Media Bureau Invites Comments on Study Submitted by the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council in 2010 Quadrennial Review of Broadcast Ownership Rules, 38331-38335 [2013-15166]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Notices
‘‘Informal Complaints and Inquiries,’’ in
the Federal Register on December 15,
2009 (74 FR 66356), which became
effective on January 25, 2010.
Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes. The
Privacy Impact Assessment was
completed on June 28, 2007. It may be
reviewed at: https://www.fcc.gov/omd/
privacyact/
Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html. The
Commission is in the process of
updating the PIA to incorporate various
revisions to it as a result of revisions to
the SORN.
Needs and Uses: The reporting
requirements included under this OMB
Control Number 3060–1078 enable the
Commission to collect information
regarding violations of the Controlling
the Assault of Non-Solicited
Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003
(CAN–SPAM Act). This information is
used to help wireless subscribers stop
receiving unwanted commercial mobile
services messages.
On August 12, 2004, the Commission
released an Order, Rules and
Regulations Implementing the
Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited
Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003,
CG Docket No. 04–53, FCC 04–194,
published at 69 FR 55765, September
16, 2004, adopting rules to prohibit the
sending of commercial messages to any
address referencing an Internet domain
name associated with wireless
subscribers’ messaging services, unless
the individual addressee has given the
sender express prior authorization. The
information collection requirements
consist of 47 CFR 64.3100(a)(4), (d), (e)
and (f) of the Commission’s rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of
Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2013–15207 Filed 6–25–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[MB Docket No. 09–182; MB Docket No. 07–
294; DA–13–1317]
Media Bureau Invites Comments on
Study Submitted by the Minority Media
and Telecommunications Council in
2010 Quadrennial Review of Broadcast
Ownership Rules
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This document seeks
comment on a May 30, 2013, study from
the Minority Media and
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:26 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
Telecommunications Council (MMTC)
titled The Impact of Cross Media
Ownership on Minority/Women Owned
Broadcast Stations (the Study) in the
above referenced dockets.
DATES: Interested parties may file
comments on or before July 22, 2013,
and reply comments on or before
August 6, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Benjamin Arden, Media Bureau, at (202)
418–2330 or email at
Benjamin.Arden@fcc.gov, or Brendan
Holland, Media Bureau, at (202) 418–
2330 or email at
Brendan.Holland@fcc.gov.
The
complete text of the document is
available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20554, and may
also be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, BCPI,
Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20054. Customers may
contact BCPI, Inc. at their Web site
https://www.bcpi.com or call 1–800–
378–3160.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Summary of the Public Notice
1. On May 30, 2013, the Minority
Media and Telecommunications
Council (MMTC) submitted a study by
Fratrik, Dr. Mark R., Vice President and
Chief Economist, BIA/Kelsey, entitled
The Impact of Cross Media Ownership
on Minority/Women Owned Broadcast
Stations (the Study) in the abovereferenced dockets. According to
MMTC, the Study examines whether,
and to what extent, cross-ownership
might have a material adverse impact on
minority and women ownership of
commercial broadcast stations. MMTC
suggests that the Commission seek
public comment regarding the extent to
which the Study may or should be
relied on by the Commission in the
ongoing media ownership and diversity
proceedings.
2. The Media Bureau invites public
comment on the Study from interested
parties. The complete text of the Study
dated May 30, 2013, is as follows:
The Impact of Cross Media Ownership
on Minority/Women Owned Broadcast
Stations
Mark R. Fratrik, Ph.D., Vice President,
Chief Economist, BIA/Kelsey 1
1 This report was underwritten by a grant from
the Minority Media and Telecommunications
Council (MMTC). The author is appreciative of the
survey design and evaluation guidance received
from MMTC’s volunteer peer reviewers—Dr.
Jannette Dates, Dean Emerita, School of
Communications, Howard University; Dr. Philip
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38331
May 30, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...............................
Introduction ...........................................
Procedure ...............................................
Results ....................................................
Competition in the Local Market .........
Provision of News and Information
and Challenges ...................................
Conclusion .............................................
Appendix A—Survey Questionnaire ....
i
1
2
5
5
8
9
12
The Impact of Cross Media Ownership
on Minority/Women Owned Broadcast
Stations
Executive Summary
3. The marketplace in which local
radio and television stations, as well as
local newspapers has changed quite
dramatically in the past few years.
Competition for audiences as well as for
local advertisers has noticeably
increased. At the same time, these
traditional media are still important
players in the advertising marketplace
and the provision of news and
entertainment to their local
communities.
4. The regulations governing the
ownership of these traditional media
have changed too, though the ban on
broadcast-newspaper local ownership is
still in place. Many analysts have
examined the continuance of that ban
and relaxing other local broadcast
ownership rules on the impact on
competition and the provision of
diverse viewpoints. There has not been
any specific study on the impact of
relaxing these local cross-ownership
rules on the impact on minority and/or
women owned broadcasters.
5. In this study we focus in on that
research question—whether the
existence of a commonly owned crossmedia operation has a disparate impact
on minority and/or women owned
broadcast stations. Specifically, we
surveyed both minority and/or women
owned broadcast stations in markets
with cross-media operations along with
non-minority/non-women owned
broadcast stations in the same markets.
In that survey we asked respondents in
several different ways to offer their
views on the importance of these local
cross-media operations. We wanted to
see if there was a difference in the
responses of the two groups of stations
of these cross-media operations.
Napoli, Professor of Communication and Media
Management at the Fordham Schools of Business
and Director of the university’s Donald McGannon
Communication Research Center; and Allen
Hammond, Esq., Associate Dean for Faculty
Development, Phil and Bobbie Sanfilippo Chair and
Professor of Law, and Director of the Broadband
Institute of California, Santa Clara University
School of Law.
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
38332
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Notices
6. While we would have preferred to
have received more responses, we
believe that the responses that we did
receive indicated there is no difference
in the views of the two groups of
stations towards the impact of these
cross-media operations. We were struck
by the lack of any large concern by
almost all of the respondents to these
cross-media operations. Several times in
the questionnaire we provided
opportunities for the responding
stations in both groups to offer those
operations as answers. What was
provided as answers are general
business concerns that all radio and
television stations have in all markets—
strong broadcast station competitors
especially in the genre of programming
they provide and the emergence of new
competitors from new sources. The only
responses expressed regarding the
impact of cross-media combinations
were expressed by all three respondents
in a medium market in which the daily
newspaper is affiliated with a full power
television station and local radio
stations.
7. There may be sound justifications
relating to overall viewpoint diversity,
localism, or competition for why the
cross-ownership rules should or should
not be changed. However, it appears
from this study that cross-media
interests’ impact on minority and
women broadcast ownership is not
sufficiently material to be a material
justification for tightening or retaining
the rules.
The Impact of Cross Media Ownership
on Minority/Women Owned Broadcast
Stations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Introduction
8. Today’s media marketplace is
noticeably different than it was forty
years ago. Consumers have access to
many different sources of information
and entertainment. Advertisers have
many different options to reach their
potential customers with their
advertising messages. Included in those
choices for both consumers and
advertisers are local radio and television
stations and daily and weekly
newspapers. These local broadcast
stations and newspapers still are
important components of providing
program and informational diversity.
9. During these last forty years, the
prohibitions on the ownership of locally
owned daily newspapers and local
broadcast stations have remained in
place, and some limited restrictions on
ownership of local radio and television
stations are also still in place. Yet, due
to grandfathering of certain local
newspaper-broadcast and permissible
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:26 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
local radio-television operations, there
are several local commonly owned
cross-media operations. The impact of
these established local cross-media
operations have been studied
extensively in the debate on whether
these cross-media restrictions should be
left unchanged, tightened, relaxed or
eliminated.
10. One area that has not been studied
as extensively has been the impact of
these locally cross-media owned
operations on other local stations owned
by minority and/or women. One
bedrock principle of communications
policy has been to promote diverse
ownership of broadcast stations to try to
promote diversity in viewpoint and
programming. If the impact of
commonly owned local cross-media
operations adversely and especially
affects broadcast stations owned by
minority and/or women, then relaxing
these local ownership rules may have a
negative impact on promoting diversity
in ownership.
11. In this study we attempted to
begin to answer that question.
Specifically, we tried to survey stations
owned or formerly owned by minority
and/or women in markets where there
was a commonly owned local crossmedia operation. Our research question
was simply to determine whether there
was a disparate impact on these women/
minority stations, we also attempted to
survey stations in those same markets
that were not owned by minority or
women. Questions were asked about the
level of competition and the provision
of news and information in these local
markets.2
12. Before discussing the actual
results of the survey, it is important to
highlight the limitations of this study’s
results. This study was not a
comprehensive examination of all of the
women and/or minority owned stations
in all of the markets in which a
commonly owned cross-media
operation is present. Additionally, FCC
and public interest groups’ economists
agree that the number of these instances
is not large enough to conduct a random
sample study to elicit generalizable
results. On the other hand, what can be
determined through this procedure is a
reasonably clear sense of whether there
is a material difference in the impact of
these commonly owned local cross
media operations. Of course, specific
instances might be present that
contradict these findings, but the results
can provide some indications of
whether there is an adverse or,
especially, a disparate impact on these
minority/women owned broadcasters.
2 The
PO 00000
questionnaire is included in Appendix A.
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Procedure
13. In order to conduct the survey we
first had to designate the women and/
or minority owned broadcasters. The
FCC has provided the race/gender
ownership status of radio and television
stations by station type (e.g., AM
station). Utilizing those lists with the
BIA/Kelsey Media Access ProTM
database of all broadcast stations and
local daily newspapers, we were able to
determine the individual markets in
which all of these stations reside.3
14. Once we determined the market in
which these stations are located, we
then determined using the Media
Access ProTM database which stations
are located in markets where a
commonly owned cross-media
operation exist. Minority and/or women
owned stations were selected that were
located in those markets in which there
were either a commonly owned
grandfathered radio/newspaper,
grandfathered television/newspaper, or
radio/television operation. Additional
minority and/or women owned stations
that were located in markets in which
there were none of these commonly
owned cross-media operations were also
selected to act as a super-control group.
15. In all of these markets—with or
without a commonly owned crossmedia operation—additional stations
were selected that were not owned by a
woman or minority to be contacted.
Care was taken to select non-minority/
non-women owned broadcast stations to
reflect stations that are part of large
broadcast groups and those that are not.
With this non-minority/non-women
owned group we could compare their
responses with the responses of women
and/or minority owned broadcast
stations in the same market and see
whether there was a material difference
in the impact of the cross-media
operations.
16. These stations were initially
individually contacted via email from
the study’s author alerting them of this
study and that someone would be
calling them to ask them questions
concerning the competitiveness of their
local radio or television market. Soon
after that email those phone calls were
made. To increase the number of
responses, we subsequently sent an
email with a link to an online survey
questionnaire, with a promise of an
online gift card if the survey was
completed. All respondents were
3 BIA/Kelsey maintains a comprehensive database
in its Media Access ProTM service of all commercial
and noncommercial radio and television stations, as
well as all daily and weekly newspapers. That
database is updated daily to reflect personnel,
technical, and ownership changes.
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
guaranteed confidentiality of their
responses and that we were only going
to report on the general trends of all
respondents.
17. In total we obtained information
from 14 local broadcast operations—13
of which represent 31 stations in those
markets, along with information from a
principal of a minority owned station
that had exited a market in which there
was a commonly-owned cross-media
operation.4 More responses would have
been preferred and repeated attempts
were made to induce responses from all
that were contacted. Nevertheless, we
think that the information obtained from
this group of 14 respondents is
sufficiently compelling and
unambiguous to help answer the
question of whether there is a disparate
or adverse impact of commonly owned,
local cross-media operations on
minority or women owned broadcasters.
18. Included in the eight-question
questionnaire were questions to elicit
responses from the broadcast stations on
which they felt were the most
competitive (to them) radio or television
stations in their local markets.
Additionally, open ended questions on
the important factors and challenges
they face in selling advertising and
providing local news and information
were also asked. These general
questions were purposely raised to see
if the responding stations would cite the
local commonly owned, cross-media
operation in their answers. Further, we
were curious to see if the respondents
from minority and/or women owned
stations would mention the commonly
owned, cross-media operation more
frequently in their responses to these
questions than responses from the other
group of stations.5
19. To supplement the questions on
present direct competitors, other
questions were included to draw out
these stations’ perceptions on the
4 Among the fourteen respondents, eight were
from minority or women-owned companies and six
were from nonminority-men owned companies.
Among the eight respondents from minority or
women-owned companies, five were from group
owners, and four operated stations (within a group
or otherwise) that were single stations in their
markets. Among the six respondents from
nonminority-men owned companies, three were
from group owners, and one operated a station
(within a group or otherwise) that was a single
station in its market.
5 In the survey research literature this procedure
is referred to unaided recall, allowing the
respondent to offer those points without any
prompting. If the respondents do cite these issues
as important without any prompting, then one can
easily conclude as to its importance. All of the
respondents were general managers and thus may
be assumed to be familiar, for unaided recall
purposes, with the factors that might impact their
stations’ programming, operations and competitive
success.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:26 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
changes in competition from possibly
other sources. Finally, questions were
asked on the provision of news and
information and what challenges are
faced in providing news and
information. That last general question
was asked to see if the stations felt that
the presence of a cross-media operation
made the provision of news and
information more difficult, and whether
there were any differences in the two
sets of responding stations to the
difficulty in providing news and
information.
Results
Competition in the Local Market
Present Competitors
20. The clear conclusion from the
responses to the question of which
stations are the most direct competitors
we received is simply there was no
difference in the responses from the
minority and/or women owned stations
and the other. There was one minority
and/or women owned station and two
non-minority/non-women owned
stations that mentioned the local crossmedia operation.6 All of the other
responses mentioned other radio and
television stations in their local markets,
primarily stations that provide similar
programming.
21. In identical fashion, the responses
to the question of which local station is
the dominant competitor in the market
plainly indicates that there is no
difference between the perceptions of
the two groups of respondents. Once
again, there was one minority and/or
women owned station and two nonminority/non-women owned stations
that mentioned the local cross-media
operation. All other stations indicated a
local group of radio stations or specific
stations or even other media in their
responses.
22. Supporting that conclusion were
the responses to two open-ended
questions of the important factors and
challenges they face in selling
advertising in their local markets. None
of the responses, either from the
minority and/or women owned or the
non-minority/non-women owned
stations mentioned the presence of these
cross-media operations, either directly
or indirectly. The responses for these
questions were very direct, mentioning
the levels of competition within the
media and from outside. Here are some
6 The three minority and/or women and nonminority/non-women owned broadcast stations
respondents citing the cross media operation were
in a medium market in which there was a local
combination of the only daily newspaper, a full
power television station, and radio stations.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38333
of the specific responses to those open
ended questions.
23. What are the most important
factors your station faces in regards to
selling advertising time?
• Market conditions, pricing, ratings.
• The perception of radio.
• Awareness, we are the new kids on
the block.
• It is a price war with television
combining their digital tier stations with
their main channel bringing the overall
cost lower than radio. We also have to
overcome the internet and satellite radio
objections as competition for our
audience.
• Ratings, competitors’ rates, the
overall health of the economy.
• Price. Audience.
• Audience reach.
• Other viable alternative outlets
providing my audience.
• High sales department churn; Weak
Local Sales Manager; Weak Sales
Training.
• Managing inventory with minimal
waste.
24. What challenges do you face in
selling advertising time in your local
market?
• Current economic conditions with
small business owners having enough
advertising/marketing budget to achieve
results for them.
• Retaining and hiring good qualified
salespeople.
• Too much media/advertising
available. There must be 100 items
selling as advertising.
• Slow economy and the lack of
locally owned stores.
• Tighter budgets in the face of new
platforms. Digital reduced spending by
advertising and combating annual
contracts.
• We need to educate our clients
about our format; the other radio station
in the market always dives on rates; our
clients believe they get better value in
print vs. radio.
• The economic conditions are shaky
at best.
• Advertisers to look at our medium
and value it accordingly; we are looked
as an ‘‘old medium’’.
• Businesses are still reluctant to
spend money, economy is still tight.
Radio is very competitive in this market
with a lot of stations fighting for a small
piece of the pie.
Emerging Competitors
25. Another question was asked on
what emerging competitors do they see
in their local market. Here again, we
were providing an opportunity for the
responding stations to mention the local
cross-media operation. Additionally, we
were seeing if there would be a
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
38334
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Notices
difference between the two groups of
respondents on whether the cross-media
operations are thought of as emerging
competitors.
26. The responses once again show
the lack of concern about the local cross
media operation as an emerging
competitor. Only one respondent, a nonminority/non-women owned station,
mentioned one cross media operation.
Most of the other responses mention
online/digital media companies such as
Facebook, Google, Pandora, Spotify, and
‘‘Digital platforms of all shapes and
sizes.’’ Two other respondents cited a
new network being delivered through
local television stations multicast
signals, and another respondent
mentioned another local television
station.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Provision of News and Information and
Challenges
27. As mentioned earlier, questions
on the present provision of and
challenges in providing news and
information were asked. Here again we
were attempting to see if the presence of
cross-media operations made it more
difficult for local stations to effectively
provide news and information and
whether there was a difference in the
two sets of responding stations.
28. With respect to the number of
minutes of news and information, the
answers varied from a few music radio
stations saying little or no minutes per
hour to all news stations reporting that
is their entire programming. Generally,
most of the radio stations indicated
some provision of news and
information.
29. When asked about the challenges
facing the provision of news and
information on their stations, none of
the respondents indicated the local
cross-media operation. Below are some
of the responses to that open ended
question.
30. What challenges do you face when
delivering news and information on
your station?
• Our biggest challenge is the
geographic makeup of our market,
which is 75 miles north to south and
east to west.
• Making it local.
• Competing with digital media to get
the information first. Many more players
on the digital front.
• Relative news but not too much
news.
• Current information.
• Keeping viewer attention.
• Limited staff. (1) On-air talent and
(1) producer-reporter affects our ability
to cover ‘‘breaking news’’; currently
evaluating/considering eliminating local
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:26 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
news programming due to limited
budget resources.
• Personnel to cover the news with
reduced staff sizes.
• Having appropriate staffing
numbers to cover the market.
31. Finally, we asked all respondents
what competitive media outlets (both
broadcast and non-broadcast) provide
news and information. This question
was asked to see if the local cross-media
operation would be mentioned and
whether the mentions of these
operations were different for the two
sets of responding stations. Only two
stations, both non-minority/non-women
owned stations, mentioned the local
cross-media operation. All other
respondents either mentioned specific
radio and television stations or just a
generic TV or Print. Two mentioned
Yahoo as a local media outlet while
another mentioned smartphones and
tablets as a device to provide local news
and information.
Conclusion
32. As mentioned in the introduction,
this study was not intended as a
comprehensive random sample survey
of all instances of local cross-media
operations in markets with stations
owned by minorities and/or women.
Instead, it was an attempt to solicit
information from some of those stations
about the competitive nature of local
markets and provision of news and
information from minority and/or
women owned stations in these markets,
along with non-minority/non-women
owned stations in these same markets.
In trying to obtain that information from
these two groups of stations, we were
trying to see if there was a material
difference between the two groups on
the impact of the cross-media operation.
33. Given our limited number of
responses, great care has to be taken in
reaching any conclusions. Yet, we are
struck by the lack of any large concern
by almost all of the respondents to these
cross-media operations. Several times in
the questionnaire we provide
opportunities for the responding
stations in both groups to offer those
operations as answers. What was
provided as answers are general
business concerns that all radio and
television stations have in all markets—
strong broadcast station competitors
especially in the genre of programming
they provide and the emergence of new
competitors from new sources.
34. This lack of mentions of local
cross-media operations was also present
in the questions concerning the
provision of news and information.
Answers were provided on other media
outlets providing news and information
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
involved strong stations within the local
markets as well as generic answers of an
entire media. Further, the answers to the
challenges that the stations in both
groups of respondents once again
included general business concerns on
providing programming that is
compelling to watch and the emergence
of new outlets providing such news and
information.
35. So, what we have gleaned from
the responses we did receive to our
survey is a concern about the
competitive marketplace facing radio
and television stations from stations that
are providing similar types of
programming, and other new types of
media. There was little if any mention
of the local cross-media operations,
except in a medium market where the
cross-media interests included the daily
newspaper, and a full power TV station
and radio stations. Finally, there was no
perceptible difference in the responses
of the two groups of respondents to
these issues.
36. The results of this study, while
not dispositive, do provide evidence
that the impact of cross-media
ownership on minority and women
broadcast ownership is probably
negligible. This does not mean that the
cross-media ownership rules should, or
should not, be changed. There may be
sound justifications relating to overall
viewpoint diversity, localism, or
competition why the rules should or
should not be changed. However, it
appears from this study that cross-media
interests’ impact on minority and
women broadcast ownership is not
sufficiently noticeable to station
operators on the ground to be a material
justification for tightening or retaining
the rules.
Appendix A—Survey Questionnaire
Study on Impact of Cross-Media Owned
Operations
1. What are the radio stations in your
market that you compete against most
directly? (name all that seem appropriate)
2. Besides other radio stations, what other
media outlets in your market do you compete
against?
4. Who do you consider the dominant
competitor in the local market?
5. Who do you see as an emerging
competitor in your local market?
6. What challenges do you face in selling
advertising time in your local market?
7. How many minutes per hour or hours
per day, on average Monday–Sunday, of local
news do you estimate as providing on your
station?
8. What challenges do you face in
providing news and information on your
station?
9. Who are the competitive local media
outlets (both broadcast and non-broadcast) in
providing news and information?
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
37. Procedural Matters: In the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking in the subject
proceeding, the Commission established
that the proceeding will be treated as
‘‘permit but disclose’’ for purposes of
the Commission’s ex parte rules.7 Thus,
as a result of the permit-but-disclose
status of this proceeding, ex parte
presentations will be governed by the
procedures set forth in Section 1.1206 of
the Commission’s rules applicable to
non-restricted proceedings.8 Persons
making ex parte presentations must file
a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
7 47 CFR 1.1200, 1.1206; see also 2010
Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the
Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules & Other
Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 Promoting
Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcast
Services, MB Docket No. 09–182, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17489, 17570–
71, ¶ 211 (2011).
8 47 CFR 1.1206.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:26 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
38. Comment Information: Pursuant
to §§ 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).
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/or the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
D 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 email. 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.
D 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. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
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.
D Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38335
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
D People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas Horan,
Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013–15166 Filed 6–25–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection
Request; 60-Day Public Comment
Request
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
As part of our continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, and as required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
the Federal Maritime Commission
invites comments on the continuing
information collection (extension of the
information collection with no changes)
listed below in this notice.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
August 26, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments to:
Vern W. Hill, Managing Director, Office
of the Managing Director, Federal
Maritime Commission, 800 North
Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC
20573, (Telephone: (202) 523–5800),
omd@fmc.gov. Please reference the
information collection’s title, form, and
OMB numbers (if any) in your
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
obtain additional information, copies of
the information collection and
instructions, or copies of any comments
received, contact Donna Lee,
Management Analyst, Office of the
Managing Director, Federal Maritime
Commission, 800 North Capitol Street
NW., Washington, DC 20573,
(Telephone: (202) 523–5800),
dlee@fmc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Request for Comments
The Federal Maritime Commission, as
part of its continuing effort to reduce
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38331-38335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15166]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[MB Docket No. 09-182; MB Docket No. 07-294; DA-13-1317]
Media Bureau Invites Comments on Study Submitted by the Minority
Media and Telecommunications Council in 2010 Quadrennial Review of
Broadcast Ownership Rules
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document seeks comment on a May 30, 2013, study from the
Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) titled The Impact
of Cross Media Ownership on Minority/Women Owned Broadcast Stations
(the Study) in the above referenced dockets.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before July 22, 2013,
and reply comments on or before August 6, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin Arden, Media Bureau, at (202)
418-2330 or email at Benjamin.Arden@fcc.gov, or Brendan Holland, Media
Bureau, at (202) 418-2330 or email at Brendan.Holland@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The complete text of the document is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554,
and may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, BCPI,
Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20054. Customers
may contact BCPI, Inc. at their Web site https://www.bcpi.com or call 1-
800-378-3160.
Summary of the Public Notice
1. On May 30, 2013, the Minority Media and Telecommunications
Council (MMTC) submitted a study by Fratrik, Dr. Mark R., Vice
President and Chief Economist, BIA/Kelsey, entitled The Impact of Cross
Media Ownership on Minority/Women Owned Broadcast Stations (the Study)
in the above-referenced dockets. According to MMTC, the Study examines
whether, and to what extent, cross-ownership might have a material
adverse impact on minority and women ownership of commercial broadcast
stations. MMTC suggests that the Commission seek public comment
regarding the extent to which the Study may or should be relied on by
the Commission in the ongoing media ownership and diversity
proceedings.
2. The Media Bureau invites public comment on the Study from
interested parties. The complete text of the Study dated May 30, 2013,
is as follows:
The Impact of Cross Media Ownership on Minority/Women Owned Broadcast
Stations
Mark R. Fratrik, Ph.D., Vice President, Chief Economist, BIA/Kelsey
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This report was underwritten by a grant from the Minority
Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC). The author is
appreciative of the survey design and evaluation guidance received
from MMTC's volunteer peer reviewers--Dr. Jannette Dates, Dean
Emerita, School of Communications, Howard University; Dr. Philip
Napoli, Professor of Communication and Media Management at the
Fordham Schools of Business and Director of the university's Donald
McGannon Communication Research Center; and Allen Hammond, Esq.,
Associate Dean for Faculty Development, Phil and Bobbie Sanfilippo
Chair and Professor of Law, and Director of the Broadband Institute
of California, Santa Clara University School of Law.
May 30, 2013
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................. i
Introduction....................................................... 1
Procedure.......................................................... 2
Results............................................................ 5
Competition in the Local Market.................................... 5
Provision of News and Information and Challenges................... 8
Conclusion......................................................... 9
Appendix A--Survey Questionnaire................................... 12
The Impact of Cross Media Ownership on Minority/Women Owned Broadcast
Stations
Executive Summary
3. The marketplace in which local radio and television stations, as
well as local newspapers has changed quite dramatically in the past few
years. Competition for audiences as well as for local advertisers has
noticeably increased. At the same time, these traditional media are
still important players in the advertising marketplace and the
provision of news and entertainment to their local communities.
4. The regulations governing the ownership of these traditional
media have changed too, though the ban on broadcast-newspaper local
ownership is still in place. Many analysts have examined the
continuance of that ban and relaxing other local broadcast ownership
rules on the impact on competition and the provision of diverse
viewpoints. There has not been any specific study on the impact of
relaxing these local cross-ownership rules on the impact on minority
and/or women owned broadcasters.
5. In this study we focus in on that research question--whether the
existence of a commonly owned cross-media operation has a disparate
impact on minority and/or women owned broadcast stations. Specifically,
we surveyed both minority and/or women owned broadcast stations in
markets with cross-media operations along with non-minority/non-women
owned broadcast stations in the same markets. In that survey we asked
respondents in several different ways to offer their views on the
importance of these local cross-media operations. We wanted to see if
there was a difference in the responses of the two groups of stations
of these cross-media operations.
[[Page 38332]]
6. While we would have preferred to have received more responses,
we believe that the responses that we did receive indicated there is no
difference in the views of the two groups of stations towards the
impact of these cross-media operations. We were struck by the lack of
any large concern by almost all of the respondents to these cross-media
operations. Several times in the questionnaire we provided
opportunities for the responding stations in both groups to offer those
operations as answers. What was provided as answers are general
business concerns that all radio and television stations have in all
markets--strong broadcast station competitors especially in the genre
of programming they provide and the emergence of new competitors from
new sources. The only responses expressed regarding the impact of
cross-media combinations were expressed by all three respondents in a
medium market in which the daily newspaper is affiliated with a full
power television station and local radio stations.
7. There may be sound justifications relating to overall viewpoint
diversity, localism, or competition for why the cross-ownership rules
should or should not be changed. However, it appears from this study
that cross-media interests' impact on minority and women broadcast
ownership is not sufficiently material to be a material justification
for tightening or retaining the rules.
The Impact of Cross Media Ownership on Minority/Women Owned Broadcast
Stations
Introduction
8. Today's media marketplace is noticeably different than it was
forty years ago. Consumers have access to many different sources of
information and entertainment. Advertisers have many different options
to reach their potential customers with their advertising messages.
Included in those choices for both consumers and advertisers are local
radio and television stations and daily and weekly newspapers. These
local broadcast stations and newspapers still are important components
of providing program and informational diversity.
9. During these last forty years, the prohibitions on the ownership
of locally owned daily newspapers and local broadcast stations have
remained in place, and some limited restrictions on ownership of local
radio and television stations are also still in place. Yet, due to
grandfathering of certain local newspaper-broadcast and permissible
local radio-television operations, there are several local commonly
owned cross-media operations. The impact of these established local
cross-media operations have been studied extensively in the debate on
whether these cross-media restrictions should be left unchanged,
tightened, relaxed or eliminated.
10. One area that has not been studied as extensively has been the
impact of these locally cross-media owned operations on other local
stations owned by minority and/or women. One bedrock principle of
communications policy has been to promote diverse ownership of
broadcast stations to try to promote diversity in viewpoint and
programming. If the impact of commonly owned local cross-media
operations adversely and especially affects broadcast stations owned by
minority and/or women, then relaxing these local ownership rules may
have a negative impact on promoting diversity in ownership.
11. In this study we attempted to begin to answer that question.
Specifically, we tried to survey stations owned or formerly owned by
minority and/or women in markets where there was a commonly owned local
cross-media operation. Our research question was simply to determine
whether there was a disparate impact on these women/minority stations,
we also attempted to survey stations in those same markets that were
not owned by minority or women. Questions were asked about the level of
competition and the provision of news and information in these local
markets.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The questionnaire is included in Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Before discussing the actual results of the survey, it is
important to highlight the limitations of this study's results. This
study was not a comprehensive examination of all of the women and/or
minority owned stations in all of the markets in which a commonly owned
cross-media operation is present. Additionally, FCC and public interest
groups' economists agree that the number of these instances is not
large enough to conduct a random sample study to elicit generalizable
results. On the other hand, what can be determined through this
procedure is a reasonably clear sense of whether there is a material
difference in the impact of these commonly owned local cross media
operations. Of course, specific instances might be present that
contradict these findings, but the results can provide some indications
of whether there is an adverse or, especially, a disparate impact on
these minority/women owned broadcasters.
Procedure
13. In order to conduct the survey we first had to designate the
women and/or minority owned broadcasters. The FCC has provided the
race/gender ownership status of radio and television stations by
station type (e.g., AM station). Utilizing those lists with the BIA/
Kelsey Media Access ProTM database of all broadcast stations
and local daily newspapers, we were able to determine the individual
markets in which all of these stations reside.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ BIA/Kelsey maintains a comprehensive database in its Media
Access ProTM service of all commercial and noncommercial
radio and television stations, as well as all daily and weekly
newspapers. That database is updated daily to reflect personnel,
technical, and ownership changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Once we determined the market in which these stations are
located, we then determined using the Media Access ProTM
database which stations are located in markets where a commonly owned
cross-media operation exist. Minority and/or women owned stations were
selected that were located in those markets in which there were either
a commonly owned grandfathered radio/newspaper, grandfathered
television/newspaper, or radio/television operation. Additional
minority and/or women owned stations that were located in markets in
which there were none of these commonly owned cross-media operations
were also selected to act as a super-control group.
15. In all of these markets--with or without a commonly owned
cross-media operation--additional stations were selected that were not
owned by a woman or minority to be contacted. Care was taken to select
non-minority/non-women owned broadcast stations to reflect stations
that are part of large broadcast groups and those that are not. With
this non-minority/non-women owned group we could compare their
responses with the responses of women and/or minority owned broadcast
stations in the same market and see whether there was a material
difference in the impact of the cross-media operations.
16. These stations were initially individually contacted via email
from the study's author alerting them of this study and that someone
would be calling them to ask them questions concerning the
competitiveness of their local radio or television market. Soon after
that email those phone calls were made. To increase the number of
responses, we subsequently sent an email with a link to an online
survey questionnaire, with a promise of an online gift card if the
survey was completed. All respondents were
[[Page 38333]]
guaranteed confidentiality of their responses and that we were only
going to report on the general trends of all respondents.
17. In total we obtained information from 14 local broadcast
operations--13 of which represent 31 stations in those markets, along
with information from a principal of a minority owned station that had
exited a market in which there was a commonly-owned cross-media
operation.\4\ More responses would have been preferred and repeated
attempts were made to induce responses from all that were contacted.
Nevertheless, we think that the information obtained from this group of
14 respondents is sufficiently compelling and unambiguous to help
answer the question of whether there is a disparate or adverse impact
of commonly owned, local cross-media operations on minority or women
owned broadcasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Among the fourteen respondents, eight were from minority or
women-owned companies and six were from nonminority-men owned
companies. Among the eight respondents from minority or women-owned
companies, five were from group owners, and four operated stations
(within a group or otherwise) that were single stations in their
markets. Among the six respondents from nonminority-men owned
companies, three were from group owners, and one operated a station
(within a group or otherwise) that was a single station in its
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Included in the eight-question questionnaire were questions to
elicit responses from the broadcast stations on which they felt were
the most competitive (to them) radio or television stations in their
local markets. Additionally, open ended questions on the important
factors and challenges they face in selling advertising and providing
local news and information were also asked. These general questions
were purposely raised to see if the responding stations would cite the
local commonly owned, cross-media operation in their answers. Further,
we were curious to see if the respondents from minority and/or women
owned stations would mention the commonly owned, cross-media operation
more frequently in their responses to these questions than responses
from the other group of stations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In the survey research literature this procedure is referred
to unaided recall, allowing the respondent to offer those points
without any prompting. If the respondents do cite these issues as
important without any prompting, then one can easily conclude as to
its importance. All of the respondents were general managers and
thus may be assumed to be familiar, for unaided recall purposes,
with the factors that might impact their stations' programming,
operations and competitive success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. To supplement the questions on present direct competitors,
other questions were included to draw out these stations' perceptions
on the changes in competition from possibly other sources. Finally,
questions were asked on the provision of news and information and what
challenges are faced in providing news and information. That last
general question was asked to see if the stations felt that the
presence of a cross-media operation made the provision of news and
information more difficult, and whether there were any differences in
the two sets of responding stations to the difficulty in providing news
and information.
Results
Competition in the Local Market
Present Competitors
20. The clear conclusion from the responses to the question of
which stations are the most direct competitors we received is simply
there was no difference in the responses from the minority and/or women
owned stations and the other. There was one minority and/or women owned
station and two non-minority/non-women owned stations that mentioned
the local cross- media operation.\6\ All of the other responses
mentioned other radio and television stations in their local markets,
primarily stations that provide similar programming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The three minority and/or women and non-minority/non-women
owned broadcast stations respondents citing the cross media
operation were in a medium market in which there was a local
combination of the only daily newspaper, a full power television
station, and radio stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. In identical fashion, the responses to the question of which
local station is the dominant competitor in the market plainly
indicates that there is no difference between the perceptions of the
two groups of respondents. Once again, there was one minority and/or
women owned station and two non-minority/non-women owned stations that
mentioned the local cross-media operation. All other stations indicated
a local group of radio stations or specific stations or even other
media in their responses.
22. Supporting that conclusion were the responses to two open-ended
questions of the important factors and challenges they face in selling
advertising in their local markets. None of the responses, either from
the minority and/or women owned or the non-minority/non-women owned
stations mentioned the presence of these cross-media operations, either
directly or indirectly. The responses for these questions were very
direct, mentioning the levels of competition within the media and from
outside. Here are some of the specific responses to those open ended
questions.
23. What are the most important factors your station faces in
regards to selling advertising time?
Market conditions, pricing, ratings.
The perception of radio.
Awareness, we are the new kids on the block.
It is a price war with television combining their digital
tier stations with their main channel bringing the overall cost lower
than radio. We also have to overcome the internet and satellite radio
objections as competition for our audience.
Ratings, competitors' rates, the overall health of the
economy.
Price. Audience.
Audience reach.
Other viable alternative outlets providing my audience.
High sales department churn; Weak Local Sales Manager;
Weak Sales Training.
Managing inventory with minimal waste.
24. What challenges do you face in selling advertising time in your
local market?
Current economic conditions with small business owners
having enough advertising/marketing budget to achieve results for them.
Retaining and hiring good qualified salespeople.
Too much media/advertising available. There must be 100
items selling as advertising.
Slow economy and the lack of locally owned stores.
Tighter budgets in the face of new platforms. Digital
reduced spending by advertising and combating annual contracts.
We need to educate our clients about our format; the other
radio station in the market always dives on rates; our clients believe
they get better value in print vs. radio.
The economic conditions are shaky at best.
Advertisers to look at our medium and value it
accordingly; we are looked as an ``old medium''.
Businesses are still reluctant to spend money, economy is
still tight. Radio is very competitive in this market with a lot of
stations fighting for a small piece of the pie.
Emerging Competitors
25. Another question was asked on what emerging competitors do they
see in their local market. Here again, we were providing an opportunity
for the responding stations to mention the local cross-media operation.
Additionally, we were seeing if there would be a
[[Page 38334]]
difference between the two groups of respondents on whether the cross-
media operations are thought of as emerging competitors.
26. The responses once again show the lack of concern about the
local cross media operation as an emerging competitor. Only one
respondent, a non-minority/non-women owned station, mentioned one cross
media operation. Most of the other responses mention online/digital
media companies such as Facebook, Google, Pandora, Spotify, and
``Digital platforms of all shapes and sizes.'' Two other respondents
cited a new network being delivered through local television stations
multicast signals, and another respondent mentioned another local
television station.
Provision of News and Information and Challenges
27. As mentioned earlier, questions on the present provision of and
challenges in providing news and information were asked. Here again we
were attempting to see if the presence of cross-media operations made
it more difficult for local stations to effectively provide news and
information and whether there was a difference in the two sets of
responding stations.
28. With respect to the number of minutes of news and information,
the answers varied from a few music radio stations saying little or no
minutes per hour to all news stations reporting that is their entire
programming. Generally, most of the radio stations indicated some
provision of news and information.
29. When asked about the challenges facing the provision of news
and information on their stations, none of the respondents indicated
the local cross-media operation. Below are some of the responses to
that open ended question.
30. What challenges do you face when delivering news and
information on your station?
Our biggest challenge is the geographic makeup of our
market, which is 75 miles north to south and east to west.
Making it local.
Competing with digital media to get the information first.
Many more players on the digital front.
Relative news but not too much news.
Current information.
Keeping viewer attention.
Limited staff. (1) On-air talent and (1) producer-reporter
affects our ability to cover ``breaking news''; currently evaluating/
considering eliminating local news programming due to limited budget
resources.
Personnel to cover the news with reduced staff sizes.
Having appropriate staffing numbers to cover the market.
31. Finally, we asked all respondents what competitive media
outlets (both broadcast and non-broadcast) provide news and
information. This question was asked to see if the local cross-media
operation would be mentioned and whether the mentions of these
operations were different for the two sets of responding stations. Only
two stations, both non-minority/non-women owned stations, mentioned the
local cross-media operation. All other respondents either mentioned
specific radio and television stations or just a generic TV or Print.
Two mentioned Yahoo as a local media outlet while another mentioned
smartphones and tablets as a device to provide local news and
information.
Conclusion
32. As mentioned in the introduction, this study was not intended
as a comprehensive random sample survey of all instances of local
cross-media operations in markets with stations owned by minorities
and/or women. Instead, it was an attempt to solicit information from
some of those stations about the competitive nature of local markets
and provision of news and information from minority and/or women owned
stations in these markets, along with non-minority/non-women owned
stations in these same markets. In trying to obtain that information
from these two groups of stations, we were trying to see if there was a
material difference between the two groups on the impact of the cross-
media operation.
33. Given our limited number of responses, great care has to be
taken in reaching any conclusions. Yet, we are struck by the lack of
any large concern by almost all of the respondents to these cross-media
operations. Several times in the questionnaire we provide opportunities
for the responding stations in both groups to offer those operations as
answers. What was provided as answers are general business concerns
that all radio and television stations have in all markets--strong
broadcast station competitors especially in the genre of programming
they provide and the emergence of new competitors from new sources.
34. This lack of mentions of local cross-media operations was also
present in the questions concerning the provision of news and
information. Answers were provided on other media outlets providing
news and information involved strong stations within the local markets
as well as generic answers of an entire media. Further, the answers to
the challenges that the stations in both groups of respondents once
again included general business concerns on providing programming that
is compelling to watch and the emergence of new outlets providing such
news and information.
35. So, what we have gleaned from the responses we did receive to
our survey is a concern about the competitive marketplace facing radio
and television stations from stations that are providing similar types
of programming, and other new types of media. There was little if any
mention of the local cross-media operations, except in a medium market
where the cross-media interests included the daily newspaper, and a
full power TV station and radio stations. Finally, there was no
perceptible difference in the responses of the two groups of
respondents to these issues.
36. The results of this study, while not dispositive, do provide
evidence that the impact of cross-media ownership on minority and women
broadcast ownership is probably negligible. This does not mean that the
cross-media ownership rules should, or should not, be changed. There
may be sound justifications relating to overall viewpoint diversity,
localism, or competition why the rules should or should not be changed.
However, it appears from this study that cross-media interests' impact
on minority and women broadcast ownership is not sufficiently
noticeable to station operators on the ground to be a material
justification for tightening or retaining the rules.
Appendix A--Survey Questionnaire
Study on Impact of Cross-Media Owned Operations
1. What are the radio stations in your market that you compete
against most directly? (name all that seem appropriate)
2. Besides other radio stations, what other media outlets in
your market do you compete against?
4. Who do you consider the dominant competitor in the local
market?
5. Who do you see as an emerging competitor in your local
market?
6. What challenges do you face in selling advertising time in
your local market?
7. How many minutes per hour or hours per day, on average
Monday-Sunday, of local news do you estimate as providing on your
station?
8. What challenges do you face in providing news and information
on your station?
9. Who are the competitive local media outlets (both broadcast
and non-broadcast) in providing news and information?
[[Page 38335]]
37. Procedural Matters: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the
subject proceeding, the Commission established that the proceeding will
be treated as ``permit but disclose'' for purposes of the Commission's
ex parte rules.\7\ Thus, as a result of the permit-but-disclose status
of this proceeding, ex parte presentations will be governed by the
procedures set forth in Section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules
applicable to non-restricted proceedings.\8\ Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 47 CFR 1.1200, 1.1206; see also 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory
Review--Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules & Other
Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcast
Services, MB Docket No. 09-182, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26
FCC Rcd 17489, 17570-71, ] 211 (2011).
\8\ 47 CFR 1.1206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Comment Information: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 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).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
[ssquf] 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 email. 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.
[ssquf] 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. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 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.
[ssquf] 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.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas Horan,
Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013-15166 Filed 6-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P