In the Matter of Use of Common Antenna Site, Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, 59756-59761 [2019-24148]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
59756
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
PART 60–300—AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
AND NONDISCRIMINATION
OBLIGATIONS OF FEDERAL
CONTRACTORS AND
SUBCONTRACTORS REGARDING
DISABLED VETERANS, RECENTLY
SEPARATED VETERANS, ACTIVE
DUTY WARTIME OR CAMPAIGN
BADGE VETERANS, AND ARMED
FORCES SERVICE MEDAL VETERANS
3. The authority citation for part 60–
300 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 793; 38 U.S.C. 4211
and 4212; E.O. 11758 (3 CFR, 1971–1975
Comp., p. 841).
by an employee organization or
association of organizations and health
maintenance organizations, or other
similar arrangements, in consideration
of premiums or other periodic charges
or payments payable to the health
organization.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 60–741—AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
AND NONDISCRIMINATION
OBLIGATIONS OF FEDERAL
CONTRACTORS AND
SUBCONTRACTORS REGARDING
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
5. The authority citation for part 60–
741 continues to read as follows:
or hospital service agreements,
membership or subscription contracts,
network agreements, health benefits
plans duly sponsored or underwritten
by an employee organization or
association of organizations and health
maintenance organizations, or other
similar arrangements, in consideration
of premiums or other periodic charges
or payments payable to the health
organization.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2019–23700 Filed 11–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–45–P
■
Subpart A—Preliminary Matters, Equal
Opportunity Clause
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 705 and 793; E.O.
11758 (3 CFR, 1971–1975 Comp., p. 841).
§ 60–300.2
Subpart A—Preliminary Matters, Equal
Opportunity Clause
[MB Docket Nos. 19–282 and 17–105; FCC
19–106]
6. In § 60–741.2, revise paragraph (x)
to read as follows:
In the Matter of Use of Common
Antenna Site, Modernization of Media
Regulation Initiative
4. In § 60–300.2, revise paragraph (x)
to read as follows:
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(x) Subcontract. (1) Means any
agreement or arrangement between a
contractor and any person (in which the
parties do not stand in the relationship
of an employer and an employee):
(i) For the purchase, sale or use of
personal property or nonpersonal
services which, in whole or in part, is
necessary to the performance of any one
or more contracts; or
(ii) Under which any portion of the
contractor’s obligation under any one or
more contracts is performed, undertaken
or assumed; and
(2) Does not include an agreement
between a health care provider and a
health organization under which the
health care provider agrees to provide
health care services or supplies to
natural persons who are beneficiaries
under TRICARE.
(i) An agreement means a relationship
between a health care provider and a
health organization under which the
health care provider agrees to provide
health care services or supplies to
natural persons who are beneficiaries
under TRICARE.
(ii) A health care provider is a
physician, hospital, or other individual
or entity that furnishes health care
services or supplies.
(iii) A health organization is a
voluntary association, corporation,
partnership, managed care support
contractor, or other nongovernmental
organization that is lawfully engaged in
providing, paying for, insuring, or
reimbursing the cost of health care
services or supplies under group
insurance policies or contracts, medical
or hospital service agreements,
membership or subscription contracts,
network agreements, health benefits
plans duly sponsored or underwritten
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Nov 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
■
§ 60–741.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(x) Subcontract. (1) Means any
agreement or arrangement between a
contractor and any person (in which the
parties do not stand in the relationship
of an employer and an employee):
(i) For the purchase, sale or use of
personal property or nonpersonal
services which, in whole or in part, is
necessary to the performance of any one
or more contracts; or
(ii) Under which any portion of the
contractor’s obligation under any one or
more contracts is performed, undertaken
or assumed; and
(2) Does not include an agreement
between a health care provider and a
health organization under which the
health care provider agrees to provide
health care services or supplies to
natural persons who are beneficiaries
under TRICARE.
(i) An agreement means a relationship
between a health care provider and a
health organization under which the
health care provider agrees to provide
health care services or supplies to
natural persons who are beneficiaries
under TRICARE.
(ii) A health care provider is a
physician, hospital, or other individual
or entity that furnishes health care
services or supplies.
(iii) A health organization is a
voluntary association, corporation,
partnership, managed care support
contractor, or other nongovernmental
organization that is lawfully engaged in
providing, paying for, insuring, or
reimbursing the cost of health care
services or supplies under group
insurance policies or contracts, medical
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47 CFR Part 73
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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.
SUMMARY:
Interested parties may
submit comments and reply comments,
identified by MB Docket Nos. 19–282
and 17–105, by any of the following
methods:
D Federal Communications
Commission’s Website: https://
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D 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.
D People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
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
kim.matthews@fcc.gov.
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 https://
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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Nov 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59757
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,
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
59758
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Nov 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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-ButDisclose. 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
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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).
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
D 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.
D Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW, Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Nov 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
59759
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.
D 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.
D 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 fcc504@fcc.gov
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, Kim.Matthews@fcc.gov, (202)
418–2154.
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.
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.
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
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rule Changes
2. The NPRM seeks comment on
whether to eliminate or revise the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
59760
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Nov 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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
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.
§ 73.239
■
[Removed and Reserved]
2. Remove and Reserve § 73.239.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Nov 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
§ 73.635
■
[Removed and Reserved]
3. Remove and Reserve § 73.635.
[FR Doc. 2019–24148 Filed 11–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR part 395
[Docket No. FMCSA–2019–0174]
Commercial Driver’s License
Standards: Application for Exemption;
Wilson Logistics
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of application for
exemption; request for comments.
AGENCY:
FMCSA announces that
Wilson Logistics has applied for an
exemption from the requirement that
the holder of a Commercial Learner’s
Permit (CLP) be accompanied by the
holder of a Commercial Driver’s License
(CDL), seated in the front seat, while the
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) is
being driven by the CLP holder.
Specifically, Wilson Logistics requests
an exemption to allow CLP holders who
have successfully passed the CDL skills
test to drive a CMV without having a
CDL holder seated in the front seat.
Wilson Logistics states that the CDL
holder would remain in the CMV while
the CLP holder is driving, but not
necessarily in the passenger seat.
Wilson Logistics believes that the
exemption, if granted, would promote
greater productivity and help
individuals who have passed the CDL
skills test return to actively earning a
living faster. FMCSA requests public
comment on Wilson Logistics’
application for exemption.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 6, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA–
2019–0174 by any of the following
methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. See the Public
Participation and Request for Comments
section below for further information.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59761
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.T., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
Each submission must include the
Agency name and the docket number for
this document. Note that DOT posts all
comments received without change to
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a
comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at
any time or visit Room W12–140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The on-line FDMS is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its
rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any
personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone: 202–366–4325.
Email: MCPSD@dot.gov. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone (202) 366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
FMCSA encourages you to participate
by submitting comments and related
materials.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
document (FMCSA–2019–0174),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment
applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You
may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that
you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone
number in the body of your document
so the Agency can contact you if it has
questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comments online, go
to www.regulations.gov and put the
docket number, ‘‘FMCSA–2019–0174’’
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
]]>Agencies
[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: https://
[[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 https://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: https://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
