Opinion ID: 220512
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The FNPR in 2006 and Second FNPR in 2007

Text: As discussed above, the Commission issued its FNPR in 2006, approximately two years after our remand in Prometheus I. The two Commissioners who dissented in part from the order adopting the FNPR lamented its failure to discuss proposals to foster minority and female ownership. [33] Shortly thereafter, in August 2006, the Diversity and Competition Supporters (DCS) filed a motion for withdrawal of the 2006 FNPR and issuance of a revised FNPR. See DCS, Motion for Withdrawal of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and for the Issuance of a Revised Further Notice (Aug. 23, 2006) (the DCS Motion). The DCS Motion argued that, among other failings, the FNPR lacked discussion of the MMTC Proposals and the SDB definition that our Prometheus I decision stated the Commission should consider during the course of its next rulemaking. One year later, the FCC issued a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPR) focused on minority and female ownership issues. 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, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 F.C.C.R. 14215, 2007 WL 2212878 (Aug. 1, 2007). The Second FNPR acknowledged the DCS Motion and agreed to set forth in greater detail the MMTC Proposals. Id. at ¶ 2. [34] It also recognized the DCS's argument that the concept of SDBs is central to most of the minority ownership initiatives proposed in the 2002 biennial review proceeding, and without a definition for SDBs, the Commission cannot effectively evaluate the existing small business cluster transfer policy or its other proposals, as remanded by the Prometheus court. Id. at ¶ 7. Further, the Second FNPR noted the contention that the SDB definition has already been fully briefed in the Commission's proceeding examining market entry barriers, in which public comment was solicited on constitutionally permissible ways to further the [Commission's ownership-diversity related] mandates.... Id. at ¶ 8 (citing § 257 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(b)). However, it did not provide descriptions of any existing proposals for SDB definitions (as it did for the MMTC Proposals) or discuss the Commission's analysis of existing briefing on those proposals' constitutionality or efficacy. Instead, it merely called for general comment on MMTC's proposal that the Commission define SDBs for purposes of analyzing policy initiatives in support of media ownership diversity. Id. at ¶ 9. [35] Finally, the Second FNPR sought comment on the extent to which the FSSR or another construction of the rule could promote minority and female ownership; on how proposals regarding minority and female ownership would satisfy constitutional standards in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200, 115 S.Ct. 2097, 132 L.Ed.2d 158 (1995); [36] and on the Commission's statutory authority to address issues of minority and female ownership. Second FNPR ¶¶ 12, 13, 14. Several of the FCC-commissioned economic research studies on media ownership, discussed above in regard to notice of the NBCO rule, attempted to address minority and female ownership issues. However, as the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded, all the researchers (and the peer reviewers) agree that the FCC's databases on minority and female ownership are inaccurate and incomplete and their use for policy analysis would be fraught with risk. CRS Report at 54. The CRS Report noted that the FCC would have difficulty complying with our remand with its existing data. In its Prometheus decision, the Third Circuit instructed the FCC to consider the impact of changes in its media ownership rules on minority ownership. Without accurate data on minority (and female) ownership, it is impossible to perform such analysis. Id. at 55. [37]