[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outdated and unnecessary in light of the significant changes in the 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or modify outdated and unnecessary regulations.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