Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19563

or acquisitions involving networks,

studios, cable systems and other

program providers since the

Commission’s 1993 fin/syn decision

took effect; (13) the growth of additional

networks, including the development of

Fox and its position vis-a-vis the major

three networks; and (14) the growth in

the number and types of alternative

outlets for sale of programming (e.g., the

development of the Direct Broadcast

Satellite service; cable penetration;

wireless cable development). In

addition to examining information

submitted regarding the above factors,

the Commission states that it will also

take notice of the record developed in

its pending proceeding regarding the

Prime Time Access Rule to the extent it

is relevant to its review of the fin/syn

rules.

4. The NPRM provides that the

burden in this proceeding will be on

fin/syn proponents to demonstrate, as

stated by the Seventh Circuit, ‘‘an

excellent, a compelling reason’’ why the

restrictions should be continued.

Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 29 F.3d at 316.

As the Commission stated in the Second

R&O, it is prepared to presume that

complete removal of all remaining

restrictions will be appropriate, and is

therefore placing the burden of proof on

those that urge retaining fin/syn

restrictions. If proponents of retaining

the rules fail to demonstrate to the

Commission that the rules should be left

in place, or if the Commission does not

take affirmative action to the contrary,

the rules will automatically expire.

5. The Commission also seeks

comment on whether, in the event

parties arguing for the continuation of

the fin/syn rules fail to carry their

burden of proof, it should amend its

rules to allow the remaining rules to

expire before the presently scheduled

expiration date of November 10, 1995.

The Commission further seeks comment

on whether doing so would unduly

disrupt any business arrangements or

practices that have been established in

reliance on the presently scheduled

expiration date.

Administrative Matters

6. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s Rules, interested parties

may file comments on or before May 30,

1995, and reply comments on or before

June 14, 1995. All relevant and timely

comments will be considered by the

Commission before final action is taken

in this proceeding. To file formally in

this proceeding, parties must file an

original and four copies of all

comments, reply comments and

supporting comments. If parties want

each Commissioner to receive a

personal copy of their comments, an

original plus nine copies must be filed.

Comments and reply comments should

be sent to the Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC

20554. Comments and reply comments

will be available for public inspection

during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (room 239) of the

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC

20554.

7. This is a non-restricted notice and

comment rulemaking proceeding.

Accordingly, ex parte presentations will

be permitted, except during the

Sunshine Agenda period, provided they

are disclosed as set forth in the

Commission’s Rules. See 47 CFR 1.1202,

1.1203, 1.1206(a).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act

Statement

8. As required by Section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Commission has prepared an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(‘‘IRFA’’)—set forth in Appendix A

attached to the full text of the NPRM

and set forth in paragraphs 10–15

below—of the expected impact on small

entities of the proposal suggested in the

NPRM. Written public comments are

requested on the IRFA. These comments

must be filed in accordance with the

same filing deadlines as comments on

the rest of the NPRM, but they must

have a separate and distinct heading

designating them as responses to the

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The

Secretary shall send a copy of this

NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of Small Business

Administration in accordance with

paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

9. Reason for Action and Objectives:

This NPRM is initiated to conduct a

review of the Commission’s financial

interest and syndication (‘‘fin/syn’’)

rules as part of the timetable the

Commission has previously established

in scheduling the elimination of the

rules. It also seeks comment on whether

to accelerate the scheduled expiration

date of the fin/syn rules in the event

parties opposed to their elimination fail

to persuade the Commission that the

rules should be continued.

10. Legal Basis: Authority for the

action proposed in this proceeding is

contained in Section 4(i), 4(j), 301,

303(i), 303(r), 313, and 314 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 301,

303(i), 303(r), 313, and 314.

11. Reporting, Record Keeping, and

Other Compliance Requirements: None.

12. Federal Rules which Overlap,

Duplicate, or Conflict with the Proposed

Rule: None.

13. Description, Potential Impact and

Number of Small Entities Affected: The

entities that could potentially be

affected by this proceeding include

television program producers and

syndicators, television networks and

their affiliate stations, and non-network

television stations. It is anticipated that

any rule changes arising out of this

proceeding would have a minimal

impact on the small entities that could

be affected.

14. Any Significant Alternatives

Minimizing the Impact on Small

Entities and Consistent with the Stated

Objectives: None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9632 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket Nos. 94–150, 92–51, 87–154;

FCC 95–139]

Broadcast Services; Television and

Radio Broadcasting

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; denial of motion

to accelerate comment period.

SUMMARY: The Commission denies a

Motion to Establish an Accelerated

Procedural Schedule for the Limited

Liability Companies Issue, filed by the

Association of Black Owned Television

Stations in this proceeding. The action

is taken to respond to this motion that

the deadlines for comments and reply

comments with respect to the issue of

Limited Liability Companies be

accelerated. The intended effect of the

action is to permit commenters the full

period specified in the Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in which to file

comments in the proceeding.

DATES: Comments (as extended in a

separate decision printed elsewhere in

this Federal Register) are due May 17,

1995, and reply comments are due June

19, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mania Baghdadi, Mass Media Bureau

(202) 776–1653.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Order in
19564 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1Fox now competes with ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Further, United Paramount Network and Warner

Brothers Network are beginning to develop as

competitors to these networks.

MM Docket Nos. 94–150, 92–51, and

87–154; FCC 95–139, adopted April 3,

1995, and released April 7, 1995. The

complete text of this Order is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and also

may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service, at

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, NW.,

Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of the Order

1. The Commission denies the Motion

to Establish an Accelerated Procedural

Schedule for the LLC Issue (‘‘Motion’’),

which the Association of Black Owned

Television Stations (‘‘ABOTS’’) filed in

this proceeding on January 25, 1995.

The Commission, in a Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (60 FR 6483,

February 2, 1995) established a

comment deadline of April 17, 1995,

and of May 17, 1995 for reply

comments. ABOTS asked that the

Commission accelerate the comment

schedule with respect to Section VII

(Limited Liability Companies and Other

New Business Forms) of the Notice of

Proposed Rule Making with comments

due by February 10, 1995, and reply

comments due by February 17, 1995.

ABOTS also asked the Commission to

expedite our disposition in the rule

making regarding the issue of LLCs and

to reach a decision by March 3, 1995, if

possible. The Commission finds the

concerns expressed by ABOTS in its

Motion to be unfounded, and believes

that an acceleration of the comment

period and decisionmaking process

would not be in the public interest.

Thus, the Commission denies ABOTS’

requests. In a separate decision adopted

April 7, 1995, and printed elsewhere in

this Federal Register, the Commission

extends the time for filing comments in

this proceeding to May 17, 1995, and

the time for filing replay comments to

June 19, 1995.

2. Accordingly, pursuant to Section

4(j) of the Communications Act, 47

U.S.C. 154(j) It Is Hereby Ordered that

the Motion to Establish an Accelerated

Procedural Schedule for the LLC Issue

filed by the Association of Black Owned

Television Stations is denied.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9570 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95–40; FCC 95–145]

Broadcast Services; Network/Affiliate

rule

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed Rule

Making proposes to eliminate or modify

the Commission’s requirement that

broadcast television stations file their

network affiliation agreements with the

Commission and that these filings be

publicly available. This action is needed

to determine if the costs of this rule

exceed its benefits.

DATES: Comments are due by June 12,

1995, and reply comments are due by

July 12, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Kieschnick (202–739–0770) or

Paul Gordon (202–776–1653), Mass

Media Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket

No. 95–40, FCC 95–145, adopted April

5, 1995 and released April 5, 1995. The

complete text of this NPRM is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and also

may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, NW.,

Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule

Making

1. With this Notice of Proposed Rule

Making (NPRM), the Commission

continues its examination of rules

regulating broadcast television network/

affiliate relations in light of changes in

the video marketplace. This NPRM

proposes repeal or modification of 47

C.F.R. § 73.3613(a) (the ‘‘filing of

affiliation contracts’’ rule). This rule

requires television broadcast licensees

to file copies of network affiliation

contracts, agreements, and

understandings with the Commission.

The contract must be reduced to one

written document, including the

substance of any oral agreements,

without reference to any other

document. However, the rule does allow

subsequent renewals, changes, or

amendments to the contract to be set

forth in separate filings that refer to the

original contract. Notification of

cancellation or termination of the filed

contracts is also required. This rule

applies only to agreements with

broadcast television networks that offer

15 or more hours of programming per

week to 25 or more affiliates in 10 or

more states. Thus, while ABC, CBS,

NBC, and Fox are subject to the rule, the

United Paramount Network and the

Warner Brothers Network are not.

2. The primary purpose of requiring

broadcast television stations to file their

affiliation agreements with the

Commission has been to give the

Commission the ability to monitor these

contractual relationships and ensure

that the Commission’s restrictions on

these relationships are not violated in

affiliation agreements. Also, by

requiring affiliates to file their affiliation

agreements with the Commission, the

rule may chill any desire to engage in

misbehavior, thereby reducing the

likelihood that these agreements will

contain provisions that violate the

Commission’s underlying network/

affiliate rules.

3. Since 1985, when we last examined

this rule, the video marketplace has

changed dramatically. As pointed out in

our recent Further Notice of Proposed

Rule Making in MM Docket No. 91–221

(60 FR 6490, February 2, 1995)

addressing broadcast television

ownership, there has been an increase

in the number of broadcast stations

available for affiliation with a broadcast

network in nearly every market.

Moreover, new, aspiring networks have

emerged.1 As a result of these changes,

the bargaining positions of broadcast

television networks and commercial

broadcast television stations have

changed and differ market by market.

The recent affiliate switches

demonstrate the increased competition

between broadcast networks for

affiliation with broadcast television

stations in different markets, and thus

suggest that broadcast networks’ market

power over their affiliates has

diminished to some extent.

4. Given the recent increased

competition between broadcast

networks for affiliates in different

markets, we solicit comment on whether

or not there is a continuing need for the

Commission to monitor network/

affiliate relationships through

mandatory filings of their affiliation

agreements. We also seek comment on

the extent to which filing these

contracts with the Commission is

necessary to deter violations of the