Revitalization of the AM Radio Service, 2818-2831 [2015-31949]
Download as PDF
2818
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
health and suitability programs. All
records created under this part must be
maintained for 3 years.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: January 12, 2016.
Sylvia M. Burwell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016–00758 Filed 1–14–16; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4163–18–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 73 and 74
[MB Docket No. 13–249; FCC 15–142]
Revitalization of the AM Radio Service
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission adopted a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), in
which it sought comment on several
proposals designed to revitalize the AM
broadcast radio service, or to reduce
burdens on AM broadcasters. The
Commission further adopted a Notice of
Inquiry (NOI), in which it sought
comment on two proposals designed to
revitalize the AM broadcast radio
service. One of the proposals, regarding
increased utilization of the AM
expanded band, was suggested by
several commenters in response to the
NPRM in this proceeding, The second
proposal, for relaxation of the
Commission’s main studio rules for AM
stations, was suggested by a commenter
and supported by others.
DATES: Comments may be filed on or
before March 21, 2016 and reply
comments may be filed on or before
April 18, 2016. Written comments on
the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed
information collection requirements
must be submitted by the public, Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), and
other interested parties on or before
March 21, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No. 13–249, 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), through
the Commission’s Web site https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should
follow the instructions provided on the
Web site for submitting comments. For
ECFS filers, in completing the
transmittal screen, filers should include
their full name, U.S. Postal service
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
mailing address, and MB Docket No.
13–249.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. Filings can be
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
Service mail (although the Commission
continues to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
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:
Peter Doyle, Chief, Media Bureau,
Audio Division, (202) 418–2700;
Thomas Nessinger, Senior Counsel,
Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202)
418–2700. 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 Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC
15–142, adopted October 21, 2015, and
released October 23, 2015.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
The FNPRM contains proposed
information collection requirements
subject to the PRA, Public Law 104–13.
OMB, the general public, and other
Federal agencies are invited to comment
on the proposed new and modified
information collection requirements
contained in this FNPRM.
Comments on the proposed
information collection requirements
should address: (a) Whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission,
including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
the Commission’s burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),
the FCC seeks specific comment on how
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
it might ‘‘further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’
In addition to filing comments with
the Secretary, a copy of any Paperwork
Reduction Act comments on the
information collection requirements
contained herein should be submitted to
Cathy Williams, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 1–
C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington,
DC 20554, or via the Internet to
Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov, and to
Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), via the
Internet to Nicholas_A._Fraser@
omb.eop.gov.
To view a copy of this information
collection request (ICR) submitted to
OMB: (1) Go to the Web page https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,
(2) look for the section of the Web page
called ‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ (3)
click on the downward-pointing arrow
in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box below the
‘‘Currently Under Review’’ heading, (4)
select ‘‘Federal Communications
Commission’’ from the list of agencies
presented in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box,
(5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ button to the
right of the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, (6)
when the list of FCC ICRs currently
under review appears, look for the Title
of this ICR and then click on the ICR
Reference Number. A copy of the FCC
submission to OMB will be displayed.
The proposed information collections
are as follows:
OMB Control Number: 3060–0075.
Title: Application for Transfer of
Control of a Corporate Licensee or
Permittee, or Assignment of License or
Permit, for an FM or TV Translator
Station, or a Low Power Television
Station, FCC Form 345.
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities; Not for profit institutions;
Local or Tribal Government.
Number of Respondents and
Responses: 1,700 respondents; 2,700
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.084–
1.25 hours.
Frequency of Response: Third party
disclosure requirement and on occasion
reporting requirement.
Total Annual Burden: 2,667 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $3,958,125.
Obligation to Respond: Required to
obtain or retain benefits. The statutory
authority for this collection of
information is contained in Sections
154(i) and 310 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended.
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
There is no need for confidentiality with
this collection of information.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No
impact(s).
Needs and Uses: Filing of the FCC
Form 345 is required when applying for
authority for assignment of license or
permit, or for consent to transfer of
control of a corporate licensee or
permittee for an FM or TV translator
station, or low power TV station.
This collection also includes the third
party disclosure requirement of 47 CFR
73.3580 (OMB approval was received
for Section 73.3580 under OMB Control
Number 3060–0031). 47 CFR 73.3580
requires local public notice in a
newspaper of general circulation in the
community in which the station is
located or providing notice over the air
of the filing of all applications for
assignment of license/permit. This
notice must be completed within 30
days of the tendering of the application.
A copy of the newspaper notice or a
record of the broadcast notice and the
application must be placed in the public
inspection file.
On June 29, 2009, the Commission
adopted a Report and Order,
Amendment of Service and Eligibility
Rules for FM Broadcast Translator
Stations, MB Docket No. 07–172, FCC
09–59, 24 FCC Rcd 9642 (2009), 74 FR
45126,Sept. 1, 2009, 74 FR 46382, Sept.
9, 2009. In the 2009 Report and Order,
the Commission adopted changes to the
FM translator rules that allowed AM
stations to use authorized FM translator
stations to rebroadcast the AM signal
locally, retransmitting their AM
programming as a ‘‘fill-in’’ service. The
adopted cross-service translating rules
limited FM translators to providing
‘‘fill-in’’ service only, specifically
within the AM primary station’s
authorized service area.
AM radio stations use Form 345 to
apply for authority to assign or transfer
such fill-in FM translator stations.
Consistent with actions taken by the
Commission in the 2009 Report and
Order, the following changes were made
to Form 345: Section III of Form 345
included a new certification concerning
compliance with the AM station ‘‘fillin’’ service requirements. Specifically,
in the AM service, applicants certify
that the coverage contour (1 mV/m) of
the FM translator station is contained
within the lesser of: (a) The 2 mV/m
daytime contour of the AM primary
station being rebroadcast, or (b) a 25mile radius centered at the AM station’s
transmitter site.
On October 21, 2015, the Commission
adopted a First Report and Order,
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
and Notice of Inquiry, in Revitalization
of the AM Radio Service, MB Docket No.
13–249, FCC 15–142. In the Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
component of this rulemaking
proceeding (FNPRM), the Commission
proposes to make the following rule
(and Form) changes to this information
collection: Modify Section 74.1201(g) of
the rules to provide that the coverage
contour (1 mV/m) of an FM translator
station rebroadcasting an AM radio
station as its primary station must be
contained within the greater of either
the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM
station, or a 25-mile radius centered at
the AM station’s transmitter site, but
that in no event may the FM translator’s
1 mV/m coverage contour extend
beyond a 40-mile (64 km) radius
centered at the AM station’s transmitter
site.
Consistent with actions proposed by
the Commission in the FNPRM, the
following change is made to Form 345:
Section III of Form 345 includes a new
certification concerning compliance
with the new AM station ‘‘fill-in’’
service requirements. Specifically,
applicants will now certify that the 1
mV/m coverage contour of the FM
translator station is contained within
the greater of either: (a) The 2 mV/m
daytime contour of the AM primary
station being rebroadcast, or (b) a 25mile radius centered at the AM station’s
transmitter site, but the FM translator’s
1 mV/m contour may not extend beyond
a 40-mile radius centered at the AM
station’s transmitter site. The
instructions for Section III—Assignee/
Transferee have been revised to assist
applicants with completing the
modified question.
With this submission, the
Commission is currently seeking to
obtain OMB approval for the proposed
revisions to 47 CFR 74.1201(g) and FCC
Form 345 for this information
collection. These revisions will not
increase the number of respondents,
number of responses, annual burden
hours and annual cost for this
collection.
OMB Control Number: 3060–0405.
Title: Application for Authority to
Construct or Make Changes in an FM
Translator or FM Booster Station, FCC
Form 349.
Form Number: FCC Form 349.
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit; State, Local or Tribal
Government; Not-for-profit institutions.
Number of Respondents and
Responses: 1,200 respondents; 2,400
responses.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2819
Estimated Time per Response: 1–1.5
hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requirement; Third party
disclosure requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to
obtain or retain benefits. The statutory
authority for this information collection
is contained in Sections 154(i), 303 and
308 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended.
Total Annual Burden: 4,500 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $4,674,600.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No
impact(s).
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
There is no need for confidentiality with
this information collection.
Needs and Uses: FCC Form 349 is
used to apply for authority to construct
a new FM translator or FM booster
broadcast station, or to make changes in
the existing facilities of such stations.
Form 349 also contains a third party
disclosure requirement, pursuant to 47
CFR 73.3580. This rule requires stations
applying for a new broadcast station, or
to make major changes to an existing
station, to give local public notice of
this filing in a newspaper of general
circulation in the community in which
the station is located. This local public
notice must be completed within 30
days of the tendering of the application.
This notice must be published at least
twice a week for two consecutive weeks
in a three-week period. In addition, a
copy of this notice must be placed in the
station’s public inspection file along
with the application, pursuant to 47
CFR 73.3527. This recordkeeping
information collection requirement is
contained in OMB Control No. 3060–
0214, which covers Section 73.3527.
On June 29, 2009, the Commission
adopted a Report and Order,
Amendment of Service and Eligibility
Rules for FM Broadcast Translator
Stations, MB Docket No. 07–172, FCC
09–59, 24 FCC Rcd 9642 (2009), 74 FR
45126, Sept. 1, 2009, 74 FR 46382, Sept.
9, 2009. In the 2009 Report and Order,
the Commission adopted changes to the
FM translator rules that allowed AM
stations to use authorized FM translator
stations to rebroadcast the AM signal
locally, retransmitting their AM
programming as a ‘‘fill-in’’ service. The
adopted cross-service translating rules
limited FM translators to providing
‘‘fill-in’’ service only, specifically
within the AM primary station’s
authorized service area.
AM radio stations use Form 349 to
apply for authorizations to operate such
fill-in FM translator stations. Consistent
with actions taken by the Commission
in the 2009 Report and Order, the
following changes were made to Form
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2820
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
349: Sections II and III of Form 349
included new certifications concerning
compliance with the AM station ‘‘fillin’’ service requirements. Specifically,
in the AM service, applicants certify
that the coverage contour (1 mV/m) of
the FM translator station is contained
within the lesser of: (a) The 2 mV/m
daytime contour of the AM primary
station being rebroadcast, or (b) a 25mile radius centered at the AM station’s
transmitter site.
On October 21, 2015, the Commission
adopted a First Report and Order,
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
and Notice of Inquiry, in Revitalization
of the AM Radio Service, MB Docket No.
13–249, FCC 15–142. In the Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
component of this rulemaking
proceeding (FNPRM), the Commission
proposes to make the following rule
(and Form) changes to this information
collection: Modify 47 CFR 74.1201(g) of
the rules to provide that the coverage
contour (1 mV/m) of an FM translator
station rebroadcasting an AM radio
station as its primary station must be
contained within the greater of either
the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM
station, or a 25-mile radius centered at
the AM station’s transmitter site, but
that in no event may the FM translator’s
1 mV/m coverage contour extend
beyond a 40-mile (64 km) radius
centered at the AM station’s transmitter
site.
Consistent with actions proposed by
the Commission in the FNPRM, the
following changes are made to the Form
349: Sections II and III of Form 349
include new certifications concerning
compliance with the new AM station
‘‘fill-in’’ service requirements.
Specifically, applicants will certify that
the 1 mV/m coverage contour of the FM
translator station is contained within
the greater of either: (a) The 2 mV/m
daytime contour of the AM primary
station being rebroadcast, or (b) a 25mile radius centered at the AM station’s
transmitter site, but the FM translator’s
1 mV/m contour may not extend beyond
a 40-mile radius centered at the AM
station’s transmitter site. The
instructions for Sections II and III have
been revised to assist applicants with
completing the modified questions.
With this submission, the
Commission is currently seeking to
obtain OMB approval for the proposed
revisions to 47 CFR 74.1201(g) and FCC
Form 349 for this information
collection. These revisions will not
increase the number of respondents,
number of responses, annual burden
hours and annual cost for this
collection.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
1. A number of commenters in this
proceeding advocated reducing daytime,
nighttime, and critical hours protection
afforded to Class A AM stations, which
operate with up to 50 kilowatts of
power, day and night, and have large
extended service areas, especially at
night when skywave propagation allows
signals to travel hundreds of miles. As
a result, during daytime hours, over 200
licensed Class B and Class D AM
stations are required to reduce power
and/or change to a directional antenna
system to meet the required critical
hours protection afforded to Class A
stations. During nighttime hours—if
permitted nighttime operation at all—
other stations often must invest in
complex directional arrays to protect
one of the 73 Class A stations, and/or
must substantially reduce their power,
sometimes resulting in their having only
secondary nighttime facilities. Even for
those Class B stations that are protected
from interference by other AM stations
at night, this often results in substandard nighttime coverage, in order to
protect the secondary service area of a
larger station a considerable distance,
and often many states away.
Commenters argue that they could
provide better service, with more power
to overcome the local noise floor, if the
protections to Class A stations were
relaxed.
2. Class A stations have traditionally
provided wide-area service to different
regions of the United States, including
rural areas, and to travelers driving
through their relatively large coverage
areas. The high power and large
extended service areas of these stations
have also proved invaluable in
emergencies, such as Hurricane Katrina
and its aftermath. Some commenters,
however, note that the utility of highpowered, wide-area AM stations has
waned since the early days of radio,
when the FM service was nonexistent or
underutilized, more of the population
lived outside of major metropolitan
areas, and there were significantly fewer
media choices than there are today.
Because of this, many commenters
believe that the current protection
afforded to Class A stations should be
reduced, in order to allow other, more
local stations to add or increase day and
nighttime power to their listening areas.
The tradeoff between commenters
urging caution in taking any steps that
would diminish protection to Class A
stations and those arguing that large
protected coverage areas for Class A
stations are unnecessary appears to be
whether the Commission should take
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
steps that would deprive Class A
stations of listeners far outside of their
primary service areas, if those steps
would allow substantial numbers of
other stations to improve their service,
both day and night, to their
communities of license and adjacent
areas.
3. While the wide-area service of
Class A stations has historically proved
to be beneficial, the Commission has
seen fit in the past to reduce protection
to their skywave service (see, e.g., Clear
Channel Broadcasting in the AM
Broadcast Band, Report and Order, 78
F.C.C.2d 1345, 1364 (1980), in which
the Commission noted that increasing
spectrum demands required that
protection of such stations (then
designated Class I–A stations) beyond
the nighttime 0.5 mV/m-50 percent
contour, as well as certain restrictions
on adjacent-channel stations, be
abolished). In this proceeding, the
overriding concern is the need for
existing AM stations to overcome an
increasing noise floor that inhibits local
service, both day and night. While
reducing protection to a Class A AM
station may, in fact, reduce the coverage
of that station, the areas of reduced
coverage would be located at great
distances from the transmitter and from
the metropolitan area that constitutes
the station’s primary service area. At the
same time, the reduction in protection
may well allow other stations to
increase their power to better serve their
communities and, in the case of some
stations, allow for the first-ever fulltime
AM service to those communities. The
Commission’s goal of localism suggests
that service from a local news and
information source should be preferred
over better reception of a more distant
signal.
4. The Commission tentatively
concludes, therefore, that (1) all Class A
stations should be protected, both day
and night, to their 0.1 mV/m
groundwave contour, from co-channel
stations; (2) all Class A stations should
continue to be protected to the 0.5 mV/
m groundwave contour, both day and
night, from first adjacent channel
stations; and (3) the critical hours
protection of Class A stations should be
eliminated completely. The Commission
seeks comment on these proposals,
specifically on the populations that
would lose service from Class A stations
under this proposal and, to the extent
ascertainable, whether such populations
currently avail themselves of the service
that would be lost. The Commission
also seeks data on areas and populations
in the United States, if any, that receive
service only from Class A AM stations,
whether day or night. Conversely, it
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
requests specific comment as to the
numbers of stations that would be able
to increase power, daytime and
nighttime, under this proposal and what
populations would gain service from
those power increases. Additional
comment is sought concerning the net
effect on listeners that could result from
the combination of reduced protection
to Class A stations and power increases
by co- and adjacent-channel stations
that this proposal would allow. Would,
in fact, such power increases cause
more loss of service to listeners of Class
A stations than gains in such service to
listeners of upgrading stations? Would
current listeners of Class A skywave
service, not located near stations able to
avail themselves of power increases due
to this proposal, nevertheless
experience a reduction in skywave
service from Class A stations? Would
the proposed changes
disproportionately affect listeners in
rural and/or tribal areas? What effects, if
any, would changes in protection to
Class A stations have on EAS Primary
Entry Point stations during
emergencies? Alternatively, should the
Commission consider another level of
protection to Class A stations, whether
greater or less than that proposed and,
if so, what should that protection be?
The Commission also seeks comment on
whether critical hours protection, if not
eliminated, should alternatively be
modified? Finally, the Commission
seeks comment on any costs that are
likely to result from adoption of these
proposals or from any alternatives
proposed by commenters.
5. Several commenters to the NPRM
also proposed that the Commission
return to the nighttime root-sum-square
(RSS) prediction method in existence
before the Commission’s 1991 rule
changes. These prediction methods are
used to calculate values of both
interfering field strengths from other
AM stations and nighttime interferencefree (NIF) coverage. Prior to 1991,
nighttime RSS values of interfering field
strengths and nighttime interferencefree coverage were based on calculating
the RSS of all interfering signals using
the 50 percent exclusion method,
considering only co-channel interfering
signals. In the 1991 Technical
Assignment Criteria order (6 FCC Rcd
6273 (1991)), the Commission changed
its method of calculation to include
adjacent-channel signals, and to use a
tiered system of RSS calculations. Some
commenters observed that, despite the
Commission’s intentions in Technical
Assignment Criteria, which were to
decrease station-to-station interference
in the AM service, in practice the effect
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
was to stifle facility improvements,
resulting in very little in the way of
decreased interference. They contend,
for example, that the 25 percent
exclusion method complicates
nighttime allocation calculations and
protection requirements and reduces
flexibility for AM station improvement
and relocation; that consideration of
adjacent-channel stations in making
interference calculations is unnecessary,
claiming that the Commission instituted
this rule in anticipation of wide-band
AM receivers that never made it to
market; and that a return to the 50
percent exclusion method used prior to
1991, considering only the skywave
contributions to RSS calculations of cochannel stations, would enable AM
broadcasters to improve their facilities
and signals and, thus, overcome the
increasing noise floor.
6. The Commission agreed that the
1991 nighttime skywave interference
regulations were well-intentioned but,
in retrospect, did not achieve their
intended goals and have resulted in
unintended adverse consequences,
chiefly by impeding facility
improvements that are more necessary
now than 24 years ago, because the
noise floor has increased as much as or
more than station-to-station
interference, and increasing signal
strength to a station’s primary service
area has become more of a priority than
maintenance of rules that offer a small
return on interference reduction,
compared to the burden they impose on
signal improvement. The Commission
therefore tentatively concluded that it
should roll back the 1991 rule changes
as they pertain to calculation of
nighttime RSS values of interfering field
strengths and NIF service, by amending
47 CFR 78.182(k) to return to predicting
the NIF coverage area using only the
interference contributions from cochannel stations and the 50 percent
exclusion method. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal, and
invites in particular comment from
parties with differing views, or that have
technical evidence demonstrating the
effects on inter-station interference of a
return to the pre-1991 rules for
calculating nighttime skywave
interference. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on any
costs that commenters believe would
result from this proposal.
7. Commenters also proposed changes
to 47 CFR 73.37(a), the rule providing
daytime protection to AM stations. The
rule currently specifies a 26 dB daytime
desired to undesired (D/U) protection
ratio for co-channel stations, a 6 dB D/
U daytime protection ratio for first
adjacent channel stations, and a 0 dB
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2821
daytime D/U protection ratio for second
and third adjacent channel stations.
Commenters proposed that the
Commission return to the pre-1991 0 dB
daytime 1:1 protection ratio for first
adjacent channels; change second
adjacent channel groundwave
protection; and eliminate third adjacent
channel groundwave protection.
Additionally, several commenters
suggested changes to the daytime
protected contours for Class B, C, and D
stations.
8. The Commission tentatively
concludes that these rule changes
should be adopted. The proposed 0 dB
daytime 1:1 first adjacent channel
protection ratio was the pre-1991
standard, and the post-1991 protection
ratio does not appear to allow for
sufficient signal strength to overcome
current levels of environmental noise.
Likewise, because third adjacent
channel interference is relatively
insignificant compared to
environmental sources of interference, it
would seem prudent to eliminate third
adjacent channel groundwave
protection and change second adjacent
channel groundwave protection to
match the current levels for third
adjacent channel protection, thus
allowing AM stations to increase power
to overcome increased levels of
environmental noise. Changing the
daytime primary service contour for
Class B, C, and D stations to the 2 mV/
m contour harmonizes the protection
with the definition of service area that
was adopted in the Second Order on
Reconsideration in the Rural Radio
proceeding (27 FCC Rcd 12829, 12838
(2012)), and would allow AM
broadcasters greater flexibility to make
station modifications designed to
increase signal strength to their primary
service areas. The Commission therefore
proposes to revise 47 CFR 73.37(a) to
reflect the aforementioned changes to
daytime protected contours for Class B,
C, and D AM stations, and seeks
comment on this proposal. Would the
proposed reductions in protection result
in greater flexibility for AM stations to
improve their signals, or would they
merely increase inter-station
interference? Would the net effect be
beneficial or harmful to AM
broadcasters and listeners? To the extent
possible, commenters should provide
technical data in support of their
arguments. In addition, commenters
should discuss and, if possible, quantify
any costs they believe the proposal
would entail.
9. Several commenters to the NPRM
request that the Commission reconsider
the rules for locating cross-service fillin FM translators. Currently, such
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2822
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
translators must be located such that the
60 dBm contour of any such FM
translator station must be contained
within the lesser of (a) the 2 millivolts
per meter (mV/m) daytime contour of
the AM station, or (b) a 25-mile radius
centered at the AM transmitter site.
Commenters argue that the current rule
is too restrictive. Some commenters
maintain that the 25-mile limitation is
arbitrary, or that it unfairly penalizes
stations located far from cities due to
land costs or those that have deep nulls
in their directional patterns. Others
advocate eliminating the 25-mile
restriction and would have us allow the
translator to be sited anywhere within
the 2 mV/m contour, and others suggest
even more flexibility.
10. When the Commission adopted
the current limits on siting of crossservice translators re-broadcasting AM
stations, it re-affirmed that FM
translators re-broadcasting AM stations
were intended to fill service voids rather
than to expand service, and that the
adopted limits were to ‘‘ensure that fillin cross-service translators are used in
the AM station’s core market area, rather
than in a fringe area that may be part of
or near another radio market.’’
Amendment of Service and Eligibility
Rules for FM Broadcast Translator
Stations, Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd
9642, 9658–59 (2009). In the FNPRM,
however, the Commission agreed that
some additional degree of flexibility is
appropriate, especially given the factual
situations (e.g., highly directional
antenna patterns with deep signal nulls)
described by some commenters. The
Commission also wished to continue to
limit cross-service translator use to an
AM station’s core market. It therefore
proposes to modify 47 CFR 74.1201(g) to
provide that the coverage contour (1
mV/m) of an FM translator
rebroadcasting an AM radio broadcast
station as its primary station must be
contained within the greater of either
the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM
station or a 25-mile (40 km) radius
centered at the AM transmitter site, but
that in no event may the translator’s 1
mV/m coverage contour extend beyond
a 40-mile (64 km) radius centered at the
AM transmitter site. The Commission
stated that this proposal provides
sufficient flexibility to provide useful
signal coverage, while not allowing a
cross-service fill-in translator to extend
the station’s coverage beyond its core
service area. The Commission invites
further comment on this proposal,
including comment on any costs that
commenters believe are likely to arise
from the proposal.
11. Partial proof of performance
measurements are required for AM
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
stations using directional antennas
whenever the licensee has reason to
believe that the radiated fields may be
exceeding the limits for which the
station is authorized, and whenever
minor directional antenna system
repairs are made that result in certain
changes to the station’s licensed
operating parameters. Some commenters
request that 47 CFR 73.154, the current
rule governing partial proof of
performance field strength
measurements for AM directional
antenna arrays, be modified to require
measurements only on radials
containing a monitoring point.
Currently, the rule requires field
strength measurements on all radials
with a monitoring point, as well as on
radials from the latest complete field
strength proof of performance that are
adjacent to the monitored radials, if the
array has fewer than four monitored
radials. Proponents claim that
eliminating the requirement to take
measurements on non-monitored radials
will reduce the cost to maintain AM
directional antenna systems in working
order. The Commission agreed that the
proposed reduction in measured radials
would result in a cost savings for
directional antenna system maintenance
for AM broadcasters, and would not
result in more AM directional antenna
systems being out of adjustment. It
therefore tentatively concludes, and
proposes, that 47 CFR 73.154(a) be
modified accordingly. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal,
including comment on whether and to
what extent the proposed rule
modification would reduce costs to AM
broadcasters employing directional
antenna systems.
12. In 2008, the Commission adopted
rules permitting use of Method of
Moments (MoM) computer modeling to
verify the performance of AM station
directional antenna systems. Since then,
over 220 MoM directional antenna
proofs of performance have been
prepared by AM station licensees and
their engineers and submitted to the
Commission in support of AM station
applications for license. Based on their
experience gained in the seven years
since the adoption of the MoM proof
rules, several technical commenters
propose the following changes to the
AM MoM proof rules: (1) eliminate or
modify the recertification measurements
requirements and removal of base
sampling devices for periodic testing in
47 CFR 73.155; (2) eliminate the
requirement for reference field strength
measurements (47 CFR 73.151(c)(3)); (3)
eliminate the requirement for surveying
existing directional antenna arrays as
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
long as tower geometry is not being
modified and no new towers are being
added to the array; (4) clarify that 47
CFR 73.151(c)(1)(viii) applies only when
total capacitance used to model base
region effects exceeds 250 pF and
modify same to apply only when base
current sampling is used; (5) Permit use
of MoM modeling for skirt-fed towers;
(6) Change MoM rules with regard to reproofing when antennas are added to
towers; and (7) Eliminate requirement
for current distribution measurements
for top-loaded or other unusual antenna
configurations when MoM or other
numerical analysis method is used to
determine antenna characteristics.
13. Based on the Commission’s
experience with MoM proofs over the
past seven years, it believed that, except
as noted below, the changes listed above
are well-founded, would improve the
quality of the MoM proofs submitted to
the Commission, would not result in
inferior adjustments of AM directional
antenna arrays, and would eliminate
some unnecessary expenses for
directional antenna array maintenance
by AM station licensees. It therefore
tentatively concludes that the abovelisted procedural and rule changes, with
the exception of the elimination of
reference field strength measurements,
should be adopted, and invites
comment on these changes, particularly
from AM broadcasters operating with
directional antenna arrays. Rather than
eliminate reference field strength
measurements, which provide the only
external verification that a directional
antenna array is operating properly, the
Commission tentatively concludes and
proposes that 47 CFR 73.151(c)(3) be
modified to require reference field
strength measurements when the initial
license application is submitted for a
directional antenna system based on
computer modeling and sample system
verification. Subsequent licenses for the
same directional antenna system and
physical facilities will not require
submission of new reference field
strength measurements. The
Commission seeks comment on
whether, instead of eliminating
recertification measurements, it should
modify the rules to require them within
a specific time period near, but prior to,
the submission of the station’s license
renewal application, or at some other
time interval. What constraints should
the Commission impose on the physical
model of a skirt-fed antenna element in
the MoM computer program? Due to the
complexity of modeling a skirt-fed
tower, should it require use of specific
MoM software to model them? What
requirements should it specify for
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
sampling systems for skirt-fed antenna
elements? What costs, if any, are likely
to arise as a result of any of the
foregoing proposals?
14. In 1991, the Commission adopted
rules and procedures for initial
licensing of stations in the 1605–1705
kHz AM band (Expanded Band). In
opening up the Expanded Band, the
Commission’s intent was to selectively
open the ten Expanded Band
frequencies to those existing AM
stations that most significantly
contributed to congestion and
interference in the standard AM band,
removing interference from the standard
band and providing those stations with
more robust, interference-free service in
the Expanded Band. To ease the
financial uncertainty of migrating to the
then-new and untested Expanded Band,
the Commission established a five-year
transition period, during which
migrating stations would hold licenses
in both the Expanded Band and
standard AM band, and could simulcast
programming over both. This five-year
period was set forth in a condition to
each Expanded Band license, and began
to run as of the date of initial licensing
in the Expanded Band. After the fiveyear transition period, each dual-station
licensee would be required to surrender
either its standard band or its Expanded
Band license. The Commission has
never abandoned the requirement that
the dual standard/Expanded band
stations relinquish one of their
authorizations, and many such stations
have done so. The 25 remaining such
station pairs, listed in Appendix F to the
FNPRM, negate the Commission’s goal
to reduce interference in the standard
AM band, and their retention of both
authorizations disserves the other
licensees who complied with the
relinquishment requirement. A number
of the stations still holding dual
standard band/Expanded Band
authorizations have filed requests for
waiver of the surrender condition and
prohibition against sale of one of the
authorizations.
15. Given the Commission’s
consideration, in a Notice of Inquiry
that follows the FNPRM, of further
utilization of the Expanded Band, along
with its general concern for
revitalization of the AM service, there is
no justification for allowing licensee
retention of high-interfering standard
band stations along with the Expanded
Band stations meant to replace them.
The Commission therefore tentatively
concludes that any licensee with dual
standard/Expanded Band authorizations
should be required to surrender one of
the two authorizations within one year
of release of a future Report and Order
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
in this proceeding adopting this
proposal. The Commission tentatively
concludes that the required election
should be made by the station licensee
in writing, by letter delivered to the
Office of the Secretary, with copy to the
Media Bureau, Audio Division, not later
than twelve months following release of
a future Report and Order adopting this
proposal, or such other date as is
established in the Report and Order
and/or in any notice delivered to the
licensee by the Media Bureau. The
Commission further tentatively
concludes that, should a station not
make the election regarding which of
the two authorizations it wishes to
retain within the required time period,
its standard band authorization should
be canceled, and the station required to
operate only as authorized in the
Expanded Band. The Commission seeks
comment on these proposals, including
any comments in favor of licensee
retention of dual authorizations,
comments on whether it should adopt a
shorter or longer deadline for the
required election, comments regarding
the effect of such retention of dual
authorizations on the AM service
generally and the Expanded Band
specifically, and comments on any costs
associated with surrender of these
authorizations.
Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry
16. Utilization of AM Expanded Band.
In Review of the Technical Assignment
Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service,
Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 6273,
6302–23 (1991), 56 FR 64842 (Dec. 12,
1991) (Technical Assignment Criteria),
the Commission established rules and
policies for stations initially licensed in
the Expanded AM Band (1605–1705
kHz) (Expanded Band), including
technical rules. See generally Technical
Assignment Criteria, 6 FCC Rcd at
6311–14, 6321–23. For example, it
decided to administer channels in the
Expanded Band on an allotment basis
based on fixed technical parameters,
similar to allotments in the FM
broadcast band, rather than on an
assignment basis as in the standard AM
band, in which the technical facilities of
each station are uniquely designed to
avoid interference to other stations on
the band. 47 CFR 73.30. A total of 88
Expanded Band channels were
originally allotted, and licenses were
granted to 54 stations that migrated from
the standard AM band to the Expanded
Band. The Commission proposed, in the
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(FNPRM) in this proceeding, to require
the remaining 25 dual standardExpanded Band station pairs to
surrender one authorization each. Now
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2823
that it has had experience with actual,
operating Expanded Band AM stations,
the Commission inquires whether to
open up the Expanded Band to
additional stations, and under what
conditions.
17. Several commenters remark that
the Expanded Band is underutilized and
should be opened up to more stations.
Some prefer, as before, that the
Expanded Band be used for stations
migrating from the standard band;
others believe that preference should
first be given to applicants for new AM
stations, licensed daytime-only AM
stations, or licensed or new AM stations
proposing all-digital operation. Most
who address the Expanded Band state
that stations in that band should be
assigned in the same way they are
assigned in the standard AM band,
rather than continuing the allotment
procedures currently used in the
Expanded Band. Commenters also urge
that a station migrating from the
standard band to the Expanded Band
relinquish its standard band license
shortly after initiating Expanded Band
service. Although many commenters
address the use of the Expanded Band
in helping to revitalize the AM service,
there are a number of procedural and
practical decisions to be made before
proposing rules for further utilization of
that band. The Commission believes
that a more complete record is needed
before proposing rules regarding further
expansion of the 1605–1705 kHz band.
18. As a threshold matter, the
Commission asks commenters whether
they believe that opening the Expanded
Band to further development would be
beneficial to revitalization of the AM
service. Assuming agreement with that
premise, who should be allowed to
receive authorizations in the Expanded
Band? Should preference be given to
new stations, to migrators from the
standard band, to stations planning alldigital operation, or should some other
criterion be established? If the
Expanded Band were opened to new
stations, an auction filing window
would need to be opened, and mutually
exclusive applications would be subject
to all competitive bidding procedures,
including threshold Section 307(b)
comparisons and possible auctions.
Additionally, if the Expanded Band
were opened to major modifications,
any mutually exclusive groups
including major modification
applications would have the
opportunity for settlements or technical
resolutions. 47 CFR 73.5002(d)(1), (2). If
the Commission were to reserve the
Expanded Band for migrators from the
standard AM band, should it open a
window, waive the major change rule,
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2824
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
and allow migrators to apply as minor
modifications on a first-come, firstserved basis, or use some other
mechanism (as, for example, the initial
assignment of stations to the Expanded
Band by prioritizing major interferers)?
With regard to migrating stations, the
Commission tentatively agrees with
those commenters who have suggested
that, in the event such migration is
allowed, a ‘‘flash cut’’ from the standard
band authorization to the Expanded
Band operation should take place, that
is, the standard band authorization
would be relinquished upon
commencing Expanded Band
transmissions. The Commission seeks
other views on this matter, however.
19. With regard to Expanded Band
technical facilities, currently stations in
the Expanded Band are allotted on a
minimum distance separation standard
similar to FM stations, rather than the
contour-protection procedures used for
standard band AM stations. As noted in
Technical Assignment Criteria,
assigning channels based on contour
protection maximizes the number of
stations on each channel, whereas
allotting stations based on spacing was
believed to promote a higher-quality
technical service in the Expanded Band.
6 FCC Rcd at 6311–12. Commenters
favoring opening up the Expanded Band
overwhelmingly prefer instituting
contour protection standards. The
Commission seeks comment on the
relative merits of each method of
channel assignment or allotment.
Additionally, to the extent commenters
favor contour protection, they should
also address whether compliance with
contour protection standards should be
limited to use of M3 ground
conductivity for contour prediction, or
should the Commission allow use of
measured ground conductivities in
predicting contours?
20. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether to allow other
classes and powers of stations (except
for Class D stations, which are no longer
authorized), to the extent permitted by
our international agreements, or
whether it should authorize the same
power (e.g., 10 kW day/1 kW night) for
all new Expanded Band stations. A
related question would be whether to
allow complex directional patterns in
the Expanded Band or limit applications
to non-directional and simple
directional (i.e., no more than threetower array) stations. If commenters
were to favor limiting the Expanded
Band to all-digital stations, the
Commission would seek comment as to
the contour protections and allocation
standards for all-digital operation. At
the moment, testing is continuing with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
regard to all-digital (as opposed to
hybrid digital) AM operations, and the
record is not yet established on the
technical standards needed to establish
interference protection for digital-todigital stations, much less digital-toanalog or digital-to-hybrid. The absence
of a technical record leads the
Commission to believe that it may be
premature to discuss limiting the
Expanded Band to all-digital operation;
however it welcomes comments that
include technical data that would
further inform it on this issue.
21. Relaxed Main Studio
Requirements. 47 CFR 73.1125(a)
provides, in pertinent part, that ‘‘each
AM, FM, and TV broadcast station shall
maintain a main studio’’ at a location
complying with paragraphs (a)(1)–(a)(3)
of that section.1 Moreover, the
Commission has long held that a station
must, at a minimum, maintain full-time
managerial and full-time staff personnel
at its main studio. Jones Eastern of the
Outer Banks, Inc., Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 3615,
3616 (1991). Commenters Blount
Masscom, Inc., et al. (Blount), note that
the Commission often grants waivers of
the main studio requirement to
noncommercial educational (NCE)
stations, allowing them to co-locate a
station’s main studio at the studio of
another station licensed to the same
licensee that may be outside the
locations allowed by 47 CFR 73.1125(a),
and that the rule language contemplates
such waivers for commercial stations,
although such waivers are seldom if
ever granted. Blount proposes that AM
station owners be allowed to request
such waivers, or at a minimum that
certain classes of AM stations, notably
Class D stations, be allowed to do so.
Blount further proposes that AM
stations without co-owned main studios
available should be allowed to adopt
relaxed staffing requirements, such as
requiring staffing only during part of the
day or week, or allowing the use of
technology to permit members of the
public to contact station personnel who
are not physically present at the main
studio. Three other commenters support
Blount’s proposals.
22. The Commission has historically
considered a station’s main studio to
constitute the location from which the
station can adequately meet its function
of serving the needs and interests of the
1 The acceptable locations of a main studio are:
(1) Within the station’s community of license; (2)
at any location within the principal community
contour of any AM, FM, or TV broadcast station
licensed to the station’s community of license; or
(3) within 25 miles from the reference coordinates
of the center of the station’s community of license
as described in 47 CFR 73.208(a)(1).
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
residents of the station’s community of
license. This includes being adequately
equipped to transmit programming,
having a meaningful management and
staff presence, and serving as a location
for the station’s public file. The
Commission continues to emphasize a
station’s function of meeting the needs
and interests of its community. At the
same time, however, it is aware of the
financial strain on many AM
broadcasters. Moreover, advances in
technology (e.g., email, mobile
telephone, Internet) can enable members
of the community to contact station
personnel without having to physically
visit the main studio. In fact, the
Commission has recently proposed
requiring AM and FM broadcast stations
to post their public files to the
Commission’s online database, which
would make them accessible without
the need for visiting a station’s offices
or main studio. Expansion of Online
Public File Obligations, Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, 29 FCC Rcd
15943 (2014).
23. Despite these advances in
accessibility to broadcast stations and
their personnel, the Commission is
reluctant to eliminate main studio
requirements entirely, because of the
aforementioned importance of the main
studio to the goal of ensuring station
compliance with local service
obligations. The Commission therefore
seeks comment on whether, and how, to
modify the main studio rule in light of
its goal in this proceeding to revitalize
the AM service. Should it continue to
address waivers of the main studio rule
on a case-by-case basis, but be more
open to such requests by commercial
stations that can co-locate in studio
facilities used by co-owned stations in
a given market? Assuming that the
Commission were to allow relaxation of
the requirement that each station
maintain a separate main studio, is there
a maximum number of co-located
stations that it should allow under one
roof? If it were to allow co-location of
two or more stations, should it further
relax the requirements by allowing one
or more of the stations to be located
outside of the area dictated by 47 CFR
73.1125(a)(1) through (a)(3)? If one or
more co-located stations are allowed to
locate outside the rule requirements,
should there be an absolute restriction
on the distance a co-locating station
may move its studio from its community
of license? Moreover, should the
Commission, as Blount suggests, relax
the staffing requirement of full-time
management and staff presence for AM
stations that do not have co-owned
stations with which to co-locate studio
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
facilities? Should any such relaxation of
staffing requirements necessarily be
limited to such ‘‘stand alone’’ AM
stations? If the Commission were to
relax staffing requirements, what if any
conditions should be put in place to
ensure that members of the public could
contact station personnel and receive
timely responses? Should it require that
local mobile phone numbers for station
management and staff be posted or
otherwise publicized? Should any
relaxation of main studio or staffing
rules be linked to a station’s posting of
its public file to the Commission online
database? The Commission seeks
comment addressing these and any
other matters pertaining to AM stations’
maintenance of fully staffed local main
studios. In particular, the Commission
invites comment on the cost reductions
that may result from modification of the
main studio rule.
Comments and Reply Comments
24. 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).
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
• Commercial Mail sent by overnight
mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be
sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail should be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
25. This is a summary of the
Commission’s document FCC 15–142,
Revitalization of the AM Radio Service,
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM) and Notice of Inquiry (NOI),
adopted on October 21, 2015 and
released on October 23, 2015, in MB
Docket No. 13–249. The full text of
document FCC 15–142 will be available
for public inspection and copying via
ECFS, and during regular business
hours at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
Document FCC 15–142 can also be
downloaded in Word or Portable
Document Format (PDF) at https://
www.fcc.gov/ndbedp.
Ex Parte Rules
26. This proceeding shall be treated as
a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.
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 47 CFR
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
47 CFR 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.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
27. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a
regulatory flexibility analysis be
prepared for notice and comment rule
making proceedings, unless the agency
certifies that ‘‘the rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.’’ The RFA
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2825
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 Small Business
Administration (SBA).
28. As required by the RFA (5 U.S.C.
603), Commission has prepared this
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities by the policies
and rules proposed in the FNPRM.
Written public comments are requested
on this IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines for
comments on the FNPRM provided in
paragraph 94 of the FNPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of this
entire FNPRM, including this IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA).
In addition, the FNPRM and the IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
29. This rulemaking proceeding is
initiated to obtain further comments
concerning certain proposals designed
to revitalize the AM broadcast radio
service. It is based in substantial part on
proposals raised by commenters in this
rulemaking proceeding, in response to
the Commission’s call in the original
NPRM in this proceeding for further
ideas and proposals.
30. Specifically, the Commission
seeks comment on the following: (1)
Whether to change the nighttime and
critical hours signal protection to Class
A AM stations; (2) whether to change
the methodology for calculating
nighttime root sum square (RSS) values;
(3) whether to change daytime signal
protection to Class B, C, and D stations;
(4) whether to revise the rule on where
an FM cross-service translator station,
re-broadcasting an AM station’s signal,
may be located relative to the AM
station’s transmitter; (5) whether to
modify the rules governing partial
proofs of performance of directional AM
antenna arrays; (6) whether to modify
the rules for method of moments proofs
for directional AM antenna arrays; and
(7) whether to require licensees holding
dual standard band-Expanded Band AM
licenses to surrender one of the licenses
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
2826
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
within one year of release of the Second
Report and Order in this proceeding.
Legal Basis
31. The authority for this proposed
rulemaking is contained in Sections 1,
2, 4(i), 303, 307, and 309(j) of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307, and 309(j).
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Description and Estimate of the Number
of Small Entities to Which the Proposed
Rules Will Apply
32. The RFA directs the Commission
to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that will be affected by the
proposed rules. The RFA generally
defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as
encompassing the terms ‘‘small
business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ and
‘‘small governmental entity.’’ 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.
Radio Stations
33. The proposed rules and policies
could apply to AM radio broadcast
licensees, and potential licensees of the
AM radio service. A radio broadcasting
station is an establishment primarily
engaged in broadcasting aural programs
by radio to the public. Included in this
industry are commercial, religious,
educational, and other radio stations.
Radio broadcasting stations which
primarily are engaged in radio
broadcasting and which produce radio
program materials are similarly
included. However, radio stations that
are separate establishments and are
primarily engaged in producing radio
program material are classified under
another NAICS number. The SBA has
established a small business size
standard for this category, which is:
Firms having $38.5 million or less in
annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS
code 515112 (updated for inflation in
2008). According to the BIA/Kelsey,
MEDIA Access Pro Database on October
15, 2015, 4,691 (99.94%) of 4,694 a.m.
radio stations have revenues of $38.5
million or less. Therefore, the majority
of such entities are small entities. The
Commission noted, however, that, in
assessing whether a business concern
qualifies as small under the above
definition, business (control) affiliations
must be included. See 13 CFR
121.103(a)(1). This estimate, therefore,
likely overstates the number of small
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
entities that might be affected by our
action, because the revenue figure on
which it is based does not include or
aggregate revenues from affiliated
companies. In addition, an element of
the definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that
the entity not be dominant in its field
of operation. The Commission is unable
at this time to define or quantify the
criteria that would establish whether a
specific radio station is dominant in its
field of operation. Accordingly, the
estimate of small businesses to which
rules may apply do not exclude any
radio station from the definition of a
small business on this basis and
therefore may be over-inclusive to that
extent. Also as noted, an additional
element of the definition of ‘‘small
business’’ is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated. It is
difficult at times to assess these criteria
in the context of media entities and
Commission estimates of small
businesses to which they apply may be
over-inclusive to this extent.
FM Translator Stations and Low-Power
FM Stations
34. The proposed policies could affect
licensees of FM translator stations, as
well as potential licensees in this radio
service. The same SBA definition that
applies to radio broadcast licensees
would apply to these stations. The SBA
defines a radio broadcast station as a
small business if such station has no
more than $38.5 million in annual
receipts. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS
code 515112. Currently, there are
approximately 6,422 licensed FM
translator and booster stations. In
addition, there are approximately 225
applicants with pending applications
filed in the 2003 translator filing
window. Given the nature of these
services, it is presumed that all of these
licensees and applicants qualify as
small entities under the SBA definition.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
35. The proposed rule and procedural
changes may, in some cases, impose
different reporting, recordkeeping, or
other requirements on existing and
potential AM radio licensees and
permittees. In the case of proposed
changes to the technical rules regarding
calculation of daytime and nighttime
interfering contours, and changes to
daytime, nighttime, and critical hours
protection to some stations, there would
be changes in the calculation of interstation interference and reporting of
same. However, the information to be
filed is already familiar to broadcasters,
and the nature of the interference
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
calculations would not change, only the
values that are acceptable, so any
additional burdens would be minimal.
Likewise, the proposed revision to the
rules on where an FM translator
providing fill-in service for an AM
station may be sited will not require any
additional calculations on the part of
the AM station proposing to locate or
relocate the translator. The proposal
merely relaxes the siting requirement
and expands the area in which such a
cross-service fill-in translator may be
located. Thus, there should be no
additional reporting or recordkeeping
burdens, and compliance with the siting
rules will be easier. The proposed
modifications to the partial proof of
performance and Method of Moments
rules would not change any reporting or
compliance requirements, insofar as AM
licensees and applicants would not be
required to submit such proofs or
models more frequently than is now the
case. The only changes would be to
relax the requirements for making
proofs of performance or method of
moments models. Thus, the required
submissions of such proofs and models
would be less burdensome on AM
broadcasters with directional antenna
arrays that are required to submit such
information. Finally, the proposal to
require surrender of licenses held by
broadcasters with paired standard bandExpanded Band AM stations will not
change any reporting, recordkeeping, or
other compliance requirements, and
will in fact reduce such requirements
for such licensees by 50 percent.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
36. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(b). In the
FNPRM, the Commission seeks to assist
AM broadcasters by changing certain
daytime, nighttime, and critical hours
interference protection standards as
they apply to certain classes of AM
stations; proposes relaxing the rules on
siting of FM translators providing fill-in
service for AM broadcast stations;
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
proposes to modify the measurement
requirements for AM directional
antenna system partial proofs of
performance in order to make them less
burdensome; and proposes to modify
the rules for submitting method of
moments models of proposed AM
directional antenna systems, in order to
make those rules less burdensome. The
Commission also seeks either to reduce
interference in the standard AM band
or, alternatively, to create more
spectrum in the Expanded AM Band, by
requiring that the 25 remaining
licensees holding paired authorizations
in both bands surrender one of the
paired licenses. Under the
Commission’s proposal, such a licensee
would be given one year from adoption
of this proposal in which to elect which
authorization it would surrender. The
Commission seeks comment as to
whether its goal of revitalizing the AM
service could be effectively
accomplished through these means. The
Commission is open to consideration of
alternatives to the proposals under
consideration, as set forth herein,
including but not limited to alternatives
that will minimize the burden on AM
broadcasters, most of which are small
businesses. There may be unique
circumstances these entities may face,
and the Commission will consider
appropriate action for small
broadcasters when preparing a Second
Report and Order in this matter.
Federal Rules Which Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission’s Proposals
(Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an email to fcc504@
fcc.gov or call the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–
418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY).
39. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 303(r),
316, and 403 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
154(i), 301, 303(r), 316, 403, this Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
adopted.
40. It is further ordered that, pursuant
to Sections 1, 303(g), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 303(g), and
403, and Section 1.430 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.430, that
this Notice of Inquiry is adopted.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 73
Communications equipment, Radio,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
47 CFR Part 74
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer. Office of the
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
parts 73 and 74 as follows:
0 ..................................................................................................................................
20 ................................................................................................................................
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
5. In § 73.151 revise paragraph (c)(3)
to read as follows:
§ 73.151 Field strength measurements to
establish performance of directional
antennas.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(3) When the application for an initial
license for a directional antenna system
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
is submitted that is based on computer
modeling and sample system
verification, reference field strength
measurement locations shall be
established in the directions of pattern
minima and maxima. On each radial
corresponding to a pattern minimum or
maximum, there shall be at least three
measurement locations. The field
strength shall be measured at each
PO 00000
2. In § 73.21 revise paragraphs (a)
introductory text and (a)(1) to read as
follows:
■
§ 73.21 Classes of AM broadcast channels
and stations.
(a) Clear channel. A clear channel is
one on which stations are assigned to
serve wide areas. These stations are
protected from objectionable
interference within their primary
service areas. Stations operating on
these channels are classified as follows:
(1) Class A station. A Class A station
is an unlimited time station that
operates on a clear channel and is
designed to render primary service over
an extended area at relatively long
distances from its transmitter. Its
primary service area is protected from
objectionable interference from other
stations on the same and adjacent
channels. The operating power shall not
be less than 10 kW nor more than 50
kW. (Also see § 73.25(a)).
*
*
*
*
*
§ 73.24
[Amended]
3. In § 73.24 remove paragraph (h) and
redesignate paragraphs (i) and (j) as
paragraphs (h) and (i), respectively.
■ 4. In § 73.37 revise the table following
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 73.37 Applications for broadcast
facilities, showing required.
(a) * * *
0.005
0.100
2.0
0.500
2.0
25.0
10 ................................................................................................................................
■
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
■
Contour of
proposed
station (classes B,
C and D)
(mV/m)
Frequency separation
(kHz)
*
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336,
and 339.
Ordering Clauses
Proposed Rule Changes
37. None.
38. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
2827
Sfmt 4702
Contour of any other station
(mV/m)
0.100 (Class A).
2.0 (Other classes).
0.100 (Other classes).
0.500 (Class A).
2.0 (Other classes).
25.0 (All classes).
reference location at the time of the
proof of performance. The license
application shall include the measured
field strength values at each reference
point, along with a description of each
measurement location, including GPS
coordinates and datum reference. New
reference field strength measurements
are not required for subsequent license
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
2828
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
applications for the same directional
antenna system and physical facilities.
■ 6. In § 73.154, revise paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
§ 73.154 AM directional antenna partial
proof of performance measurements.
(a) A partial proof of performance
consists of at least 8 field strength
measurements made on each of the
radials that includes a monitoring point.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 73.155
■
■
[Removed]
7. Remove § 73.155.
8. Revise § 73.182 to read as follows:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 73.182 Engineering standards of
allocation.
(a) Sections 73.21 to 73.37, inclusive,
govern allocation of facilities in the AM
broadcast band 535–1705 kHz. § 73.21
establishes three classes of channels in
this band, namely, clear, regional and
local. The classes and power of AM
broadcast stations which will be
assigned to the various channels are set
forth in § 73.21. The classifications of
the AM broadcast stations are as
follows:
(1) Class A stations operate on clear
channels with powers between 10 kW
and 50 kW. These stations are designed
to render primary service over a large
area protected from objectionable
interference from other stations on the
same and adjacent channels. Class A
stations may be divided into two
groups: Those located in any of the
conterminous United States and those
located in Alaska.
(i) Class A stations in the
conterminous United States operate on
the channels assigned by § 73.25 with
minimum power of 10 kW, maximum
power of 50 kW, and minimum antenna
efficiency of 275 mV/m/kW at 1
kilometer. The Class A stations in this
group are afforded protection, both
daytime and nighttime, to the 0.1
mV/m groundwave contour from other
stations on the same channel, and are
afforded both daytime and nighttime
protection to the 0.5 mV/m groundwave
contour from other stations on first
adjacent channels.
(ii) Class A stations in Alaska operate
on the channels assigned by § 73.25
with minimum power of 10 kW,
maximum power of 50 kW, and
minimum antenna efficiency of 215
mV/m/kW at 1 kilometer. The Class A
stations in this group are afforded
protection, both daytime and nighttime,
to the 0.1 mV/m groundwave contour
from other stations on the same channel
and to the 0.5 mV/m groundwave
contour from other stations on first
adjacent channels.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
(2) Class B stations are stations which
operate on clear and regional channels
with powers not less than 0.25 kW or
greater than 50 kW. These stations
render primary service, the area of
which depends on their geographic
location, power, and frequency. It is
recommended that Class B stations be
located so that the interference received
from other stations will not limit the
service area to a groundwave contour
value greater than 2.0 mV/m
groundwave contour both daytime and
nighttime, which are the values for the
mutual protection between this class of
stations and other stations of the same
class.
(3) Class C stations operate on local
channels, normally rendering primary
service to a community and the
suburban or rural areas immediately
contiguous thereto, with powers not less
than 0.25 kW or greater than 1 kW,
except as provided in § 73.21(c)(1). Such
stations are normally protected to the
daytime 2.0 mV/m contour. On local
channels the separation required for the
daytime protection shall also determine
the nighttime separation. Where
directional antennas are employed
daytime by Class C stations operating
with power equal to or greater than 0.25
kW, the separations required shall in no
case be less than those necessary to
afford protection assuming
nondirectional operation with power of
0.25 kW. In no case will nighttime
power of 0.25 kW or greater be
authorized to a station unable to operate
nondirectionally with power of 0.25 kW
during daytime hours. The actual
nighttime limitation will be calculated.
For nighttime protection purposes, Class
C stations in the 48 conterminous
United States may assume that stations
in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands operating on 1230,
1240, 1340, 1400, 1450, and 1490 kHz
are Class C stations.
(4) Class D stations operate on clear
and regional channels with daytime
powers of not less than 0.25 kW (or
equivalent RMS field of 107.5 mV/m at
1 kilometer if less than 0.25 kW) and not
more than 50 kW. Class D stations that
have previously received nighttime
authority to operate with powers of less
0.25 kW (or equivalent RMS fields of
less than 107.5 mV/m at 1 kilometer) are
not required to provide nighttime
coverage in accordance with § 73.24(i)
and are not protected from interference
during nighttime hours. Such nighttime
authority is permitted on the basis of
full nighttime protection being afforded
to all Class A and Class B stations.
Note to paragraph (a): See
§§ 73.21(b)(1) and 73.26(b) concerning
power restrictions and classifications
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
relative to Class B, Class C, and Class D
stations in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Stations in
the above-named places that are
reclassified from Class C to Class B
stations under § 73.26(b) shall not be
authorized to increase power to levels
that would increase the nighttime
interference-free limit of co-channel
Class C stations in the conterminous
United States.
(b) When a station is already limited
by interference from other stations to a
contour value greater than that normally
protected for its class, the individual
received limits shall be the established
standard for such station with respect to
interference from each other station.
(c) All classes of AM broadcast
stations have in general three types of
service areas, i.e., primary, secondary
and intermittent. (See § 73.14 for the
definitions of primary, secondary and
intermittent service areas.) All classes of
AM stations render service to a primary
area but the secondary and intermittent
service areas may be materially limited
or destroyed due to interference from
other stations, depending on the station
assignments involved.
(d) The groundwave signal strength
required to render primary service is 2
mV/m for communities with
populations of 2,500 or more and 0.5
mV/m for communities with
populations of less than 2,500. Because
only Class A stations have protected
primary service extending beyond the 2
mV/m contour, the groundwave signal
strength constituting primary service for
Class A stations is that set forth in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section. See § 73.184 for curves showing
distance to various groundwave field
strength contours for different
frequencies and ground conductivities,
and also see § 73.183, ‘‘Groundwave
signals.’’
(e) A Class C station may be
authorized to operate with a directional
antenna during daytime hours providing
the power is at least 0.25 kW. In
computing the degrees of protection
which such antenna will afford, the
radiation produced by the directional
antenna system will be assumed to be
no less, in any direction, than that
which would result from nondirectional operation using a single
element of the directional array, with
0.25 kW.
(f) All classes of broadcast stations
have primary service areas subject to
limitation by fading and noise, and
interference from other stations to the
contours set out for each class of station.
(g) Broadcast stations are licensed to
operate unlimited time, limited time,
daytime, share time, and specified
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
hours. (See §§ 73.1710, 73.1725,
73.1720, 73.1715, and 73.1730.)
Applications for new stations shall
specify unlimited time operation only.
(h) Section 73.24 sets out the general
requirements for modifying the facilities
of a licensed station and for establishing
a new station. Sections 73.24(b) and
73.37 include interference related
provisions that be considered in
connection with an application to
modify the facilities of an existing
station or to establish a new station.
Section 73.30 describes the procedural
steps required to receive an
authorization to operate in the 1605–
1705 kHz band.
(i) Objectionable nighttime
interference from a broadcast station
occurs when, at a specified field
strength contour with respect to the
desired station, the field strength of an
undesired co-channel station exceeds
for 10% or more of the time the values
set forth in these standards. The value
derived from the root-sum-square of all
interference contributions represents the
extent of a station’s interference-free
coverage.
(1) With respect to the root-sumsquare (RSS) values of interfering field
strengths referred to in this section,
calculation of nighttime interferencefree service is accomplished by
considering co-channel signals in order
of decreasing magnitude, adding the
squares of the values and extracting the
square root of the sum, excluding those
signals which are less than 50% of the
RSS values of the higher signals already
included. This is known as the ‘‘50%
Exclusion Method.’’
(2) The RSS value will not be
considered to be increased when a new
interfering signal is added which is less
than the appropriate exclusion
percentage as applied to the RSS value
of the interference from existing
stations, and which at the same time is
not greater than the smallest signal
included in the RSS value of
interference from existing stations.
(3) It is recognized that application of
the 50% Exclusion Method for
calculating the RSS interference may
result in some cases in anomalies
wherein the addition of a new
interfering signal or the increase in
value of an existing interfering signal
will cause the exclusion of a previously
included signal and may cause a
decrease in the calculated RSS value of
interference. In order to provide the
Commission with more realistic
information regarding gains and losses
in service (as a basis for determination
of the relative merits of a proposed
operation) the following alternate
method for calculating the proposed
RSS values of interference will be
employed wherever applicable.
(4) In cases where it is proposed to
add a new interfering signal which is
not less than 50% of the RSS value of
interference from existing stations or
which is greater than the smallest signal
already included to obtain this RSS
value, the RSS limitation after addition
of the new signal shall be calculated
without excluding any signal previously
included. Similarly, in cases where it is
proposed to increase the value of one of
the existing interfering signals which
has been included in the RSS value, the
RSS limitation after the increase shall be
calculated without excluding the
interference from any source previously
included.
(5) If the new or increased signal
proposed in such cases is ultimately
authorized, the RSS values of
interference to other stations affected
will thereafter be calculated by the 50%
Exclusion Method without regard to this
alternate method of calculation.
(6) Examples of RSS interference
calculations:
(i) Existing interferences:
Station No. 1—1.00 mV/m.
Station No. 2—0.60 mV/m.
Station No. 3—0.59 mV/m.
Station No. 4—0.58 mV/m.
The RSS value from Nos. 1, 2 and 3
is 1.31 mV/m; therefore interference
from No. 4 is excluded for it is less than
50% of 1.31 mV/m.
(ii) Station A receives interferences
from:
Station No. 1—1.00 mV/m.
Station No. 2—0.60 mV/m.
Station No. 3—0.59 mV/m.
It is proposed to add a new limitation,
0.68 mV/m. This is more than 50% of
1.31 mV/m, the RSS value from Nos. 1,
2 and 3. The RSS value of Station No.
1 and of the proposed station would be
1.21 mV/m which is more than twice as
large as the limitation from Station No.
2 or No. 3. However, under the above
provision the new signal and the three
existing interferences are nevertheless
calculated for purposes of comparative
studies, resulting in an RSS value of
1.47 mV/m. However, if the proposed
station is ultimately authorized, only
No. 1 and the new signal are included
in all subsequent calculations for the
reason that Nos. 2 and 3 are less than
50% of 1.21 mV/m, the RSS value of the
new signal and No. 1.
(iii) Station A receives interferences
from:
Station No. 1—1.00 mV/m.
Station No. 2—0.60 mV/m.
Station No. 3—0.59 mV/m.
No. 1 proposes to increase the
limitation it imposes on Station A to
1.21 mV/m. Although the limitations
from stations Nos. 2 and 3 are less than
50% of the 1.21 mV/m limitation, under
the above provision they are
nevertheless included for comparative
studies, and the RSS limitation is
calculated to be 1.47 mV/m. However, if
the increase proposed by Station No. 1
is authorized, the RSS value then
calculated is 1.21 mV/m because
Stations Nos. 2 and 3 are excluded in
view of the fact that the limitations they
impose are less than 50% of 1.21 mV/
m.
(j) Objectionable nighttime
interference from a station shall be
considered to exist to a station when, at
the field strength contour specified in
paragraph (o) of this section with
respect to the class to which the station
belongs, the field strength of an
interfering station operating on the same
channel exceeds for 10% or more of the
time the value of the permissible
interfering signal set forth opposite such
class in paragraph (o) of this section.
(k) For the purpose of estimating the
coverage and the interfering effects of
stations in the absence of field strength
measurements, use shall be made of
Figure 8 of § 73.190, which describes
the estimated effective field (for 1 kW
power input) of simple vertical
omnidirectional antennas of various
heights with ground systems having at
least 120 quarter-wavelength radials.
Certain approximations, based on the
curve or other appropriate theory, may
be made when other than such antennas
and ground systems are employed, but
in any event the effective field to be
employed shall not be less than the
following:
Effective field
(at 1 km)
Class of station
All Class A (except Alaskan) .....................................................................................................................
Class A (Alaskan), B and D .......................................................................................................................
Class C ......................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2829
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
275 mV/m.
215 mV/m.
180 mV/m.
19JAP1
2830
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Note (1) to paragraph (k): When a
directional antenna is employed, the radiated
signal of a broadcasting station will vary in
strength in different directions, possibly
being greater than the above values in certain
directions and less in other directions
depending upon the design and adjustment
of the directional antenna system. To
determine the interference in any direction,
the measured or calculated radiated field
(unattenuated field strength at 1 kilometer
from the array) must be used in conjunction
with the appropriate propagation curves. (See
§ 73.185 for further discussion and solution
of a typical directional antenna case.)
(l) The existence or absence of
objectionable groundwave interference
from stations on the same or adjacent
channels shall be determined by actual
measurements made in accordance with
the method described in § 73.186, or in
the absence of such measurements, by
reference to the propagation curves of
§ 73.184. The existence or absence of
objectionable interference due to
skywave propagation shall be
determined by reference to Formula 2 in
§ 73.190.
(m) Computation of skywave field
strength values:
(1) Fifty percent skywave field
strength values. To compute fifty
percent skywave field strength values,
Formula 1 of § 73.190, entitled
‘‘Skywave field strength, 50% of the
time (at SS+6)’’ shall be used.
(2) Ten percent skywave field strength
values. In computing the 10% skywave
field strength for stations on a single
signal or an RSS basis, Formula 2 in
§ 73.190 shall be used.
(3) Determination of angles of
departure. In calculating skywave field
strength for stations on all channels, the
pertinent vertical angle shall be
determined by use of the formula in
§ 73.190(d).
(n) The distance to any specified
groundwave field strength contour for
any frequency may be determined from
the appropriate curves in § 73.184
entitled ‘‘Ground Wave Field Strength
vs. Distance.’’
(o) Normally protected service
contours and permissible interference
signals for broadcast stations are as
follows (for Class A stations, see also
paragraph (a) of this section):
Class of channel
used
Signal strength contour of area protected from
objectionable interference
(μV/m)
Permissible interfering signal
(μV/m)
Note (2) to paragraph (k): For Class B
stations in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands, 180 mV/m shall be
used.
Class of station
Day 1
A .................................
Clear .........................
B .................................
Clear .........................
Regional ....................
Local .........................
Clear .........................
Regional ....................
C .................................
D .................................
SC 100 ......................
AC 500 ......................
2000 ..........................
...................................
2000 ..........................
2000 ..........................
...................................
SC 100 ......................
AC 500 ......................
2000 ..........................
...................................
Not presc 3 ................
Not presc ..................
...................................
Day 1
Night 1
SC
AC
SC
AC
SC
SC
AC
Night
5 ..........................
500 ......................
100 ......................
2000 ....................
100 ......................
100 ......................
2000 ....................
SC 5.1
AC 500.1
25.2
Not presc.
Not presc.
Not presc.
Not presc.
1 Groundwave.
2 Skywave
field strength for 10 percent or more of the time.
nighttime hours, Class C stations in the contiguous 48 States may treat all Class B stations assigned to 1230, 1240, 1340, 1400,
1450, and 1490 kHz in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as if they were Class C stations.
Note: SC = Same channel; AC = Adjacent channel; SW = Skywave; GW = Groundwave.
3 During
(p) The following table of logarithmic
expressions is to be used as required for
determining the minimum permissible
ratio of the field strength of a desired to
an undesired signal. This table shall be
used in conjunction with the protected
contours specified in paragraph (q) of
this section.
Desired Groundwave to:
Frequency separation of desired to undesired signals
(kHz)
Undesired
groundwave
(dB)
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
0 ...............................................................................................................................................................................
10 .............................................................................................................................................................................
(q) Two stations, one with a frequency
twice of the other, should not be
assigned in the same groundwave
service area unless special precautions
are taken to avoid interference from the
second harmonic of the station
operating on the lower frequency.
Additionally, in selecting a frequency,
consideration should be given to the fact
that occasionally the frequency
assignment of two stations in the same
area may bear such a relation to the
intermediate frequency of some
broadcast receivers as to cause ‘‘image’’
interference, However, since this can
usually be rectified by readjustment of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:33 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
the intermediate frequency of such
receivers, the Commission, in general,
will not take this kind of interference
into consideration when authorizing
stations.
(r) The groundwave service of two
stations operating with synchronized
carriers and broadcasting identical
programs will be subject to some
distortion in areas where the signals
from the two stations are of comparable
strength. For the purpose of estimating
coverage of such stations, areas in
which the signal ratio is between 1:2
and 2:1 will not be considered as
receiving satisfactory service.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Undesired
10% Skywave
(dB)
26
0
26
0
Note to paragraph (r): Two stations are
considered to be operated synchronously
when the carriers are maintained within 0.2
Hz of each other and they transmit identical
programs.
§ 73.187
■
[Removed]
9. Remove § 73.187.
PART 74—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO,
AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST
AND OTHER PROGRAM
DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
10. The authority citation for part 74
continues to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307,
309, 336 and 554.
11. In § 74.1201, revise paragraph (g)
to read as follows:
■
§ 74.1201
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Translator coverage contour. For a
fill-in FM translator rebroadcasting an
FM radio broadcast station as its
primary station, the FM translator’s
coverage contour must be contained
within the primary station’s coverage
contour. For purposes of this rule
section, the coverage contour of the FM
translator has the same field strength
value as the protected contour of the
primary FM station (i.e., for a
commercial Class B FM station it is the
predicted 0.5 mV/m field strength
contour, for a commercial Class B1 FM
station it is the predicted 0.7 mV/m
field strength contour, and for all other
classes of FM stations it is the predicted
1 mV/m field strength contour). The
coverage contour of an FM translator
rebroadcasting an AM radio broadcast
station as its primary station must be
contained within the greater of either
the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM
station or a 25-mile (40 km) radius
centered at the AM transmitter site, but
the translator’s 1 mV/m coverage
contour may not extend beyond a 40mile (64 km) radius centered at the AM
transmitter site. The protected contour
for an FM translator station is its
predicted 1 mV/m contour.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–31949 Filed 1–15–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 151005920–5999–01]
RIN 0648–BF39
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan; Trawl
Rationalization Program; Flow Scale
Requirements
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
This proposed rule would
revise scale requirements for processing
vessels that are required to weigh fish at
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
sea, i.e. mothership and catcher/
processor vessels, and Shorebased
Individual Fishery Quota Program (IFQ)
first receivers. For motherships and
catcher/processors that weigh fish at
sea, the proposed action would require
the use of updated scale technology,
require enhanced daily scale testing for
flow scales (also known as belt scales),
and require the use of video to monitor
the flow scale and the area around the
flow scale. For Shorebased IFQ first
receivers, the proposed action would
add criteria for inseason flow scale tests.
In addition, the action includes
housekeeping changes that are intended
to better align the regulations with
defined terms, and to provide clarity
and consistency between paragraphs.
Action is needed to provide precise and
accurate catch estimates and to reduce
the likelihood that vessels will under
report harvests.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be received by February 18, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2015–0150, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20150150, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, West Coast
Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way
NE., Seattle, WA 98115–0070; Attn:
Becky Renko.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule may be submitted to William W.
Stelle Jr., Regional Administrator, West
Coast Region NMFS, 7600 Sand Point
Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115–0070 and
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2831
to OMB by email to OIRA_Submission@
omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–7285.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Motherships and Catcher/Processors
An at-sea scale program was
developed for the Alaska groundfish
fishery in 1998 to provide catch
accounting that was more precise and
verifiable at the individual haul level
and less dependent on estimates
generated by at-sea observers (February
4, 1998; 63 FR 5836). The at-sea scale
program supported implementation of a
large-scale quota share program that
required verifiable and defensible
estimates of harvest. Since
implemenation of those weighing
requirements in 1998, at-sea scales have
been used to provide reliable, precise
and accurate estimates of catch in the
Alaskan groundfish fisheries. At the
same time, scale technology has evolved
and NMFS has developed greater
expertise in monitoring processing
activity.
Recent fraud on some vessels was
found to have resulted in systematic
underestimates of scale weights used for
catch accounting. As a result, at-sea
flow scale regulations for the Alaska
Region at 50 CFR 679.28 were revised
on December 18, 2014 (November 18,
2014; 79 FR 68610) to improve scale
accuracy and reduce bias. Revisions to
the Alaska regulations included a suite
of modifications to the at-sea scales
program that included the use of flow
scales capable of logging and printing
the frequency and magnitude of scale
calibrations relative to previous
calibrations as well as the time and date
of each scale fault (or error) and scale
startup time; revised daily scale test
methods; and new requirements for
video monitoring.
In 2011, a trawl rationalization
program was implemented for the
Pacific Coast groundfish fishery which
included scale requirements specified in
regulation at § 660.15(b) (December 15,
2010; 75 FR 78344). These regulations
require mothership and catcher/
processor vessels to use scales certified
for the Alaska groundfish fisheries.
Modifying the Pacific Coast groundfish
fishery regulations to be consistent with
the Alaska Region’s 2014 regulation
updates would bring the regulations up
to date with current technology, reduce
the potential for scale tampering, and
improve catch accounting accuracy.
Catch estimates based on inaccurate
scale weights could systematically
underestimate harvests. Given the
importance of using accurate and
reliable catch accounting data for
management of the groundfish stocks,
NMFS is proposing revisions consistent
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2818-2831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31949]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 73 and 74
[MB Docket No. 13-249; FCC 15-142]
Revitalization of the AM Radio Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopted a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), in which it sought comment on several
proposals designed to revitalize the AM broadcast radio service, or to
reduce burdens on AM broadcasters. The Commission further adopted a
Notice of Inquiry (NOI), in which it sought comment on two proposals
designed to revitalize the AM broadcast radio service. One of the
proposals, regarding increased utilization of the AM expanded band, was
suggested by several commenters in response to the NPRM in this
proceeding, The second proposal, for relaxation of the Commission's
main studio rules for AM stations, was suggested by a commenter and
supported by others.
DATES: Comments may be filed on or before March 21, 2016 and reply
comments may be filed on or before April 18, 2016. Written comments on
the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection
requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before March 21, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 13-249,
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), through the Commission's Web site https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions
provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in
completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and MB Docket No. 13-249.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the
Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal
Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
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: Peter Doyle, Chief, Media Bureau,
Audio Division, (202) 418-2700; Thomas Nessinger, Senior Counsel, Media
Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-2700. 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
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 15-142, adopted October 21,
2015, and released October 23, 2015.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
The FNPRM contains proposed information collection requirements
subject to the PRA, Public Law 104-13. OMB, the general public, and
other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed new and
modified information collection requirements contained in this FNPRM.
Comments on the proposed information collection requirements should
address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on
how it might ``further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
Paperwork Reduction Act comments on the information collection
requirements contained herein should be submitted to Cathy Williams,
Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov,
and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), via
the Internet to Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov.
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR)
submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called ``Currently
Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the
``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading, (4)
select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of agencies
presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click the ``Submit'' button
to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, (6) when the list of FCC
ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Title of this ICR and
then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to
OMB will be displayed.
The proposed information collections are as follows:
OMB Control Number: 3060-0075.
Title: Application for Transfer of Control of a Corporate Licensee
or Permittee, or Assignment of License or Permit, for an FM or TV
Translator Station, or a Low Power Television Station, FCC Form 345.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit
institutions; Local or Tribal Government.
Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,700 respondents; 2,700
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.084-1.25 hours.
Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement and on
occasion reporting requirement.
Total Annual Burden: 2,667 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $3,958,125.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The
statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in
Sections 154(i) and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
[[Page 2819]]
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for
confidentiality with this collection of information.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
Needs and Uses: Filing of the FCC Form 345 is required when
applying for authority for assignment of license or permit, or for
consent to transfer of control of a corporate licensee or permittee for
an FM or TV translator station, or low power TV station.
This collection also includes the third party disclosure
requirement of 47 CFR 73.3580 (OMB approval was received for Section
73.3580 under OMB Control Number 3060-0031). 47 CFR 73.3580 requires
local public notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the
community in which the station is located or providing notice over the
air of the filing of all applications for assignment of license/permit.
This notice must be completed within 30 days of the tendering of the
application. A copy of the newspaper notice or a record of the
broadcast notice and the application must be placed in the public
inspection file.
On June 29, 2009, the Commission adopted a Report and Order,
Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator
Stations, MB Docket No. 07-172, FCC 09-59, 24 FCC Rcd 9642 (2009), 74
FR 45126,Sept. 1, 2009, 74 FR 46382, Sept. 9, 2009. In the 2009 Report
and Order, the Commission adopted changes to the FM translator rules
that allowed AM stations to use authorized FM translator stations to
rebroadcast the AM signal locally, retransmitting their AM programming
as a ``fill-in'' service. The adopted cross-service translating rules
limited FM translators to providing ``fill-in'' service only,
specifically within the AM primary station's authorized service area.
AM radio stations use Form 345 to apply for authority to assign or
transfer such fill-in FM translator stations. Consistent with actions
taken by the Commission in the 2009 Report and Order, the following
changes were made to Form 345: Section III of Form 345 included a new
certification concerning compliance with the AM station ``fill-in''
service requirements. Specifically, in the AM service, applicants
certify that the coverage contour (1 mV/m) of the FM translator station
is contained within the lesser of: (a) The 2 mV/m daytime contour of
the AM primary station being rebroadcast, or (b) a 25-mile radius
centered at the AM station's transmitter site.
On October 21, 2015, the Commission adopted a First Report and
Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry, in
Revitalization of the AM Radio Service, MB Docket No. 13-249, FCC 15-
142. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking component of this
rulemaking proceeding (FNPRM), the Commission proposes to make the
following rule (and Form) changes to this information collection:
Modify Section 74.1201(g) of the rules to provide that the coverage
contour (1 mV/m) of an FM translator station rebroadcasting an AM radio
station as its primary station must be contained within the greater of
either the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM station, or a 25-mile
radius centered at the AM station's transmitter site, but that in no
event may the FM translator's 1 mV/m coverage contour extend beyond a
40-mile (64 km) radius centered at the AM station's transmitter site.
Consistent with actions proposed by the Commission in the FNPRM,
the following change is made to Form 345: Section III of Form 345
includes a new certification concerning compliance with the new AM
station ``fill-in'' service requirements. Specifically, applicants will
now certify that the 1 mV/m coverage contour of the FM translator
station is contained within the greater of either: (a) The 2 mV/m
daytime contour of the AM primary station being rebroadcast, or (b) a
25-mile radius centered at the AM station's transmitter site, but the
FM translator's 1 mV/m contour may not extend beyond a 40-mile radius
centered at the AM station's transmitter site. The instructions for
Section III--Assignee/Transferee have been revised to assist applicants
with completing the modified question.
With this submission, the Commission is currently seeking to obtain
OMB approval for the proposed revisions to 47 CFR 74.1201(g) and FCC
Form 345 for this information collection. These revisions will not
increase the number of respondents, number of responses, annual burden
hours and annual cost for this collection.
OMB Control Number: 3060-0405.
Title: Application for Authority to Construct or Make Changes in an
FM Translator or FM Booster Station, FCC Form 349.
Form Number: FCC Form 349.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal
Government; Not-for-profit institutions.
Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,200 respondents; 2,400
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 1-1.5 hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third
party disclosure requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The
statutory authority for this information collection is contained in
Sections 154(i), 303 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended.
Total Annual Burden: 4,500 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $4,674,600.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for
confidentiality with this information collection.
Needs and Uses: FCC Form 349 is used to apply for authority to
construct a new FM translator or FM booster broadcast station, or to
make changes in the existing facilities of such stations.
Form 349 also contains a third party disclosure requirement,
pursuant to 47 CFR 73.3580. This rule requires stations applying for a
new broadcast station, or to make major changes to an existing station,
to give local public notice of this filing in a newspaper of general
circulation in the community in which the station is located. This
local public notice must be completed within 30 days of the tendering
of the application. This notice must be published at least twice a week
for two consecutive weeks in a three-week period. In addition, a copy
of this notice must be placed in the station's public inspection file
along with the application, pursuant to 47 CFR 73.3527. This
recordkeeping information collection requirement is contained in OMB
Control No. 3060-0214, which covers Section 73.3527.
On June 29, 2009, the Commission adopted a Report and Order,
Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator
Stations, MB Docket No. 07-172, FCC 09-59, 24 FCC Rcd 9642 (2009), 74
FR 45126, Sept. 1, 2009, 74 FR 46382, Sept. 9, 2009. In the 2009 Report
and Order, the Commission adopted changes to the FM translator rules
that allowed AM stations to use authorized FM translator stations to
rebroadcast the AM signal locally, retransmitting their AM programming
as a ``fill-in'' service. The adopted cross-service translating rules
limited FM translators to providing ``fill-in'' service only,
specifically within the AM primary station's authorized service area.
AM radio stations use Form 349 to apply for authorizations to
operate such fill-in FM translator stations. Consistent with actions
taken by the Commission in the 2009 Report and Order, the following
changes were made to Form
[[Page 2820]]
349: Sections II and III of Form 349 included new certifications
concerning compliance with the AM station ``fill-in'' service
requirements. Specifically, in the AM service, applicants certify that
the coverage contour (1 mV/m) of the FM translator station is contained
within the lesser of: (a) The 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM primary
station being rebroadcast, or (b) a 25-mile radius centered at the AM
station's transmitter site.
On October 21, 2015, the Commission adopted a First Report and
Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry, in
Revitalization of the AM Radio Service, MB Docket No. 13-249, FCC 15-
142. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking component of this
rulemaking proceeding (FNPRM), the Commission proposes to make the
following rule (and Form) changes to this information collection:
Modify 47 CFR 74.1201(g) of the rules to provide that the coverage
contour (1 mV/m) of an FM translator station rebroadcasting an AM radio
station as its primary station must be contained within the greater of
either the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM station, or a 25-mile
radius centered at the AM station's transmitter site, but that in no
event may the FM translator's 1 mV/m coverage contour extend beyond a
40-mile (64 km) radius centered at the AM station's transmitter site.
Consistent with actions proposed by the Commission in the FNPRM,
the following changes are made to the Form 349: Sections II and III of
Form 349 include new certifications concerning compliance with the new
AM station ``fill-in'' service requirements. Specifically, applicants
will certify that the 1 mV/m coverage contour of the FM translator
station is contained within the greater of either: (a) The 2 mV/m
daytime contour of the AM primary station being rebroadcast, or (b) a
25-mile radius centered at the AM station's transmitter site, but the
FM translator's 1 mV/m contour may not extend beyond a 40-mile radius
centered at the AM station's transmitter site. The instructions for
Sections II and III have been revised to assist applicants with
completing the modified questions.
With this submission, the Commission is currently seeking to obtain
OMB approval for the proposed revisions to 47 CFR 74.1201(g) and FCC
Form 349 for this information collection. These revisions will not
increase the number of respondents, number of responses, annual burden
hours and annual cost for this collection.
Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. A number of commenters in this proceeding advocated reducing
daytime, nighttime, and critical hours protection afforded to Class A
AM stations, which operate with up to 50 kilowatts of power, day and
night, and have large extended service areas, especially at night when
skywave propagation allows signals to travel hundreds of miles. As a
result, during daytime hours, over 200 licensed Class B and Class D AM
stations are required to reduce power and/or change to a directional
antenna system to meet the required critical hours protection afforded
to Class A stations. During nighttime hours--if permitted nighttime
operation at all--other stations often must invest in complex
directional arrays to protect one of the 73 Class A stations, and/or
must substantially reduce their power, sometimes resulting in their
having only secondary nighttime facilities. Even for those Class B
stations that are protected from interference by other AM stations at
night, this often results in sub-standard nighttime coverage, in order
to protect the secondary service area of a larger station a
considerable distance, and often many states away. Commenters argue
that they could provide better service, with more power to overcome the
local noise floor, if the protections to Class A stations were relaxed.
2. Class A stations have traditionally provided wide-area service
to different regions of the United States, including rural areas, and
to travelers driving through their relatively large coverage areas. The
high power and large extended service areas of these stations have also
proved invaluable in emergencies, such as Hurricane Katrina and its
aftermath. Some commenters, however, note that the utility of high-
powered, wide-area AM stations has waned since the early days of radio,
when the FM service was nonexistent or underutilized, more of the
population lived outside of major metropolitan areas, and there were
significantly fewer media choices than there are today. Because of
this, many commenters believe that the current protection afforded to
Class A stations should be reduced, in order to allow other, more local
stations to add or increase day and nighttime power to their listening
areas. The tradeoff between commenters urging caution in taking any
steps that would diminish protection to Class A stations and those
arguing that large protected coverage areas for Class A stations are
unnecessary appears to be whether the Commission should take steps that
would deprive Class A stations of listeners far outside of their
primary service areas, if those steps would allow substantial numbers
of other stations to improve their service, both day and night, to
their communities of license and adjacent areas.
3. While the wide-area service of Class A stations has historically
proved to be beneficial, the Commission has seen fit in the past to
reduce protection to their skywave service (see, e.g., Clear Channel
Broadcasting in the AM Broadcast Band, Report and Order, 78 F.C.C.2d
1345, 1364 (1980), in which the Commission noted that increasing
spectrum demands required that protection of such stations (then
designated Class I-A stations) beyond the nighttime 0.5 mV/m-50 percent
contour, as well as certain restrictions on adjacent-channel stations,
be abolished). In this proceeding, the overriding concern is the need
for existing AM stations to overcome an increasing noise floor that
inhibits local service, both day and night. While reducing protection
to a Class A AM station may, in fact, reduce the coverage of that
station, the areas of reduced coverage would be located at great
distances from the transmitter and from the metropolitan area that
constitutes the station's primary service area. At the same time, the
reduction in protection may well allow other stations to increase their
power to better serve their communities and, in the case of some
stations, allow for the first-ever fulltime AM service to those
communities. The Commission's goal of localism suggests that service
from a local news and information source should be preferred over
better reception of a more distant signal.
4. The Commission tentatively concludes, therefore, that (1) all
Class A stations should be protected, both day and night, to their 0.1
mV/m groundwave contour, from co-channel stations; (2) all Class A
stations should continue to be protected to the 0.5 mV/m groundwave
contour, both day and night, from first adjacent channel stations; and
(3) the critical hours protection of Class A stations should be
eliminated completely. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals,
specifically on the populations that would lose service from Class A
stations under this proposal and, to the extent ascertainable, whether
such populations currently avail themselves of the service that would
be lost. The Commission also seeks data on areas and populations in the
United States, if any, that receive service only from Class A AM
stations, whether day or night. Conversely, it
[[Page 2821]]
requests specific comment as to the numbers of stations that would be
able to increase power, daytime and nighttime, under this proposal and
what populations would gain service from those power increases.
Additional comment is sought concerning the net effect on listeners
that could result from the combination of reduced protection to Class A
stations and power increases by co- and adjacent-channel stations that
this proposal would allow. Would, in fact, such power increases cause
more loss of service to listeners of Class A stations than gains in
such service to listeners of upgrading stations? Would current
listeners of Class A skywave service, not located near stations able to
avail themselves of power increases due to this proposal, nevertheless
experience a reduction in skywave service from Class A stations? Would
the proposed changes disproportionately affect listeners in rural and/
or tribal areas? What effects, if any, would changes in protection to
Class A stations have on EAS Primary Entry Point stations during
emergencies? Alternatively, should the Commission consider another
level of protection to Class A stations, whether greater or less than
that proposed and, if so, what should that protection be? The
Commission also seeks comment on whether critical hours protection, if
not eliminated, should alternatively be modified? Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on any costs that are likely to result from
adoption of these proposals or from any alternatives proposed by
commenters.
5. Several commenters to the NPRM also proposed that the Commission
return to the nighttime root-sum-square (RSS) prediction method in
existence before the Commission's 1991 rule changes. These prediction
methods are used to calculate values of both interfering field
strengths from other AM stations and nighttime interference-free (NIF)
coverage. Prior to 1991, nighttime RSS values of interfering field
strengths and nighttime interference-free coverage were based on
calculating the RSS of all interfering signals using the 50 percent
exclusion method, considering only co-channel interfering signals. In
the 1991 Technical Assignment Criteria order (6 FCC Rcd 6273 (1991)),
the Commission changed its method of calculation to include adjacent-
channel signals, and to use a tiered system of RSS calculations. Some
commenters observed that, despite the Commission's intentions in
Technical Assignment Criteria, which were to decrease station-to-
station interference in the AM service, in practice the effect was to
stifle facility improvements, resulting in very little in the way of
decreased interference. They contend, for example, that the 25 percent
exclusion method complicates nighttime allocation calculations and
protection requirements and reduces flexibility for AM station
improvement and relocation; that consideration of adjacent-channel
stations in making interference calculations is unnecessary, claiming
that the Commission instituted this rule in anticipation of wide-band
AM receivers that never made it to market; and that a return to the 50
percent exclusion method used prior to 1991, considering only the
skywave contributions to RSS calculations of co-channel stations, would
enable AM broadcasters to improve their facilities and signals and,
thus, overcome the increasing noise floor.
6. The Commission agreed that the 1991 nighttime skywave
interference regulations were well-intentioned but, in retrospect, did
not achieve their intended goals and have resulted in unintended
adverse consequences, chiefly by impeding facility improvements that
are more necessary now than 24 years ago, because the noise floor has
increased as much as or more than station-to-station interference, and
increasing signal strength to a station's primary service area has
become more of a priority than maintenance of rules that offer a small
return on interference reduction, compared to the burden they impose on
signal improvement. The Commission therefore tentatively concluded that
it should roll back the 1991 rule changes as they pertain to
calculation of nighttime RSS values of interfering field strengths and
NIF service, by amending 47 CFR 78.182(k) to return to predicting the
NIF coverage area using only the interference contributions from co-
channel stations and the 50 percent exclusion method. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal, and invites in particular comment from
parties with differing views, or that have technical evidence
demonstrating the effects on inter-station interference of a return to
the pre-1991 rules for calculating nighttime skywave interference. In
addition, the Commission seeks comment on any costs that commenters
believe would result from this proposal.
7. Commenters also proposed changes to 47 CFR 73.37(a), the rule
providing daytime protection to AM stations. The rule currently
specifies a 26 dB daytime desired to undesired (D/U) protection ratio
for co-channel stations, a 6 dB D/U daytime protection ratio for first
adjacent channel stations, and a 0 dB daytime D/U protection ratio for
second and third adjacent channel stations. Commenters proposed that
the Commission return to the pre-1991 0 dB daytime 1:1 protection ratio
for first adjacent channels; change second adjacent channel groundwave
protection; and eliminate third adjacent channel groundwave protection.
Additionally, several commenters suggested changes to the daytime
protected contours for Class B, C, and D stations.
8. The Commission tentatively concludes that these rule changes
should be adopted. The proposed 0 dB daytime 1:1 first adjacent channel
protection ratio was the pre-1991 standard, and the post-1991
protection ratio does not appear to allow for sufficient signal
strength to overcome current levels of environmental noise. Likewise,
because third adjacent channel interference is relatively insignificant
compared to environmental sources of interference, it would seem
prudent to eliminate third adjacent channel groundwave protection and
change second adjacent channel groundwave protection to match the
current levels for third adjacent channel protection, thus allowing AM
stations to increase power to overcome increased levels of
environmental noise. Changing the daytime primary service contour for
Class B, C, and D stations to the 2 mV/m contour harmonizes the
protection with the definition of service area that was adopted in the
Second Order on Reconsideration in the Rural Radio proceeding (27 FCC
Rcd 12829, 12838 (2012)), and would allow AM broadcasters greater
flexibility to make station modifications designed to increase signal
strength to their primary service areas. The Commission therefore
proposes to revise 47 CFR 73.37(a) to reflect the aforementioned
changes to daytime protected contours for Class B, C, and D AM
stations, and seeks comment on this proposal. Would the proposed
reductions in protection result in greater flexibility for AM stations
to improve their signals, or would they merely increase inter-station
interference? Would the net effect be beneficial or harmful to AM
broadcasters and listeners? To the extent possible, commenters should
provide technical data in support of their arguments. In addition,
commenters should discuss and, if possible, quantify any costs they
believe the proposal would entail.
9. Several commenters to the NPRM request that the Commission
reconsider the rules for locating cross-service fill-in FM translators.
Currently, such
[[Page 2822]]
translators must be located such that the 60 dB[micro] contour of any
such FM translator station must be contained within the lesser of (a)
the 2 millivolts per meter (mV/m) daytime contour of the AM station, or
(b) a 25-mile radius centered at the AM transmitter site. Commenters
argue that the current rule is too restrictive. Some commenters
maintain that the 25-mile limitation is arbitrary, or that it unfairly
penalizes stations located far from cities due to land costs or those
that have deep nulls in their directional patterns. Others advocate
eliminating the 25-mile restriction and would have us allow the
translator to be sited anywhere within the 2 mV/m contour, and others
suggest even more flexibility.
10. When the Commission adopted the current limits on siting of
cross-service translators re-broadcasting AM stations, it re-affirmed
that FM translators re-broadcasting AM stations were intended to fill
service voids rather than to expand service, and that the adopted
limits were to ``ensure that fill-in cross-service translators are used
in the AM station's core market area, rather than in a fringe area that
may be part of or near another radio market.'' Amendment of Service and
Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations, Report and
Order, 24 FCC Rcd 9642, 9658-59 (2009). In the FNPRM, however, the
Commission agreed that some additional degree of flexibility is
appropriate, especially given the factual situations (e.g., highly
directional antenna patterns with deep signal nulls) described by some
commenters. The Commission also wished to continue to limit cross-
service translator use to an AM station's core market. It therefore
proposes to modify 47 CFR 74.1201(g) to provide that the coverage
contour (1 mV/m) of an FM translator rebroadcasting an AM radio
broadcast station as its primary station must be contained within the
greater of either the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM station or a 25-
mile (40 km) radius centered at the AM transmitter site, but that in no
event may the translator's 1 mV/m coverage contour extend beyond a 40-
mile (64 km) radius centered at the AM transmitter site. The Commission
stated that this proposal provides sufficient flexibility to provide
useful signal coverage, while not allowing a cross-service fill-in
translator to extend the station's coverage beyond its core service
area. The Commission invites further comment on this proposal,
including comment on any costs that commenters believe are likely to
arise from the proposal.
11. Partial proof of performance measurements are required for AM
stations using directional antennas whenever the licensee has reason to
believe that the radiated fields may be exceeding the limits for which
the station is authorized, and whenever minor directional antenna
system repairs are made that result in certain changes to the station's
licensed operating parameters. Some commenters request that 47 CFR
73.154, the current rule governing partial proof of performance field
strength measurements for AM directional antenna arrays, be modified to
require measurements only on radials containing a monitoring point.
Currently, the rule requires field strength measurements on all radials
with a monitoring point, as well as on radials from the latest complete
field strength proof of performance that are adjacent to the monitored
radials, if the array has fewer than four monitored radials. Proponents
claim that eliminating the requirement to take measurements on non-
monitored radials will reduce the cost to maintain AM directional
antenna systems in working order. The Commission agreed that the
proposed reduction in measured radials would result in a cost savings
for directional antenna system maintenance for AM broadcasters, and
would not result in more AM directional antenna systems being out of
adjustment. It therefore tentatively concludes, and proposes, that 47
CFR 73.154(a) be modified accordingly. The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal, including comment on whether and to what extent the
proposed rule modification would reduce costs to AM broadcasters
employing directional antenna systems.
12. In 2008, the Commission adopted rules permitting use of Method
of Moments (MoM) computer modeling to verify the performance of AM
station directional antenna systems. Since then, over 220 MoM
directional antenna proofs of performance have been prepared by AM
station licensees and their engineers and submitted to the Commission
in support of AM station applications for license. Based on their
experience gained in the seven years since the adoption of the MoM
proof rules, several technical commenters propose the following changes
to the AM MoM proof rules: (1) eliminate or modify the recertification
measurements requirements and removal of base sampling devices for
periodic testing in 47 CFR 73.155; (2) eliminate the requirement for
reference field strength measurements (47 CFR 73.151(c)(3)); (3)
eliminate the requirement for surveying existing directional antenna
arrays as long as tower geometry is not being modified and no new
towers are being added to the array; (4) clarify that 47 CFR
73.151(c)(1)(viii) applies only when total capacitance used to model
base region effects exceeds 250 pF and modify same to apply only when
base current sampling is used; (5) Permit use of MoM modeling for
skirt-fed towers; (6) Change MoM rules with regard to re-proofing when
antennas are added to towers; and (7) Eliminate requirement for current
distribution measurements for top-loaded or other unusual antenna
configurations when MoM or other numerical analysis method is used to
determine antenna characteristics.
13. Based on the Commission's experience with MoM proofs over the
past seven years, it believed that, except as noted below, the changes
listed above are well-founded, would improve the quality of the MoM
proofs submitted to the Commission, would not result in inferior
adjustments of AM directional antenna arrays, and would eliminate some
unnecessary expenses for directional antenna array maintenance by AM
station licensees. It therefore tentatively concludes that the above-
listed procedural and rule changes, with the exception of the
elimination of reference field strength measurements, should be
adopted, and invites comment on these changes, particularly from AM
broadcasters operating with directional antenna arrays. Rather than
eliminate reference field strength measurements, which provide the only
external verification that a directional antenna array is operating
properly, the Commission tentatively concludes and proposes that 47 CFR
73.151(c)(3) be modified to require reference field strength
measurements when the initial license application is submitted for a
directional antenna system based on computer modeling and sample system
verification. Subsequent licenses for the same directional antenna
system and physical facilities will not require submission of new
reference field strength measurements. The Commission seeks comment on
whether, instead of eliminating recertification measurements, it should
modify the rules to require them within a specific time period near,
but prior to, the submission of the station's license renewal
application, or at some other time interval. What constraints should
the Commission impose on the physical model of a skirt-fed antenna
element in the MoM computer program? Due to the complexity of modeling
a skirt-fed tower, should it require use of specific MoM software to
model them? What requirements should it specify for
[[Page 2823]]
sampling systems for skirt-fed antenna elements? What costs, if any,
are likely to arise as a result of any of the foregoing proposals?
14. In 1991, the Commission adopted rules and procedures for
initial licensing of stations in the 1605-1705 kHz AM band (Expanded
Band). In opening up the Expanded Band, the Commission's intent was to
selectively open the ten Expanded Band frequencies to those existing AM
stations that most significantly contributed to congestion and
interference in the standard AM band, removing interference from the
standard band and providing those stations with more robust,
interference-free service in the Expanded Band. To ease the financial
uncertainty of migrating to the then-new and untested Expanded Band,
the Commission established a five-year transition period, during which
migrating stations would hold licenses in both the Expanded Band and
standard AM band, and could simulcast programming over both. This five-
year period was set forth in a condition to each Expanded Band license,
and began to run as of the date of initial licensing in the Expanded
Band. After the five-year transition period, each dual-station licensee
would be required to surrender either its standard band or its Expanded
Band license. The Commission has never abandoned the requirement that
the dual standard/Expanded band stations relinquish one of their
authorizations, and many such stations have done so. The 25 remaining
such station pairs, listed in Appendix F to the FNPRM, negate the
Commission's goal to reduce interference in the standard AM band, and
their retention of both authorizations disserves the other licensees
who complied with the relinquishment requirement. A number of the
stations still holding dual standard band/Expanded Band authorizations
have filed requests for waiver of the surrender condition and
prohibition against sale of one of the authorizations.
15. Given the Commission's consideration, in a Notice of Inquiry
that follows the FNPRM, of further utilization of the Expanded Band,
along with its general concern for revitalization of the AM service,
there is no justification for allowing licensee retention of high-
interfering standard band stations along with the Expanded Band
stations meant to replace them. The Commission therefore tentatively
concludes that any licensee with dual standard/Expanded Band
authorizations should be required to surrender one of the two
authorizations within one year of release of a future Report and Order
in this proceeding adopting this proposal. The Commission tentatively
concludes that the required election should be made by the station
licensee in writing, by letter delivered to the Office of the
Secretary, with copy to the Media Bureau, Audio Division, not later
than twelve months following release of a future Report and Order
adopting this proposal, or such other date as is established in the
Report and Order and/or in any notice delivered to the licensee by the
Media Bureau. The Commission further tentatively concludes that, should
a station not make the election regarding which of the two
authorizations it wishes to retain within the required time period, its
standard band authorization should be canceled, and the station
required to operate only as authorized in the Expanded Band. The
Commission seeks comment on these proposals, including any comments in
favor of licensee retention of dual authorizations, comments on whether
it should adopt a shorter or longer deadline for the required election,
comments regarding the effect of such retention of dual authorizations
on the AM service generally and the Expanded Band specifically, and
comments on any costs associated with surrender of these
authorizations.
Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry
16. Utilization of AM Expanded Band. In Review of the Technical
Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, Report and Order, 6
FCC Rcd 6273, 6302-23 (1991), 56 FR 64842 (Dec. 12, 1991) (Technical
Assignment Criteria), the Commission established rules and policies for
stations initially licensed in the Expanded AM Band (1605-1705 kHz)
(Expanded Band), including technical rules. See generally Technical
Assignment Criteria, 6 FCC Rcd at 6311-14, 6321-23. For example, it
decided to administer channels in the Expanded Band on an allotment
basis based on fixed technical parameters, similar to allotments in the
FM broadcast band, rather than on an assignment basis as in the
standard AM band, in which the technical facilities of each station are
uniquely designed to avoid interference to other stations on the band.
47 CFR 73.30. A total of 88 Expanded Band channels were originally
allotted, and licenses were granted to 54 stations that migrated from
the standard AM band to the Expanded Band. The Commission proposed, in
the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM) in this proceeding,
to require the remaining 25 dual standard-Expanded Band station pairs
to surrender one authorization each. Now that it has had experience
with actual, operating Expanded Band AM stations, the Commission
inquires whether to open up the Expanded Band to additional stations,
and under what conditions.
17. Several commenters remark that the Expanded Band is
underutilized and should be opened up to more stations. Some prefer, as
before, that the Expanded Band be used for stations migrating from the
standard band; others believe that preference should first be given to
applicants for new AM stations, licensed daytime-only AM stations, or
licensed or new AM stations proposing all-digital operation. Most who
address the Expanded Band state that stations in that band should be
assigned in the same way they are assigned in the standard AM band,
rather than continuing the allotment procedures currently used in the
Expanded Band. Commenters also urge that a station migrating from the
standard band to the Expanded Band relinquish its standard band license
shortly after initiating Expanded Band service. Although many
commenters address the use of the Expanded Band in helping to
revitalize the AM service, there are a number of procedural and
practical decisions to be made before proposing rules for further
utilization of that band. The Commission believes that a more complete
record is needed before proposing rules regarding further expansion of
the 1605-1705 kHz band.
18. As a threshold matter, the Commission asks commenters whether
they believe that opening the Expanded Band to further development
would be beneficial to revitalization of the AM service. Assuming
agreement with that premise, who should be allowed to receive
authorizations in the Expanded Band? Should preference be given to new
stations, to migrators from the standard band, to stations planning
all-digital operation, or should some other criterion be established?
If the Expanded Band were opened to new stations, an auction filing
window would need to be opened, and mutually exclusive applications
would be subject to all competitive bidding procedures, including
threshold Section 307(b) comparisons and possible auctions.
Additionally, if the Expanded Band were opened to major modifications,
any mutually exclusive groups including major modification applications
would have the opportunity for settlements or technical resolutions. 47
CFR 73.5002(d)(1), (2). If the Commission were to reserve the Expanded
Band for migrators from the standard AM band, should it open a window,
waive the major change rule,
[[Page 2824]]
and allow migrators to apply as minor modifications on a first-come,
first-served basis, or use some other mechanism (as, for example, the
initial assignment of stations to the Expanded Band by prioritizing
major interferers)? With regard to migrating stations, the Commission
tentatively agrees with those commenters who have suggested that, in
the event such migration is allowed, a ``flash cut'' from the standard
band authorization to the Expanded Band operation should take place,
that is, the standard band authorization would be relinquished upon
commencing Expanded Band transmissions. The Commission seeks other
views on this matter, however.
19. With regard to Expanded Band technical facilities, currently
stations in the Expanded Band are allotted on a minimum distance
separation standard similar to FM stations, rather than the contour-
protection procedures used for standard band AM stations. As noted in
Technical Assignment Criteria, assigning channels based on contour
protection maximizes the number of stations on each channel, whereas
allotting stations based on spacing was believed to promote a higher-
quality technical service in the Expanded Band. 6 FCC Rcd at 6311-12.
Commenters favoring opening up the Expanded Band overwhelmingly prefer
instituting contour protection standards. The Commission seeks comment
on the relative merits of each method of channel assignment or
allotment. Additionally, to the extent commenters favor contour
protection, they should also address whether compliance with contour
protection standards should be limited to use of M3 ground conductivity
for contour prediction, or should the Commission allow use of measured
ground conductivities in predicting contours?
20. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to allow other
classes and powers of stations (except for Class D stations, which are
no longer authorized), to the extent permitted by our international
agreements, or whether it should authorize the same power (e.g., 10 kW
day/1 kW night) for all new Expanded Band stations. A related question
would be whether to allow complex directional patterns in the Expanded
Band or limit applications to non-directional and simple directional
(i.e., no more than three-tower array) stations. If commenters were to
favor limiting the Expanded Band to all-digital stations, the
Commission would seek comment as to the contour protections and
allocation standards for all-digital operation. At the moment, testing
is continuing with regard to all-digital (as opposed to hybrid digital)
AM operations, and the record is not yet established on the technical
standards needed to establish interference protection for digital-to-
digital stations, much less digital-to-analog or digital-to-hybrid. The
absence of a technical record leads the Commission to believe that it
may be premature to discuss limiting the Expanded Band to all-digital
operation; however it welcomes comments that include technical data
that would further inform it on this issue.
21. Relaxed Main Studio Requirements. 47 CFR 73.1125(a) provides,
in pertinent part, that ``each AM, FM, and TV broadcast station shall
maintain a main studio'' at a location complying with paragraphs
(a)(1)-(a)(3) of that section.\1\ Moreover, the Commission has long
held that a station must, at a minimum, maintain full-time managerial
and full-time staff personnel at its main studio. Jones Eastern of the
Outer Banks, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 3615, 3616
(1991). Commenters Blount Masscom, Inc., et al. (Blount), note that the
Commission often grants waivers of the main studio requirement to
noncommercial educational (NCE) stations, allowing them to co-locate a
station's main studio at the studio of another station licensed to the
same licensee that may be outside the locations allowed by 47 CFR
73.1125(a), and that the rule language contemplates such waivers for
commercial stations, although such waivers are seldom if ever granted.
Blount proposes that AM station owners be allowed to request such
waivers, or at a minimum that certain classes of AM stations, notably
Class D stations, be allowed to do so. Blount further proposes that AM
stations without co-owned main studios available should be allowed to
adopt relaxed staffing requirements, such as requiring staffing only
during part of the day or week, or allowing the use of technology to
permit members of the public to contact station personnel who are not
physically present at the main studio. Three other commenters support
Blount's proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The acceptable locations of a main studio are: (1) Within
the station's community of license; (2) at any location within the
principal community contour of any AM, FM, or TV broadcast station
licensed to the station's community of license; or (3) within 25
miles from the reference coordinates of the center of the station's
community of license as described in 47 CFR 73.208(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. The Commission has historically considered a station's main
studio to constitute the location from which the station can adequately
meet its function of serving the needs and interests of the residents
of the station's community of license. This includes being adequately
equipped to transmit programming, having a meaningful management and
staff presence, and serving as a location for the station's public
file. The Commission continues to emphasize a station's function of
meeting the needs and interests of its community. At the same time,
however, it is aware of the financial strain on many AM broadcasters.
Moreover, advances in technology (e.g., email, mobile telephone,
Internet) can enable members of the community to contact station
personnel without having to physically visit the main studio. In fact,
the Commission has recently proposed requiring AM and FM broadcast
stations to post their public files to the Commission's online
database, which would make them accessible without the need for
visiting a station's offices or main studio. Expansion of Online Public
File Obligations, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 29 FCC Rcd 15943
(2014).
23. Despite these advances in accessibility to broadcast stations
and their personnel, the Commission is reluctant to eliminate main
studio requirements entirely, because of the aforementioned importance
of the main studio to the goal of ensuring station compliance with
local service obligations. The Commission therefore seeks comment on
whether, and how, to modify the main studio rule in light of its goal
in this proceeding to revitalize the AM service. Should it continue to
address waivers of the main studio rule on a case-by-case basis, but be
more open to such requests by commercial stations that can co-locate in
studio facilities used by co-owned stations in a given market? Assuming
that the Commission were to allow relaxation of the requirement that
each station maintain a separate main studio, is there a maximum number
of co-located stations that it should allow under one roof? If it were
to allow co-location of two or more stations, should it further relax
the requirements by allowing one or more of the stations to be located
outside of the area dictated by 47 CFR 73.1125(a)(1) through (a)(3)? If
one or more co-located stations are allowed to locate outside the rule
requirements, should there be an absolute restriction on the distance a
co-locating station may move its studio from its community of license?
Moreover, should the Commission, as Blount suggests, relax the staffing
requirement of full-time management and staff presence for AM stations
that do not have co-owned stations with which to co-locate studio
[[Page 2825]]
facilities? Should any such relaxation of staffing requirements
necessarily be limited to such ``stand alone'' AM stations? If the
Commission were to relax staffing requirements, what if any conditions
should be put in place to ensure that members of the public could
contact station personnel and receive timely responses? Should it
require that local mobile phone numbers for station management and
staff be posted or otherwise publicized? Should any relaxation of main
studio or staffing rules be linked to a station's posting of its public
file to the Commission online database? The Commission seeks comment
addressing these and any other matters pertaining to AM stations'
maintenance of fully staffed local main studios. In particular, the
Commission invites comment on the cost reductions that may result from
modification of the main studio rule.
Comments and Reply Comments
24. 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).
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S.
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
25. This is a summary of the Commission's document FCC 15-142,
Revitalization of the AM Radio Service, Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FNPRM) and Notice of Inquiry (NOI), adopted on October 21,
2015 and released on October 23, 2015, in MB Docket No. 13-249. The
full text of document FCC 15-142 will be available for public
inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at
the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document FCC 15-142 can also be
downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at https://www.fcc.gov/ndbedp.
Ex Parte Rules
26. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR
1.1200 et seq. 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 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
47 CFR 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.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
27. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice
and comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that
``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.'' 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 Small Business
Administration (SBA).
28. As required by the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603), Commission has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
by the policies and rules proposed in the FNPRM. Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments
on the FNPRM provided in paragraph 94 of the FNPRM. The Commission will
send a copy of this entire FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
29. This rulemaking proceeding is initiated to obtain further
comments concerning certain proposals designed to revitalize the AM
broadcast radio service. It is based in substantial part on proposals
raised by commenters in this rulemaking proceeding, in response to the
Commission's call in the original NPRM in this proceeding for further
ideas and proposals.
30. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the following:
(1) Whether to change the nighttime and critical hours signal
protection to Class A AM stations; (2) whether to change the
methodology for calculating nighttime root sum square (RSS) values; (3)
whether to change daytime signal protection to Class B, C, and D
stations; (4) whether to revise the rule on where an FM cross-service
translator station, re-broadcasting an AM station's signal, may be
located relative to the AM station's transmitter; (5) whether to modify
the rules governing partial proofs of performance of directional AM
antenna arrays; (6) whether to modify the rules for method of moments
proofs for directional AM antenna arrays; and (7) whether to require
licensees holding dual standard band-Expanded Band AM licenses to
surrender one of the licenses
[[Page 2826]]
within one year of release of the Second Report and Order in this
proceeding.
Legal Basis
31. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in
Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 307, and 309(j) of the Communications Act of
1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307, and 309(j).
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
32. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will
be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term
``small entity'' as encompassing the terms ``small business,'' ``small
organization,'' and ``small governmental entity.'' 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.
Radio Stations
33. The proposed rules and policies could apply to AM radio
broadcast licensees, and potential licensees of the AM radio service. A
radio broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in
broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Included in this
industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other radio
stations. Radio broadcasting stations which primarily are engaged in
radio broadcasting and which produce radio program materials are
similarly included. However, radio stations that are separate
establishments and are primarily engaged in producing radio program
material are classified under another NAICS number. The SBA has
established a small business size standard for this category, which is:
Firms having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201,
NAICS code 515112 (updated for inflation in 2008). According to the
BIA/Kelsey, MEDIA Access Pro Database on October 15, 2015, 4,691
(99.94%) of 4,694 a.m. radio stations have revenues of $38.5 million or
less. Therefore, the majority of such entities are small entities. The
Commission noted, however, that, in assessing whether a business
concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business
(control) affiliations must be included. See 13 CFR 121.103(a)(1). This
estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities
that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on
which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from
affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of
``small business'' is that the entity not be dominant in its field of
operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify
the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is
dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small
businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any radio station
from the definition of a small business on this basis and therefore may
be over-inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element
of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated. It is difficult at times to assess
these criteria in the context of media entities and Commission
estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive
to this extent.
FM Translator Stations and Low-Power FM Stations
34. The proposed policies could affect licensees of FM translator
stations, as well as potential licensees in this radio service. The
same SBA definition that applies to radio broadcast licensees would
apply to these stations. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a
small business if such station has no more than $38.5 million in annual
receipts. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515112. Currently, there are
approximately 6,422 licensed FM translator and booster stations. In
addition, there are approximately 225 applicants with pending
applications filed in the 2003 translator filing window. Given the
nature of these services, it is presumed that all of these licensees
and applicants qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
35. The proposed rule and procedural changes may, in some cases,
impose different reporting, recordkeeping, or other requirements on
existing and potential AM radio licensees and permittees. In the case
of proposed changes to the technical rules regarding calculation of
daytime and nighttime interfering contours, and changes to daytime,
nighttime, and critical hours protection to some stations, there would
be changes in the calculation of inter-station interference and
reporting of same. However, the information to be filed is already
familiar to broadcasters, and the nature of the interference
calculations would not change, only the values that are acceptable, so
any additional burdens would be minimal. Likewise, the proposed
revision to the rules on where an FM translator providing fill-in
service for an AM station may be sited will not require any additional
calculations on the part of the AM station proposing to locate or
relocate the translator. The proposal merely relaxes the siting
requirement and expands the area in which such a cross-service fill-in
translator may be located. Thus, there should be no additional
reporting or recordkeeping burdens, and compliance with the siting
rules will be easier. The proposed modifications to the partial proof
of performance and Method of Moments rules would not change any
reporting or compliance requirements, insofar as AM licensees and
applicants would not be required to submit such proofs or models more
frequently than is now the case. The only changes would be to relax the
requirements for making proofs of performance or method of moments
models. Thus, the required submissions of such proofs and models would
be less burdensome on AM broadcasters with directional antenna arrays
that are required to submit such information. Finally, the proposal to
require surrender of licenses held by broadcasters with paired standard
band-Expanded Band AM stations will not change any reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements, and will in fact
reduce such requirements for such licensees by 50 percent.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
36. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(b). In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks to assist
AM broadcasters by changing certain daytime, nighttime, and critical
hours interference protection standards as they apply to certain
classes of AM stations; proposes relaxing the rules on siting of FM
translators providing fill-in service for AM broadcast stations;
[[Page 2827]]
proposes to modify the measurement requirements for AM directional
antenna system partial proofs of performance in order to make them less
burdensome; and proposes to modify the rules for submitting method of
moments models of proposed AM directional antenna systems, in order to
make those rules less burdensome. The Commission also seeks either to
reduce interference in the standard AM band or, alternatively, to
create more spectrum in the Expanded AM Band, by requiring that the 25
remaining licensees holding paired authorizations in both bands
surrender one of the paired licenses. Under the Commission's proposal,
such a licensee would be given one year from adoption of this proposal
in which to elect which authorization it would surrender. The
Commission seeks comment as to whether its goal of revitalizing the AM
service could be effectively accomplished through these means. The
Commission is open to consideration of alternatives to the proposals
under consideration, as set forth herein, including but not limited to
alternatives that will minimize the burden on AM broadcasters, most of
which are small businesses. There may be unique circumstances these
entities may face, and the Commission will consider appropriate action
for small broadcasters when preparing a Second Report and Order in this
matter.
Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission's Proposals
37. None.
38. 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 and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Ordering Clauses
39. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i),
301, 303(r), 316, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 303(r), 316, 403, this Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
40. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sections 1, 303(g), and
403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
303(g), and 403, and Section 1.430 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.430, that this Notice of Inquiry is adopted.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 73
Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
47 CFR Part 74
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer. Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rule Changes
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 73 and 74 as
follows:
PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
0
2. In Sec. 73.21 revise paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) to
read as follows:
Sec. 73.21 Classes of AM broadcast channels and stations.
(a) Clear channel. A clear channel is one on which stations are
assigned to serve wide areas. These stations are protected from
objectionable interference within their primary service areas. Stations
operating on these channels are classified as follows:
(1) Class A station. A Class A station is an unlimited time station
that operates on a clear channel and is designed to render primary
service over an extended area at relatively long distances from its
transmitter. Its primary service area is protected from objectionable
interference from other stations on the same and adjacent channels. The
operating power shall not be less than 10 kW nor more than 50 kW. (Also
see Sec. 73.25(a)).
* * * * *
Sec. 73.24 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 73.24 remove paragraph (h) and redesignate paragraphs (i)
and (j) as paragraphs (h) and (i), respectively.
0
4. In Sec. 73.37 revise the table following paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.37 Applications for broadcast facilities, showing required.
(a) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contour of
proposed station
Frequency separation (kHz) (classes B, C and Contour of any other station (mV/m)
D) (mV/m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.................................... 0.005 0.100 (Class A).
0.100 2.0 (Other classes).
2.0 0.100 (Other classes).
10................................... 0.500 0.500 (Class A).
2.0 2.0 (Other classes).
20................................... 25.0 25.0 (All classes).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 73.151 revise paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 73.151 Field strength measurements to establish performance of
directional antennas.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) When the application for an initial license for a directional
antenna system is submitted that is based on computer modeling and
sample system verification, reference field strength measurement
locations shall be established in the directions of pattern minima and
maxima. On each radial corresponding to a pattern minimum or maximum,
there shall be at least three measurement locations. The field strength
shall be measured at each reference location at the time of the proof
of performance. The license application shall include the measured
field strength values at each reference point, along with a description
of each measurement location, including GPS coordinates and datum
reference. New reference field strength measurements are not required
for subsequent license
[[Page 2828]]
applications for the same directional antenna system and physical
facilities.
0
6. In Sec. 73.154, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 73.154 AM directional antenna partial proof of performance
measurements.
(a) A partial proof of performance consists of at least 8 field
strength measurements made on each of the radials that includes a
monitoring point.
* * * * *
Sec. 73.155 [Removed]
0
7. Remove Sec. 73.155.
0
8. Revise Sec. 73.182 to read as follows:
Sec. 73.182 Engineering standards of allocation.
(a) Sections 73.21 to 73.37, inclusive, govern allocation of
facilities in the AM broadcast band 535-1705 kHz. Sec. 73.21
establishes three classes of channels in this band, namely, clear,
regional and local. The classes and power of AM broadcast stations
which will be assigned to the various channels are set forth in Sec.
73.21. The classifications of the AM broadcast stations are as follows:
(1) Class A stations operate on clear channels with powers between
10 kW and 50 kW. These stations are designed to render primary service
over a large area protected from objectionable interference from other
stations on the same and adjacent channels. Class A stations may be
divided into two groups: Those located in any of the conterminous
United States and those located in Alaska.
(i) Class A stations in the conterminous United States operate on
the channels assigned by Sec. 73.25 with minimum power of 10 kW,
maximum power of 50 kW, and minimum antenna efficiency of 275 mV/m/kW
at 1 kilometer. The Class A stations in this group are afforded
protection, both daytime and nighttime, to the 0.1 mV/m groundwave
contour from other stations on the same channel, and are afforded both
daytime and nighttime protection to the 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour
from other stations on first adjacent channels.
(ii) Class A stations in Alaska operate on the channels assigned by
Sec. 73.25 with minimum power of 10 kW, maximum power of 50 kW, and
minimum antenna efficiency of 215 mV/m/kW at 1 kilometer. The Class A
stations in this group are afforded protection, both daytime and
nighttime, to the 0.1 mV/m groundwave contour from other stations on
the same channel and to the 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour from other
stations on first adjacent channels.
(2) Class B stations are stations which operate on clear and
regional channels with powers not less than 0.25 kW or greater than 50
kW. These stations render primary service, the area of which depends on
their geographic location, power, and frequency. It is recommended that
Class B stations be located so that the interference received from
other stations will not limit the service area to a groundwave contour
value greater than 2.0 mV/m groundwave contour both daytime and
nighttime, which are the values for the mutual protection between this
class of stations and other stations of the same class.
(3) Class C stations operate on local channels, normally rendering
primary service to a community and the suburban or rural areas
immediately contiguous thereto, with powers not less than 0.25 kW or
greater than 1 kW, except as provided in Sec. 73.21(c)(1). Such
stations are normally protected to the daytime 2.0 mV/m contour. On
local channels the separation required for the daytime protection shall
also determine the nighttime separation. Where directional antennas are
employed daytime by Class C stations operating with power equal to or
greater than 0.25 kW, the separations required shall in no case be less
than those necessary to afford protection assuming nondirectional
operation with power of 0.25 kW. In no case will nighttime power of
0.25 kW or greater be authorized to a station unable to operate
nondirectionally with power of 0.25 kW during daytime hours. The actual
nighttime limitation will be calculated. For nighttime protection
purposes, Class C stations in the 48 conterminous United States may
assume that stations in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands operating on 1230, 1240, 1340, 1400, 1450, and 1490 kHz
are Class C stations.
(4) Class D stations operate on clear and regional channels with
daytime powers of not less than 0.25 kW (or equivalent RMS field of
107.5 mV/m at 1 kilometer if less than 0.25 kW) and not more than 50
kW. Class D stations that have previously received nighttime authority
to operate with powers of less 0.25 kW (or equivalent RMS fields of
less than 107.5 mV/m at 1 kilometer) are not required to provide
nighttime coverage in accordance with Sec. 73.24(i) and are not
protected from interference during nighttime hours. Such nighttime
authority is permitted on the basis of full nighttime protection being
afforded to all Class A and Class B stations.
Note to paragraph (a): See Sec. Sec. 73.21(b)(1) and 73.26(b)
concerning power restrictions and classifications relative to Class B,
Class C, and Class D stations in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. Stations in the above-named places that are
reclassified from Class C to Class B stations under Sec. 73.26(b)
shall not be authorized to increase power to levels that would increase
the nighttime interference-free limit of co-channel Class C stations in
the conterminous United States.
(b) When a station is already limited by interference from other
stations to a contour value greater than that normally protected for
its class, the individual received limits shall be the established
standard for such station with respect to interference from each other
station.
(c) All classes of AM broadcast stations have in general three
types of service areas, i.e., primary, secondary and intermittent. (See
Sec. 73.14 for the definitions of primary, secondary and intermittent
service areas.) All classes of AM stations render service to a primary
area but the secondary and intermittent service areas may be materially
limited or destroyed due to interference from other stations, depending
on the station assignments involved.
(d) The groundwave signal strength required to render primary
service is 2 mV/m for communities with populations of 2,500 or more and
0.5 mV/m for communities with populations of less than 2,500. Because
only Class A stations have protected primary service extending beyond
the 2 mV/m contour, the groundwave signal strength constituting primary
service for Class A stations is that set forth in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
and (ii) of this section. See Sec. 73.184 for curves showing distance
to various groundwave field strength contours for different frequencies
and ground conductivities, and also see Sec. 73.183, ``Groundwave
signals.''
(e) A Class C station may be authorized to operate with a
directional antenna during daytime hours providing the power is at
least 0.25 kW. In computing the degrees of protection which such
antenna will afford, the radiation produced by the directional antenna
system will be assumed to be no less, in any direction, than that which
would result from non-directional operation using a single element of
the directional array, with 0.25 kW.
(f) All classes of broadcast stations have primary service areas
subject to limitation by fading and noise, and interference from other
stations to the contours set out for each class of station.
(g) Broadcast stations are licensed to operate unlimited time,
limited time, daytime, share time, and specified
[[Page 2829]]
hours. (See Sec. Sec. 73.1710, 73.1725, 73.1720, 73.1715, and
73.1730.) Applications for new stations shall specify unlimited time
operation only.
(h) Section 73.24 sets out the general requirements for modifying
the facilities of a licensed station and for establishing a new
station. Sections 73.24(b) and 73.37 include interference related
provisions that be considered in connection with an application to
modify the facilities of an existing station or to establish a new
station. Section 73.30 describes the procedural steps required to
receive an authorization to operate in the 1605-1705 kHz band.
(i) Objectionable nighttime interference from a broadcast station
occurs when, at a specified field strength contour with respect to the
desired station, the field strength of an undesired co-channel station
exceeds for 10% or more of the time the values set forth in these
standards. The value derived from the root-sum-square of all
interference contributions represents the extent of a station's
interference-free coverage.
(1) With respect to the root-sum-square (RSS) values of interfering
field strengths referred to in this section, calculation of nighttime
interference-free service is accomplished by considering co-channel
signals in order of decreasing magnitude, adding the squares of the
values and extracting the square root of the sum, excluding those
signals which are less than 50% of the RSS values of the higher signals
already included. This is known as the ``50% Exclusion Method.''
(2) The RSS value will not be considered to be increased when a new
interfering signal is added which is less than the appropriate
exclusion percentage as applied to the RSS value of the interference
from existing stations, and which at the same time is not greater than
the smallest signal included in the RSS value of interference from
existing stations.
(3) It is recognized that application of the 50% Exclusion Method
for calculating the RSS interference may result in some cases in
anomalies wherein the addition of a new interfering signal or the
increase in value of an existing interfering signal will cause the
exclusion of a previously included signal and may cause a decrease in
the calculated RSS value of interference. In order to provide the
Commission with more realistic information regarding gains and losses
in service (as a basis for determination of the relative merits of a
proposed operation) the following alternate method for calculating the
proposed RSS values of interference will be employed wherever
applicable.
(4) In cases where it is proposed to add a new interfering signal
which is not less than 50% of the RSS value of interference from
existing stations or which is greater than the smallest signal already
included to obtain this RSS value, the RSS limitation after addition of
the new signal shall be calculated without excluding any signal
previously included. Similarly, in cases where it is proposed to
increase the value of one of the existing interfering signals which has
been included in the RSS value, the RSS limitation after the increase
shall be calculated without excluding the interference from any source
previously included.
(5) If the new or increased signal proposed in such cases is
ultimately authorized, the RSS values of interference to other stations
affected will thereafter be calculated by the 50% Exclusion Method
without regard to this alternate method of calculation.
(6) Examples of RSS interference calculations:
(i) Existing interferences:
Station No. 1--1.00 mV/m.
Station No. 2--0.60 mV/m.
Station No. 3--0.59 mV/m.
Station No. 4--0.58 mV/m.
The RSS value from Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is 1.31 mV/m; therefore
interference from No. 4 is excluded for it is less than 50% of 1.31 mV/
m.
(ii) Station A receives interferences from:
Station No. 1--1.00 mV/m.
Station No. 2--0.60 mV/m.
Station No. 3--0.59 mV/m.
It is proposed to add a new limitation, 0.68 mV/m. This is more
than 50% of 1.31 mV/m, the RSS value from Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The RSS
value of Station No. 1 and of the proposed station would be 1.21 mV/m
which is more than twice as large as the limitation from Station No. 2
or No. 3. However, under the above provision the new signal and the
three existing interferences are nevertheless calculated for purposes
of comparative studies, resulting in an RSS value of 1.47 mV/m.
However, if the proposed station is ultimately authorized, only No. 1
and the new signal are included in all subsequent calculations for the
reason that Nos. 2 and 3 are less than 50% of 1.21 mV/m, the RSS value
of the new signal and No. 1.
(iii) Station A receives interferences from:
Station No. 1--1.00 mV/m.
Station No. 2--0.60 mV/m.
Station No. 3--0.59 mV/m.
No. 1 proposes to increase the limitation it imposes on Station A
to 1.21 mV/m. Although the limitations from stations Nos. 2 and 3 are
less than 50% of the 1.21 mV/m limitation, under the above provision
they are nevertheless included for comparative studies, and the RSS
limitation is calculated to be 1.47 mV/m. However, if the increase
proposed by Station No. 1 is authorized, the RSS value then calculated
is 1.21 mV/m because Stations Nos. 2 and 3 are excluded in view of the
fact that the limitations they impose are less than 50% of 1.21 mV/m.
(j) Objectionable nighttime interference from a station shall be
considered to exist to a station when, at the field strength contour
specified in paragraph (o) of this section with respect to the class to
which the station belongs, the field strength of an interfering station
operating on the same channel exceeds for 10% or more of the time the
value of the permissible interfering signal set forth opposite such
class in paragraph (o) of this section.
(k) For the purpose of estimating the coverage and the interfering
effects of stations in the absence of field strength measurements, use
shall be made of Figure 8 of Sec. 73.190, which describes the
estimated effective field (for 1 kW power input) of simple vertical
omnidirectional antennas of various heights with ground systems having
at least 120 quarter-wavelength radials. Certain approximations, based
on the curve or other appropriate theory, may be made when other than
such antennas and ground systems are employed, but in any event the
effective field to be employed shall not be less than the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of station Effective field (at 1 km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Class A (except Alaskan)............... 275 mV/m.
Class A (Alaskan), B and D................. 215 mV/m.
Class C.................................... 180 mV/m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2830]]
Note (1) to paragraph (k): When a directional antenna is
employed, the radiated signal of a broadcasting station will vary in
strength in different directions, possibly being greater than the
above values in certain directions and less in other directions
depending upon the design and adjustment of the directional antenna
system. To determine the interference in any direction, the measured
or calculated radiated field (unattenuated field strength at 1
kilometer from the array) must be used in conjunction with the
appropriate propagation curves. (See Sec. 73.185 for further
discussion and solution of a typical directional antenna case.)
Note (2) to paragraph (k): For Class B stations in Alaska,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 180 mV/m shall be
used.
(l) The existence or absence of objectionable groundwave
interference from stations on the same or adjacent channels shall be
determined by actual measurements made in accordance with the method
described in Sec. 73.186, or in the absence of such measurements, by
reference to the propagation curves of Sec. 73.184. The existence or
absence of objectionable interference due to skywave propagation shall
be determined by reference to Formula 2 in Sec. 73.190.
(m) Computation of skywave field strength values:
(1) Fifty percent skywave field strength values. To compute fifty
percent skywave field strength values, Formula 1 of Sec. 73.190,
entitled ``Skywave field strength, 50% of the time (at SS+6)'' shall be
used.
(2) Ten percent skywave field strength values. In computing the 10%
skywave field strength for stations on a single signal or an RSS basis,
Formula 2 in Sec. 73.190 shall be used.
(3) Determination of angles of departure. In calculating skywave
field strength for stations on all channels, the pertinent vertical
angle shall be determined by use of the formula in Sec. 73.190(d).
(n) The distance to any specified groundwave field strength contour
for any frequency may be determined from the appropriate curves in
Sec. 73.184 entitled ``Ground Wave Field Strength vs. Distance.''
(o) Normally protected service contours and permissible
interference signals for broadcast stations are as follows (for Class A
stations, see also paragraph (a) of this section):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal strength contour of area protected Permissible interfering signal ([mu]V/m)
from objectionable interference ([mu]V/m) ---------------------------------------------
Class of station Class of channel used -----------------------------------------------
Day \1\ Night \1\ Day \1\ Night
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.................................. Clear................. SC 100................ SC 100............... SC 5................. SC 5.\1\
AC 500................ AC 500............... AC 500............... AC 500.\1\
B.................................. Clear................. 2000.................. 2000................. SC 100............... 25.\2\
Regional.............. ...................... ..................... AC 2000.............. Not presc.
C.................................. Local................. 2000.................. Not presc \3\........ SC 100............... Not presc.
D.................................. Clear................. 2000.................. Not presc............ SC 100............... Not presc.
Regional.............. ...................... ..................... AC 2000.............. Not presc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Groundwave.
\2\ Skywave field strength for 10 percent or more of the time.
\3\ During nighttime hours, Class C stations in the contiguous 48 States may treat all Class B stations assigned to 1230, 1240, 1340, 1400, 1450, and
1490 kHz in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as if they were Class C stations.
Note: SC = Same channel; AC = Adjacent channel; SW = Skywave; GW = Groundwave.
(p) The following table of logarithmic expressions is to be used as
required for determining the minimum permissible ratio of the field
strength of a desired to an undesired signal. This table shall be used
in conjunction with the protected contours specified in paragraph (q)
of this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desired Groundwave to:
-------------------------------
Frequency separation of desired to Undesired
undesired signals (kHz) groundwave Undesired 10%
(dB) Skywave (dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 26 26
10...................................... 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(q) Two stations, one with a frequency twice of the other, should
not be assigned in the same groundwave service area unless special
precautions are taken to avoid interference from the second harmonic of
the station operating on the lower frequency. Additionally, in
selecting a frequency, consideration should be given to the fact that
occasionally the frequency assignment of two stations in the same area
may bear such a relation to the intermediate frequency of some
broadcast receivers as to cause ``image'' interference, However, since
this can usually be rectified by readjustment of the intermediate
frequency of such receivers, the Commission, in general, will not take
this kind of interference into consideration when authorizing stations.
(r) The groundwave service of two stations operating with
synchronized carriers and broadcasting identical programs will be
subject to some distortion in areas where the signals from the two
stations are of comparable strength. For the purpose of estimating
coverage of such stations, areas in which the signal ratio is between
1:2 and 2:1 will not be considered as receiving satisfactory service.
Note to paragraph (r): Two stations are considered to be
operated synchronously when the carriers are maintained within 0.2
Hz of each other and they transmit identical programs.
Sec. 73.187 [Removed]
0
9. Remove Sec. 73.187.
PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
0
10. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 2831]]
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 336 and 554.
0
11. In Sec. 74.1201, revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 74.1201 Definitions.
* * * * *
(g) Translator coverage contour. For a fill-in FM translator
rebroadcasting an FM radio broadcast station as its primary station,
the FM translator's coverage contour must be contained within the
primary station's coverage contour. For purposes of this rule section,
the coverage contour of the FM translator has the same field strength
value as the protected contour of the primary FM station (i.e., for a
commercial Class B FM station it is the predicted 0.5 mV/m field
strength contour, for a commercial Class B1 FM station it is the
predicted 0.7 mV/m field strength contour, and for all other classes of
FM stations it is the predicted 1 mV/m field strength contour). The
coverage contour of an FM translator rebroadcasting an AM radio
broadcast station as its primary station must be contained within the
greater of either the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM station or a 25-
mile (40 km) radius centered at the AM transmitter site, but the
translator's 1 mV/m coverage contour may not extend beyond a 40-mile
(64 km) radius centered at the AM transmitter site. The protected
contour for an FM translator station is its predicted 1 mV/m contour.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-31949 Filed 1-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P