[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70485-70489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27645]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MB Docket Nos. 19-310 and 17-105; FCC 19-122]


Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Duplication of 
Programming on Commonly Owned Radio Stations, Modernization of Media 
Initiative

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
modify or eliminate its rule (the radio duplication rule) that bars 
same-service (AM or FM) commercial radio stations from duplicating more 
than 25% of their total hours of programming in an average broadcast 
week if the stations have 50% or more contour overlap and are commonly 
owned or subject to a time brokerage agreement.

DATES: 
    Comments Due: January 22, 2020. Replies Due: February 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments and replies, 
identified by MB Docket Nos. 19-310 and 17-105, by any of the following 
methods:
     Federal Communications Commission Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     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.
     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 more detailed filing instructions for submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Saulnier, Industry Analysis 
Division, Media Bureau, [email protected], (202) 418-1598.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in MB Docket Nos. 19-310 and 17-105, FCC 
19-122, that was adopted November 22, 2019 and released November 25, 
2019. The full text of this document is available for public inspection 
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th 
Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, or online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-179A1.pdf. 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, etc.) and 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) may be requested by sending an email to 
[email protected] or calling the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

    1. Background. In 1964, the Commission first limited radio 
programming duplication by commonly owned stations in the same local 
area by prohibiting FM stations in cities with populations over 100,000 
from duplicating the programming of a co-owned AM station in the same 
local area for more than 50% of the FM station's broadcast day. Even 
though the Commission did not consider programming duplication an 
efficient use of FM spectrum, it was willing to allow limited 
duplication ``as a temporary expedient to help establish the [then-new] 
FM service.'' To minimize the rule's economic impact on radio 
broadcasters, the Commission allowed for waivers upon a substantial 
showing that programming duplication would be in the public interest, 
and provided that compliance would be monitored through the license 
renewal process. In 1976, the Commission concluded that ``the virtually 
complete absence of available channels as well as the strengthened 
economic position of FM'' warranted tightening the restriction to limit 
FM stations to duplicating only 25% of the average program week of a 
co-owned AM station in the same local area if either the AM or FM 
station operated in a community of over 25,000 population. The 
Commission found that fewer available channels in communities of 
substantial size could inhibit programming diversity and that 
programming duplication was a wastefully inefficient use of spectrum. 
In 1986 the Commission eliminated the cross-service radio duplication 
rule entirely, finding that FM service had developed, and FM stations 
were fully competitive. The Commission further found that the rule was 
no longer necessary to promote spectrum efficiency because market 
forces would lead stations to provide separate programming where 
economically feasible, and, where separate programming was not 
economically feasible, duplication was preferable to a station 
curtailing programming or going off air entirely to comply with the 
rule.
    2. In 1992, as part of a broad review of radio ownership rules, the 
Commission adopted a new programming duplication rule barring same-
service (AM or FM) commercial radio stations from duplicating more than 
25% of the total hours of an average broadcast week of programming if 
the stations have 50% or more contour overlap and are commonly owned or 
subject to a time brokerage agreement. Principal community contours are 
defined as ``predicted or measured 5 mV/m groundwave for AM stations 
and predicted 3.16 mV/m for FM stations.'' 47 CFR 73.3556. A time 
brokerage agreement generally involves the sale by one radio licensee 
of blocks of time to a broker who then supplies programming to fill 
that time and sells advertising to support it.
    3. The Commission saw no public benefit in allowing substantial 
programming duplication, observing that, ``when a channel is licensed 
to a particular community, others are prevented from using that channel 
and six adjacent channels at varying distances of up to hundreds of 
kilometers. The limited amount of available spectrum could be used more 
efficiently by other parties to serve

[[Page 70486]]

competition and diversity goals.'' The Commission concluded, however, 
that limited programming duplication had benefits, stating ``we are 
persuaded that limited simulcasting, particularly where expensive, 
locally produced programming such as on-the-spot news coverage is 
involved, could economically benefit stations . . . .''
    4. Discussion. Overall, the Commission seeks comment on whether it 
should modify or eliminate the radio duplication rule and asks if the 
rule has outlived its utility or whether it remains necessary to 
further the public interest goals of competition, programming diversity 
and spectrum efficiency for which it was intended. The broadcast 
industry has changed significantly since the Commission adopted the 
current rule in 1992. One change promoting competition and programming 
diversity is the greatly increased number of radio stations licensed 
and operating across the country: Roughly 11,700 commercial AM and FM 
and FM translator stations in 1992, but close to 19,500 such stations 
today. There also are many more non-commercial/educational radio 
stations (1,588 in 1992 versus 4,122 today) as well as more than two 
thousand low power FM stations, all adding to diverse programming. 
Further, radio broadcasters now expand their content offerings by using 
station websites and mobile applications, allowing users to listen to a 
variety of programming on multiple devices either for free or with a 
paid subscription. This significant growth in the number of radio 
broadcasting outlets, combined with the new and varied formats in which 
broadcasters disseminate their programming, has led to greater radio 
broadcasting competition and programming diversity.
    5. Broadcast radio technology also has improved with the 
introduction of digital radio, which enables FM stations to provide 
clear sound comparable in quality to CDs and enables AM stations to 
provide sound quality equivalent to standard analog FM sound quality. 
Stations broadcasting in digital also are able to provide multiple 
streams of programming as well as other data such as information about 
music airing on the station, weather updates, traffic reports and other 
news.
    6. Further, the Commission's AM revitalization proceeding has 
brought AM programming to the FM band and enabled greater competition. 
The Commission began allowing AM stations (both commercial and 
noncommercial) to use currently authorized FM translator stations to 
retransmit their AM service within their AM stations' coverage areas in 
2009. In 2016, the Commission opened two exclusive windows for AM 
stations to apply to relocate FM translator stations, giving them the 
ability to expand service by broadcasting at night when their signals 
may be substantially reduced. In response, the Commission granted more 
than 1,000 such applications. The Commission opened two additional 
spectrum windows in 2018 and 2019 and awarded licenses for more than 
1,700 new FM translator stations to AM stations not participating in 
the earlier windows. These efforts have helped AM stations to increase 
their audiences, and potentially their advertising revenues, in an 
effort to better compete against stronger rivals.
    7. Collectively, how do these changes affect the need for the radio 
duplication rule? Is the rule still needed to promote radio broadcast 
competition or programming diversity? Is the Commission's assessment of 
the increased competition and programming diversity within the radio 
broadcast industry correct? Are there advantages to competition and 
programming diversity from giving radio broadcasters additional 
programming freedom? Or, alternatively, is the radio duplication rule 
needed to ensure continued competition and diversity, and if so, could 
elimination or modification of this rule potentially harm programming 
diversity? Do other sources of audio programming, such as satellite 
radio or digital streaming audio services, impact the analysis of the 
need for the radio duplication rule, and if so, how? Has there been 
consolidation in any aspect of the media marketplace, and if so, how 
does it impact the Commission's analysis? Should the Commission also 
consider the impact of non-audio sources of information and 
entertainment, such as video providers, newspapers, and social media 
outlets, and if so, how? We seek comment on whether elimination of the 
radio duplication rule would affect any other public interest goals 
articulated by the Commission; for example, the public interest goals 
of broadcast localism, competition and diversity. We also seek comment 
on whether elimination or modification of this rule would impact local 
news gathering and journalism, and how elimination or modification 
could impact consumers who rely on local news for information about 
their community. Would the elimination or modification of this rule 
have any special impact on current or prospective station owners who 
are women or people of color and their ability to compete? Commenters 
should support any assertions on these points with relevant data and 
analyses.
    8. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the radio 
duplication rule remains necessary to promote spectrum efficiency. Due 
in part to the increased number of stations, radio broadcast spectrum 
is now fully utilized. Demand for spectrum for wireless data 
applications has mushroomed, leading to the first-ever incentive 
auction to repurpose television broadcast spectrum for wireless 
broadband and continuous Commission efforts to free more spectrum for 
wireless applications. Spectrum remains a scarce and valuable resource, 
and increased demand for spectrum now pushes radio broadcasters, and 
indeed all spectrum users, to maximize efficiency. Should the 
Commission be concerned that absent the radio duplication rule, radio 
broadcasters will use spectrum less efficiently? Or are the increased 
number of stations and demand for spectrum today sufficient to ensure 
that radio broadcasters use spectrum efficiently and supply varied 
programming to the local market so that the current same-service 
duplication rule can be eliminated or modified? Is there any evidence 
to show that radio broadcasters currently use their spectrum 
inefficiently? Would the limited amount of spectrum available be used 
more efficiently by current licensees broadcasting duplicative content 
or other parties to serve competition and diversity goals?
    9. In 1986, the Commission eliminated the previous cross-service 
programming duplication rule, which had restricted certain FM stations 
from rebroadcasting the programming of commonly owned AM stations in 
the same local market. Initially adopted to encourage the growth of the 
FM band and foster competition among local stations, the Commission 
eliminated the rule once it determined that the FM service was 
sufficiently established and FM stations were fully competitive. The 
Commission found that the rule was no longer necessary to promote 
spectrum efficiency because market forces would lead stations to 
provide separate programming where economically feasible, and where it 
was not economically feasible, duplication was preferable to a station 
curtailing programming or going off the air entirely due to failure to 
comply with the rule. Do the reasons that caused the Commission to 
eliminate the cross-service programming duplication rule apply equally 
to our consideration of the current, same-service duplication rule 
(Sec.  73.3556)? Is competition among

[[Page 70487]]

local broadcast radio stations sufficiently robust to ensure that 
overlapping, commonly owned same-service stations will provide separate 
programming where economically feasible? And where not economically 
feasible, is duplication of programming preferable to a station ceasing 
operation or curtailing programming?
    10. In adopting section 73.3556 in 1992, the Commission noted 
certain benefits to permitting some level of programming duplication. 
Specifically, the Commission found that some duplication could save 
local broadcaster resources invested in producing expensive 
programming. In setting the limit on programming duplication at 25% of 
the total hours of a station's average weekly programming, the 
Commission sought to strike an appropriate balance between affording 
stations the ability to repurpose costly programming and continuing to 
foster competition and programming diversity in the local market. Do 
the benefits previously identified by the Commission related to the 
duplication of programming still exist in today's market? Given the 
changes that have occurred over the past twenty-seven years, as 
discussed above, does permitting duplication of 25% of the total hours 
of a station's average weekly programming continue to strike the 
appropriate balance? If we were to retain and modify the rule, should 
the amount of programming that can be duplicated on commonly owned 
stations be increased or decreased, and if so, what would that 
appropriate percentage be? Commenters should substantiate any proposed 
change in the amount of permitted programming duplication and explain 
the benefits that they believe would redound to radio stations and 
their listeners. Further, if the Commission were to modify and retain 
the radio duplication rule, would the restriction on broadcasters' 
programming choices raise any First Amendment concerns?
    11. Additionally, in the event the rule is retained, does the 
trigger for the rule, namely, that the overlap between the stations 
constitutes more than 50% of the principal community contour service 
area of either station, continue to be the appropriate standard? Does 
an overlap of principal community contours appropriately identify 
stations that should be subject to a programming duplication rule? 
Should the overlap percentage be revised so that the rule applies if 
there is some greater, or lesser, amount of overlap between the 
commonly owned stations? And if so, what should that overlap be? 
Commenters should substantiate any proposed change in the amount of 
overlap before the program duplication rule would be triggered and 
explain any potential benefits or harms. For example, would any 
potential modification of the rule's trigger have differential effects 
on small entities? What impact could increasing or decreasing the 
contour overlap trigger have on duplicative programming? For example, 
could modifying the contour overlap trigger result in some communities 
receiving more duplicative programming, thereby harming localism and 
availability of diverse programming? Could modifying the rule so that 
it is triggered by a larger contour overlap percentage make valued 
programming available to more listeners?
    12. Given the economic and technical challenges facing AM 
broadcasters, should the programming duplication rule treat the AM 
service differently than the FM service? For example, should the 
Commission keep the rule for the FM service but eliminate it for the AM 
service? Given reception challenges in the AM band, particularly in 
urban environments, would eliminating or loosening the AM portion of 
the rule allow more listeners to hear popular programming?
    13. Finally, the Commission seeks comment generally on the benefits 
and costs associated with possible modification or elimination of the 
radio duplication rule. Commenters supporting retention, modification, 
or elimination of the rule should explain the anticipated economic 
impact of any proposed action, including the impact on small entities, 
and, where possible, quantify benefits and costs of proposed actions 
and alternatives. Does the current radio duplication rule create 
benefits or costs for any segment of consumers, advertisers, or 
broadcasters? If so, how would elimination or modification of the rule 
alter the benefits and costs? If the rule were eliminated or modified, 
how could that impact small entities' ability to compete for 
advertising dollars? What are the comparative benefits and costs of 
modifying the rule rather than eliminating it entirely?

Procedural Matters

    14. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission 
has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) relating 
to this NPRM.
    15. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document may 
result in new or revised information collection requirements subject to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 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 Paperwork Reduction Act. 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.''
    16. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this NPRM 
initiates 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 
Commission's pre-meeting 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 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 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 
Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by 
Sec.  1.49(f) of the Commission's rules 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

[[Page 70488]]

themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
    17. Filing Comments and Replies. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  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).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     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.
    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.
    18. 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 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    19. 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.
    20. Additional Information. For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Julie Saulnier, [email protected], of the 
Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1598.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    21. Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules. This NPRM seeks 
comment on whether the Commission should eliminate or modify the radio 
duplication rule, which limits same-service programming duplication to 
25% of total hours in an average broadcast week for commercial AM and 
FM radio stations with 50% or more contour overlap that are commonly 
owned or subject to a time brokerage agreement. The radio broadcast 
industry has seen significant changes since the Commission adopted the 
rule in 1992, including a greatly increased number of licensed radio 
stations, the introduction of AM broadcasting to the FM band through FM 
translator stations, improved digital radio broadcast technology, and 
new, digital methods for distributing audio content to multiple 
devices. Based on these changes, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the 
radio duplication rule has outlived its utility or whether it remains 
necessary to further the public interest goals of competition, 
programming diversity and spectrum efficiency for which it was 
intended.
    22. Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized under sections 
14(i), 4(j), and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 303.
    23. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. 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 rule revisions, 
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 (SBA). 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.
    24. The radio broadcasting U.S. Economic Census category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural 
programs by radio to the public.'' Programming may originate in the 
establishment's 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. Economic Census data for 2012 show that 2,849 firms in 
this category operated in that year. Of that number, 2,806 operated 
with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual 
receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual 
receipts of $50 million or more. Based on this data, we estimate that 
the majority of commercial radio broadcast stations were small under 
the applicable SBA size standard.
    25. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial 
FM radio stations to be 6,728, the number of commercial FM translator 
stations to be 8,177 and the number of commercial AM stations to be 
4601, for a total of 19,505 commercial radio stations. Of this total, 
19,496 stations (or 99.9%) had revenues of $38.5 million or less in 
2018, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media 
Access Pro Radio Database (BIA) on October 7, 2019, and therefore these 
stations qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
    26. 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, an element of the definition of 
``small business'' is that the 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 radio station is 
dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small 
businesses to which the proposed rules may apply does not exclude any 
radio station from the definition of small business on this basis and 
is therefore possibly over-inclusive.
    27. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements. The NPRM seeks comment on whether to modify or 
eliminate the radio duplication rule. If

[[Page 70489]]

the Commission were to eliminate the rule, it would be expected to 
reduce compliance requirements for radio broadcasters, including small 
entities. If the rule were retained but modified to increase the 
contour overlap necessary to trigger the rule or increase the amount of 
programming permitted to be duplicated on the commonly owned stations, 
the compliance requirements would be reduced for radio broadcasters, as 
the current restriction would be made more permissive. Conversely, were 
the rule to be modified so as to decrease the contour overlap necessary 
to trigger the rule or to decrease the amount of programming permitted 
to be duplicated, it could increase the number of radio broadcasters 
subject to the rule and/or potentially increase the compliance 
requirements for those broadcasters in situations that are not subject 
to the existing rule.
    28. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. 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 under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. The 
NPRM seeks comment on eliminating the radio duplication rule, which 
would relieve radio broadcasters, including small entities, from costs 
of compliance with the rule. The NPRM also seeks comment on modifying 
the rule instead of repealing it, alternatives that will minimize any 
burden on small entities, and on retention of the existing rule.
    29. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the 
Proposed Rule. None.
    30. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to 
the authority found in sections 1, 4(j), and 303(r) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
and 303(r), this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    31. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket Nos. 19-310 and 17-105 on or before 
thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register and reply 
comments on or before forty five (45) days after publication in the 
Federal Register.
    32. 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 Act Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television; Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 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.  73.3556  [Removed and Reserved]

0
2. Remove and reserve Sec.  73.3556.

[FR Doc. 2019-27645 Filed 12-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P