Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 1909 

Ps = the portion of the fee under paragraph 

(c) of this section that is owed by a 

person who qualifies as a small business 

concern under § 700.43 of this chapter. 

Po = the portion of the fee owed by a person 

other than a small business concern. 

F = the total fee required under paragraph (c) 

of this section. 

Mt = the total number of persons subject to 

the fee requirement. 

Ms = the number of persons subject to the fee 

requirement who qualify as a small 

business concern. 

(5) * * * 

(iv) Reallocate the remaining fee 

across those remaining individuals and 

groups based on the portion of total 

production volume as defined in 

§ 700.43, considering the production 

volume of each manufacturer not in a 

consortium and the total production 

volume of the manufacturers in a 

consortium; and 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) Risk evaluations. (A) For EPAinitiated risk evaluations, the applicable 

fee specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section shall be paid in two 

installments, with the first payment of 

50% due 180 days after publishing the 

final scope of a risk evaluation and the 

second payment for the remainder of the 

fee due 545 days after publishing the 

final scope of a risk evaluation under 

section 6(b)(4)(D) of the Act. 

(B) * * * 

(1) The applicable fee specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section shall be 

paid in three installments. The first 

payment shall be due no later than 180 

days after EPA provides the submitting 

manufacture(s) notice that it has granted 

the request. 

(2) The second payment shall be due 

no later than 545 days after EPA 

provides the submitting manufacturer(s) 

notice that it has granted the request. 

(3) The final payment shall be due no 

later than 30 days after EPA publishes 

the final risk evaluation. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) Each person who remits the fee 

identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section for a LVE, LoREX, TERA, TME, 

or Tier II exemption request under 

TSCA section 5 shall insert a check 

mark for the statement, ‘‘The company 

named in part 1, section A is a small 

business concern under § 700.43 and 

has remitted a fee of $940 in accordance 

with § 700.45(c).’’ in the exemption 

application. 

* * * * * 

(v) Each person who remits the fee 

identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section for a bona fide intent to 

manufacture (including import) a 

chemical substance shall insert a check 

mark for the statement, ‘‘The company 

named in part 1, section A is a small 

business concern under § 700.43 and 

has remitted a fee of $90 in accordance 

with § 700.45(c).’’ when submitting a 

request in accordance with 

§ 720.25(b)(2) of this chapter. 

(vi) Each person who remits the fee 

identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section for a notice of commencement of 

manufacture or import shall insert a 

check mark for the statement, ‘‘The 

company named in part 1, section A is 

a small business concern under § 700.43 

and has remitted a fee of $90 in 

accordance with § 700.45(c).’’ when 

submitting a notice in accordance with 

§ 720.102(d)(2) of this chapter. 

(6) * * * 

(ii) Each person who remits a fee 

identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section for a LVE, LoREX, TERA, TME, 

or Tier II exemption request under 

TSCA section 5 shall insert a check 

mark for the statement, ‘‘The company 

named in part 1, section A has remitted 

the fee of $4,700 specified in 

§ 700.45(c).’’ in the exemption 

application. 

* * * * * 

(v) Each person who remits the fee 

identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section for a bona fide intent to 

manufacture (including import) a 

chemical substance shall insert a check 

mark for the statement, ‘‘The company 

named in part 1, section A has remitted 

the fee of $500 in accordance with 

§ 700.45(c).’’ when submitting a request 

in accordance with § 720.25(b)(2) of this 

chapter. 

(vi) Each person who remits the fee 

identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section for a notice of commencement of 

manufacture or import shall insert a 

check mark for the statement, ‘‘The 

company named in part 1, section A has 

remitted the fee of $500 in accordance 

with § 700.45(c).’’ when submitting a 

notice in accordance with 

§ 720.102(d)(2) of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2020–28585 Filed 1–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
1910 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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 Albert.Shuldiner@

fcc.gov or 418–2721, or James Bradshaw, 

Audio Division, Media Bureau at 

James.Bradshaw@fcc.gov 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 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

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 previouslyauthorized 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 

§ 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 ‘‘geotargeted’’ 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 adjacentchannel 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 § 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, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 selfinterference 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 selfinterference 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 selfinterference 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 selfinterference have on emergency 

broadcasts being transmitted from the 

primary station? Will broadcasters be 

sufficiently incentivized to address selfinterference 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 selfinterference, should the Commission 

place a limit on the number of FM 

boosters that can be associated with a 

primary station for purposes of geotargeted 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 § 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 cochannel 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 geotargeted 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 selfinterference 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 74.1204(g))? 

Additionally, as noted above, the 

proposed rule change to § 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 geotargeted 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
1912 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

can be used for geo-targeted 

programming in order to address noisefloor 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 geotargeted 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 geotargeted 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 geotargeted programming on FM radio 

based on FM booster station technology 

developed by Petitioner. Would the 

proposed rule change limit other 

companies from developing similar geotargeting 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, geotargeting 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 geotargeted 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 geotarget content increase ownership 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 geotargeted 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-ButDisclose. This proceeding shall be 

treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

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. 

30. Filing Requirements—Comments 

and Replies. Pursuant to §§ 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
1914 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 adjacentchannel 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 

§ 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 hyperlocal news). Petitioner asserts that this 

proposal would not cause adjacentchannel 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 § 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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-forprofit 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
1916 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 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 

§§ 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS