+ #% a al Judgement No. .ox Ph asesosit CRICHHOPDS Broadcasting and television ~ applications for supplementary FM broadcasting licences by existing operators of two AM stations in Canberra - Broadcastina Tribunal obliged to consider whether it was in the public interest that applications for a licence for an additional commercial broadcastina station should be invited - matters Tribunal entitled to take into account in determinina that question - whether Tribunal =mpowered Fa deal contemporaneously with two applications - whether Tribunal asked itself the correct question. Beoadcasting and Television Ach 1949, 33, 81, 82, BIA, 83. TRIPLE A FM PTY LIMITED 7. AUSTRALTAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL and ORS. > No. G542 of 1986 Coram: Sheppard J, Date : 23 February 1987 Place; Sydnev PRINCIPAL REGISTAY IN_THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No, G542 of 1986 wee eee GENERAL DTIVISTON BETWEEN : TRIFLE A FM PTY LIMITED Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL and ORS, Respondents CORAM: SHEPPARD J. PLACE: SYDNEY DATE : 23 FEBRUARY 1987 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: - Ll. The application be dismissed. on The applicant pav the respondents' casts thereof. NOTE: Settlement and entrv of orders is dealt with in Order 34 of the Federal Court Rules. TW THE FEDERAL COURT OF AMSTRALTA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G542 of 1986 wee we GENERAL DIVISTON BETWEEN : TRIPLE A FM PTY LIMITED AND: AUSTRALTAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL and ORS. Pespondents COPAM: SHEPPARD J. DATE : 23 FEBRUARY 19387 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR: This is an application to review the decisions of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to aqrant supplementarv broadcasting licences tn the second and third respondents, Capital Citv Broadcasters Ptv Limited and Macquarie Broadcastina Holdings Limited. I shall hereafter cvefer to these respondents As 2CC and 2CA respectively, those being the station identification sians by which radio stations operated bv them in Canberra are known. Tt as first necessary to eefer ta the provisions of the Benadcasting and Television Act 1942 ("the Act") pursuant to which the applications for the supplementarv licences wera made and the decisions to grant them arrived at. Part ITIiB of the Act deals with licences, Sub-section &81(1) provides that, subiect to the Act, the Tribunal mav grant or renew a licence upon such eonditions, and in accordance with such form, as the Tribunal determines. By sub-section 81(2), in determining the conditions upon which, or Fhe form in acenrdance with which. a licence is to be granted or renewed, the Tribunal shall have due reaqard to the need for the commercial viabilitv of the broadcasting and television stations in the areas served or to be served in pursuance of the licence. Section 82 provides for the manner in which applications are to be made and for the procedure to be followed thereon. Section A2A deals with applications for wa supplementary licences. Qo far as relevant sub-sec. A2A(1) provides that. subject to sub-se (2), the holder of a Licence wh a for a commercial broadcasting station mav lodge with fhe Minister an application for the grant of a licence for a broadcasting service, being a service for the transmission of proarams solelv by wav of frequencv modulation. for the purpose of servind, by means of one broadcasting station and, if necessary, one or more broadcasting translator stations, an area the specification of which is to be determined bv the Minister in accordance with sub-sec., (7), Sub-section 82A(3) does not permit an application to be lodged for a supplementary licence by the holder of a licence for a commercial broadcasting station whose proarams are transmitted solely by wav of frequency modulation. So far as it is relevant. sub-sec. 982A(5) provides that, where an application is lodged for a siupplementarv broadcastina licence, the Minister mav refer the application to the Tribunal or dismiss the application for a reason relating to Fechnical matters or ta the planning sr development of broadcasting and television services. Section 83 deals with the consideration of applications bv the Tribunal. It applies qenerallv, that is to sav, it applies both to applications for licences and supplementary licences. Sub-section 83(1) provides for the holding of an inquirv into the arant of the licence. Central to the questions which arise for decision ain this ease are the provisions of para. 33/41(2) af the Act which as follows:~ "(6) The Tribunal shall not refuse to arant a Licence to A person unless it has held an tnauirv into the arant of the licence and - Ce (e) where the licence is a supplementary licence, the Tribunal. having due reaard to the need for the commercial viability of the broadcasting stations and television stations in the area to be served pursuant fo the licence, determines - (id) that an additional commercial broadcasting station or commercial television station. as the case requires, to serve that area is reasonably lLikelv to be commerciallv viable during the period in which the licence, 1f qranted, would be in force; and (ii) that, having considered - (A) Che need for an adequate and comprehensive service toa be provided pursiant to the Licence for such an additional station; and (B) whether. in its opinion. there is or would, if the supplementarv licence were agranted, be an undue cancentration of the ownership or control, direct or indirect. of the media in the area to be served pursuant ta the supplementary licence, it is in the public interest that applications for such a Licence should be invited: a" Sub-section 83(6A) provides that the reference in para. (6)(e) to the media in the area to be served pursuant to the supplementarv licence includes a reference to newspapers, journals and the like available in that area and to broadcasting and television stations licensed to serve that area. Sub-section 83(8) provides that, in considering the need referred to in sub-paraqraph (6\(e8)f11), the Tribunal shall nave reaard onlv For- (a) the nature of the communitv to be served in pursuance of the licence; (b) the diversitv of the interests of that communitv; and (a) the nature of the broadcasting and television services of which satisfactorv reception is being obtained bv that community. By sub-sec. 83(8A)., it is provided fhat. if the Tribunal makes a determination under para. (6)(e), it shall, as soon as practicable thereafter. inform the applicant and the Minister of rhe determination and rhe reasons Fherefor and make oa recommendation in writina fo the Minister that he invite applications for a licence for a commercial broadcasting station to serve the area that would have been served in pursuance of the supplementarv licence. 2CC and 2CA lodged applications for supplementarv licences with the Minister in September 1984, The Minister referred the applications fo the Tribunal for inquirv in Januarv 1985. On 27 Qetober 1986 the Tribunal decided to arant supplementary Licences to 2CC amd 2CA for a period of 5 vears. The licences were to be aranted ona date determined bv the Tribunal after technical specifications applicable to the Licences had been finalized by the Minister. The applicant is one of two companies, each independent of the other, which appeared before the Tribunal and endeavoured to persuade it to make a determination pursuant to para. 83(6)(e), Such a determination would probably have led to the calling bv the Minister for applications for a commercial frequency modulation broadcasting licence in the Canberra area from independent companies. The applicant would probablv have been an applicant for such a licence in the event that applications for it had been invited. The decision in question has denied if the apportunity of obtaining a licence. Tt is thus agarieved by the decision which the Tribunal has made. I should mention in passing that the other companv, Canberra Stereo FM Ptv Limited, was originally an applicant for relief in this Court. However, on 12 Januarv 1987, ic discontinued the proceedings. \ In the course of the hearing before the Tribunal it was established that 2CA was controlled by a aroup of companies described in the Tribunal's decision as "the John Fairfax group". The Tribunal found that in Canberra the qroup controlled 2CA and the Canberra Times which was said to be the oniyv dailv newspaper originating in Canberra. The Tribunal also said that a number of national or interstate "media" circulating in Canberra such as the Svdney Morning Herald, the Australian Financial Review. the Sun-Herald, the National Times on Sunday, the Business Peview Weekly and the Aqe were controlled by the Fairfax qroup. Tt added that there were other newspapers which were not controlled by the Fairfax group circulating in the Canberra area. The Tribunal said that radio station 2CC was controlled by a family known as the Albert family which controlled a number of other radio stations in Australia, However, fthev had no ownership or control of Canberra stations or other media except for 2Cc, The Tribunal found that, if 2CC were aranted a supplementary licence, there would be some increase in the concentration of control bv the Albert familv of Canberra media, but that such an increase ought not automaticallv be reqarded as "undue" in terms of the Act. The Tribunal added. that if it were so reaarded, the supplementarv Licence scheme devised bv Parliament could be rendered useless, since anv supplementarv licences would involve at least the dearee of concentration of control involved un the holding of two licences ina market. Of the control found to exist on the part of the Fairfax arcoup, the Tribunal said:- "2.31 The Fairfax media control is obviouslv much more widespread in Canberra than the Albert control. There would be an undue concentration of ownership and control 1f 2CA were aqranted a supplementary licence and 2CC were not. So much so that if only one supplementarv licence were to be aranted, it would almost certainly be granted to 2CC in preference to 2CA, 2CA arqued that its talk format would equip it to sérve the public better than 2CC in a supplementary eombination, because the AM service could specialise more in the news/talk format with the supplementarv service concentrating more on music, That is a valid point, but civen the words of the Act it would probably be outweighed by the siqnificance of the concentration of control in the service area which would be caused bv aranting a supplementarv licence to 2CA alone". However, the Tribunal also said:- "2,32 There would not be an 'imdue' concentration of ownership or control if 2CC and 2CA were both to receive supplementary licences in the particular circumstances of Canberra. That is because of the number of other media available and used in Canberra. which has a fairlv wunique character as the national capital. Apart from commerciat radio, the Canberra audience has alternatives in the form of two public radio stations 'the second to commence broadcasting shortly), and three ABC radio stations. ane of which provides a local service of news and current affairs. There are also the separate belevision services of CTC-7, with a separate and substantial local news coverage, and the ABC and SBS television stations. The ABC television station provides local news also. The situation varies in the proximitv of surrounding areas such as Yass. SS 2.34 In conclusion, there is a considerable concentration of ownership and control of media in Canberra in the hands of the Fairfax unterests. This ws not an ideal situation, but if two supplementarv licences are aqranted the level of concentration will not become significantly worse, Tt would Ee) become worse if a supplementary Licence were qaranted to 2CA alone, because it would increase the relative dearee of domination which 2CA has in relation to 2CC and other media in Canberra", The Tribunal referred to the applicant and Canberra Stereo FM Pty Limited as "the independents". Of the case made bv them the Tribunal said:- "2.35 The independents ardqued stronalv for the advantages of the services which thev proposed so far as ownership and control of the media are concerned. Thev pointed not only to the Likelihood that an indenendent would be separate from the incumbents, but to the likelthood that it would be lLocallv and independently controlied bv Canberra business people, as 2CC was when 1t received its licence in 1975, Thev pointed out that no commercial broadcastind service in Canberra is at present locallv~-controlled. 2.36 In summary, a likely advantage of the independent option which would continue at least for the immediate future 1s that it would reduce concentration of ownership and control by allowing an opportunity for a new qaroup of local directors and shareholders to initiate the oniv local and independent broadcasting station in Canberra. The words 'likelv' and 'opportunity' are used because the outcome of an inquiry into an independent licence could not be known until Chat inquirv had taken place. However, the plans and structures helpfullv put forward by the independents in this supplementary licence inquirv show that there are local Canberra qroups not dependent on other media who are willinad to applv for an independent licence". The emphasis is that of the Tribunal. After stating these various matters. the Tribunal went on to consider the public need fcr an FM service. It concluded that there was need for such a service. It also said:- "2,45 If there were onlv one application fora supplementarv licence, then the need for another service and the fact that there are independent local companies readv with plans and resources to provide such a service would be great advantages of the independent option. Despite the greater danqers of parallel proaram formats under the independent option, it would be the option likely to be preferred, However, the Tribunal has two supplementary licence applications before it". Earlier in its report (para. 2.2) the Tribunal had said that Fhere were 3 main options for new Canberra radio services considered in its report. These were:- fa) A vecommendation to the Minister that he commence the process which would lead to an inquiry into the granting of an independent licence, In order that this might be done the Tribunal would have needed to make a determination pursuant to para. 83(6)(e) of the Act. (b) The grant of one supplementarv licence either to 2CC or 2CA. (e) The grant of both the supplementary licence applications. Eventually the Tribunal came to the question of which of these options it should prefer. In paraqraph 2.59 it commenced to consider its ultimate decision under the heading, "The most desirable option". A proper understanding of submissions made on behalf of the applicants in this Court requires all of what is said in the succeeding paragraphs, which conclude with paragraph 10. 2.67, to be taken into account. It is impractical to quote each of these paragraphs, but I refer to what I regard as the essential statements amongst them. These are as follows:- "2.59 The agreatest advantage of an independent licence is that it would be more likely to introduce new blood and competition than would two supplementaries., and that i1t would be likely to somewhat reduce the concentration of media in Canberra. These advantages, which would he at least indirectly reflected in the qualitv of the service provided, have been carefully considered because of their importance to the public interest. 2.60 tf only one extra licence to serve the public of Canberra were available, the degree of doubt about the viability of the existing stations would not overcome the advantage of creating the opportunity for an independent service. In other words, one extra service would be best provided by an independent, and not a supplementary. It is recoanised that an independent licence 1s the 'first and preferred option' of the supplementary licence scheme: Parliamentarv Debates (vol H. of R&R. 134) 30 November 1983 p. 3058. 2,62 In the circumstances of this inaquirv the two-supps option is Likely better to serve the public interest when all the relevant statutory criteria are considered. Its areatest advantage is that it is likelv to offer aaqreater range and diversitv of proarams, and more adequate and comprehensive services than the independent option. There are two reasons for this. The first is that there would be an extra FM station. The second is that both of the AM-FM combinations could afford to specialise their formats, catering to complementary aqge-qroups and formats, more than any of three independent competitors could afford to do. This is shown by the proposals gutlined in sections 7 and 8 of this report. 11. 2.64 Whereas refusal ot the licence applications would permanentiv remove the opportunity for two complementary services, qrant of the licences will provide those extra services now, witha statutorv requirement for the opportunitv for independent services to be considered aqain in the future", The submissions made on behalf of the applicant bv its counsel were as follows:- Ll. At least in the case of 2CA the Tribunal found each of the matters provided for in para. A3(6)(e). Tt was bound, as a matter of law to determine that it was in the public interest that applications for an additional licence be invited. Its finding denied 1f vower to arant a licence to 2CA. 2. In order to deal with the problem found to exist in the case of 2CA, the Tribunal assumed the success of the 2CC application. Had it not done so, the 2CA application was bound to fail. The Tribunal's process was inextricably fo bind each application and its outcome with the other. The assumed success of the applicant in one application was relied upon to defeat the interest of potential applicants for an independent licence. 3. Having found undue concentration of ownership or control in 2CA, the Tribunal erred in failing to give due weight fo that finding in 2CA's application. Contrarv to the purpose and intenticn of the sub-section, it erred in making a decision. the effect of which was to entrench that concentration. 12. The Tribunal failed to ask itself the essential question which arose for decision under para. 83(A)(e), Tt at no stage asked the question. "Is it in the public interest that applications for an additional independent Licence should be invited?" Instead. and in error, it proceeded to undertake an exercise in comparison to determine what tvpe of service or services would better serve the public interest. It was neither a relevant nor a leqitimate exercise to ask whether it was in the public interest that two supplementarv licences be aranted or whether two such licences would be preferable to an independent licence, T deal with these submissions as follows. Effectively para. 83(6)(e) provides that the Tribunal shall not refuse to grant a licence unless the conditions provided for in the paraqraph are found to exist. In relation to 2CA the Tribunal found that thev did exist. There was no contest concerning the question of commercial viability provided for in sub-para. (1). Nor was there anv issue concernina the first part of sub-para. (ii) (part (A)) which required the Tribunal to consider the need for an adequate and comprehensive service to be provided pursuant to the licence. The second part of the sub-paragraph (part (B)) required it to consider whether. in its opinion, there was, or would be, if the supplementary licence were aranted. an undue concentration of the ownership or control of the media in 13. the area to be served pursuant to the licence. Having considered those matters, ut was the Tribunal's obligation to determine whether it was in the public interest that applications for such a licence should be invited. The submission involves the proposition that, if, having considered the two matters mentioned in the sub-varagraph, the Tribunal finds them established, it is bound to invite applications for an independent Licence, Iam of opinion that the submission should be reiected. There are a number of reasons for this conclusion, Thev are as follows:- ta) The opening words of para. 83/6) sav that the Tribunal shall not refuse to qrant a licence toa person unless it has held an inquiry into the arant of the licence and one of the matters specified in the succeeding paragraphs, of which para. (e) is one, apply. The opening words do not say positively that the Tribunal shall refuse to agvant a licence i1f the matter specified in one or other of the paragraphs is established. (bp) Sub-para. (e)(1i) obliges the Tribunal to consider the two matters specified in parts (A) and (B) of the sub-paragraph, but the ultimate matter to be considered 1s the public interest. This would sugqaest that. although the Tribunal must take into account the two matters specified in sub-para. (1i), they are not the only matters which it is ta take into account in making its determination. Broader considerations would seem to be in play. (da) 14. That that is the intended meaning is made more likely by the fact that other provisions of Sub-sec. 83(6) are couched in lanquage which ensures that only the specified matters will be taken into account. Paragraph 83(6)(c). in contrast with the subiect paraqraph., uses the words, "it appears to the Tribunal, having reqard oniy to the following matters or circumstances that it is advisable in the public interest to refuse to grant the licence to the person..." The word "onlv" is absent from the provisions of para. (e) except insofar as it 1s imported by the provisions of sub-sec. (8). The provisions of that sub-section apply to the matter referred to in part (A) of sub-para. (11), not that referred Fo in part (B) thereof. There is authority which suggests that the construction contended for by counsel for the applicant is an erroneous one. In Television Capricornia Pty Limited v. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (23 December 1986. unreported), Wilcox J., after referring to the decision of the High Court in The Queen v. The Australian Broadcastina Tribunal: ex parte 2HD Pty Unmited (1979) 144 C.L.R. 45, said (pp. 16 - 17):- "Tt cannot be said. in relation to the present application, that there is no pusitive indication of the considerc.tions on which a arant or refusal of consent 1s to depend. The Tribunal must take 15. into account such of the matters specified in sub-para. (1) to (vi) Cof para. 83(6)(da) of the Act] as may be applicable to the case. But the omission of the words 'onliv' and the terms of para. (vii) make clear that the Tribunal is not confined to those matters. Subject only to the 'scope and purpose' concept referred to in 2HD, the Tribunal may take into account anv other matter which it regards as relevant to the decision to be made. The ultimate question for the Tribunal is whether it is advisable ain the public interest to refuse to arant the licence to the applicant. The matters listed in sub-paras. (i) fo (vil) are onlv matters to be considered in reaching a conclusion upon that question". His Honour was dealing with different provisions of the Act from those in question here, but his words, with which I respectfullv agree, are, with one not unimportant difference, as apt for this case as they were for the case before him. The difference concerns sub-para. 83(6)(da)(vi1) which expressly empowered the Tribunal to take any other matters or circumstances which the Tribunal considered relevant into account. That provision made the case decided by Wilcox J. a stronger one than the present. Nevertheless, his Honour relied in part upon the absence of the word "only" from the paragraph which he had to consider. For the reasons I have given, I am of opinion, as I have 16, said. that the first submission should be reiected. Before leaving that submission, I should mention that reference was made by counsel for the applicant toa ministerial statement made to the House of Representatives on 30 November 1983 concerning the implementation of what is described in the statement as "the Supplementarv Licence Scheme". Reference was made by all counsel to the second reading speech which explained the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1984 (Hansard, House of Representatives for 323 October 1984, pp. 1498 et seq.) The Bill became the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1984, which was fhe Act which inserted vara. 83(6)(e) un its present form into the Act, All T need sav about the statement and the second readina speech is that I have considered them, but nothing in them leads me to conclude that I should adopt a different construction of para. 83(6)(e) of the Act from the one which its words suggest to me that it has. The authorities to which TI have referred. particularly the 2HD case, establish that the Tribunal is intended to have wide powers in order to discharge the important public functions it has. In many of its deliberations, including its deliberations here, the public interest is a critical factor to which it must give consideration. It 1s true that the applications are separate applications and that a separate decision has to be made im respect of each. But two applications were made. 17. Both were referred to the Tribunal bv the Minister. There 1s no express power in the Act which enables the Tribunal to deal with applications jointly. But, so long as it makes a separate determination in respect of each, I see nothing unlawful about it conducting a hearing in which the considerations which applv to each are the subject of evidence and arqument. It would be quite unreal to expect the Tribunal to embark on the hearina of one without considering the implications of the other. For it to do so would be for 1t to shut its eves to critical and relevant matters which would arise because of the existence of the other application. Furthermore, which application should it have heard first, if it were bound to conduct separate hearings? And would it be appropriate or inappropriate for it to bring in a decision on one application before it had heard the evidence and arqument in the other? The Tribunal was bound to deal with matters as thev were. The realities involved there being two applications for supplementarv licences. Tt would have been open to the Tribunal to refuse both applications, to qrant one or to arant hoth. It decided to grant the two. Bearing in mind the importance of the public interest for its consideration of the matter, I see nothing unlawful in it having taken into account, in reaching its conclusion, matters which, in its view, were beneficial to the public interest if two licences were qranted. Tt is true to say that it overcame the problem of undue concentration of the ownership or control of the media inthe area, which 18. applied in the case of 2CA, by bringing into the scales the dilution of that control which there would be if two licences, rather than one, were granted. In its view such dilution tended to overcome the problem because it meant that the deqree of control would be no greater than it is at the moment. That was a decision which it was well within the province of the Tribunal to make. Furthermore, it led to the Canberra communitv having, not one, but two, FM stations. a matter which it considered was to the public advantage. In these circumstances T am unable to find anything unlawful about the Tribunal's approach to the matter related fo its hearing the two applications toqether and its decision +o qrant each licence on the basis that. for the reasons it qave. each application complemented the other. This submission is really bound up with the second submission. The contention is that the Tribunal erred in failing to give proper weight to its finding of undue concentration of ownership or control of the media in the 2CA application. But it gave very close consideration to that matter. It is impossible to sav that 1t failed to qive due or proper weight to that matter in the 2CA application. It was a matter which concerned it qgreatlv. The matter was only overcome bv the consideration that. if two licences were qranted, the dedree of control would be diluted down to the present dearee of control which exists. The submission. therefore, leads one back into the field of the second submission with which TI have 19. dealt. I therefore reject the third submission. I think that it is a reasonable conclusion to draw from a reading of the Tribunal's decision as a whole that it nowhere expresslv addressed the question which sub-para. 83(6)(e)(11) raises for determination, namely, whether it was in the public unterest that independent applications for a licence should be invited. But a reading of the decision, the essential paragraphs of which I have quoted, persuades me that in substance it did give close consideration to that question. Having done so, it reached the conclusion that it was not in the public interest that applications should be invited. In mv opinion, the difficulty about the submission lies in an Assumption contained within 1t cvhat the Tribunal was bound to consider the question raised bv para. 83/(6)(e), if not as a first matter, then as a completelv separate one. But it was only one of the many questions which the Tribunal had to decide in order to reach a conclusion on the ultimate question whether it should arant- the licences. The options open to it were, as it stated. to grant one or both applications, or to refuse both. Many of the considerations relevant to the ultimate question were also relevant to the question raised by para. 83(6)(e). Absent that paragraph from the leqislation, the matters mentioned in it would have remained critical matters for the Tribunal to consider. They would properly have formed part of its overall consideration of 1t. Really, the submission now under eonsideration must 29. fail unless the applicant is entitled to succeed on the first submission. That submission was rejected because I did not find in the words of para. 83(6)(e) the mandatory effect for which counsel for the applicant contended. I vefer again to the form of the opening words of the paragraph and the absence of the word "onlv" from the relevant provisions thereof. The paraqraph did not operate to prevent the Tribunal granting the Licences if it found the matters specified in it established. On the contrarv, it did no more than empower the Tribunal, at its discretion, to refuse the licences. but onlv 1f the matters specifled in the paragraph were found by the Tribunal to exist. For these reasons, U reject the applicant's fourth submission. In the result the submissions made on behalf of the applicant are rejected. The application is dismissed with costs. | certrfy that this and the 19 preceding" pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of The Honourable Mr Justice Sheppard. x - jececten Dated 23 KEBRUARY {987 Counsel for the Applicant: W.H. Nicholas, 0.C. with D. Catterns and R.C. Refshauge Solicitors for the Applicant: Macphillamv Cummins & Gibson 21. Solicitor for the First Respondent: R. Orr, Australian Government Soliciters Office. Counsel for the Second Respondent: J.d. Spigelman, 9.C. with K.V. Tavlor Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Boyd House & Partners Counsel for the Third Respondent: A. Hewitt Solicitors for the Thard respondent: Stephen Jaques Stone James Dates of hearing: 2 and 3 Februacv 1987