Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 26235 

Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99– 

514), the reporting requirements 

included the requirement to report 

certain modifications to contracts that 

were awarded before January 1, 1989 

and entered into on or after April 1, 

1990. 

In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 7701(c), 

a contractor doing business with a 

Government agency is required to 

furnish its Tax Identification Number 

(TIN) to that agency. 31 U.S.C. 3325(d) 

requires the Government to include, 

with each certified voucher prepared by 

the Government payment office and 

submitted to a disbursing official, the 

TIN of the contractor receiving payment 

under the voucher. The TIN may be 

used by the Government to collect and 

report on any delinquent amounts 

arising out of the contractor’s 

relationship with the Government. The 

TIN is also required for Government 

reporting of certain contract information 

and payment information to the IRS. 

B. Annual Reporting Burden 

Respondents: 250,000. 

Responses per Respondent: 2. 

Total Responses: 500,000. 

Hours per Response: .39. 

Total Burden Hours: 195,000. 

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: 

Requesters may obtain a copy of the 

information collection documents from 

the General Services Administration, 

Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F 

Street NW., Room 4041, Washington, 

DC 20405, telephone (202) 501–4755. 

Please cite OMB Control No. 9000–0097, 

Taxpayer Identification Number 

Information, in all correspondence. 

Dated: May 22, 2009. 

Edward Loeb, 

Acting Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. 

[FR Doc. E9–12585 Filed 5–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[MB Docket No. 08–187; FCC 09–43] 

Impact of Arbitron Audience Ratings 

Measurements on Radio Broadcasters 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document seeks 

comment on issues relating to the 

commercial use of a radio audience 

measurement device, developed by 

Arbitron, Inc., known as the portable 

people meter (‘‘PPM’’). It asks about the 

effects of the PPM methodology on 

competition and diversity, whether it is 

sufficiently accurate and reliable to 

merit the Commission’s continued 

reliance on it, and the Commission’s 

jurisdiction to take action in this area 

should it find an adverse effect in any 

of these areas. 

DATES: Comments are due July 1, 2009 

and reply comments are due July 31, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mania Baghdadi, Industry Analysis 

Division, Media Bureau, at (202) 418– 

2133, or Julie Salovaara, Industry 

Analysis Division, Media Bureau, at 

(202) 418–0783. Press inquiries should 

be directed to David Fiske at (202) 418– 

0513. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Federal 

Communications Commission’s Notice 

of Inquiry (the ‘‘NOI’’) in MB Docket No. 

08–187; FCC 09–43, adopted May 15, 

2009, and released May 18, 2009. The 

full text of this document is available for 

public inspection and copying during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., CY–A257, Washington, DC 

20554. These documents will also be 

available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs). The complete text may be 

purchased from the Commission’s copy 

contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. To 

request this document in accessible 

formats (computer diskettes, large print, 

audio recording and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Summary of the Notice of Inquiry 

1. Introduction: In this Notice of 

Inquiry (‘‘NOI’’), we seek comment on 

issues relating to the commercial use of 

a radio audience measurement device, 

developed by Arbitron, Inc. 

(‘‘Arbitron’’), known as the portable 

people meter, or ‘‘PPM.’’ Broadcasters, 

media organizations, and others have 

raised concerns about the use of the 

PPM and its potential impact on 

audience ratings of stations that air 

programming targeted to minority 

audiences, and consequently, on the 

financial viability of those stations. 

They claim that the current PPM 

methodology undercounts and 

misrepresents the number and loyalty of 

minority radio listeners. They assert 

that, because audience ratings affect 

advertising revenues, undercounting 

minority audiences could negatively 

affect the ability of these stations to 

compete for advertising revenues and to 

continue to offer local service to 

minority audiences. They express 

concern that such undercounting could 

particularly affect the ratings of local, 

urban-formatted radio stations that 

broadcast programming of interest to 

African-American and Hispanic 

audiences. This NOI investigates the 

impact of PPM methodology on the 

broadcast industry as well as whether 

the audience ratings data is sufficiently 

accurate and reliable to merit the 

Commission’s own reliance on it in its 

rules, policies and procedures. 

According to its proponents, the PPM 

methodology represents a technological 

improvement in measuring radio 

listening. We have a strong interest in 

encouraging innovative advancements 

that lead to improved information and 

data. We seek information on whether 

and how the PPM technological changes 

adversely affect diversity on the 

airwaves as well as the integrity and 

reliability of the Commission’s 

processes that rely on Arbitron ratings 

data. If there is an adverse impact, we 

seek comment on further steps the 

Commission can and should take to 

address these issues. 

2. Sections 4(i) and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (the ‘‘Act’’) gives the 

Commission broad authority to initiate 

inquiries such as this one. The 

Commission’s authority to initiate 

investigations under Section 403 is not 

limited to adversarial proceedings 

involving allegations of wrongdoing. 

Section 403 broadly authorizes, inter 

alia, inquiries ‘‘concerning which any 

question may arise under any of the 

provisions of this Act .* * *’’ 47 U.S.C. 

403. We have frequently issued Notices 

of Inquiry under Section 403 in nonadversarial settings to seek information 

and comment to determine whether we 

should take further regulatory action. 

3. Requests that the Commission 

institute an inquiry have been made in 

several contexts. The FCC’s Advisory 

Committee on Diversity for 

Communications in the Digital Age 

(‘‘Diversity Committee’’) has passed a 

resolution requesting a Commission 

investigation of Arbitron’s PPM 

measurement system to determine 

whether the system is having or will 

have a detrimental and discriminatory 

effect upon stations targeting minority 

audiences. Noting that Arbitron is the 

only company that currently provides 

quantitative audience data for radio 

stations, the Committee states that the 

financial success of a radio broadcast 

station often depends upon 

demonstrating to potential advertisers 

that the station has a substantial 

audience of desirable consumers. 

According to the Diversity Committee, 

26236 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 

Arbitron’s use of an audience 

measurement service that may not 

accurately measure minority audiences 

could lead to ‘‘irreparable’’ financial 

harm to stations serving such audiences 

and, thus, lead to the loss of service that 

such stations provide to the public. 

4. In addition, the PPM Coalition 

(‘‘PPMC’’) has filed an Emergency 

Petition for a Section 403 Inquiry 

(‘‘PPMC Petition’’), requesting that the 

Commission immediately commence a 

fact-finding inquiry into the current 

PPM methodology. Under the inquiry 

sought by PPMC, the Commission 

would use subpoenas for document 

production, conduct witness testimony 

under oath, and fashion appropriate 

protective orders as necessary to avoid 

disclosure of confidential information. 

PPMC and others that supported 

PPMC’s request for a Commission 

investigation express concern that the 

PPM methodology has had a detrimental 

effect on the ratings measurements for 

urban- and Hispanic-formatted stations 

and state that this is due to the underrepresentation of minorities in the 

sample panels and a failure to distribute 

PPM devices within minority groups. 

PPMC alleges that the PPM sample is 

deficient because only five to six 

percent of the PPM sample is comprised 

of cell-phone-only households, while a 

significant and growing percentage of 

young adults and Hispanics and 

African-Americans live in cell-phoneonly households. PPMC asserts that 19.3 

percent of Hispanic households and 

18.3 percent of African-American 

households are cell-phone-only, 

whereas 12.9 percent of non-Hispanic 

white households are cell-phone-only. 

Among other things, PPMC also 

complains that: (1) PPM has a 66 

percent smaller sample size than the 

diary, often making it impossible to 

target age or gender subsets of minority 

audiences because standard industry 

metrics require at least 30 respondents 

in a cell to run ratings data; (2) PPM 

samples are not built using street 

addresses, and therefore fail to ensure 

statistically representative inclusion of 

cell-phone-only households; (3) young 

minorities are reluctant to carry visible 

PPMs; (3) Hispanic PPM recruitment 

methods skew toward English-dominant 

persons because potential panelists are 

identified by origin rather than by 

language; (4) PPM response and 

compliance rates fall below industry 

norms; (5) PPMs record exposure to 

radio signals, but they do not capture 

listener loyalty, which is high among 

minorities; (6) PPM reports provide less 

granular data in terms of geography; (7) 

PPM reports do not contain income 

data, country of origin data, or data that 

accounts sufficiently for language 

preferences; and (8) PPM panelists may 

be corrupted more easily by radio 

personnel because the PPM device often 

visibly identifies them and their 

expected participation is two years 

instead of the usual one-week 

participation in the diary system. 

5. PPMC states that radio 

programmers are taking the preliminary 

PPM under-reporting of minority radio 

listening so seriously that programmers 

who can do so are already beginning to 

abandon formats that target minority 

audiences. PPMC and others are 

concerned that the stability of the radio 

industry is at stake because radio 

broadcasters rely on the sale of 

commercial advertising for their only 

revenue stream, and Arbitron’s data has 

a direct impact on advertising sales. 

While PPMC concedes that Arbitron has 

indicated its willingness to re-examine 

its sampling methods and make 

improvements by 2010, it contends that 

those improvements would be ‘‘far too 

little and far too late.’’ According to 

PPMC, most advertisers are likely to 

accept Arbitron’s assertions that PPM 

results are more accurate than diary 

results, and will rely on flawed PPM 

data. 

6. New Jersey Broadcasters 

Association has alerted the Commission 

of the ‘‘unique and urgent 

circumstances’’ in the State, arguing that 

‘‘the PPM sampling process employed 

by Arbitron in New Jersey is suspect in 

its erratic deployment and intrinsic 

underrepresentation of the population’’ 

of many New Jersey counties, 

specifically Monmouth, Ocean, Morris, 

and Atlantic. ‘‘To demonstrate this fact, 

consider the disparity in PPM 

deployment in two adjacent New Jersey 

counties, Monmouth (pop. 588,000) and 

Middlesex (pop. 732,000). Arbitron 

deployed 347 PPMs in Middlesex 

County, but only 96 PPMs in 

Monmouth. This represents 261% 

greater PPM sample size in Middlesex 

County, which only has a 25% greater 

population! Likewise, Morris County 

(pop. 454,000) has only 87 PPMs 

collecting listenership data, while its 

next door neighbor Union County (pop. 

480,000) has 260 PPMs; an almost 200% 

greater population. Ocean County (pop. 

564,000) has no PPMs at all resulting in 

two different sampling methodologies 

being used in one New Jersey market.’’ 

Letter from Paul S. Rotella, Esq., 

President & CEO, New Jersey 

Broadcasters Association, to Jonathan S. 

Adelstein, Commissioner, FCC (Jan. 28, 

2009). 

7. Arbitron opposes PPMC’s Petition 

and challenges the Commission’s 

jurisdiction and the availability of 

remedies it can offer. Arbitron 

challenges PPMC’s assertion that the 

ratings of minority-oriented stations 

suffer when PPM methodology is used. 

Arbitron provides several examples 

where the rankings of such stations 

remained the same or improved when 

PPMs were used. Arbitron maintains 

that PPM samples effectively represent 

Blacks and Hispanics in the 18–34 age 

group, and across other factors such as 

geographic location and language 

preferences. Arbitron is also 

implementing improvements to PPM 

methodology, as discussed below. 

Allscope Media supports Arbitron, 

noting that a delay of PPM service will 

harm the radio industry. Arbitron is also 

supported by J.L. Media, Inc., which 

contends that the Commission should 

not get involved in this dispute because 

Arbitron is continuously improving 

PPM methodology and the Commission 

lacks precedent for such involvement. 

8. Background: Arbitron is an 

international media and marketing 

research firm serving radio, television, 

cable, online radio, and out-of-home 

media as well as advertisers and 

advertising agencies in the United States 

and Europe. Arbitron’s main businesses 

include measuring network and local 

market radio audiences in the United 

States; surveying the retail, media, and 

product patterns of local market 

consumers; and providing application 

software used for analyzing media 

audience and marketing information 

data. Stations and advertisers use these 

ratings to negotiate advertising prices. 

To provide service to local stations and 

local advertisers, Arbitron has 

delineated more than 300 local 

geographic markets (called Metro 

Survey Areas or Metros) based on radio 

stations’ audience ratings. More than 60 

percent of commercial radio stations 

and three-fourths of the U.S. population 

of at least 12 years of age reside in these 

radio markets. Arbitron publishes 

listening data on commercial radio 

stations that obtain a minimum 

audience share in the radio market. 

9. These radio market definitions are 

considered the industry standard and 

are used by the Commission for 

purposes of applying its ownership 

rules and evaluating them periodically 

to determine whether they remain 

necessary in the public interest. In its 

quadrennial ownership review 

proceedings, the Commission relies on 

the information produced by Arbitron to 

define local radio markets for purposes 

of fulfilling its statutory obligation to 

evaluate the continued necessity of its 

local radio ownership rule as well as the 

cross-ownership rules. Moreover, the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 26237 

Commission relies on Arbitron-defined 

radio Metro markets, where these exist, 

when it makes its determination 

whether a particular license application, 

transfer, merger, or acquisition complies 

with the local radio ownership rules. 

10. For many years, Arbitron has 

relied on a diary-based audience 

measurement system. A diary is a small 

foldout, pamphlet-style journal in 

which diary keepers record the radio 

stations, satellite radio channels, or 

Internet radio stations they listen to 

during each day of the survey week. A 

diary keeper records the time of day, the 

location, and the start and stop times of 

each listening occasion. The diary also 

requests certain demographic, 

socioeconomic, and lifestyle 

characteristics. Arbitron contacts 

potential diary keepers by calling a 

sample of households across the 

country. The company places over five 

million calls every year to potential 

diary keepers for participation in the 

survey. On average, nearly 75 percent of 

those asked to do so consent to filling 

out a radio diary. Potential diary 

keepers are first contacted by telephone 

and then sent the survey via mail. 

Arbitron mails 2.6 million diaries to 

survey participants each year. 

11. Arbitron has recently replaced its 

diary-based rating system in certain 

markets with the PPM system. 

According to Arbitron, the PPM is a 

mobile-phone-sized device that 

consumers wear throughout the day. 

The PPM detects inaudible 

identification codes that are embedded 

in the audio of certain programming to 

which the consumer is exposed. An 

encoder at the programming or 

distribution source inserts the inaudible 

identification codes. In addition, a 

station monitor is installed at the 

programming source to ensure audio 

content is encoded properly. At the end 

of each day, each survey participant 

places the PPM device in a base station 

to recharge the battery and to send 

collected codes to a household 

collection device known as a ‘‘hub.’’ 

The household hub collects the codes 

from all the base stations in the survey 

household and transmits them to 

Arbitron. Arbitron describes the PPM as 

an enhancement over the diary method 

because it relies on a passive 

measurement of actual exposure, rather 

than memory recall; it delivers more 

detailed data that can be utilized by 

program directors; and PPMs allow 

Arbitron to provide audience 

measurement for children ages 6 to 11 

and cell-phone-only households. 

12. Arbitron has indicated that it 

plans to replace its diary-based 

audience measurement system with the 

PPM in the top 50 radio markets by 

2010. It has already implemented PPMs 

in 14 local markets: New York, Los 

Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, DallasFt. Worth, Houston, Atlanta, 

Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Detroit, 

Nassau-Suffolk, Middlesex-SomersetUnion, Riverside-San Bernardino and 

San Jose. According to Arbitron, these 

markets account for 51.7 percent of the 

estimated radio station revenue in the 

top 50 radio markets. As discussed 

below, Arbitron has committed to 

improving its PPM methodology and 

has taken steps to do so. Arbitron states 

that its has steadfastly demonstrated its 

willingness to work with all 

stakeholders, including advertisers, 

stations, the Media Rating Council 

(‘‘MRC’’), and the Commission to help 

bring the measurement of radio 

audiences into alignment with the 

measurement of audiences for 

competing media. 

13. The MRC sets industry standards 

for audience measurement. These 

standards are designed to ensure 

reliability. Among other activities, MRC 

establishes and administers ‘‘Minimum 

Standards’’ for rating operations; 

performs accreditation of rating services 

on the basis of information submitted by 

these services; and conducts audits, 

through independent certified public 

accounting firms, of the activities of 

rating services. Arbitron reports that it 

has received MRC accreditation for its 

PPM services in the Houston and 

Riverside-San Bernardino markets. More 

generally, however, in his statement at 

the Commission’s July 29, 2008 en banc 

hearing, George Ivie, MRC Executive 

Director and Chief Executive Officer, 

stated that MRC has ‘‘important ongoing 

concerns’’ about the implementation 

details of the PPM measurement system. 

Concerns and ongoing dialogue with 

Arbitron surround ‘‘two key 

measurement issues: Response rates and 

panelist compliance with the PPM 

technique.’’ In February 2008, MRC 

announced that its audit committee 

voted not to grant accreditation to the 

PPM service in the Philadelphia and 

New York PPM markets. MRC is 

currently reviewing the PPM services in 

Philadelphia and New York, as well as 

in a number of other major markets 

including Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas-Ft. 

Worth, Detroit, Los Angeles, San 

Francisco, and Washington, DC. 

14. On July 8, 2008, the Chief of the 

Media Bureau wrote, separately, to 

Arbitron and MRC seeking a response to 

the concerns raised by minority and 

other broadcasters. Both Arbitron and 

MRC responded. The letters to Arbitron 

and MRC from the Bureau Chief, as well 

as Arbitron’s and MRC’s responses, will 

be included in the docket of this 

proceeding. MRC submitted several 

documents detailing various aspects of 

Arbitron’s implementation of the PPM 

system and MRC’s accreditation of it. 

While acknowledging that the PPM 

technology has the potential to be 

‘‘disruptive’’ on a short term basis, 

Arbitron claimed that PPMs provide 

audience measurements that are 

superior to the diary method. It added 

that it is committed to working with 

minority and Spanish-language 

broadcasters regarding their concerns 

that the PPM method is having a 

disproportionate impact upon them and 

their audiences as reflected in decreases 

in their ratings. Arbitron detailed 

specific measures it takes with respect 

to Black, Hispanic and Spanishdominant panelists to enhance their 

participation in PPM surveys, adding 

that the sample proportion of Blacks, 

Hispanics and young adults is higher, 

on average, for PPM service than it was 

for the diary service. Arbitron also 

asserted that broadcasters operating in 

markets where PPM methodology has 

been introduced are learning from the 

data and executing new programming 

and marketing strategies designed to 

optimize the ratings results for an 

electronic meter rather than a diary 

methodology. 

15. The Attorneys General of New 

York, New Jersey, and Maryland have 

investigated Arbitron’s PPM 

implementation in their respective 

states to assess whether the PPM 

methodology undercounts minority 

audiences. Earlier this year, Arbitron 

entered into separate settlement 

agreements with the three states and 

agreed to improve its sample participant 

recruitment methods. On January 7, 

2009, the New York Attorney General 

and the New Jersey Attorney General 

announced separate settlement 

agreements with Arbitron, in which 

Arbitron agreed, among other things to: 

(1) Ensure a higher level of participation 

across racial demographics by 

increasing the recruitment of 

individuals who only use cell phones 

and by combining an address-based 

sampling methodology with telephonebased sampling; (2) make reasonable 

efforts to obtain MRC accreditation in 

those markets; (3) promote minority 

radio by funding advertising campaigns 

and by making monetary contributions 

to minority trade associations; and (4) 

make payments to the states to resolve 

the claims against it. In addition, 

Arbitron entered into an agreement with 

the Attorney General of Maryland on 

February 6, 2009, to improve its ratings 

methodology for the Washington, DC 

26238 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 

and Baltimore radio markets. Arbitron 

agreed to: (1) Increase its recruitment of 

cell phone-only households; (2) recruit 

racial and ethnic minorities 

commensurate with the racial and 

ethnic composition of the geographic 

areas being surveyed, using home 

addresses and not just telephone 

numbers, to identify potential 

participants; (3) meet numerical 

measures of proportionality between 

Arbitron’s sample results and the actual 

populations in those radio markets; and 

(4) provide additional information about 

the PPM sample results to broadcasters, 

advertisers, and other users of the data. 

Arbitron reports that it is successfully 

meeting its obligations under these 

agreements. 

16. Arbitron has also committed to 

extending some of these improvements 

to all PPM markets. It confirmed in 

March 2009, that it has been 

implementing in all PPM markets a 

number of the key methodological 

enhancements that the company 

committed to in its agreements with the 

Attorneys General of New Jersey, New 

York and Maryland. Arbitron’s 

methodology improvements for all PPM 

customers focus on four areas: (1) Cellphone-only sampling; (2) address-based 

sampling; (3) in-tab compliance rates; 

and (4) response metrics. Arbitron 

promised to increase the sample target 

for cell-phone-only households in all 

PPM markets to an average of 15 percent 

by year-end 2010, and in the interim, 

raise the current target of 7.5 percent to 

12.5 percent in PPM markets by the end 

of 2009. PPMC asserted that Arbitron’s 

previous five to six percent cap on cellphone-only households in its PPM 

samples under-sampled households 

with young adults and Hispanics and 

African-Americans, who are more likely 

than other demographics to use only 

cell phones. Based on data from 2007, 

PPMC stated that the percentage of cellphone-only households is nearly 16 

percent among all U.S. households, 19.3 

percent for Hispanics, and 18.3 percent 

for African-Americans. In addition, 

Arbitron expressed its commitment to 

use address-based sampling for at least 

10 percent of its sampling efforts by late 

2009 and for at least 15 percent of its 

recruitment efforts by the end of 

December 2010 in all PPM markets. 

PPMC contends that address-based 

sampling increases the likelihood that 

cell-phone-only households are 

included. Furthermore, Arbitron 

claimed that all PPM customers will see 

greater transparency for more of the 

sample metrics in the Arbitron PPM 

survey research, including the 

distribution of sample by zip code and 

by cell phone status. PPMC argued that 

broadcasters need to know ratings by 

zip codes in order to tailor program 

schedules and advertising schedules to 

advertisers that serve geographically 

discrete minority communities. Arbitron 

also stated that it will continue to share 

with all customers any current and 

future findings of the impact of 

nonresponse on the PPM service. PPMC 

argues that the fewer people who agree 

to participate in a random sample, the 

less representative the sample is. 

17. In addition, Arbitron has created 

a training program, called ‘‘Feet on the 

Street,’’ which is designed specifically 

to reach out to young African-American 

and Hispanic respondents in Arbitron 

PPM panels to help them improve their 

use of the meters. If such a respondent 

has not demonstrated good habits of 

carrying the meter within the first eight 

days of being on a PPM panel, a 

bilingual Arbitron representative will 

meet with him in person within his first 

28 days on the panel, attempt to show 

him how to use the meter, and provide 

incentives to use the meter properly. 

Arbitron states that the program is 

scheduled to have bilingual 

representatives ‘‘knocking on the doors’’ 

of newly-recruited Hispanics and 

African-Americans aged 18–34 in the 

top ten PPM markets by the end of April 

2009. Arbitron reported that the 

program’s pilot tests in April 2008 in 

New York and Philadelphia resulted in 

double digit gains in the in-tab rates of 

young African-Americans and Hispanics 

and a decreased turnover rate. Arbitron 

therefore anticipates that the program 

will improve the representation of these 

groups on its PPM panels. 

18. Discussion and Request for 

Comment: Broadcasters, particularly 

minority broadcasters, have raised 

serious concerns that the PPM 

methodology is flawed and that its 

undercounting of minority audiences 

will harm diversity and competition by 

harming the revenues of minority and 

urban-formatted broadcasters. National 

Association of Black Owned 

Broadcasters (‘‘NABOB’’) Executive 

Director James L. Winston, in testimony 

at the Commission en banc hearing, 

indicated that the financial well-being 

of minority owned stations is dependent 

on their ability to generate advertising 

revenue based on audience shares, as 

measured by Arbitron. According to 

Winston, the PPM methodology is 

critically flawed, resulting in a bias 

against reporting of minority audiences 

and potentially jeopardizing the 

viability of minority stations. 

Specifically, Winston pointed to PPM 

test data from New York, Chicago, and 

Los Angeles that revealed a decline in 

average quarter hour (AQH) ratings and 

market rank for virtually all of the 

stations serving African-American and 

Hispanic communities. According to 

Winston, some of the concerns with the 

PPM are attributable to Arbitron’s 

deficiencies in the recruitment, 

retention, and participation of young 

African-Americans and Hispanics in the 

sample panel. In addition, NABOB 

asserts that MRC’s PPM accreditation 

process may have uncovered additional 

factors that impact the reliability of the 

ratings computed for minority-owned 

broadcast stations. 

19. We seek comment and empirical 

evidence with respect to the PPM 

methodology and its effect on minority 

and urban-formatted station revenues in 

markets where PPMs are currently being 

used. Commenters should describe any 

changes or projected changes in 

program service to their local 

communities as a result of lowered 

advertising sales revenue based on a 

decline in audience ratings as measured 

by PPMs. What has been the experience 

in other radio markets where the PPM 

methodology is being used? Do PPMs 

measure active and sporadic listening in 

the same manner and, if not, what 

impact does the difference in treatment 

have on ratings? Are these concerns that 

the Commission can or should address? 

20. We also seek information 

concerning Arbitron’s sampling 

methods to determine the impact on the 

radio market of commercialization of 

PPMs, particularly with respect to the 

shift to collecting audience data by 

PPMs rather than by diaries. 

Broadcasters and others have raised 

concerns that the samples for the 

electronic data collection may produce 

inaccurate estimates, particularly in 

some demographic groups and in 

certain states like New Jersey. Arbitron, 

on the other hand, defends the PPM 

methodology, asserting that the 

sampling approaches used for PPMs and 

diaries are essentially the same. Further, 

as noted above, Arbitron has claimed 

that the PPM methodology is superior to 

diary ratings in measuring listening. We 

have a strong interest in encouraging 

technological innovation and do not 

wish to inhibit the introduction of a 

new methodology that represents a 

significant improvement. Accordingly, 

we invite comment as to whether the 

PPM methodology produces ratings that 

are more accurate than diary ratings. 

21. Reliable audience ratings are 

important to determine critical 

demographic information about 

listeners, which radio stations compete 

for the same listeners, and how many 

listeners each radio station attracts 

according to specific demographic 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 26239 

characteristics. This information is used 

by stations and potential advertisers to 

develop station-specific advertising 

strategies. With these concerns in mind, 

we seek comment on the issues raised 

regarding Arbitron’s sampling, 

particularly samples selected for 

deployment of PPMs. Specifically we 

seek comment on the issues raised in 

several analyses of the implementation 

of PPMs in Houston, Philadelphia, New 

York, and any other markets in which 

PPMs are being used. We seek comment 

on allegations that the sampling 

methodology undercounts and 

misrepresents audience sizes, 

particularly minority audiences. Are 

these allegations valid? If so, we seek 

comment on means that could be 

employed to correct the problems to 

ensure that the reported audience 

ratings accurately reflect actual 

listening. We also seek comment on the 

difference in ratings between markets 

where an address database was used to 

select the sample and markets where 

samples were chosen using telephonebased surveys. Could ratings changes 

have resulted from a flawed sample 

selection process? Are cell-phone-only 

households underrepresented, as some 

allege, and if so, what is the effect of the 

alleged undersampling of cell-phoneonly households? Does this skew the 

results and, if so, how? Is there a 

disparity, as PPMC alleges, between 

minority and non-minority groups in 

terms of cell-phone-only usage, and if 

so, to what extent? Commenters are 

invited to provide statistics on current 

cell-phone-only use in the United 

States. How should we assess Arbitron’s 

level of cell-phone-only households in 

its panel samples in comparison to these 

statistics? What changes could be made 

to improve sample selection to deal 

with alleged problems? We seek 

comment on the suggestion of an 

Arbitron executive that differential 

compensation between demographic 

groups could be useful to improve the 

size of underrepresented demographic 

groups. We further seek comment on the 

likely difference in results between the 

diary and PPM sampling methods, such 

as the effect of the alleged 

undersampling of demographic 

subgroups on the resulting ratings data 

and the ability to determine the 

audience of radio stations targeting 

specific demographic groups (e.g., 

African-American women ages 18–34). 

We also request comment on allegations 

that PPM response rates are below 

suggested averages and that Arbitron’s 

failure to raise the average response rate 

is a factor in its failure to receive 

accreditation for the PPM surveys. What 

could be done, and what is being done, 

to increase response rates? The PPMC 

observes that ratings by zip code are 

important for programming and sales 

operations, and also notes that country 

of origin is often a significant factor in 

format selection for Spanish radio. We 

seek comment on the lack of zip code 

and country of origin data to accompany 

PPM ratings. Will this impair stations’ 

and advertisers’ ability to assess the 

accuracy of the results? We also seek 

comment on the collection of data on 

listeners aged 6 to 11 years old and 

whether the sample from this age range 

should be reallocated to the 12 and over 

age groups. 

22. We note that Arbitron has reached 

settlements regarding its PPM 

methodologies in New York, New Jersey 

and Maryland, has adopted 

improvements to the methodology, and 

has committed to continuing to improve 

its PPM methodology. Have these 

improvements resolved the problems in 

whole or in part? Are the commitments 

made by Arbitron to improve the PPM 

methodology in the settlement markets 

and voluntarily in others sufficient to 

cure the problems cited by commenters? 

Are these improvements consistent with 

MRC’s standards for accreditation? 

23. Finally, we seek comment on the 

importance and adequacy of MRC 

accreditation in ensuring the integrity of 

the sampling methodology and the 

resulting audience measurements. We 

also seek information on the status of 

Arbitron’s MRC accreditation 

applications and any objections, 

problems or concerns that have been 

raised regarding them. 

24. Use of Arbitron Data by the 

Commission: The Commission’s local 

multiple ownership rules limit the 

number of radio and television stations 

one entity may own in a local market, 

and they also limit the cross-ownership 

of radio stations, television stations and/ 

or newspapers in the same geographic 

market. See 47 CFR 73.3555. The local 

radio ownership rule limits the number 

of radio stations one entity can own 

within a local radio market. See 47 CFR 

73.3555(a). The Commission must 

define a radio market in order to 

determine whether license transfers, 

mergers and acquisitions comply with 

the numerical limits of the local radio 

ownership rule. The Commission relies 

on radio Metro markets, defined by 

Arbitron, to determine compliance for 

stations located within, or garnering 

sufficient listeners located within, the 

geographically defined Arbitron radio 

Metro markets. 2002 Biennial 

Regulatory Review—Review of the 

Commission’s Broadcast Ownership 

Rules and Other Rules Adopted 

Pursuant to Section 202 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, 68 FR 

46286, 46308 (2003), aff’d in part and 

remanded in part, Prometheus, 373 F.3d 

at 435, stay modified on rehearing, No. 

03–3388 (3d Cir. Sept. 3, 2004), cert. 

denied, 545 U.S. 1123 (2005). For 

markets geographically outside 

Arbitron-defined Metros, the 

Commission relies on signal contours to 

determine compliance. As described 

earlier, Arbitron’s delineation of radio 

markets, which is based on its audience 

measurement data, is the industry 

standard. 

25. How do the concerns regarding 

the reliability of the PPM methodology 

implicate the Commission’s use of 

Arbitron data in reviewing transactions 

to determine compliance with the 

Commission’s broadcast ownership 

rules? Do the alleged declines in 

audience ratings for some stations when 

PPMs are utilized impact radio market 

definitions or Arbitron’s designation of 

radio Metro markets? Do issues 

regarding the reliability of Arbitron’s 

PPMs raise concerns about the 

Commission’s reliance on Arbitron 

radio markets to determine compliance 

with the Commission’s local ownership 

rules? Are there any other more reliable 

data available on which the Commission 

should rely? 

26. In addition, the Commission relies 

on the information produced by 

Arbitron to fulfill its statutory obligation 

to evaluate the continued necessity of 

its local radio ownership rule as well as 

the cross-ownership rules. The 

Commission is statutorily required to 

quadrennially review its multiple 

ownership rules to determine whether 

the rules remain necessary in the public 

interest. The Commission is required to 

repeal or modify any regulation it 

determines to be no longer in the public 

interest. In past reviews, the 

Commission has evaluated the 

performance of media markets as part of 

its effort to determine whether the 

multiple ownership rules remain 

necessary in the public interest. 

Commenters are asked to address the 

integrity of future Commission analyses 

or trend reporting using Arbitron data 

derived from PPM measurements. 

Would the Commission’s use of 

Arbitron data based on PPM data affect 

its policies and rules regarding media 

ownership, ownership diversity, and 

competition? If so, how would use of 

PPM data impact the reliability of 

Commission analysis and decisionmaking? Should licensees be able to rely 

on ratings obtained through the use of 

PPM methodology for Commission 

purposes, such as in demonstrating 

compliance with local ownership rules 

26240 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 

in transfer and assignment applications? 

Should MRC accreditation be required 

before licensees can rely on PPM 

methodology in filings with the 

Commission? 

27. Commission Action: PPMC 

supports its argument for Commission 

jurisdiction in this matter by noting that 

the Commission relies upon the 

accuracy of Arbitron’s market 

definitions as a central component of its 

multiple ownership analysis. PPMC 

contends that the Commission has 

ample authority to seek information 

about the validity and accuracy of 

Arbitron’s ratings data that may 

potentially affect the formulation of the 

Commission’s own rules and 

regulations. PPMC asserts that Section 

403 provides the Commission authority 

to conduct an investigation into PPMs. 

Arbitron opposes this investigation, 

stating that the Commission lacks 

jurisdiction and relevant expertise and 

cannot address the role of advertisers 

and the impact of their decisions 

regarding the stations on which they 

decide to purchase advertising time. 

Bonneville International Corporation 

and other broadcasters support 

Arbitron’s position that the Commission 

lacks jurisdiction to review PPMC’s 

claims and initiate an inquiry. 

28. Commenters that advocate 

particular actions should specifically 

address the Commission’s statutory 

authority to take such actions. Does the 

Commission have jurisdiction to require 

the submission of information 

concerning PPM methodology or to 

regulate PPM methodology? If so, what 

is the basis of that jurisdiction? Is the 

Commission’s reliance in its rules and 

procedures on Arbitron ratings data and 

market definitions a sufficient basis to 

require submission of the data necessary 

to evaluate their reliability? Does the 

impact of Arbitron ratings data on 

diversity and competition in the radio 

industry, which the Commission is 

charged with fostering, provide a basis 

for the Commission to require 

submission of information concerning 

the new ratings methodology or to take 

other action? Is the operation of PPMs 

so intertwined with a type of 

broadcasting transmission that the 

Commission’s jurisdiction extends to 

this matter? Arbitron provides 

participating broadcasters encoding 

equipment at no cost, which 

broadcasters use to embed a unique 

inaudible code into their audio signals. 

The PPMs receive and record these 

codes. Does the transmission of encoded 

broadcast signals to Arbitron’s PPMs, 

made possible with Arbitron’s encoding 

equipment, bring the operation and use 

of PPMs under the Commission’s 

oversight? If so, what statutory 

provisions would govern the 

Commission’s jurisdiction over PPMs? 

29. If the Commission has jurisdiction 

over this matter, we also seek comment 

on the specific actions, if any, the 

Commission should take in response to 

the information it receives in this 

investigation. Should the Commission 

modify its own reliance on Arbitron 

market data in applying its multiple 

ownership rules if it determines that 

PPM data are unreliable? Commenters 

are also invited to suggest any steps that 

they believe would be useful in the 

conduct of the Commission’s 

investigation. 

30. Comment Filing Procedures: 

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, 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. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• 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. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the Web site 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 email 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. 

• 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 messengerdelivered 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 a.m. to 7 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. 

31. People with Disabilities: To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 

32. Comments and reply comments 

will be available for public inspection 

during regular business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., CY–A257, Washington, DC 

20554. These documents will also be 

available via ECFS. Documents will be 

available electronically in ASCII, Word 

97, and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

33. Ex Parte Information: The NOI is 

an exempt proceeding. Ex parte 

presentations regarding the issues 

addressed in the NOI are permitted, 

except during the Sunshine Agenda 

period, and need not be disclosed. See 

47 CFR 1.1204(b)(1). 

34. The Media Bureau contact is Julie 

Salovaara at (202) 418–0783. Press 

inquiries should be directed to David 

Fiske at (202) 418–0513. 

35. Ordering Clauses: Accordingly, it 

is ordered, pursuant to the authority 

contained in Sections 1, 4(i) & (j), and 

403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

47 U.S.C 151, 154(i) & (j), and 403, that 

this Notice of Inquiry is adopted. 

36. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Inquiry, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Notices 26241 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–12638 Filed 5–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting; FCC To Hold 

Open Commission Meeting 

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 

The Federal Communications 

Commission will hold an Open Meeting 

on Wednesday, June 3, 2009, which is 

scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. in 

Room TW–C305, at 445 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC. 

• The meeting will include 

presentations and discussion by agency 

officials as well as industry, consumer 

groups and others involved in the 

Digital Television Transition. A list of 

presenters will be released prior to the 

meeting. 

• Congress has set June 12, 2009, as 

the deadline for terminating full-power 

analog television broadcasting in the 

United States. The purpose of the 

meeting is to educate and inform the 

Commission and the public about the 

final preparations for the digital 

television transition, including the 

availability of consumer support and 

hands-on assistance for those who may 

need it. 

The meeting site is fully accessible to 

people using wheelchairs or other 

mobility aids. Sign language 

interpreters, open captioning, and 

assistive listening devices will be 

provided on site. Other reasonable 

accommodations for people with 

disabilities are available upon request. 

Include a description of the 

accommodation you will need. Also 

include a way we can contact you if we 

need more information. Last minute 

requests will be accepted, but may be 

impossible to fill. Send an e-mail to: 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 

Additional information concerning 

this meeting may be obtained from 

Audrey Spivack or David Fiske, Office 

of Media Relations, (202) 418–0500; 

TTY 1–888–835–5322. Audio/Video 

coverage of the meeting will be 

broadcast live with open captioning 

over the Internet from the FCC’s Audio/ 

Video Events Web page at http:// 

www.fcc.gov/realaudio. 

For a fee this meeting can be viewed 

live over George Mason University’s 

Capitol Connection. The Capitol 

Connection also will carry the meeting 

live via the Internet. To purchase these 

services call (703) 993–3100 or go to 

http://www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu. 

Copies of materials adopted at this 

meeting can be purchased from the 

FCC’s duplicating contractor, Best Copy 

and Printing, Inc. (202) 488–5300; Fax 

(202) 488–5563; TTY (202) 488–5562. 

These copies are available in paper 

format and alternative media, including 

large print/type; digital disk; and audio 

and video tape. Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc. may be reached by e-mail at 

FCC@BCPIWEB.com. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–12771 Filed 5–28–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Notice of a Matter To Be Added to the 

Agenda for Consideration at an 

Agency Meeting 

Pursuant to the provisions of the 

‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 

U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that 

the following matter will be added to 

the ‘‘summary agenda’’ for 

consideration at the open meeting of the 

Board of Directors of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation 

scheduled to be held at 10 a.m. on 

Friday, May 29, 2009, in the Board 

Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC 

Building located at 550—17th Street, 

NW., Washington, DC: 

Memorandum and resolutions re: 

Honoring Employees with 35 Years of 

Federal Service. 

This Board meeting will be Webcast 

live via the Internet and subsequently 

made available on-demand 

approximately one week after the event. 

Visit http://www.vodium.com/goto/fdic/ 

boardmeetings.asp to view the event. If 

you need any technical assistance, 

please visit our Video Help page at: 

http://www.fdic.gov/video.html. 

The FDIC will provide attendees with 

auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language 

interpretation) required for this meeting. 

Those attendees needing such assistance 

should call (703) 562–6067 (Voice or 

TTY), to make necessary arrangements. 

Requests for further information 

concerning the meeting may be directed 

to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive 

Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 

898–7043. 

Dated: May 28, 2009. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–12731 Filed 5–28–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

[OMB Control No. 3090–0112] 

Submission for OMB Review; Federal 

Management Regulation; GSA Form 

3040, State Agency Monthly Donation 

Report of Surplus Property 

AGENCY: Federal Acquisition Service, 

GSA. 

ACTION: Notice of request for comments 

regarding a renewal to an existing OMB 

clearance. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the General Services 

Administration will be submitting to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) a request to review and approve 

an extension of a currently approved 

information collection requirement 

regarding GSA Form 3040, State Agency 

Monthly Donation Report of Surplus 

Property. The clearance currently 

expires on July 31, 2009. 

Public comments are particularly 

invited on: Whether this collection of 

information is necessary and whether it 

will have practical utility; whether our 

estimate of the public burden of this 

collection of information is accurate and 

based on valid assumptions and 

methodology; and ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before: 

July 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Spalding, Federal Acquisition 

Service, GSA at telephone (703) 605– 

2888 or via e-mail to 

joyce.spalding@gsa.gov. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding 

this burden estimate or any other aspect 

of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing this 

burden to the Regulatory Secretariat 

(VPR), General Services Administration, 

1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, 

Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB 

Control No. 3090–0112, GSA Form 

3040, State Agency Monthly Donation 

Report of Surplus Personal Property, in 

all correspondence. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Purpose 

This report complies with Public Law 

94–519, which requires annual reports