NALF - Saga Communications of New England, Inc., Licensee of Station WLZX(FM), Northampton, Massachusetts and Western Mass Radio Company, Licensee of Station WRNX(FM), Amherst, MA

Survival, Water, Medical Field Manuals

Military Manuals

Federal Communications Commission

Document text

Federal Communications Commission DA 04-396 


Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, DC 20554 

In the Matter of ) 

) 
SAGA COMMUNICATIONS ) File No. EB-01-IH-0230 
OF NEW ENGLAND, INC. ) NAL Account No. 20043208000014 

) Facility ID No. 46963 
Licensee of Station WLZX(FM), ) FRN No. 0002749406 
Northampton, Massachusetts ) 

) 
and ) 

) 
WESTERN MASS RADIO COMPANY ) Facility ID No. 25906 

) FRN No. 0003763935 
Licensee of Station WRNX(FM), ) 
Amherst, Massachusetts ) 


NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE 
Adopted: February 17, 2004 Released: February 19, 2004 
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 


I. INTRODUCTION 


l. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), we find that, on January 25, 
2001, Saga Communications of New England, Inc. (“Saga”), licensee of Station WLZX(FM), 
Northampton, Massachusetts, apparently willfully violated section 73.1206 of the Commission’s rules by 
recording and broadcasting a telephone conversation without first notifying a party to the call of its 
intention to do so.' Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances in this case, and for the reasons 
discussed below, we conclude that Saga is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of 
Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00). Further, we deny a complaint filed by Saga against Western Mass 
Radio Company (“Western”), licensee of Station WRNX(FM), Amherst, Massachusetts, for abuse of 
Commission processes and attempted unauthorized transfer of control, and dismiss Saga’s request for a 
revocation proceeding against Western. 


I. BACKGROUND 


2. The Commission received a complaint from Western alleging that, on January 25, 2001, 
Saga broadcast a telephone conversation between Station WLZX(FM) radio personality Christopher 
Laursen and Station WRNX(FM) radio personality Dave Sears.” According to the complaint, Mr. 
Laursen called Mr. Sears and pretended to be a WRNX listener. Mr. Laursen asked Mr. Sears whether 


' 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206. 


? See Letter from Thomas G. Davis, President, Western Mass Radio Company, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission, dated February 1, 2001 (“Western Complaint”). 


Federal Communications Commission DA 04-396 


WRNX(EM) radio personality and News Director Kelsey Flynn was “hot” and if she was a “lesbo.” This 
conversation was broadcast on Station WLZX(FM). The complaint alleged that, while Station 
WLZX(FM) General Manager and Saga Vice-President Lawrence Goldberg later contacted Western 
President Thomas G. Davis to apologize for the incident, Western felt that a private apology was 
inadequate.* In a January 29, 2001, electronic message from “Tom Davis, Western Mass Radio” to “Sean 
Davey and Larry Goldberg, Saga Communications,” Western offered to settle the matter if Saga agreed to 
the following: (1) Mr. Laursen would record a message, written by Mr. Davis, apologizing for Mr. 
Laursen’s actions, which would be aired on Station WLZX(FM) five times in one day at times selected by 
Mr. Davis; (2) Mr. Laursen would not discuss the incident on the air at any time, other than during the 
recorded message of apology; (3) the apology would be signed and published in the Daily Hampshire 
Gazette and Union News three times in clear view; (4) Saga would donate $1,000.00 to a charity of 
Kelsey Flynn’s choice, and the donation would be announced in the apology. Western informed Saga 
that “[y]ou certainly have the right to decline, in which case we will place the issue in the hands of the 
FCC and allow them to take it to its ultimate resolution, whatever that may be.” 


3. After reviewing the complaint, we issued a letter of inquiry to Saga. We asked the 
licensee whether Station WLZX(FM) had recorded and later replayed such a conversation between a 
Station WLZX(FM) radio personality and a Station WRNX(FM) radio personality. We also asked 
whether Station WLZX(FM) personnel had provided the Station WRNX(FM) radio personality prior 
notification that Station WLZX(FM) intended to record and broadcast the conversation. Additionally, we 
asked Saga to provide any other pertinent details that would explain or clarify the matter.’ 


4. Before Saga responded to the LOI, on March 13, 2001, it filed a complaint against 
Western alleging extortion, blackmail and abuse of process, as well as an attempted unauthorized transfer 
of control.’ Saga claimed that Western had attempted to blackmail Saga by demanding money and free 
airtime under a threat of informing the Commission of Saga’s violation of the Commission’s rules.” Saga 
also claimed that accommodating Western’s requests that it read a written apology over the air as well as 
not discuss the incident on-air amounted to an attempted unauthorized transfer of control, which would 
have required Saga to abdicate control of “basic operating policies” in violation of section 310(d) of the 
Communications Act of 1934 as amended (the “Act”).'° Saga requests that the Commission initiate an 
enforcement proceeding and issue an order to show cause under Section 312 of the Act,'! and that Saga be 
made a party to the revocation proceeding.” 


5; In its March 15, 2001, LOI Response, Saga admitted that Station WLZX(FM) aired a 
recorded conversation between Mr. Laursen and Mr. Sears on January 25, 2001, without obtaining Mr. 


` Td. at 1. 

* Western Complaint at 2. 
` Id. at 2, Attachment. 

° Jd. 


7 See Letter from Charles W. Kelley, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Saga Communications of New England, Inc., dated February 14, 2001 (“LOT”). 


* See Letter from Lawrence D. Goldberg, Vice President, Saga Communications of New England, Inc., to Magalie 
Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated March 8, 2001. (“Saga Complaint’). 


? See id. at 2-3. 

10 See id. at 3-4; 47 U.S.C. § 310(d). 
1l 47 U.S.C. § 312 

12 See Saga Complaint at 4. 


Federal Communications Commission DA 04-396 


Sears’ permission,” but that it subsequently made Mr. Laursen aware of the requirements of section 
73.1206 of the Commission’s rules. Saga further stated that Mr. Laursen knew it was wrong to record his 
telephone conversation with Mr. Sears and broadcast it without Mr. Sears’ permission, and that Mr. 
Laursen’s actions were “conceived on the spur of the moment, without approval of any Saga management 
personnel.”'* Saga maintained that it suspended Mr. Laursen and his co-host for a week without pay after 
Saga had learned of the incident, and further provided its employees with a list of Commission rules, with 
which it required all employees to familiarize themselves. According to Saga, Western refused to accept 
its private apology for the incident, instead sending Saga the electronic mail message with what Saga 
refers to as “a list of non-negotiable demands.”"* 


6. In its March 20, 2001, reply to the Saga Complaint and LOI Response,'® Western stated 
that Saga admits, first, that Station WLZX(FM) recorded and broadcast the conversation between Mr. 
Laursen and Mr. Sears without notifying Mr. Sears that the conversation was being recorded and going to 
be broadcast and, second, that Saga and its employee, Mr. Laursen, knew the Commission’s rules 
prohibited such conduct.'’ According to Western, Saga’s Complaint was “so groundless, unwarranted in 
law or fact, and so flagrantly contrived ... as to warrant sanctions against [Saga] for frivolous pleading.””"* 
The electronic mail message, Western contended, “merely recite[d] the terms for a proposed settlement of 
Western Mass’ grievance against Saga for what Saga [ ] admit[ed] was an indefensible violation of the 
Commission’s rules.”'? Western maintained that to assert that its proposed settlement constituted an 
“attempted unauthorized transfer of control” was “hyperbolic and silly,” and the settlement clearly stated 
that Saga had a right to decline Western’s offer. Western stated that it was not an abuse of process, 
blackmail or extortion for a victim of wrongdoing to approach the perpetrator seeking restitution, and if 
refused, to pursue his remedies at law. The broadcast licensee, according to Western, was ultimately 
responsible for exercising control and oversight over its employees and, therefore, was liable for its 
employee’s violation of section 73.1206 of the Commission rules.”! 


II. DISCUSSION 
A. Saga’s Apparent Violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission’s Rules 


7. Under section 503(b)(1) of the Act,” any person who is determined by the Commission 


13 See Letter from Lawrence D. Goldberg, Vice President, Saga Communications of New England, Inc., to Charles 
W. Kelley, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, dated March 16, 2001(“LOI Response”); Declaration of Christopher Laursen dated March 14, 2001 
provided therewith (“Laursen Declaration”). 


4 Id. at 1; Laursen Declaration. 
> Id. at 2; Laursen Declaration. 


° See Letter from Erwin G. Krasnow, Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand, to Charles W. Kelley, 
Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated 
March 20, 2001 (“Western Reply”). 


7 Id. at 1. 

* Id. at 2. 
"Id. 

2 Id. at 2-3. 
21 Td. at 3. 


* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1); see also 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(D) (forfeitures for violation of 
14 U.S.C. § 1464). Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as “the conscious and deliberate commission or 
omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to violate” the law. 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). The legislative history to 

(continued....) 


3 


Federal Communications Commission DA 04-396 


to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or 
order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a monetary forfeiture penalty. In 
order to impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability, the 
notice must be received, and the person against whom the notice has been issued must have an 
opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.”* The Commission 
will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the 
Act or a Commission rule.” As we set forth in greater detail below, we conclude under this standard that 
Saga is apparently liable for a forfeiture for its apparent willful violation of section 73.1206 of the 
Commission’s rules. 


8. Section 73.1206 of the Commission’s rules provides, in pertinent part: 


Before recording a telephone conversation for broadcast . . . a licensee shall inform any 
party to the call of the licensee’s intention to broadcast the conversation, except where 
such party is aware, or may be presumed to be aware from the circumstances of the 
conversation, that it is being or likely will be broadcast. Such awareness is presumed to 
exist only when the other party to the call is associated with the station (such as [sic] 
employee or part-time reporter), or where the other party originates the call and it is 
obvious that it is in connection with a program in which the station customarily 
broadcasts telephone conversations. 


Thus, section 73.1206 requires licensees to so notify parties to a telephone call before it initiates 
recordings for broadcast. The Commission has stated that “[t]he recording of such conversation with the 
intention of informing the other party later -- whether during the conversation or after it is completed but 
before it is broadcast -- does not comply with the Rule... .”*° The rule reflects the Commission’s 
longstanding belief that prior notification is essential to protect individuals’ legitimate expectation of 
privacy, as well as to preserve their dignity by avoidance of nonconsensual broadcasts of their 
conversations.” Thus, the Commission has held that the prior notification requirement ensures the 


(...continued from previous page) 

section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, 
H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97" Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the section 
503(b) context. See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 6 FCC Red 4387, 4388 (1991) (“Southern California Broadcasting Co.”). The Commission may also 
assess a forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful. See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand 
Isle, Louisiana, Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Red 1359 (2001) (issuing a Notice of 
Apparent Liability for, inter alia, a cable television operator’s repeated signal leakage). “Repeated” merely means 
that the act was committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day. Southern California 
Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, | 5; Callais Cablevision, Inc., 16 FCC Red at 1362, 1 9. 


3 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f). 


** See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Red 7589, 7591, 
4] 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid). 


°° Station-Initiated Telephone Calls which Fail to Comply with Section 73.1206 of the Rules, Public Notice, 35 FCC 
2d 940, 941 (1972) (“1972 Public Notice”). 


°° See Amendment of Section 1206: Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, 3 FCC Red 5461, 5463-64 (1988) 
(“1988 Order”); 1972 Public Notice, 35 FCC 2d at 941; Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission’s Rules and 
Regulations with Respect to the Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, 23 FCC 2d 1, 2 (1970); see also EZ 
Sacramento, Inc. and Infinity Broadcasting Corp. of Washington, D.C., 16 FCC Red 4958, 4958 (2002) (finding that 
prior notifications “effectively cease” when callers are put on hold, and that thus explicit notice must be given if 
stations plan to continue such broadcasts or record such conversations for later broadcasts); Heftel Broadcasting- 
Contemporary, Inc., 52 FCC 2d 1005, 1006 (1975) (finding that “cash call” promotions that simultaneously 

(continued...) 


4 


Federal Communications Commission DA 04-396 


protection of an individual’s “right to answer the telephone without having [his or her] voice or 
statements transmitted to the public by a broadcast station” live or by recording for delayed airing.” 
Applying this reasoning, the Commission has defined “conversations” broadly, “to include any word or 
words spoken during the telephone call,” and specifically has rejected arguments that “utterances made by 
parties called in answering the phone” are not subject to the rule’s prior notification requirement.”*® 


9. Based upon the information before us, it appears that, on January 25, 2001, Saga 
broadcast the conversation between Mr. Laursen and Mr. Sears, without providing Mr. Sears prior notice 
that Saga intended to record and later air the conversation, in apparent willful violation of section 73.1206 
of the Commission’s rules. In light of this apparent violation, we believe it appropriate that Saga be 
assessed a monetary forfeiture. The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture 
amount of $4,000.00 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation?” and provides that base 
forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act” and 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission’s rules,*' which include “the nature, circumstances, extent, 
and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, 
and such other matters as justice may require.”? Based upon the facts and circumstances presented 
here, in particular because this appears to be an isolated violation, we find the base forfeiture amount of 
Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) to be appropriate. 


B. Saga’s Complaint Against Western 


10. The Commission has stated that “[a]buse of process is a broad concept that includes use 
of Commission processes to achieve a result that the process was not intended to achieve, or use of that 
process to subvert the purpose the process was intended to achieve.” In Character Qualifications, the 
Commission further defined “abuse of process” as “serious willful misconduct which directly threatens 
the integrity of the Commission’s licensing processes.”** Western’s proposed settlement did not involve 
the Commission’s licensing processes. To this extent, Saga’s reliance on Home Service Broadcasting 
Corp. is misplaced.’ More importantly, the purpose of this NAL is “to inform a licensee that [it] has 


(...continued from previous page) 
broadcast, and award prizes based on, parties’ responses in answering the telephone are subject to section 73.1206’s 
prior notification requirement). 


*7 1988 Order, 3 FCC Red at 5463. 
28 Heftel Broadcasting-Contemporary, Inc., 52 FCC 2d at 1006 (emphasis added). 


°° See Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Red 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied 15 FCC Red 303 (1999) (“Forfeiture Policy 
Statement’). 


* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D). 
31 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(4). 
32 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Red at 17100-01. 


3 Ronald Brasher, 15 FCC Red 16326, 16331 (2000) (citing Broadcast Renewal Applicants, 3 FCC Red 5179, 
5199 n.2 (1988)). 


* Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1211 (1986) (emphasis 
added). 


35 Saga Complaint at 3, citing Home Service Broadcasting Corp., 24 FCC 2d 192, 193 (Rev. Bd. 1970). See, also, 
James Sliger, 70 FCC 2d 1565 (Rev. Bd. 1969) (abuse of process in comparative renewal proceeding); K.O. 
Communications, Inc., 13 FCC Red 12765 (WTB 1998) (abuse of process when “strike pleading” filed). 


Federal Communications Commission DA 04-396 


failed to abide by the provisions of the Commission’s rules.”*° 


contributed to the Commission’s enforcement scheme.*” 


By filing its complaint, Western 


11. Western’s actions further do not constitute blackmail.’ Even were we to have 
jurisdiction to adjudicate this allegation, the facts indicate that Western simply sought a private resolution 
of its grievance. The record does not indicate that Western threatened to file a complaint for its own 
benefit, monetary or otherwise. With respect to Western’s request that Saga contribute to a charity of 
Kelsey Flynn’s choice, Western appears only to have sought redress for the damage done by statements 
potentially impugning its employee’s sexual orientation. 


12. Saga’s claim that Western attempted to acquire control of Station WLZX(FM) is likewise 
without merit. In assessing whether an unauthorized transfer of control has occurred, the Commission 
looks at whether a licensee continues to have ultimate control over a station’s programming, personnel, 
and finances.” Proposing that Saga broadcast a public apology five times on one day, and that Saga take 
steps to prevent its employee from further insulting Western’s radio personality does not constitute an 
attempt to control the “basic operating policies of the station,” as Saga maintains.” 


13. The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license,” but 
rather treats such requests as informal requests for action pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission’s 
rules.” Saga claims that Western’s actions “evidence[] a lack of fitness to be a Commission licensee” 
and therefore the Commission should initiate a proceeding requiring Western to show cause why its 
license for WRNX(FM) should not be revoked.” Because we reject Saga’s claims, Saga’s request to 
initiate a revocation proceeding is dismissed as moot. 


°° Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises, 61 FCC 2d 365, 366 (1976). 


37 Western’s settlement proposal did not undermine the Commission’s enforcement scheme because filing a 
complaint is voluntary, and only one method of initiating an enforcement proceeding. 


38 Saga cites to 18 U.S.C. § 873, which makes it a criminal offense to demand any money or other valuable thing 
under a threat of informing, or as consideration for not informing, against any violation of federal law. 


» See, e.g., Radio Moultrie, Inc., 17 FCC Red 24304 (2002). 
” See id. at 24306. 

4l See, e.g., K.O. Communications, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd at 12775. 
2? See id., 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. 

*® See Saga Complaint at 4. 


Federal Communications Commission DA 04-396 


IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 


14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act,“ and 
sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,” Saga Communications of New England, Inc., 
licensee of Station WLZX(FM), Northampton, Massachusetts, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT 
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for apparently 
willfully violating section 73.1206 of the Commission’s rules on January 25, 2001.*° 


15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the rules,“ within thirty 
(30) days of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Saga Communications of New England, Inc. 
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking 
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a 
check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to 
Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, 
Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The payment must include the FCC Registration Number (FRN) 
referenced above and also must note the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above. 


16. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of Apparent Liability under an 
installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.*8 


Ly: Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT the complaint of Western Mass Radio Company 
filed against Saga Communications of New England, Inc., licensee of Station WLZX(FM), Northampton, 
Massachusetts, is GRANTED. 


18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the complaint of Saga Communications of New 
England, Inc., alleging abuse of process, blackmail, and attempted acquisition of control of WLZX(FM) 
by Western Mass Radio Company, licensee of Station WRNX(FM), is DENIED for the reasons set forth 
herein, and the request for revocation of Station WRNX(FM)’s license is DISMISSED. 


19. Under the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Pub L. No. 107-198, 116 Stat. 
729 (June 28, 2002), the FCC is engaged in a two-year tracking process regarding the size of entities 
involved in forfeitures. If you qualify as a small entity and if you wish to be treated as a small entity for 
tracking purposes, please so certify to us within thirty (30) days of this NAL, either in your response to 
the NAL or in a separate filing to be sent to the Investigations and Hearings Division. Your certification 
should indicate whether you, including your parent entity and its subsidiaries, meet one of the definitions 
set forth in the list provided by the FCC’s Office of Communications Business Opportunities (OCBO) set 
forth in Attachment A of this Notice of Apparent Liability. This information will be used for tracking 
purposes only. Your response or failure to respond to this question will have no effect on your rights and 
responsibilities pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act. If you have questions regarding 
any of the information contained in Attachment A, please contact OCBO at (202) 418-0990. 


20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this NOTICE OF APPARENT 
LIABILITY shall be sent by Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested to Lawrence D. Goldberg, Vice 
President, Saga Communications of New England, Inc, 15 Hampton Avenue, Northampton, 


4 


447 U.S.C. § 503(b). 

547 C.F.R. § 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80. 
6 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206 

“747 C.F.R. § 1.80. 

48 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914. 


4 


4 


Federal Communications Commission DA 04-396 


Massachusetts 01060; its counsel, Gary S. Smithwick, Esquire, Smithwick & Belendiuk, P.C., 5028 
Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 301, Washington, D.C. 20016; Thomas G. Davis, President, Western 
Mass Radio Company, 98 Lower Westfield Road, Holyoke, Massachusetts, 01040; and its counsel, Erwin 
G. Krasnow, Esquire, Garvey Schubert Barer, Fifth Floor, 1000 Potomac Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20007-3501. 


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 


David H. Solomon 
Chief, Enforcement Bureau 


Federal Communications Commission DA 04-396 


Attachment A 


FCC List of Small Entities 


As described below, a “small entity” may be a small organization, 
a small governmental jurisdiction, or a small business. 


(1) Small Organization 


Any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and 
is not dominant in its field. 


(2) Small Governmental Jurisdiction 


Governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or 
special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand. 


(3) Small Business 


Any business concern that is independently owned and operated and 
is not dominant in its field, and meets the pertinent size criterion described below. 


Industry Type Description of Small Business Size Standards 


Cable Services or Systems 


Special Size Standard — 
Cable Systems Small Cable Company has 400,000 Subscribers Nationwide 
or Fewer 


Cable and Other Program Distribution 


Open Video Systems $12.5 Million in Annual Receipts or Less 


Common Carrier Services and Related Entities 


Wireline Carriers and Service providers 


Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive 
Access Providers, Interexchange Carriers, 1,500 Employees or Fewer 
Operator Service Providers, Payphone 
Providers, and Resellers 


Note: With the exception of Cable Systems, all size standards are expressed in either millions of 
dollars or number of employees and are generally the average annual receipts or the average 
employment of a firm. Directions for calculating average annual receipts and average 
employment of a firm can be found in 

13 CFR 121.104 and 13 CFR 121.106, respectively. 


Federal Communications Commission 


International Services 


International Broadcast Stations 


International Public Fixed Radio (Public and 
Control Stations) 


Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth 
Stations 


Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture 
Terminal Systems 


Mobile Satellite Earth Stations 


Radio Determination Satellite Earth Stations 


$12.5 Million in Annual Receipts or Less 


Geostationary Space Stations 


Non-Geostationary Space Stations 


Direct Broadcast Satellites 


Home Satellite Dish Service 


Mass Media Services 


Television Services 


Low Power Television Services and 
Television Translator Stations 


$12 Million in Annual Receipts or Less 


TV Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and Other 
Program Distribution Services 


Radio Services 


Radio Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and 
Other Program Distribution Services 


$6 Million in Annual Receipts or Less 


Multipoint Distribution Service 


Auction Special Size Standard — 
Small Business is less than $40M in annual gross revenues 
for three preceding years 


Wireless and Com 


mercial Mobile Services 


Cellular Licensees 


220 MHz Radio Service — Phase I Licensees 


1,500 Employees or Fewer 


220 MHz Radio Service — Phase II 
Licensees 


700 MHZ Guard Band Licensees 


Private and Common Carrier Paging 


Auction special size standard - 

Small Business is average gross revenues of $15M or less for 
the preceding three years (includes affiliates and controlling 
principals) 

Very Small Business is average gross revenues of $3M or 
less for the preceding three years (includes affiliates and 
controlling principals) 


Broadband Personal Communications 
Services (Blocks A, B, D, and E) 


1,500 Employees or Fewer 


Broadband Personal Communications 
Services (Block C) 


Broadband Personal Communications 
Services (Block F) 


Narrowband Personal Communications 
Services 


Auction special size standard - 

Small Business is $40M or less in annual gross revenues for 
three previous calendar years 

Very Small Business is average gross revenues of $15M or 
less for the preceding three calendar years (includes affiliates 
and persons or entities that hold interest in such entity and 
their affiliates) 


Rural Radiotelephone Service 


Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service 


1,500 Employees or Fewer 


800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio 


Auction special size standard - 


10 


DA 04-396 


Federal Communications Commission DA 04-396 


900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Small Business is $15M or less average annual gross 
revenues for three preceding calendar years 

Private Land Mobile Radio 1,500 Employees or Fewer 

Amateur Radio Service N/A 

Aviation and Marine Radio Service 

Fixed Microwave Services 1,500 Employees or Fewer 


Small Business is 1,500 employees or less 
Small Government Entities has population of less than 


Public Safety Radio Services 


50,000 persons 
Wireless Telephony and Paging and 
Messaging 1,500 Employees or Fewer 
Personal Radio Services N/A 
Offshore Radiotelephone Service 1,500 Employees or Fewer 
Wireless Communications Services Small Business is $40M or less average annual gross 


revenues for three preceding years 
Very Small Business is average gross revenues of $15M or 
less for the preceding three years 


39 GHz Service 


Auction special size standard (1996) — 
Small Business is $40M or less average annual gross 
revenues for three preceding calendar years 

Prior to Auction — 

Small Business has annual revenue of $12.5M or less 


Multipoint Distribution Service 


Multichannel Multipoint Distribution 
Service $12.5 Million in Annual Receipts or Less 


Instructional Television Fixed Service 


Auction special size standard (1998) — 

Small Business is $40M or less average annual gross 
revenues for three preceding years 

Very Small Business is average gross revenues of $15M or 
less for the preceding three years 


Local Multipoint Distribution Service 


First Auction special size standard (1994) — 
Small Business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, 
has no more than a $6M net worth and, after federal income 
taxes (excluding carryover losses) has no more than $2M in 
annual profits each year for the previous two years 


New Standard — 

218-219 MHZ Service Small Business is average gross revenues of $15M or less for 
the preceding three years (includes affiliates and persons or 
entities that hold interest in such entity and their affiliates) 
Very Small Business is average gross revenues of $3M or 
less for the preceding three years (includes affiliates and 
persons or entities that hold interest in such entity and their 


affiliates) 
Satellite Master Antenna Television 
Systems $12.5 Million in Annual Receipts or Less 
24 GHz — Incumbent Licensees 1,500 Employees or Fewer 
24 GHz — Future Licensees Small Business is average gross revenues of $15M or less for 


the preceding three years (includes affiliates and persons or 
entities that hold interest in such entity and their affiliates) 
Very Small Business is average gross revenues of $3M or 
less for the preceding three years (includes affiliates and 
persons or entities that hold interest in such entity and their 
affiliates) 


Miscellaneous 


On-Line Information Services $18 Million in Annual Receipts or Less 


Radio and Television Broadcasting and 
Wireless Communications Equipment 


11 


Federal Communications Commission 


DA 04-396 


Manufacturers 


Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturers 


750 Employees or Fewer 


Telephone Apparatus Manufacturers 
(Except Cellular) 


1,000 Employees or Fewer 


Medical Implant Device Manufacturers 


500 Employees or Fewer 


Hospitals 


$29 Million in Annual Receipts or Less 


Nursing Homes 


$11.5 Million in Annual Receipts or Less 


Hotels and Motels 


$6 Million in Annual Receipts or Less 


Tower Owners 


(See Lessee’s Type of Business) 


12