2003) at 3-4; Comments of Sam Brown (Nov. 1, 2004) at 7; Comments of
    William W. Tinsley III (Dec. 31, 2003) at 2-3; Comments of Frank
    Hansche (July 23, 2004) at 4; Comments of Nickolaus Leggett (July
    29, 2004) at 1-2; Comments of Michigan Music is World Class Campaign
    (Dec. 22, 2003) at 4-5.

[^336]: Comments of Midwest Christian Media, Inc. (Nov. 1, 2004) at 4-6,
    Reply Comments of Prometheus Radio Project (Jan. 3, 2005) at 9
    (provide preference to LPFMs that pledge to locally originate
    programming); Reply Comments of Gamecock Alumni Broadcasters, LLC
    (Dec. 27, 2004) at 1-2; Comments of William Tinsley (Dec. 31, 2003)
    at 2; Comments of Chuck Conrad, General Manager, KZQX-LP, San
    Antonio, Texas (San Antonio Tr. 215-16); Comments of Robert Hutchins
    (Sept. 21, 2005) at 1; Comments of Michigan Music is World Class
    Campaign (Dec. 22, 2003) at 4. *But see* Comments of Educational
    Media Foundation (Nov. 1, 2004) at 1-5; Comments of National Public
    Radio, Inc. (Nov. 1, 2004) at 25-30, NPR Reply Comments (Jan. 3,
    2005) at 3-6 (opposing alteration of the respective status of LPFM
    and FM translator facilities, noting the importance of each
    service).

[^337]: Comments of Dr. Sandra Woodruff, Vice President -- Technology,
    Grays Harbor Educational Media and Jennifer Diane Reitz, President,
    Sam-Sno Educational Media (Nov. 1, 2004) at 2.

[^338]: Comments of REC Networks (Nov. 1, 2004) at 8-12.

[^339]: Testimony of Jon Hinck (Portland Tr. 176); Comments of David
    Bracher (Aug. 9, 2004) at 4.

[^340]: Reply Comments of Recording Artists' Coalition at 23.

[^341]: Comments of Warren Trumbly, President, Community Broadcasters
    Association (Monterey Tr. 138); CBA Comments at 6-7.

[^342]: Comments of Brennan Center for Justice, Consumer Federation of
    America, *et al.* (Nov. 1, 2004) at 34-35.

[^343]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Educational Media Foundation (Nov. 1,
    2004) at 1 (noting that translator stations "form an integral and
    indispensable role" in the provision of service, in particular, "by
    serving rural areas as well as underserved, niche markets that are
    often overlooked by full power radio stations").

[^344]: Comments of National Public Radio, Inc. (Nov. 1, 2004) at 25-30;
    *see also* Comments of William Yeager (Nov. 1, 2004) at 2.

[^345]: NFCB Reply Comments at 21.

[^346]: *LPFM* *FNPRM*, 20 FCC Rcd at 6763 ¶ 1.

[^347]: *See LPFM Third R*&O.

[^348]: *Id.* at ¶ 13.

[^349]: *Id.* at ¶¶ 15, 17.

[^350]: *Id.* at ¶¶ 23-24.

[^351]: *Id.* at ¶ 24.

[^352]: *Id.* at ¶ 25.

[^353]: *L**PFM Third R&O* at ¶¶ 29, 33.

[^354]: *Id.* at ¶ 40.

[^355]: *Id.* at ¶ 49.

[^356]: *Id.*

[^357]: *Id.* at ¶ 56

[^358]: *Id.*

[^359]: *Id.*

[^360]: *Id.* at ¶ 63.

[^361]: *Id.*

[^362]: *Id.* at ¶ 65-66.

[^363]: *Id.* at ¶ 67.

[^364]: *Id.*

[^365]: *Id*. Any STA issued pursuant to this processing policy will be
    subject to any action taken by the Commission on the *LPFM SFNPRM*.

[^366]: *Id.* at ¶ 68-71.

[^367]: *Id.* at ¶ 69.

[^368]: *Id.* at ¶ 72.

[^369]: *See NOI,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12442 n.112.

[^370]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.810, 73.827.

[^371]: *See LPFM SFNPRM* ¶ 74.

[^372]: *See LPFM Third R&O* ¶¶ 76-77.

[^373]: *Id.* at ¶ 83.

[^374]: *Id.*

[^375]: *Id.* at ¶ 84.

[^376]: Information on this application process can be found on the
    Commission's website, at
    http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/howtoapply.html.

[^377]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(2).

[^378]: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ("PRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-13,
    109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 of Title 44 U.S.C.).

[^379]: The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 ("SBPRA"), Pub.
    L. No. 107-198, 116 Stat 729 (2002) (codified in Chapter 35 of Title
    44 U.S.C.); *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

[^380]: *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a).

[^381]: *See* *id*. §§ 1.415, 1419.

[^382]: *See* *Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
    Proceedings*, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).

[^383]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

[^384]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^385]: *See id*.

[^386]: *Broadcast Localism*, Notice of Inquiry, 19 FCC Rcd 12425 ¶ 1
    (2004).

[^387]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^388]: *Id*. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies, "unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the SBA
    and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of the term where appropriate to the activities of the
    agency and publishes the definition(s) in the Federal Register."

[^389]: *Id.*

[^390]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^391]: OMB, North American Industry Classification System: United
    States, 1997, at 508-09 (1997) (NAICS Code 51320 which was changed
    to 51520 in October 2002). This category description continues,
    "These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to
    affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast
    the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming
    may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or
    from external sources." Separate census categories pertain to
    businesses primarily engaged in produced programming. *See* *id.* at
    502-505, NAICS code 512110. Motion Picture and Video Production;
    Code 512120, Motion Picture and Video Distribution, code 512191, 19
    FCC Rcd 15238 (2004). Teleproduction and Other Post-Production
    Services, and code 512199, Other Motion Picture and Video
    Industries.

[^392]: "\[Business concerns\] are affiliates of each other when one
    business concern controls or has the power to control the other or a
    third party or parties controls or has the power to control both."
    13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(1).

[^393]: *See* NAICS Code 515112.

[^394]: *Id.*

[^395]: "\[Business concerns\] are affiliates of each other when one
    business concern controls or has the power to control the other or a
    third party or parties controls or has the power to control both."
    13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(1).

[^396]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112.

[^397]: *See* *News Release*, "Broadcast Station Totals as of December
    31, 2006" (rel. Jan. 26, 2007)
    (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269784A1.doc).

[^398]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, "517110 Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers" (partial definition);
    <http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110>.

[^399]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^400]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States:
    2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005).

[^401]: *Id*. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^402]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size
    standard equates approximately to a size standard of \$100 million
    or less in annual revenues. *Implementation of Sections of the 1992
    Cable Act: Rate Regulation,* Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh
    Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).

[^403]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^404]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).

[^405]: Warren Communications News, *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*,
    "U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size," page F-2 (data current as
    of Oct. 2005). The data do not include 718 systems for which
    classifying data were not available.

[^406]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); *see* 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.

[^407]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f); *see* Public Notice*, FCC Announces New
    Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator*, DA
    01‑158 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001).

[^408]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^409]: The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case
    basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's
    finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator
    pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    76.909(b).

[^410]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 573.

[^411]: 13 C.F.R. § 12.1201, NAICS code 517510.

[^412]: *See* <http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovsarc.html> and
    <http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html> (each visited in December
    2007).

[^413]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^414]: [5 U.S.C. §
    603(b)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=5USCAS603&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Full&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06).