[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59756-59761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24148]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket Nos. 19-282 and 17-105; FCC 19-106]
In the Matter of Use of Common Antenna Site, Modernization of
Media Regulation Initiative
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether it
should eliminate or revise the requirements, in the Commission's rules,
regarding access to FM and TV broadcast antenna sites. These rules
prohibit the grant, or renewal, of a license for an FM or TV station if
that applicant or licensee controls an antenna site that is peculiarly
suitable for broadcasting in the area and does not make the site
available for use by other similar licensees. The Commission seeks
comment on whether these requirements, which are rarely invoked, are
outdated and unnecessary in light of the significant changes in the
broadcast marketplace, including significant growth in the availability
of broadcast infrastructure that has occurred since these restrictions
were first adopted nearly 75 years ago. With this proceeding, the
Commission continues its efforts to modernize our rules and eliminate
or modify outdated and unnecessary regulations.
DATES: Comments may be filed on or before December 6, 2019, and reply
comments may be filed December 23, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments and reply comments,
identified by MB Docket Nos. 19-282 and 17-105, by any of the following
methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://
[[Page 59757]]
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[ssquf] Mail: 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] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Matthews, Media Bureau, Policy
Division, 202-418-2154, or email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 19-106, adopted and released on
October 25, 2019. The full text of this document is available for
public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street
SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW,
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be
available via ECFS at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be
available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe
Acrobat. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an
email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432
(TTY).
Synopsis
1. In this NPRM, we seek comment on whether we should eliminate or
revise the requirements, in sections 73.239 and 73.635 of the
Commission's rules, regarding access to FM and TV broadcast antenna
sites. As described in more detail below, these rules prohibit the
grant, or renewal, of a license for an FM or TV station if that
applicant or licensee controls an antenna site that is peculiarly
suitable for broadcasting in the area and does not make the site
available for use by other similar licensees. We seek comment on
whether these requirements, which are rarely invoked, are outdated and
unnecessary in light of the significant changes in the broadcast
marketplace, including significant growth in the availability of
broadcast infrastructure that has occurred since these restrictions
were first adopted nearly 75 years ago. With this proceeding, we
continue our efforts to modernize our rules and eliminate or modify
outdated and unnecessary regulations.
I. Background
2. The earliest rules on record adopted by the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission) regarding the use of common FM
and TV antenna sites date from 1945. These rules provide that no FM or
TV broadcast license, or license renewal, ``will be granted to any
person who owns, leases, or controls a particular site which is
peculiarly suitable'' for FM or TV broadcasting in a particular area,
unless the site is available for use by other FM or TV licensees or
there is another comparable site available in the area, and ``where the
exclusive use of such site by the applicant or licensee would unduly
limit the number of'' FM or TV stations that can be authorized in a
particular area or would ``unduly restrict competition among'' FM or TV
stations. Section 73.239 applies to commercial full power FM radio
stations, and section 73.635 applies to full power commercial and
noncommercial TV stations and Class A TV stations. Notably, the AM and
noncommercial educational FM radio rules do not contain a provision
comparable to sections 73.239 and 73.635 governing common use of AM
antenna sites.
3. At the time the rules were adopted, FM and television
broadcasting were still in their infancy, and the infrastructure
available to broadcast a signal over the air was sparse. Towers used by
AM radio stations, the first broadcasting service, were generally
incompatible with use by FM radio or television antennas. While the
reason underlying the initial adoption of common antenna site
requirements is unclear, they were adopted at a time when shortages of
equipment and materials needed for broadcasting were a serious
impediment to the introduction of new broadcast services. In the 1940s,
the Commission also became concerned about the effect of ownership
concentration and certain anticompetitive broadcast network practices
on competition and diversity in the nascent broadcast industry. The
language of the rules themselves, which has remained unchanged since
1945, suggests that the Commission at that time was concerned that
exclusive use of an antenna site could unduly restrict the number of FM
and TV stations in a particular area or otherwise impede competition
among stations.
4. In addition, it appears that the Commission may have intended to
ensure that a renewal applicant or licensee that owns or controls a
desirable antenna site make it available to other licensees on
reasonable terms. In its order proposing adoption of the common antenna
site rule for FM stations, the Commission noted that, when there is an
antenna site in a particular area and ``there is no other comparable
site available in the area, [a] licensee or applicant as a condition of
being issued a license or renewal of license shall be required to make
the use of his antenna site available to other FM licensees upon the
payment of a reasonable rental and upon a showing that the shared use
of the antenna site will permit satisfactory operation of all stations
concerned.'' With respect to section 73.635, the Commission has noted
that the common TV antenna rule ``makes clear that its purpose is to
remove unnecessary impediments to competition, ensuring that the public
will have access to a variety of different broadcast sources.''
5. Needless to say, the broadcast marketplace has evolved
substantially since the antenna site sharing rules were adopted. In
1945, there were 46 licensed FM broadcast stations; today, there are
6,726 FM commercial stations and 4,179 FM educational stations. The
terrestrial radio broadcast market today also includes 4,610 a.m.
stations, 2,178 low power FM (LPFM) stations, and over 8,000 FM
translator and booster stations that retransmit and extend the signal
of a parent FM station. The TV marketplace similarly has expanded
greatly since the rule regarding antenna sites was first adopted. In
1945, there were nine television stations; today, there are 1,757
commercial and noncommercial educational full power television
stations, 387 Class A television stations, almost 1,900 low power
television (LPTV) stations, and more than 3,600 TV translator stations
that retransmit the signal of a parent TV station.
6. The dramatic increase in the number of television and radio
stations since 1945 has contributed to a corresponding increase in the
number of antenna sites suitable for broadcasting. While some
communications towers are owned and operated by FM and TV broadcasters,
the vast majority appear to be owned by non-broadcast entities,
[[Page 59758]]
including companies specializing in tower leasing such as American
Tower, Crown Castle, InSite Wireless Group, and Vertical Bridge. Thus,
while it appears that broadcasters were more likely to have owned their
towers in 1945, this is less the case today, and there is now
widespread availability of tower capacity from a variety of tower
companies. Moreover, many antenna sites are available for lease and
shared use by broadcasters and wireless carriers, thereby helping
broadcaster tower tenants and other entities to avoid the capital
investment, environmental, zoning and other concerns involved in
building new communications towers. The trend toward co-location of
communications towers on antenna farms has also reduced the cost and
other barriers to entry associated with the need to build new
transmission facilities. In addition, the development of broadband
antennas now permits multiple FM and TV stations in a market to share
an antenna, thereby reducing the cost of antenna and tower facilities
for the sharing stations and permitting towers with broadband antennas
to accommodate more individual FM and TV tower tenants.
II. Discussion
7. We invite comment on whether we should eliminate or revise
sections 73.239 and 73.635 of our rules. In particular, we invite
comment on whether the requirements regarding the use of common FM and
TV antenna sites continue to serve the public interest in light of the
vast changes in the broadcasting marketplace and infrastructure since
they were first adopted nearly 75 years ago. For example, to what
extent do FM and TV broadcasters own towers today? Publicly available
information suggests that the tower market is dominated by non-
broadcast owned tower companies that are in the business of leasing
their capacity. Is there currently a sufficient supply of towers and
antenna sites suitable for FM and TV broadcast use? Does the current
abundance of towers and antenna sites owned or controlled by non-
broadcast entities render the rules regarding use of common antenna
sites unnecessary?
8. Do these rules remain necessary to ensure that today's consumers
have access to an adequate variety of FM and TV broadcast sources? Do
they remain necessary to ``remove unnecessary impediments'' to
broadcast competition? Do the rules make sense as a practical matter
given that there are few new full-power FM or TV channels being
allotted today and no new Class A TV channels being allotted? That is,
new entrants into FM or TV broadcasting would likely operate on
existing channels using existing broadcast infrastructure and existing
broadcasters, with the exception of stations subject to the Incentive
Auction repack, are unlikely to be changing channels such that they
will require new towers. Were we to eliminate these rules, would the
likelihood increase that TV and FM broadcasters would need to construct
their own towers?
9. We seek comment and data on whether requests for use of
particular antenna sites under these rules are even made in today's
broadcast marketplace. The only evidence we could find of the common
antenna site rules being raised is in the context of disputes in which
the rules are invoked unjustifiably, contributing to unnecessary
adjudication expenses and delays. Would elimination of the rules help
conserve industry and Commission resources by avoiding unnecessary
complications in disputes between stations? To the extent legitimate
requests for access to an antenna site have been made, are such
requests ever refused? Are such refusals, if any, based on reasonable
grounds? Are there instances in which the terms of use are
unreasonable?
10. We ask commenters that advocate retaining the rules to provide
information and data about specific circumstances in which the rules
have proven useful in promoting access to sites peculiarly suitable for
broadcasting. In this regard, we note that, for both rules, four
elements must be satisfied in order to establish a violation, and this
may be part of the reason why it appears that no party that has relied
on sections 73.239 or 73.635 in disputes regarding access to a tower or
tower site has been successful in establishing a violation of either
rule. Indeed, we are aware of no instance where a license application
or license renewal application was denied on the basis of a violation
of these rules. If we were to retain the rules, should they be revised
to make them more useful to parties seeking access to antenna sites? If
so, what changes should we make?
11. We ask commenters who advocate eliminating the common antenna
site rules to discuss the potential benefits and costs of eliminating
the rules. How burdensome are the rules for broadcasters? How would
stations be affected if the rules were eliminated. Would stations that
own towers have an incentive to engage in anticompetitive behavior
going forward if the rules were eliminated? Or, is it in their
financial interest to lease capacity on their towers to the extent
requested? Are there impending changes to the broadcast industry,
including the transition to ATSC 3.0 and the importance of distributed
transmission system (DTS) single frequency networks (SFN) to ATSC 3.0,
that will increase demand for antenna sites and provide a greater need
for rules regarding access to common antenna sites? To the extent that
parties believe that there are not sufficient towers and antenna sites
available, they should document this concern with specificity and data.
Commenters that advocate in favor of or against retaining the rules
should discuss whether and how the benefits of doing so outweigh any
costs. Are there any other considerations or data that the Commission
should take into account in determining whether to retain these nearly
75 year-old rules?
III. Procedural Matters
12. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission
has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA)
relating to this NPRM. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B.
13. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document may
result in new or revised information collection requirements subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). If the Commission adopts any
new or revised information collection requirement, the Commission will
publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment
on the requirement, as required by the RA. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.''
14. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. 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
[[Page 59759]]
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.
15. Filing Comments and Replies. Pursuant to Sections 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 the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). 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: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy 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.
[ssquf] 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 and boxes 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 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
16. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC
20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will
be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe
Acrobat.
17. People With Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the FCC's
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202)
418-0432 (TTY).
18. Additional Information. For additional information on this
proceeding, please contact Kim Matthews of the Media Bureau, Policy
Division, [email protected], (202) 418-2154.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (``RFA''), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') concerning the possible significant
economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in
the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the NPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published
in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule Changes
2. The NPRM seeks comment on whether to eliminate or revise the
requirements, in Sections 73.635 and 73.239 of the Commission's rules,
regarding access to use of television and FM broadcast antenna sites.
These rules prohibit the grant of a license for a broadcast television
or FM station, or a license renewal, to an entity that owns, leases, or
controls a site that ``is peculiarly suitable'' for TV or FM
broadcasting in a particular area unless the site is available for use
by other TV or FM licensees or there is another comparable site
available in the area, and where the exclusive use of the site by the
applicant or licensee ``would unduly limit the number of'' TV or FM
stations that can be authorized in a particular area or would ``unduly
restrict competition among'' TV or FM stations. We seek comment on
whether these requirements are outdated and unnecessary in light of the
significant changes in the broadcast marketplace, including significant
growth in the availability of broadcast infrastructure that has
occurred since these restrictions were first adopted nearly 75 years
ago. With this proceeding, we continue our efforts to modernize our
rules and eliminate outdated and unnecessary regulations.
B. Legal Basis
3. The action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
303, 307, and 309 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
154(j), 303, 307, 309.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we
provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of
the number of such small entities, where feasible.
5. The rules we seek comment on herein directly affect small FM
radio and full power and Class A television stations. Below, we provide
a description of these small entities, as
[[Page 59760]]
well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where
feasible.
6. Radio Stations. This Economic Census category ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by
radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio,
from an affiliated network, or from external sources.'' The SBA has
established a small business size standard for this category as firms
having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. Economic Census data
for 2012 shows that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that
year. Of that number, 2,806 firms operated with annual receipts of less
than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts between $24,999,999
and $50 million, and 26 with annual receipts of $50 million or more.
Therefore, based on the SBA's size standard the majority of such
entities are small entities.
7. According to Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC's
Media Access Pro Radio Database on January 8, 2018, about 11,372 (or
about 99.9 percent) of 11,383 commercial radio stations had revenues of
$38.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition. The Commission has estimated that there are 6,726 licensed
FM commercial stations. We note the Commission has also estimated the
number of licensed noncommercial (NCE) FM radio stations to be 4,179.
However, the Commission does not compile or have access to information
on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how
many such stations would qualify as small entities.
8. We also note, that in assessing whether a business entity
qualifies as small under the above definition, business control
affiliations must be included. The Commission's estimate therefore
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected
by its action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition,
to be determined a ``small business,'' an entity may not be dominant in
its field of operation. We further note that it is difficult at times
to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the
estimate of small businesses to which these rules may apply does not
exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on
these basis; thus, our estimate of small businesses may therefore be
over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional element of the
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media
entities, and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may
be over-inclusive to this extent.
9. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images
together with sound.'' These establishments operate television
broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission
of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or
transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television
stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a
predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio,
from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has
created the following small business size standard for such businesses:
Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. The 2012
Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in
that year. Of this number, 656 had annual receipts of $25 million or
less, 25 had annual receipts between $24,999,999 and $50 million, and
70 had annual receipts of $50 million or more. Based on this data we
therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television
broadcasters are small entities under the applicable SBA size standard.
10. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed full power
commercial television stations to be 1,371. Of this total, 1,257
stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission
staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television
Database (BIA) on January 8, 2018, and therefore these licensees
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the
Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial
educational (NCE) television stations to be 386. These stations are
non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.
11. There are also 387 Class A stations. Given the nature of these
services, we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small
entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
12. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern
qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business (control)
affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our
action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition,
another element of the definition of ``small business'' requires that
an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at
this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish
whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to
which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the
definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly
over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional element of the
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media
entities and its estimates of small businesses to which they apply may
be over-inclusive to this extent.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
13. The NPRM seeks comment on whether to eliminate or revise the
requirements, in Sections 73.635 and 73.239 of the Commission's rules,
regarding access to use of television and FM broadcast antenna sites.
These rules prohibit the grant of a license for a broadcast television
or FM station, or a license renewal, to an entity that owns, leases, or
controls a site that ``is peculiarly suitable'' for TV or FM
broadcasting in a particular area unless the site is available for use
by other TV or FM licensees or there is another comparable site
available in the area, and where the exclusive use of the site by the
applicant or licensee ``would unduly limit the number of'' TV or FM
stations that can be authorized in a particular area or would ``unduly
restrict competition among'' TV or FM stations. Elimination of these
rules would reduce compliance requirements for full power and Class A
television and FM stations, which are currently required to comply with
the rules. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether, if the rules are
retained, they should be revised and, if so, how.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered
14. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
[[Page 59761]]
under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather
than design, standard; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule,
or any part thereof, for small entities.
15. The NPRM seeks comment on whether to eliminate or revise the
requirements, in Sections 73.635 and 73.239 of the Commission's rules,
regarding access to use of television and FM broadcast antenna sites.
Eliminating these requirements would eliminate the costs of compliance
with the Commission's rules, including any related managerial,
administrative, legal, and operational costs. The NPRM asks whether
stations that own towers would have an incentive to engage in
anticompetitive behavior going forward if the rules are eliminated. The
Commission also seeks comment on the alternative of not eliminating
these requirements, or of revising them.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
16. None.
IV. Ordering Clauses
17. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 307, and 309 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
303(r), 307, 309 this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
18. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 to read as
follows:
PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
0
1. The Authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334,
336, 339.
Sec. 73.239 [Removed and Reserved]
0
2. Remove and Reserve Sec. 73.239.
Sec. 73.635 [Removed and Reserved]
0
3. Remove and Reserve Sec. 73.635.
[FR Doc. 2019-24148 Filed 11-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P