Opinion ID: 220512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Diversity Order and Third FNPR in 2008

Text: The Commission's 2008 Order reinstated the FSSR as a component of the local television rule. 2008 Order ¶¶ 105, 109 (reinstating the rule and granting petitions for reconsideration of our decision to eliminate the [FSSR]). Separately, the FCC adopted the Diversity Order. That Order adopted 13 proposals submitted during the rulemaking proceeding, with modifications, and rejected 10 other proposals. See Diversity Order ¶¶ 10-79. It also sought comment on nine additional proposals in the attached Third FNPR. Id. at ¶¶ 80-101. The majority of the adopted proposals use the same eligible entity definition we anticipated would change in Prometheus I. The Commission did not consider proposed SDB definitions, but sought further comment on whether we can or should expand the eligible entity definition. Id. at ¶ 80. Most of the proposals adopted in the Diversity Order are designed to expand opportunities for eligible entities, as defined by the SBA standards for industry groupings based on revenue. [38] Others include a zero tolerance policy for ownership fraud and a ban on discrimination in broadcast transactions, the latter of which requires broadcasters to certify that they did not discriminate when selling a station. In other words, the proposals that the FCC adopted are either targeted at small businesses as such, or reinforce existing prohibitions against discrimination. The Commission rejected 10 sets of proposals advocated by DCS and Rainbow/Push Coalition. Id. at ¶¶ 65-79. It did not address proposals offering race-and gender-neutral means to increase opportunities for minority and female ownership put forward by UCC and Free Press. [39] It also did not consider multiple proposals before it that urged use of non-revenue based definitions of eligible entities, such as SDBs. The Commission offered a constitutional avoidance rationale to justify limiting its consideration of eligible entity definitions, essentially arguing that it was sensible to avoid constitutional difficulties that might create impediments to the timely implementation of its new rules, even though the constitutional issue had already been the subject of two rounds of notice and comment. Id. at ¶ 9. Instead, as noted, the attached Third FNPR sought comment once again regarding these proposals. Id. (seeking comment on whether [the FCC] should adopt an alternative definition of `eligible entity' that would specifically identify [minorities and women]). Commissioners Copps and Adelstein both concurred in part and dissented in part from the Diversity Order. Their dissents emphasized: (1) the poor and worsening state of minority and female ownership, Copps, Diversity Order Dissent in Part, 23 F.C.C.R at 5982 (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.); (2) the Commission's lack of data and failure to make efforts to collect the data required for informed policy-making in this area, id. at 5983 (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.... [W]e don't even know how many minority and female owners there are....); (3) the Commission's slowness regarding the issue of diversifying broadcast ownership despite its statutory mandate to do so, Adelstein, Diversity Order Dissent in Part, 23 F.C.C.R at 5986; (4) its failure to consider proposals that address minority and female ownership directly (such as those using non-revenue based definitions of eligible entities), id. at 5986-88; (5) the unsupported eligible entity definition adopted, id. at 5987; and (6) the Commission's failure to consider the potential harms the Diversity Order might have on the groups it purports to help, id.