[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1909-1916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28784]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 74

[MB Docket Nos. 20-401, 17-105; RM-11854; FCC 20-166; FRS 17341]


FM Broadcast Booster Stations; Modernization of Media Initiative

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document the Federal Communications Commission 
proposes to amend its rules to enable FM broadcasters to use FM booster 
stations to air geo-targeted content (e.g., news, weather, and 
advertisements) independent of the signals of its primary station 
within different portions of the primary station's protected service 
contour for a limited period of time during the broadcast hour.

DATES: Comments may be filed on or before February 10, 2021 and reply 
comments may be filed on or before March 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 20-401, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS) at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent 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.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must 
be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington DC 20554
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
     During the time the Commission's building is closed to the 
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers 
need not submit two additional copies for each additional

[[Page 1910]]

docket or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
     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).

    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: Albert Shuldiner, Audio Division, 
Media Bureau at [email protected] or 418-2721, or James 
Bradshaw, Audio Division, Media Bureau at [email protected] or 
(202) 418-2739. For additional information concerning the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) information collection requirements contained in 
this document, contact Cathy Williams at 202-418-2918, or via the 
internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), MB Docket Nos. 20-401, 17-105; RM-11854; 
FCC 20-166, adopted on November 20, 2020, and released on December 1, 
2020. 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, 45 L Street 
NE, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via 
ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft 
Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The NPRM in document FCC 20-166 seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should adopt new information collection requirements. The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens and pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 
104-13, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to comment on these information collection requirements. 
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission 
seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. Traditionally, an FM broadcast station transmits its signal from 
a single, elevated transmission site central to its protected service 
contour. The FM booster service--a low power secondary service in the 
FM broadcast band--was created in 1970 to allow FM stations to improve 
signal strength within their authorized service contour. Booster 
stations were designed to address gaps in coverage, such as those 
caused by distance or terrain shielding. FM booster stations are only 
licensed to the licensee of the primary station, must operate on the 
same frequency as the primary station, and are limited to 
rebroadcasting the signal of the primary station (i.e., no transmission 
of original content). As a secondary service, FM booster stations are 
not permitted to cause adjacent-channel interference to other primary 
services or previously-authorized secondary stations. The Commission's 
rules also address interference to the primary station caused by the 
booster station.
    2. Petition for Rulemaking. On March 13, 2020, GeoBroadcast filed a 
petition for rulemaking seeking to amend Sec.  74.1231(i) of the 
Commission's rules to permit FM booster stations to transmit original 
content for a limited period during the broadcast hour. This ``geo-
targeted'' content would only be available in the specific part of the 
primary station's protected service contour served by the booster 
station; outside of the permitted transmission periods, the booster 
would continue to retransmit the primary station's signal. Under the 
proposal, the booster station's programming would have to be 
``substantially similar'' to the primary station's programming. 
Petitioner clarified that in order to be substantially similar, the 
booster station would be required to retransmit the same content as the 
primary station except for advertisements, promotions for upcoming 
programs, and enhanced capabilities including hyper-localized content, 
and to limit transmission of such original content to 5 percent of the 
broadcast hour. Petitioner asserts that this proposal would not cause 
adjacent-channel interference and that technology has developed such 
that FM booster stations can be sufficiently synchronized with the 
primary station to avoid harmful self-interference. Petitioner claims 
that only a targeted change to Sec.  74.1231(i) is necessary to 
facilitate this proposal--which does not seek any changes to the rules 
regarding primary stations or FM translators--and that the proposed 
booster station operation is compatible with all existing interference 
rules.
    3. On April 2, 2020, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 
issued a public notice seeking comment on the Petition. The Petition 
garnered significant public participation.
    4. Most commenters supported the Petition, although some raise 
concerns that they assert should be addressed in this proceeding. For 
example, commenters raised concerns about potential interference and 
limitations to the proposed technology (i.e., the Petitioner's geo-
targeting technology currently only works with analog FM service and 
may disrupt digital audio broadcasting). Other commenters stated that 
they support the Petition because it would permit minority-owned 
stations to better serve their communities. Other commenters raised 
concerns with the lack of real-world testing, stating that the existing 
testing is insufficient to prove that geo-targeted programming does not 
cause self-interference and would not cause confusion among radio 
listeners, and cautioning the Commission not to rush forward.
    5. In its reply, Petitioner asserted that its existing testing 
regime provides a sufficient basis upon which to proceed to a NPRM. 
Petitioner also notes the level of support from radio broadcasters, 
notwithstanding some objections, and highlights the potential public 
interest benefits of the proposed rule change, including advancing 
localism, supporting minority-owned broadcasters, providing emergency 
alert capability, and helping radio broadcasters compete in the current 
challenging environment.
    6. Discussion. The Commission seeks comment on whether--and if so, 
how--to change the FM booster station rules to permit FM boosters to 
transmit original geo-targeted content. First, the Commission seeks 
comment on technical issues, such as whether permitting FM boosters to 
transmit original geo-targeted content may result in self-interference 
that would be disruptive to listeners and whether there are 
alternatives to the Petitioner's proposal, including conforming changes 
to other Commission rules, that the Commission should consider. Second, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether to require programming 
originated by the FM booster station to be ``substantially similar'' to 
the primary station's programming, and how to define this term. 
Finally, the Commission seeks comment on potential public interest 
implications if it permits FM boosters to transmit original geo-
targeted content, including the impact, if any, on localism,

[[Page 1911]]

diversity, and competition in the media marketplace, and any attendant 
costs and benefits. The Commission also asks for comment on the effect 
of these proposals on small entities and seeks comment as to 
alternatives that would minimize burdens on such small entities.
    7. Technical Operation--Interference Issues. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether permitting FM boosters to transmit original geo-
targeted content would result in additional interference, either to the 
primary station or to other broadcast stations serving the same area. 
The Petition asserts that the only interference-related impact of its 
proposed rule change would be self-interference with the primary 
station where the FM booster station and the primary station contours 
meet, rather than adjacent-channel interference between broadcasters 
and therefore, it would be incumbent upon the stations using FM booster 
stations to originate programming to manage the self-interference to 
ensure that service to its community was not degraded. The NPRM asks if 
this assessment is accurate? Is it reasonable to expect stations to 
adequately manage self-interference without additional guidance or 
mandates, and what is the likely financial impact of managing any self-
interference? The Commission's existing rules do not require FM booster 
stations to protect second adjacent stations from interference. Should 
the Commission impose second adjacent channel interference protection 
requirements for FM booster stations? What would be the correct 
protection requirements to impose? Should second adjacent channel 
interference protection requirements apply to all FM booster stations 
or only those using multiple boosters to provide geo-targeted content? 
To the extent FM booster stations result in interference to other 
stations, are the Commission's existing rules and procedures able to 
sufficiently address the interference? Do the proposed booster 
operations pose a distinct threat to other types of stations, such as 
LPFM or HD Radio broadcasters?
    8. Should FM stations utilizing booster stations for geo-targeted 
programming be required to provide notice to other local broadcasters 
and/or the public to help identify potential sources of interference? 
If so, how should the Commission structure the notice? Should other 
stations or listeners be permitted to raise concerns immediately based 
on the potential for interference or must they wait and only report 
actual interference? What are the costs and benefits associated with 
any proposed notice requirement?
    9. Petitioner acknowledges that, while an FM booster station is 
broadcasting different content from its primary station, self-
interference is possible. The NPRM asks what is the likely impact of 
self-interference on listeners? Could such interference significantly 
degrade the quality of service on the FM band? What would the listener 
experience as they moved between zones broadcasting different content 
or if they otherwise were located near the boundary between two zones? 
Could there be circumstances in which a listener travelling in an 
automobile moves from a booster zone to the primary zone and then to 
another booster zone in quick succession? How would these sudden, 
repeated changes impact the listening experience? Should the Commission 
restrict the protected service contour, size, or proximity of booster 
``zones'' to address self-interference concerns? What impact could any 
increase in self-interference have on emergency broadcasts being 
transmitted from the primary station? Will broadcasters be sufficiently 
incentivized to address self-interference concerns if it means 
potentially forfeiting additional revenue from geo-targeted advertising 
or should the Commission consider additional interference restrictions?
    10. To help prevent potential self-interference, should the 
Commission place a limit on the number of FM boosters that can be 
associated with a primary station for purposes of geo-targeted 
programming? If so, the Commission seeks comment on the appropriate cap 
and the reasoning supporting any such cap. Should certain types of 
stations be exempt from the restriction, and, if so, how should the 
Commission determine which stations are exempt? Should the Commission 
consider changes to Sec.  74.1204(i) to better protect first-adjacent 
channel stations? Also, does the likely increase in the number of 
authorized FM booster stations warrant a new rule that provides 
predicted protections for co-channel stations?
    11. Should the Commission adopt any additional rules or guidelines 
to address instances of self-interference? For example, should a 
station be required to shut down a booster station offering geo-
targeted programming upon the filing of an interference complaint until 
the station can prove it has eliminated the interference? How many 
separate interference complaints should be filed before resolution is 
required? What should be included in these complaints? The Commission 
seeks comment generally on how to structure such a complaint process.
    12. From a consumer electronics standpoint, will the impact of 
self-interference be the same for all radios? The Commission seeks 
comment from receiver manufacturers, retailers, and/or auto 
manufacturers regarding the extent to which they are concerned about 
consumer confusion and whether such confusion is likely to result in 
warranty claims and/or equipment returns.
    13. Finally, have the previous experimental operations provided the 
Commission with enough information upon which to identify and address 
interference concerns? If not, what additional information or testing 
is necessary? The Commission seeks comment generally on these issues.
    14. FM Booster Station Rules. Consistent with the proposal in the 
Petition, the Commission seeks comment on whether to change Sec.  
74.1231(i) of the Commission's rules, which applies to both commercial 
and noncommercial educational (NCE) FM stations. If the Commission were 
to modify that rule, would any conforming changes be needed to other 
Commission rules? For example, would Sec.  74.1201(f) need to be 
revised to reflect the fact that FM booster stations would no longer be 
limited to retransmitting the signal of the primary station? Are there 
any changes to power limitations under Sec.  74.1235 that we should 
consider for booster stations that will air geo-targeted content? 
Should any changes be made to the FM booster station application 
process under Sec.  74.1233 for boosters that will air geo-targeted 
content? How should we deal with mutually exclusive FM booster station 
applications (e.g., two proposed booster stations that are short-spaced 
under Sec.  74.1204(g))? Additionally, as noted above, the proposed 
rule change to Sec.  74.1231(i) would apply to commercial and NCE FM 
stations. The NPRM asks if there is any reason to restrict the ability 
to offer geo-targeted programming to commercial stations? Conversely, 
should we also permit LPFM stations to offer geo-targeted programming 
via FM booster stations? What rules would need to be revised to 
facilitate this change?
    15. How might permitting FM boosters to transmit original geo-
targeted content impact demand for FM booster stations? What variables 
influence the number of boosters necessary to support geo-targeted 
programming? Will an increase in FM booster stations result in an 
increase to the noise floor in the FM band that would be detrimental to 
the quality of the FM service? Should the Commission limit the number 
of FM boosters that

[[Page 1912]]

can be used for geo-targeted programming in order to address noise-
floor issues? Should such limits apply as an aggregate cap across all 
FM licensees in a market and/or a limit on the number of booster 
stations that can be associated with a primary station? If the 
Commission adopts any such limitation, what measures should it take to 
ensure that broadcasters that do not currently have FM booster 
stations, especially small, independent, women, and minority station 
owners, have a meaningful opportunity to provide geo-targeted 
programming?
    16. At present, FM booster station applications can be filed at any 
time, without limitation on the number of boosters associated with a 
primary station. If the Commission permits FM boosters to transmit 
original geo-targeted content, should the Commission consider one or 
more special filing windows for certain types of stations to ensure 
equitable and timely access to FM booster station licenses? Is the 
anticipated demand for additional booster stations such that the 
Commission's existing processing capabilities would be insufficient to 
meet demand? If so, which stations should be able to participate in 
these early filing windows? How should the Commission assess which 
stations may need and benefit from such a process? The Commission seeks 
comment generally on these issues.
    17. The Petition focuses on geo-targeted programming on FM radio 
based on FM booster station technology developed by Petitioner. Would 
the proposed rule change limit other companies from developing similar 
geo-targeting technology using FM booster stations? If so, what changes 
would be necessary to ensure competition in the delivery of such geo-
targeting solutions?
    18. The Commission notes that the FM booster station rules were 
originally adopted to address signal quality issues caused by distance 
from the main transmitter site and/or terrain shielding. The proposed 
use of boosters to provide geo-targeted programming would not be based 
on such considerations, however. How should this impact the 
Commission's assessment of the proposal?
    19. HD Radio. It is the Commission's understanding that, at 
present, geo-targeting technology is only compatible with analog 
broadcasts; accordingly, the Commission lacks any testing data on the 
operation of geo-targeted programming by HD Radio broadcast stations. 
If the intent is to expand this service offering to HD Radio stations, 
what is the impact of the change in programming on the advanced 
features of the HD Radio signal? Would the booster station only replace 
the content on the HD1 channel or would it also (and simultaneously) 
change programming on the HD2/HD3/HD4 channels? How does this impact 
the scrolling information the receiver displays? Is the expense 
associated with an HD Radio system similar to the analog equipment? The 
Commission acknowledges that there may be insufficient information upon 
which to address these questions at this time. How should the 
Commission address potential HD Radio operation in the absence of such 
information? What other issues should we consider in this context?
    20. Substantially Similar Programming. For purposes of determining 
whether a booster may originate programming, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether to require the FM booster station to air content 
that is ``substantially similar'' to the content on the primary 
channel. What would the purpose of such a requirement be and what would 
be the consequences of not adopting such a requirement? Should 
``substantially similar'' mean that the programming must be the same 
except for advertisements, promotions for upcoming programs, and 
enhanced capabilities including hyper-localized content? Do licensees 
need additional guidance as to the types of original programming that 
are permitted within the categories of ``advertisements, promotions for 
upcoming programs, and enhanced capabilities?'' Should the Commission 
expand or contract on these categories? Is it necessary to include any 
other aspects of the substantially similar requirement in the ATSC 3.0 
context, such as that any programming required to be retransmitted from 
the primary station must be aired at the same time to satisfy the rule?
    21. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there should be 
any differences in the definition of substantially similar programming 
as between commercial and NCE FM stations, in particular in the 
categories of original programming that are permitted.
    22. For purposes of determining whether an FM booster station's 
programming is substantially similar to its primary station, 
GeoBroadcast recommended a time limit for original programming of 5 
percent of the broadcast hour (i.e., three minutes). The Commission 
seeks comment on whether to adopt the 5 percent limitation. Are there 
other alternatives should be considered? The Commission encourages 
parties addressing the time limit to discuss the potential impact of 
content origination on the existing rules and policies for licensing 
new stations. If any such limitation is generally appropriate, should 
the Commission provide for exceptions in emergency situations, where 
additional local information may be particularly valuable to listeners? 
What are the costs and benefits associated with any proposed time 
limits?
    23. Public Interest Benefits. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether, and if so how, revising the FM booster station rules to permit 
original geo-targeted content would benefit listeners and broadcasters 
and otherwise serve the public interest. For example, the Petition 
claims that the rule change would promote localism by allowing FM radio 
stations to provide hyper-local news and alerts, weather, traffic, and 
advertising that would be particularly relevant to certain sectors of 
their protected service contour. The Commission seeks comment on these 
potential benefits and whether such services are consistent with the 
Commission's localism goals. To the extent targeted advertising 
includes political content, how would that impact the primary station's 
political file requirements, or any other requirements related to 
political advertisements?
    24. The Petition also asserts that it would benefit small 
businesses and other local advertisers who may not be able to afford or 
be interested in buying advertisements to air in the station's entire 
market but who could be interested in more targeted ads. While not 
typically part of the Commission's public interest assessment, should 
it take into account the impact on small businesses and local 
advertisers in assessing the public interest benefits of the proposal? 
Would national advertisers also benefit from geo-targeted programming? 
The Petition further asserts that the proposal would generate 
additional economic opportunity for broadcasters at a time when many FM 
broadcasters are facing financial hardship. The Commission seeks 
comment on these issues, in particular on any economic benefits that 
small, independent, minority, and women owned FM station owners could 
derive from increased advertising opportunities.
    25. The Commission seeks comment on whether the proposal is likely 
to have any impact on diversity, in particular on FM station ownership 
by minorities, women, and small businesses. Would the ability to geo-
target content increase ownership

[[Page 1913]]

opportunities for these underrepresented and diverse station owners in 
the FM service? What other specific opportunities would small, 
independent, minority, and women owned FM station owners gain if we 
authorize geo-targeting?
    26. How would the proposed rule change affect competition among 
existing FM station owners, in particular those who currently operate 
FM booster stations and those who would need to secure a new FM booster 
license to implement geo-targeting? Does the voluntary nature of the 
proposed change, coupled with the availability of vendor financing for 
the transmission equipment necessary to implement geo-targeting, 
increase the likelihood that small, independent, or diverse station 
owners that seek to gain access to this technology will be able to do 
so? Does vendor financing of the transmission equipment raise any 
public interest concerns or otherwise impact the existing rules? Are 
the costs associated with the proposal such that smaller broadcasters 
would be unable to deploy the technology absent vendor financing? 
Should cost concerns impact the Commission's decision whether to permit 
geo-targeted programming? Are there any special considerations for 
stations that are being operated pursuant to a sharing agreement (e.g., 
local marketing agreement)?
    27. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the proposal could 
have a negative impact on listeners. For example, could interference 
issues reduce the effectiveness of emergency alerts? Could certain 
parts of the local market be ignored in favor of population clusters 
deemed more valuable to advertisers? What impact would geo-targeted 
programming have on underserved populations? How should the Commission 
balance any potential public interest benefits against any identified 
public interest harms and/or technical concerns?

Procedural Matters

    28. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document seeks comment on whether 
the Commission should adopt new information collection requirements. 
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens and pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 
104-13, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to comment on these information collection requirements. 
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific 
comment on how we might further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    29. 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 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 Sec.  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.
    30. Filing Requirements--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.
    Filings can be sent 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.
     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.U.S.
     Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington DC 20554
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
     During the time the Commission's building is closed to the 
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers 
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
    31. 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).
    32. 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, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. These 
documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available 
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

    33. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has 
prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities 
by the policies and rules proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this

[[Page 1914]]

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 Rules

    34. The NPRM seeks comment on changes to the Commission's rules 
governing the use of FM booster stations by FM radio broadcasters. 
Traditionally, an FM broadcast station transmits its signal from a 
single, elevated transmission site central to its protected service 
contour. This results in a stronger signal near the transmitter and a 
weaker signal as the distance from the transmitter increases. 
Intervening terrain can also reduce signal strength, regardless of the 
distance from the transmitter. The FM booster service--a low power 
secondary service on the FM broadcast band--was created in 1970 to 
allow FM stations to improve signal strength within their authorized 
service contour. FM booster stations are only licensed to the licensee 
of the primary station, must operate on the same frequency as the 
primary station, and are limited to rebroadcasting the signal of the 
primary station (i.e., no transmission of original content). As a 
secondary service, FM booster stations are not permitted to cause 
adjacent-channel interference to other primary services or previously-
authorized secondary stations. The Commission's rules also address 
interference to the primary station caused by the booster station. Many 
of the current FM booster station rules have not been significantly 
updated since the 1980s.
    35. On March 13, 2020, GeoBroadcast Solutions LLC (GeoBroadcast or 
Petitioner) filed a petition for rulemaking seeking to amend Sec.  
74.1231(i) of the Commission's rules to permit FM booster stations to 
transmit original content for a limited period of time during the 
broadcast hour. This ``geo-targeted'' content would only be available 
in the specific part of the primary station's protected service contour 
served by the booster station; outside of these periods, the booster 
would continue to retransmit the primary station's signal. Under the 
proposal, the content aired by the boosters must be ``substantially 
similar'' to the content aired by the primary station. The NPRM 
preliminarily defines ``substantially similar'' as programming must 
that is the same except for advertisements, promotions for upcoming 
programs, and enhanced capabilities including hyper-localized content 
(e.g., geo-targeted weather, targeted emergency alerts, and hyper-local 
news). Petitioner asserts that this proposal would not cause adjacent-
channel interference and that technology has developed such that FM 
booster stations can be sufficiently synchronized with the primary 
station to avoid harmful self-interference. Petitioner claims that only 
a targeted change to Sec.  74.1231(i) is necessary to facilitate this 
proposal--which does not seek any changes to the rules regarding 
primary stations or FM translators--and that the operation is 
compatible with all existing interference rules.
    36. The NPRM seeks comment on whether to change the Commission's FM 
booster station rules consistent with the proposal set forth in the 
Petition. We also seek comment on alternative approaches to permitting 
FM boosters to transmit original geo-targeted content. First, the NPRM 
seeks comment on technological issues, such as whether permitting FM 
boosters to transmit original geo-targeted content may result in self-
interference that would be disruptive to listeners, degrade the quality 
of service on the FM band, cause interreference and a distinct threat 
to particular types of stations, such as LPFM or HD Radio broadcasters 
stations, and whether there are alternatives to the Petitioner's 
proposal, including conforming changes to other Commission rules, that 
the Commission should consider. Second, the NPRM seeks comment on 
whether geo-targeted content should be substantially similar to the 
primary station's content, and how to define this term. Finally, the 
NPRM seeks comment on potential public interest benefits, including the 
impact, if any, on ownership diversity. Petitioner asserts that its 
proposal would benefit small businesses and other local advertisers who 
may not be able to afford or be interested in buying advertisements to 
air in the station's entire market but who could be interested in more 
targeted ads. The NPRM asks whether the Commission should take into 
account the impact on small businesses and local advertisers in 
assessing the public interest benefits of the proposal. Further the 
NPRM seeks comment on the costs associated with the proposal, such that 
smaller broadcasters would be unable to deploy the technology absent 
vendor financing, and whether such cost concerns should impact our 
decision.

B. Legal Basis

    37. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4, 7, 
301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, and 324, of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 302, 303, 307, 
308, 309, 316, 319, and 324.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    38. 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.
    39. Radio Broadcasting. Given the potential impact of the proposal 
to allow FM boosters to transmit original geo-targeted content, radio 
broadcasting stations may be affected by rule changes.
    40. The U.S. Economic Census radio broadcasting 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 this category: those having $41.5 million or less in 
annual receipts. Census data for 2012 show that 2,849 firms in this 
category operated in that year. Of this number, 2,806 firms had annual 
receipts of less than $25 million, 17 with annual receipts between 
$24,999,999 and $50 million, and 26 with annual receipts of $50 million 
or more. Because the Census has no additional classifications that 
could serve as a basis for determining the number of stations whose 
receipts exceeded $41.5 million in that year, we conclude that the 
majority of radio broadcast stations were small entities under the 
applicable SBA size standard.
    41. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the 
number

[[Page 1915]]

of licensed AM radio stations to be 4,560 and the number of commercial 
FM radio stations to be 6,704, along with 8,339 FM translator and 
booster stations. Based on 2019 revenue data, 4,263 a.m. stations and 
6,731 FM stations had revenues of $41.5 million or less, according to 
Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro 
Television Database (BIA). In addition, the Commission has determined 
the number of noncommercial educational (NCE) FM radio stations to be 
4,196. NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be 
small entities. Therefore, we estimate that the majority of radio 
broadcast stations are small entities.
    42. Low Power FM Stations. The same SBA definition that applies to 
radio stations applies to low power FM stations. As noted, the SBA has 
created the following small business size standard for this category: 
those having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts. While the U.S. 
Census provides no specific data for these stations, the Commission has 
estimated the number of licensed low power FM stations to be 2,143. 
Given the fact that low power FM stations may only be licensed to not-
for-profit organizations or institutions that must be based in their 
community and are typically small, volunteer-run groups, we will 
presume that these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA 
definition.
    43. We note again, however, that in assessing whether a business 
concern qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business 
(control) affiliations must be included. Because we do not include or 
aggregate revenues from affiliated companies in determining whether an 
entity meets the applicable revenue threshold, our estimate of the 
number of small radio broadcast stations affected is likely overstated. 
In addition, as noted above, one element of the definition of ``small 
business'' is 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 radio broadcast station is dominant 
in its field of operation. Accordingly, our estimate of small radio 
stations potentially affected by the rule revisions discussed in the 
NPRM includes those that could be dominant in their field of operation. 
For this reason, such estimate likely is over-inclusive.
    44. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a small business size 
standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this 
industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with 
fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between 
1,000 and 2,499 employees, and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or 
more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of 
manufacturers in this industry are small.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    45. In this section, we identify the reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other compliance requirements proposed in the NPRM and consider whether 
small entities are affected disproportionately by any such 
requirements. As discussed above, the NPRM seeks comment on changes to 
the Commission's rules governing the use of FM booster stations by FM 
radio broadcasters. Providing geo-targeted programming as proposed in 
the NPRM would be voluntary. The NPRM does not propose any new 
mandatory reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements for 
small entities, unless such entities, i.e., licensees, choose to use FM 
booster stations to provide geo-targeted programming. We note that the 
adoption of the proposed rule may require modification of current 
requirements and processes for entities that choose to provide geo-
targeted programming, such as modification of FCC forms, including but 
not limited to, FCC Form 2100, Schedules 349 and 350. The NPRM thus 
will not impose additional obligations or expenditure of resources on 
small businesses unless they choose to acquire FM booster stations.
    46. Reporting Requirements. The NPRM does not propose to adopt new 
reporting requirements.
    47. Recordkeeping Requirements. The NPRM does not propose to adopt 
new recordkeeping requirements.
    48. Other Compliance Requirements. The NPRM seeks comment on 
whether stations utilizing booster stations for geo-targeted 
programming should be required to provide notice to other local 
broadcasters and/or the public to help identify potential sources of 
interference. The NPRM seeks comment on the structure of such a notice, 
timeframe for providing such notice, if/how stations or listeners 
should be permitted to raise concerns, and the costs and benefits 
associated with any proposed notice requirement.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    49. 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 and reporting requirements under the rule for such 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.
    50. The NPRM seeks comment on a voluntary process by which FM 
broadcasters could utilize FM booster stations to offer geo-targeted 
content that may be of particular interest to listeners in certain 
areas within the station's service contour. Petitioner asserts that 
this would benefit broadcasters (large and small) and listeners alike, 
by promoting localism through hyper-local news and alerts, weather, 
traffic, and advertising that would be particularly relevant to certain 
sectors of their protected service contour. The Petition also asserts 
that it would not only generate additional economic opportunity for 
broadcasters at a time when many FM broadcasters are facing financial 
hardship, but also benefit small businesses and other local advertisers 
who may not be able to afford or be interested in buying advertisements 
to air in the station's entire market but who could be interested in 
more targeted ads.
    51. The Commission considers in the NPRM specific steps it could 
take and significant alternatives to the proposed rules that could 
minimize potential economic impact on small entities that could be 
affected by the rule change proposed in the NPRM, as well as any other 
rule changes that may be required. Potential economic costs and burdens 
that could impact small businesses include, for example, interference 
arising from geo-targeted programming. Specifically, the Bureau 
considers as an alternative the possibility that the proposed operation 
may not result in interference to other broadcasters and

[[Page 1916]]

has also considered the possibility that existing rules are able to 
address such circumstances. The Bureau also considers ways to assist 
small entities that wish to engage in geo-targeted broadcasting, such 
as whether to open special filing windows for FM booster applications 
and, to the extent the Commission limits the number of booster stations 
a primary station may license, whether to exempt certain types of 
broadcasters from these limits.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    52. None.

Ordering Clauses

    53. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in Sec.  1.407 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.407, the 
Petition for Rulemaking of GeoBroadcast Solutions LLC is granted to the 
extent specified herein and the Petition for Rulemaking in RM-11659 is 
dismissed.
    54. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
found in sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, and 
324 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 
157, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, and 324, this notice of 
proposed rulemaking is adopted.
    55. 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, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the notice of 
proposed rulemaking in MB Docket No. 20-166 on or before thirty (30) 
days after publication in the Federal Register and reply comments on or 
before sixty (60) days after publication in the Federal Register.
    56. 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.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28784 Filed 1-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P