[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69629-69639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27838]
[[Page 69629]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 13-249; FCC 13-139]
Revitalization of the AM Radio Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), seeking comment on a number of procedures designed
to revitalize the AM broadcast radio service, and to ease regulatory
burdens on existing AM broadcasters. The Commission also solicits
further comments and suggestions designed to foster the revitalization
of the AM broadcast radio service.
DATES: Comments may be filed no later than January 21, 2014 and reply
comments may be filed no later than February 18, 2014. 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 January 21,
2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 13-249,
by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[ssquf] Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number in the
subject line of the message. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document for detailed information on how to submit comments by
email.
[ssquf] Mail: 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
PRA comments should be submitted to Cathy Williams, Federal
Communications Commission via email at [email protected] and
[email protected] and Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and
Budget via fax at 202-395-5167 or via email to [email protected].
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
information collection requirements contained in this document, contact
Cathy Williams at 202-418-2918, or via the Internet at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 13-139, adopted October 29, 2013,
and released October 31, 2013.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This NPRM contains proposed information collection requirements. It
will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat 163 (1995). The Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the
general public and OMB to comment on the proposed information
collection requirements contained in this NPRM, as required by the PRA.
Public and agency comments on the PRA proposed information collection
requirements are due January 21, 2014. Comments 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. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 116
Stat 729 (2002), see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.''
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR)
submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://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 following information collection requirements would be
initiated if the proposed rules contained in the NPRM are adopted.
OMB Control Number: 3060-xxxx.
Title: AM Station Modulation Dependent Carrier Level (MDCL)
Notification Form; FCC Form 338.
Form Number: FCC Form 338.
Type of Review: New information collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit
institutions.
Number of Respondents and Responses: 100 respondents and 100
responses.
Estimated Hours per Response: 1 hour.
Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.
Total Annual Burden: 100 hours.
Total Annual Costs: None.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The
statutory authority for this information collection is contained in
Sections 154(i), 303, 310 and 533 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for
confidentiality required with this collection of information.
Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
Needs and Uses: On October 31, 2013, the Commission released the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Revitalization of the AM Radio Service
(NPRM), FCC 13-139, MB Docket No. 13-249. In the NPRM, the Commission
recognized that in September 2011, the Media Bureau (Bureau) had
released an MDCL Public Notice, in which it stated that it would permit
AM stations, by rule waiver or experimental authorization, to use
transmitter control techniques that vary either the carrier power level
or both the carrier and sideband power levels as a function of the
modulation level. This allows AM licensees to reduce power consumption
while maintaining audio quality and their licensed station coverage
areas. These techniques are
[[Page 69630]]
known as Modulation Dependent Carrier Level (MDCL) control
technologies.
There are two basic types of MDCL control technologies. In one
type, the carrier power is reduced at low modulation levels and
increased at higher modulation levels. In the other type, there is full
carrier power at low modulation levels and reduced carrier power and
sideband powers at higher modulation levels. Use of any of these MDCL
control technologies reduces the station's antenna input power to
levels not permitted by 47 CFR 73.1560(a).
The MDCL Public Notice permitted AM station licensees wanting to
use MDCL control technologies to seek either a permanent waiver of 47
CFR 73.1560(a) for those licensees already certain of the particular
MDCL control technology to be used, or an experimental authorization
pursuant to 47 CFR 73.1510 for those licensees wishing to determine
which of the MDCL control technologies would result in maximum cost
savings and minimum effects on the station's coverage area and audio
quality. Since release of the MDCL Public Notice, 33 permanent waiver
requests and 20 experimental requests authorizing use of MDCL control
technologies have been granted by the Bureau.
AM station licensees using MDCL control technologies have reported
significant savings on electrical power costs and few, if any,
perceptible effects on station coverage area and audio quality.
Accordingly, the NPRM tentatively concluded that use of MDCL control
technologies reduces AM broadcasters' operating costs while maintaining
a station's current level of service to the public, without
interference to other stations. The Commission therefore, proposed
wider implementation of MDCL control technologies by amending 47 CFR
73.1560(a), to provide that an AM station may commence operation using
MDCL control technology without prior Commission authority, provided
that the AM station licensee notifies the Commission of the station's
MDCL control operation within 10 days after commencement of such
operation using the Bureau's Consolidated Database System (CDBS). The
NPRM solicits comments on the proposed rule change, as well as on the
potential adverse effects of allowing AM stations to commence MDCL
control technology operation without prior Commission authority. The
NPRM also seeks comment as to the potential adverse effects, if any, of
MDCL control technology implementation on other AM stations.
Consistent with the NPRM's proposal to allow AM broadcasters to
implement MDCL technologies without prior authorization, by electronic
notification within 10 days of commencing MDCL operations, the
Commission created FCC Form 338, AM Station Modulation Dependent
Carrier Level (MDCL) Notification. In addition to the standard general
contact information, FCC Form 338 solicits minimal technical data, as
well as the date that MDCL control operation commenced. This new
information collection regarding FCC Form 338 needs OMB review and
approval.
The following rule section is covered by this information
collection and requires OMB approval:
47 CFR 73.1560(a)(1) specifies the limits on antenna input power
for AM stations. AM stations using MDCL control technologies are not
required to adhere to these operating power parameters. AM stations
may, without prior Commission authority, commence MDCL control
technology use, provided that within ten days after commencing such
operation, the licensee submits an electronic notification of
commencement of MDCL operation using FCC Form 338.
Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. The AM broadcast service is the oldest broadcasting service. For
decades, it has been an integral part of American culture. Today, AM
radio remains an important source of broadcast entertainment and
information programming, particularly for locally oriented content. AM
broadcasters provide unique, community-based programming to distinguish
themselves from other media sources in an increasingly competitive mass
media market, such as all-news/talk, all-sports, foreign language, and
religious programming formats. Local programming is also prevalent on
the AM dial, including discussions of local news, politics and public
affairs, traffic announcements, and coverage of community events such
as high school athletic contests.
2. The sustainability of the AM broadcast service has been
threatened by the migration of AM listeners to newer media services,
due to AM's technical limitations and the relative lack of consumer-
friendly features such as real-time data and information displays. The
AM band is also subject to interference concerns not faced by other
broadcast sources. First, due to the nighttime propagation
characteristics of AM signals, many AM stations are unable to operate
at night, and many others must reduce operating power substantially
and/or use a complex directional antenna system in order to avoid
interference to co- and adjacent-channel AM stations at night. As a
result, many AM stations are unable to serve sizeable portions of their
audiences in the evening hours, and still others can provide no
protected nighttime service. Second, reinforced structures, such as
buildings with steel frames or aluminum siding, can block AM signals,
hindering AM reception in urban areas where such structures are
prevalent. Third, AM radio is particularly susceptible to interference
from electronic devices of all types, including such ubiquitous items
as TV sets, vehicle engines, fluorescent lighting, computers, and power
lines, and noise from those sources is only expected to increase as
electronic devices continue to proliferate. This combination of higher
fidelity alternatives and increased interference to AM radio has led to
a steady decline in listenership to AM radio, which was once the
dominant form of audio entertainment. By 2010, AM listenership had
decreased to just 17 percent of radio listening hours, with the decline
being sharpest among younger listeners. The popularity of AM stations
versus FM facilities is also on the decline: AM listening dropped by
roughly 200,000 listeners between 2011 and 2012, while FM listenership
increased during that time. Between 1990 and 2010, the number of AM
stations decreased by 197 stations while the number of FM stations
almost doubled.
3. The Commission has previously made efforts to revitalize the AM
band. In 1991 the Commission adopted a comprehensive AM improvement
plan. Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast
Service, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 6273, 6275 (1991). That plan
included three principal elements. First, new and revised AM technical
standards were promulgated to reduce interference within AM stations'
primary service areas. Second, ten ``expanded band'' frequencies
(situated between 1605-1705 kHz) were opened to relocate select AM
stations whose migration to those frequencies would significantly abate
interference in the existing AM band. Finally, various measures were
adopted affording broadcasters greater latitude and incentives to
reduce interference through non-technical means. Additionally, in the
past several years the Commission has instituted several discrete
changes in its AM rules and policies designed to further
[[Page 69631]]
enhance the AM service or reduce regulatory and technical burdens on AM
broadcasters. These include streamlined procedures for employing
alternative antennas, proposing community of license modifications, and
directional antenna proofs of performance. These also include the
authorization of rebroadcasting AM primary stations over FM translator
stations, and the authorization of Modulation Dependent Carrier Level
(MDCL) control technologies. On the heels of these AM improvement
measures, the Commission initiated this rulemaking to consider
additional options for revitalizing the AM band, in view of the
significant technological, policy, and economic changes that have
occurred in AM broadcasting since the Commission last did so in 1991.
The NPRM sets forth some specific technical proposals and, where
appropriate, proposed rule revisions. The Commission seeks comment on
these proposals, as well as any other ideas for improving the quality
of the AM radio service.
4. Open FM Translator Filing Window Exclusively for AM Licensees
and Permittees. Under the Commission's current rules, AM stations are
allowed to use authorized FM translator stations (i.e., those now
licensed or authorized with construction permits that have not expired)
to rebroadcast their AM signals, provided that no portion of the 60
dB[micro] contour of any such FM translator station extends beyond the
lesser of (a) a 25-mile radius from the AM transmitter site, and (b)
the 2 millivolts per meter (mV/m) daytime contour of the AM station.
When an AM broadcaster acquires an FM translator, the broadcaster
typically must relocate the translator both to meet the station's needs
and to comply with the coverage contour requirements outlined above.
Under the Commission's current FM translator rules, changes to FM
translator facilities can be either major or minor. A major change is
one either proposing a translator frequency more than three channels
from its currently authorized transmitting frequency that is also not
an intermediate frequency, or a physical move to a location at which
the proposed 1 mV/m contour does not overlap with the currently
authorized 1 mV/m contour, as well as any change in frequency
relocating an unbuilt translator station from the non-reserved band to
the reserved band, or vice-versa. 47 CFR 74.1233(a)(1). Applications
for such major changes may only be made during specific announced
filing windows. 47 CFR 74.1233(d)(2)(i). However, an FM translator
owner may make a minor change--which meets both channel and contour
overlap requirements described above--at any time.
5. The regulatory distinction between major and minor changes has
led some translator licensees to attempt what would otherwise be
dismissed as impermissible major changes, by filing multiple minor
modification applications to ``hop'' the translator to new locations.
Although not specifically prohibited by rule, this practice subverts
the purpose of the Commission's minor change requirement and,
therefore, the Commission's Media Bureau has concluded that the
Commission may deny applications resulting in multiple ``hops''
pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (47 U.S.C. 308(a)). At the same time, however, the contour
overlap requirements for relocating FM translators, coupled with the
fill-in coverage area restrictions on locating FM translators for use
by AM broadcasters, limit the supply of available FM translators for
individual AM licensees. Although a new FM translator filing window
might alleviate this situation, opening the window to all applicants
would require AM broadcasters seeking to establish new fill-in
translators to compete at auction with other, non-AM broadcaster
applicants, many of whom might foreclose opportunities for AM-
rebroadcast translators by proposing mutually exclusive translator
facilities, while others might apply within the contours of AM stations
for the specific purpose of obstructing a local AM broadcaster from
acquiring a translator station, forcing it to do business with the
winning bidder. While there is a public interest in robust and
competitive auctions in services subject to our competitive bidding
procedures, there is also a compelling public interest in maintaining
the vitality and utility of the AM service.
6. Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concluded that it should
afford an opportunity, restricted to AM licensees and permittees, to
apply for and receive authorizations for new FM translator stations for
the sole and limited purpose of enhancing their existing service to the
public. It therefore proposed to open a one-time filing window during
which only AM broadcasters may participate, and in which each may apply
for one, and only one, new FM translator station, in the non-reserved
FM band (FM Channels 221-300), to be used solely to re-broadcast the
broadcaster's AM signal to provide fill-in and/or nighttime service.
The Commission proposed that the window would have the following
conditions and limitations:
a. Eligible applicants must be AM broadcast licensees or
permittees, and may apply for only one FM translator per AM station.
The Commission tentatively concluded that this requirement is
necessary, as AM broadcasters forced to rely on translators owned by
other licensees and permittees run the risk that the FM translator
owner might choose, for example, to relocate the translator to an area
that does not fill in the AM station's daytime signal contour, or might
opt to rebroadcast another primary station.
b. Applications for FM translators in this window must strictly
comply with the existing fill-in coverage area technical restrictions
on FM translators for AM stations, that is, must be located so that no
part of the 60 dB[micro] contour of the FM translator will extend
beyond the smaller of a 25-mile radius from the AM station's
transmitter site, or the AM station's daytime 2 mV/m contour.
c. Any FM translator station authorized pursuant to this window
will be permanently linked to the AM primary station acquiring it. That
is, the FM translator station may only be authorized to the licensee or
permittee of the AM primary station it rebroadcasts, rather than an
independent party; the FM translator may only be used to rebroadcast
the signal of the AM station to which it is linked (or originate
nighttime programming during periods when a daytime-only AM station is
not operating); and the authorization for such an FM translator station
will only be issued subject to the condition that it may not be
assigned or transferred except in conjunction with the primary AM
station that it re-broadcasts and with which it is commonly owned. The
Commission tentatively concluded that these conditions are necessary to
accomplish the goals of the proposed filing window, as stated above. It
makes little sense to provide AM broadcasters with an opportunity to
enhance their service by applying for and receiving authorizations for
new FM translator stations if those stations may then be assigned or
transferred to independent parties unaffiliated with the primary AM
stations, or used to rebroadcast other primary station signals.
The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
7. The Commission seeks comment as to whether this window can be
limited to AM incumbents, as proposed. The Commission tentatively
concluded that this eligibility restriction is consistent with the
rights of potential applicants
[[Page 69632]]
under Ashbacker Radio Co. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327 (1945), which
establishes a right to a hearing when two bona fide applications are
mutually exclusive. The United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit has held that 47 U.S.C. 309(e) ``does not preclude
the FCC from establishing threshold standards to identify qualified
applicants and excluding those applicants who plainly fail to meet the
standards.'' Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network v.
FCC, 865 F.2d 1289, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Moreover, the subsequent
enactment of auction authority under section 309(j) of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(j), reaffirmed the Commission's
``obligation in the public interest to continue to use . . . threshold
qualifications . . . in order to avoid mutual exclusivity in
application and licensing proceedings.'' 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(6)(E).
8. The Commission believes that the proposed requirements outlined
in the NPRM are narrowly tailored to address the daunting technical and
competitive challenges that AM broadcasters face, to provide efficient
and expeditious assistance to such broadcasters and, thus, to promote a
more robust and sustainable AM broadcast service. These conditions
would sharply limit the number of filings, resulting in fewer mutually
exclusive proposals and faster application processing, and would also
prevent speculative filings, an issue of some concern from the
Commission's experience with the FM translator applications received in
Auction 83. In contrast, an open window could frustrate the goal of
providing expeditious relief to AM broadcasters. It will be necessary
to undertake a close review of FM translator licensing rules before
opening a general FM translator window. Although the Commission intends
to revise the FM translator rules, and to provide further opportunities
for all interested applicants to apply for FM translator permits, it
has tentatively concluded that an applicant-limited and technically
limited window such as proposed here will provide immediate benefits to
the AM service without materially affecting future FM translator window
applicants. The Commission invites comment on these tentative
conclusions. Specifically, the Commission asks commenters to address
the problems faced by AM stations in today's marketplace, whether a
window such as that proposed would significantly alleviate any problems
identified, and whether commenters believe that further modifications
to the proposed parameters for the window are necessary to address
those specific problems (for example, additional or different
requirements to be met by potential applicants; limitation of
eligibility to licensees or permittees of certain class stations, e.g.,
Class C and D stations only, or to ``stand alone'' AM stations).
Commenters may also discuss their experiences with using FM translators
to augment AM service under existing rules, and whether there are
currently a sufficient number of FM translator stations that are
technically suited to meet the demand for AM fill-in service. The
Commission also requests that commenters address the impact of such an
FM translator window on FM full-power licensees, small businesses,
businesses owned by minority groups and women, other FM translator
licensees, and low-power FM (LPFM) broadcasters. Are there any
obstacles or disadvantages to opening an FM translator filing window
exclusively for AM licensees and permittees?
9. Given the unqualified success of the Commission's introduction
of cross-service FM translators in 2009, the Commission believes that a
narrowly tailored filing window for such FM translators, as proposed
herein, could yield significant public interest benefits with little to
no detriment either to the FM translator service or to licensing
opportunities for LPFM stations, especially since the filing window
proposed here will follow the 2013 LPFM filing window. The Commission
solicits comment on both the proposal to open a filing window and the
operational details of such a window, as well as the effects on the FM,
FM translator, and LPFM services. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether, between the relaxation of the limitation on FM translators
that can be used to rebroadcast AM station signals, and the AM-only FM
translator window proposed here, there will no longer be a need for so-
called ``Mattoon Waivers.'' If the Commission does end the Mattoon
Waiver policy, should it be eliminated upon adoption of the proposed
AM-only translator window or upon the opening of that window?
10. Modify Daytime Community Coverage Standards for Existing AM
Stations. Under the daytime community coverage rule, a commercial radio
station must provide daytime coverage to its entire community of
license (47 CFR 73.24(i), 73.315(a)), although the Commission has a
longstanding policy to waive the rule, so long as the requesting
licensee makes an appropriate showing that it will encompass 80 percent
of the community of license's area or population within the station's 5
mV/m contour. The Commission adopted this rule in order to provide
sufficient signal coverage to the designated community of license. The
Minority Media Telecommunications Council (MMTC), in a 2009 petition
for rulemaking filed with the Commission, suggested that this rule,
along with the inherent difficulties of finding suitable tower sites in
urban areas, actually harms the public interest by ``limit[ing]
commercial stations from changing sites and making other improvements
that benefit the public interest.'' Review of Technical Policies and
Rules Presenting Obstacles to Implementation of Section 307(b) of the
Communications Act and to the Promotion of Diversity and Localism, MMTC
Radio Rescue Petition for Rulemaking, RM-11565, at 15 (Jul. 20, 2009)
(Radio Rescue Petition). If a commercial station wants to change its
site or make improvements, it must demonstrate that the station would
cover at least 80 percent of the community from the new site. MMTC
maintains that this is often impossible and usually leads to protracted
and resource-intensive waiver proceedings.
11. MMTC proposed that the Commission amend the daytime AM coverage
standard to require a station to provide coverage to 50 percent of its
community of license with a signal of at least 60 dB[micro], contending
that under this standard, the remaining 50 percent of the community, in
nearly all cases, would still receive a very listenable signal. MMTC
argued that the proposed rule modification could provide AM stations
with greater flexibility in making station improvements without
frustrating the rule's original purpose, and would provide AM
broadcasters, including small, women, and minority broadcasters, with
additional flexibility for site location. The Commission has previously
noted that sites suitable for AM antennas are increasingly difficult
(and expensive) to find. Additionally, when the Commission modified the
community coverage rule for noncommercial educational (NCE) FM stations
in 2000, it recognized that permitting NCE FM stations to cover 50
percent of the community of license ``should ensure sufficient
flexibility in siting facilities and reaching target audiences.''
Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the
Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21649, 21670
(2000).
12. While agreeing with MMTC that AM tower siting has become
increasingly difficult, especially for those AM stations requiring
multi-tower arrays and those located in and near large urban areas, the
Commission also
[[Page 69633]]
recognized the value of principal community coverage as part of the
commitment to broadcast localism and the fair, efficient, and equitable
distribution of radio service under 47 U.S.C. 307(b). The Commission
stated its belief that an applicant for a new AM facility or change of
community of license, as part of its due diligence when evaluating its
proposal for new service, should specify a transmitter site that
enables daytime and nighttime coverage under existing standards,
namely, coverage of 100 percent of the community of license with a
principal community signal (5 mV/m) during the day, and coverage of 80
percent of the community of license with a nighttime interference-free
(NIF) signal at night. The Commission has previously held that AM
coverage of less than 80 percent of the residential area of a community
is generally considered to be inadequate, and saw no reason to allow an
applicant proposing a new AM station or community of license change to
propose facilities with sub-standard signal coverage. An applicant for
a new AM station or community of license change should be able to
evaluate whether it is able to secure transmission facilities that will
enable it to provide adequate community coverage; if it cannot do so,
it should not propose a new station. An existing station, however,
especially one that has been in the same location for many years, may
not have the same flexibility to provide community coverage, due to
changes in city boundaries and population distribution, and perhaps due
to the loss of unique transmitter sites and the unavailability of
acceptable new sites.
13. The Commission therefore proposed to modify the daytime
community coverage requirement contained in 47 CFR 73.24(i), for
licensed AM facilities only, to require that the station cover either
50 percent of the population or 50 percent of the area of the community
of license with a daytime 5 mV/m principal community signal. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposed rule change. Specifically,
what would be the effect on AM broadcasters and the public in general
of modifying the rule? Commenters should describe and, if possible,
quantify the costs and benefits of this proposal to broadcasters and
the public. Would modifying the rule improve broadcaster flexibility in
siting AM facilities and reaching target audiences? Would modification
of the rule provide greater benefits to small AM stations and minority
broadcasters? Conversely, would modification of the rule provide sub-
standard signal quality to significant portions of a community of
license? Would it be better to modify the daytime community coverage
standard for all AM application types, including those for new stations
and those seeking to change community of license? Alternatively, should
the Commission retain the existing AM daytime coverage requirements for
all stations, subject to waiver on an appropriate showing? The
Commission asks that broadcasters discuss with specificity issues they
have encountered when they try to comply with the daytime community
coverage rule, particularly instances in which the rule may have
prevented them from implementing beneficial station improvements.
14. Modify Nighttime Community Coverage Standards for Existing AM
Stations. Under the Commission's current rules, many AM radio stations
are required to reduce their power or cease operating at night in order
to avoid interference to other AM radio stations. See 47 CFR 73.182.
During daytime hours, AM signals travel principally by groundwave
conduction over the surface of the earth, and generally can be heard
within a maximum radius of 100 miles. However, at night AM signals that
are broadcast at the same power level reflect from the ionosphere back
to the earth, and can travel over hundreds of miles. Thus, if an AM
station maintained its daytime operating power level at night,
significant ``skywave'' interference to other AM stations would result.
As a result, most AM radio stations are required by the Commission's
rules to reduce their power, sometimes drastically, or to cease
operating at night altogether to avoid interference to other AM
stations. However, the Commission's nighttime coverage rule also
requires that non-Class D AM broadcasters maintain a signal at night
sufficient to cause 80 percent of the area or population of the
broadcaster's principal community to be ``encompassed by the nighttime
5 mV/m contour or the nighttime interference-free contour, whichever
value is higher.'' 47 CFR 73.24(i). Effectively, this means that AM
broadcasters must continue serving the bulk of their community of
license at night even though the Commission's rules mandate reduced
maximum broadcast power levels.
15. In the Radio Rescue Petition, MMTC observed, first, that
requiring separate coverage requirements for daytime and nighttime
significantly reduces the transmitter sites available to an AM station.
Although one site may be optimal for daytime coverage, it may not meet
the specifications required to comply with the nighttime coverage rule.
As a result, some stations must operate two separate sites in order to
comply with the rule. Second, MMTC argues that the nighttime coverage
rule makes it more difficult for an AM broadcaster to relocate its
station's antenna. When an antenna site becomes unusable--for example,
due to increased interference caused by urban development in the
surrounding area--the station may attempt to move to a more remote
site. This attempt might be unsuccessful because changes in community
and population coverage would take the station out of compliance with
the nighttime coverage rule. Third, the nighttime coverage rule
provides an entry barrier by requiring that broadcasters either
demonstrate substantial compliance with the rule in an application for
a new site or submit a waiver request demonstrating that the FCC should
grant an exception to the rule.
16. As stated above, the Commission acknowledged the difficulties
faced by existing AM broadcasters with regard to antenna siting. It
also recognized, however, the value of nighttime service to
communities, especially those with little or no FM or other local
nighttime AM service. In fact, because of their service limitations the
Commission no longer authorizes new Class D AM stations, which are
daytime-only or provide only secondary, unprotected nighttime service.
47 CFR 73.21(a)(3). The Commission also stated that applicants for new
AM stations, or those proposing to change their community of license,
should provide some level of nighttime service, for the same reasons
set forth above in the daytime AM coverage section. That is, an
applicant proposing new service or a new community of license should be
able to base its decision on whether it can find a site from which it
can provide the required coverage, whereas an incumbent station may be
constrained from finding a new site from which to cover a community
that may have grown since the station was first licensed. The
Commission therefore tentatively concluded that the nighttime coverage
requirement should be eliminated for existing licensed AM stations, and
should be modified to require that new AM stations and AM stations
seeking a change to their communities of license cover either 50
percent of the population or 50 percent of the area of the community of
license with a nighttime 5 mV/m signal or an NIF contour, whichever
value is higher. The Commission seeks comment on this
[[Page 69634]]
proposal. Is the rule mandating minimum nighttime coverage for existing
AM stations still necessary and desirable in light of the difficulties
it poses and the number of waivers that are needed? What would be the
benefit, if any, to AM broadcasters and to the public in general of
eliminating the nighttime coverage requirement? What negative
consequences to other AM stations or to the public in general, if any,
would result from eliminating the rule? Would eliminating the rule, as
MMTC has suggested, afford AM stations much greater flexibility in site
selection and ability to move farther away from developed and costly
downtown areas? Would eliminating the rule allow AM broadcasters to
reduce their costs by improving their ability to move out of areas with
high property values? Conversely, would eliminating the rule deprive
communities of needed nighttime service? Should the Commission require
the station's nighttime transmitter site and nighttime interference-
free contour to be completely within the station's predicted daytime
protected 0.5 mV/m or 2 mV/m contour, to ensure that the station serves
at least part of the area in the vicinity of its community of license?
17. To the extent commenters believe that the nighttime coverage
rule has continued utility, but perhaps merits modification other than
that proposed here, they are asked to submit proposals for such
modification, and to discuss how a modified nighttime coverage rule
might benefit AM broadcasters and serve the public. For example, rather
than eliminating the rule entirely, should the Commission consider
relaxing the coverage requirement from 80 percent to 50 percent for
existing stations, as the Commission did when adopting the rules for
the AM expanded band, and as proposed above for daytime coverage? Would
an across-the-board nighttime 50 percent coverage rule, as the
Commission concluded in adopting the standard for the expanded AM band,
insure a signal of significant quality to the community of license and
the added flexibility to locate facilities at cost effective locations?
Would the same be true for all AM broadcasters, whether in the standard
or the expanded band? Alternatively, should the Commission retain the
AM nighttime coverage requirements in their current form, subject to
waiver on a case-by-case basis and on an appropriate showing? Would the
waiver process impose a significant burden on broadcasters encountering
difficulties in providing adequate nighttime service? Should nighttime
coverage requirements be retained for those stations that are the sole
local transmission service at a community, or that provide the only
nighttime service to a community or to a substantial population?
Commenters should describe and, if possible, quantify the costs and
benefits to broadcasters and the public of any rule modifications they
support or propose.
18. Eliminate the AM Ratchet Rule. Commission rules currently
require that Class A and B stations comply with certain interference
reduction requirements. One of these requirements is commonly known as
the ``ratchet rule.'' This rule effectively requires that an AM
broadcaster seeking to make facility changes, which would modify its AM
signal, demonstrate that the improvements will result in an overall
reduction in the amount of skywave interference that it causes to
certain other AM stations. 47 CFR 73.182(a) n.1. In other words, the AM
station proposing the modification must ``ratchet back'' its radiation
at the pertinent vertical angle in the direction of certain other AM
stations. The Commission adopted this rule to reduce interference in
the AM band, but as discussed below, it appears that the rule may not
have achieved its intended goal.
14. In 2009, two broadcast engineering firms filed a petition with
the Commission proposing to eliminate the ratchet rule. Modification of
Section 73.182(q), Footnote 1, to Promote Improvement of Nighttime
Service by AM Radio Stations by Eliminating the ``Ratchet Clause,''
Petition for Rulemaking, RM-11560 (Aug. 25, 2009) (``Ratchet Rule
Petition''). The petitioners contended that the ratchet rule since its
inception has been a ``serious impediment for stations wishing to make
modifications to alleviate nighttime coverage difficulties due to noise
and man-made interference.'' Ratchet Rule Petition at second unnumbered
page, paragraph 3. According to the petitioners, the ratchet rule tends
to discourage service improvements in general, because a station
seeking to improve its service by transmitter relocation, pattern
change, or other means as a practical matter must reduce its power to
comply with the rule. This, argued the petitioners, more often than not
results in a net loss of nighttime interference-free service. Moreover,
the petitioners contended that the rule unduly disadvantages AM
stations that have been on the air the longest, and that therefore have
the lowest nighttime interference levels and largest coverage areas, in
favor of reducing interference to newer stations that agreed to accept
existing levels of interference when they began operations.
15. Eight commenters on the Ratchet Rule Petition agreed that the
ratchet rule should be repealed as it does not reduce harmful AM
interference, and in fact inhibits AM facility modifications. The
Commission's experience since the ratchet rule was adopted appears to
bear out the arguments presented in the Ratchet Rule Petition and in
the comments regarding the rule's efficacy. There is no dispute that
the reduction in radiation required by the ratchet rule causes harm due
to loss of nighttime coverage area to licensed stations that must
relocate their transmitting facilities. Approximately 60 percent of the
AM stations currently governed by the ratchet rule, and that apply to
relocate their transmitting facilities, seek waiver of the rule in
order to avoid nighttime coverage area losses so severe that the
station could provide no more than nominal nighttime service. The
Commission therefore tentatively concluded that the ratchet rule should
be deleted, and proposed deleting note 1 to 47 CFR 73.182(q). The
Commission seeks comment on this conclusion and proposed rule change.
Is elimination of the ratchet rule both feasible and desirable? What
would be the benefit to AM broadcasters, and to the listening public,
of eliminating the rule? Would there be negative consequences to other
AM stations and/or to listeners if the proposal to eliminate the
ratchet rule were to be adopted? Does the ratchet rule, as the
petitioners and commenters assert, tend to discourage service
improvements in general? Conversely, does the ratchet rule continue to
serve a valuable function in reducing the interference imposed by AM
stations on other systems? Would elimination of the rule allow a
broadcaster to change its facilities in ways that might increase the
levels of interference that the broadcaster imposes on other stations
beyond an acceptable threshold? Or are sufficient safeguards in place
to prevent that result?
16. Alternatively, are there aspects of the ratchet rule that are
worth retaining, such that the Commission should modify the rule
instead of deleting it, and if so what modifications should be made?
Commenters are asked to discuss their specific experiences with the
ratchet rule and any instances in which the rule prevented them or
their clients from making beneficial station improvements. Commenters
should also describe and, if possible, quantify the costs and benefits
of this proposal, and any suggested alternatives, to broadcasters and
to their service to the public. To the extent commenters prefer
[[Page 69635]]
modifying the ratchet rule to deleting it, they are urged to submit
proposals for modifying the ratchet rule in order to allow broadcasters
more latitude to make such improvements.
17. Permit Wider Implementation of Modulation Dependent Carrier
Level Control Technologies. In September 2011, the Media Bureau
released a Public Notice (MDCL Public Notice), in which it stated that
it would permit AM stations, by rule waiver or experimental
authorization, to use transmitter control techniques that vary either
the carrier power level or both the carrier and sideband power levels
as a function of the modulation level. This allows AM licensees to
reduce power consumption while maintaining audio quality and their
licensed station coverage areas. These techniques are known as
Modulation Dependent Carrier Level (MDCL) control technologies or
algorithms. There are two basic types of MDCL control technologies. In
one, the carrier power is reduced at low modulation levels and
increased at higher modulation levels. Adaptive Carrier Control (ACC),
Dynamic Amplitude Modulation (DAM), and Dynamic Carrier Control (DCC)
are examples of this type of MDCL control technology. In the other
type, there is full carrier power at low modulation levels and reduced
carrier power and sideband powers at higher modulation levels.
Amplitude Modulation Companding (AMC) is this type of MDCL control
technology. Use of any of these MDCL control technologies reduces the
station's antenna input power to levels not permitted by 47 CFR
73.1560(a). The MDCL Public Notice permitted AM station licensees
wanting to use MDCL control technologies to seek either a permanent
waiver of 47 CFR 73.1560(a) for those licensees already certain of the
particular MDCL control technology to be used, or an experimental
authorization pursuant to 47 CFR 73.1510 (now governed by 47 CFR 5.203)
for those licensees wishing to determine which of the MDCL control
technologies would result in maximum cost savings and minimum effects
on the station's coverage area and audio quality. Since release of the
MDCL Public Notice, 33 permanent waiver requests and 20 experimental
requests authorizing use of MDCL control technologies have been
granted.
18. AM station licensees using MDCL control technologies have
reported significant savings on electrical power costs and few, if any,
perceptible effects on station coverage area and audio quality. Based
on the absence of either reported negative effects of using MDCL
control technologies or interference complaints from other AM stations,
we tentatively conclude that use of MDCL control technologies reduces
AM broadcasters' operating costs while maintaining a station's current
level of service to the public, without interference to other stations.
The Commission therefore proposed to amend 47 CFR 73.1560(a) to provide
that an AM station may commence operation using MDCL control technology
(MDCL control operation) without prior Commission authority, provided
that the AM station licensee notifies the Commission of the station's
MDCL control operation within 10 days after commencement of such
operation using the Bureau's Consolidated Database System (CDBS).
Additionally, regardless of the MDCL control technology employed, the
Commission proposed to require that the AM station's transmitter must
achieve full licensed power at some audio input level, or when the MDCL
control technology is disabled. This requirement will permit stations
to use energy-saving MDCL technologies, which preserve licensed
coverage areas, while distinguishing between such operations and simple
reductions in transmitter power, which do not. The Commission further
proposed to require an AM station using MDCL control technology to
disable it before field strength measurements on the station are taken
by the licensee or others. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal, including the benefits and potential harms of this proposal
to broadcasters and its impact on service to the public, as well as
potential cost savings to broadcasters. The Commission also seeks
comment as to what notice an AM licensee or permittee employing MDCL
control technology should receive from the Commission prior to
measurements or inspections by Commission staff, and as to what the AM
station's obligations should be in such situations. AM stations not
using MDCL control technologies are required to adhere to the limits on
antenna input power currently specified in 47 CFR 73.1560(a). Comments
are sought on the proposed rule change, as well as on the potential
adverse effects of allowing AM stations to commence MDCL control
technology operation without prior Commission authority. The Commission
also seeks comment as to the potential adverse effects, if any, of MDCL
control technology implementation on other AM stations.
19. Two domestic AM transmitter manufacturers currently offer MDCL
control technologies for use with their transmitters. Other AM
transmitter manufacturers may be developing MDCL control technologies
for use with their transmitters and, reportedly, other third-party
vendors offer or are planning to offer external MDCL control adapters.
Should the Commission require an AM station licensee to use only an
MDCL control technology developed and implemented by the manufacturer
of the station's transmitter, or should it allow a station to use an
MDCL control technology developed and implemented by another provider?
Although the Commission currently does not require an AM station
licensee to disclose the make and model of its transmitter, should it
require an AM licensee commencing operation using MDCL control
technology to inform the Commission of the make and model of its
transmitter, as well as the particular MDCL control technology being
used?
20. In the MDCL Public Notice, the Commission stated that initial
tests by transmitter manufacturers showed that MDCL control
technologies are compatible with hybrid AM digital operation at the
transmitter; that the National Radio System Committee (NRSC) had
recently convened a subcommittee to investigate the effects of MDCL
control technologies on the hybrid AM digital signal, especially at the
receiver; and that receiver compatibility tests were underway. Based on
these facts, the Commission permitted AM stations operating hybrid AM
digital facilities to implement MDCL control technologies, provided
that the hybrid signal continues to comply with the spectral emissions
mask requirements in 47 CFR 73.44, and that the relative level of the
analog AM signal to the digital AM signal remains constant. In April
2013, the NRSC published the NRSC MDCL Guideline, in which it concluded
that, ``[c]onsidering the effect that MDCL has on the signal, as well
as the practical limitations of transmitter technology, caution is
advised when implementing hybrid AM IBOC with MDCL.'' NRSC MDCL
Guideline NRSC-G101, ``AM Modulation-Dependent Carrier Level (MDCL)
Usage Guideline,'' at 16. The NRSC cites the potential for increased
out-of-band emissions and reduction of signal quality of the hybrid AM
digital signal when stations operating hybrid AM analog and digital
facilities implement MDCL control technologies, and reports that
further studies regarding the compatibility of MDCL control
technologies and hybrid AM digital operation will be undertaken. Since
the effects of MDCL control technology on hybrid AM digital operation
have not been conclusively
[[Page 69636]]
determined, and the Commission has received no interference complaints
about AM stations operating with both MDCL control technology and
hybrid digital facilities since release of the MDCL Public Notice, the
Commission tentatively concluded that it should continue to permit all
AM stations, including those operating hybrid AM analog and digital
facilities, to implement MDCL control technologies without prior
Commission authority. The continued operation of AM stations using MDCL
control technology with hybrid AM digital facilities will allow further
testing to determine the effect of the simultaneous use of MDCL control
technologies and hybrid AM analog and digital facilities. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
20. Modify AM Antenna Efficiency Standards. The Commission's
minimum efficiency standards impose minimum requirements regarding the
effective field strength of AM broadcast stations. See 47 CFR 73.45,
73.186, 73.189. Under the Commission's rules, ``[a]ll applicants for
new, additional, or different AM station facilities and all licensees
requesting authority to change the transmitting system site of an
existing station must specify an antenna system, the efficiency of
which complies with the requirements for the class and power of
station.'' 47 CFR 73.45(a). 47 CFR 73.189, which is referenced in 47
CFR 73.45(a), explains that to satisfy the efficiency requirements, an
antenna system must ``meet minimum height requirements, or . . . meet[]
the minimum requirements with respect to field strength.'' 47 CFR
73.189(b)(1). Thus, if an AM broadcaster's antenna does not satisfy the
minimum height requirements, the broadcaster is required to ensure that
the broadcast tower's effective field strength satisfies the minimum
requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.184.
21. MMTC proposes that the Commission replace ``minimum
efficiency'' for AM antennas with ``minimum radiation'' in mV/m,
thereby allowing AM stations to use very short antennas and enjoy more
flexibility in site selection, including rooftop installations. Radio
Rescue Petition at 20. Under MMTC's formulation, an AM broadcaster
would only be required to show that the broadcast station produces a
certain minimum level of radiation, contending that if the minimum
radiation is achieved, efficiency levels are immaterial. MMTC states
that the minimum efficiency standard originated in the 1920s when
electric power was in short supply but land was abundantly available;
now, however, MMTC contends that the relative availability of land and
electric power are exactly reversed, necessitating re-evaluation of the
regulation. MMTC believes that the current rule works a hardship on
lower-frequency stations because larger antennas are needed to meet the
efficiency standards at lower frequencies, which have longer
wavelengths. Replacing the minimum efficiency standard with a minimum
radiation standard, according to MMTC, would allow AM stations to use
very short antennas and enjoy more flexibility in site selection, which
in turn will enable small businesses and entrepreneurs to continue
their operations by increasing power and using less land, thus
providing the opportunity to move closer to larger, more viable areas.
22. The Commission has previously observed that parcels of land
suitable for AM towers and ground systems are less abundant and more
expensive today than in the early days of radio broadcasting some 70-80
years ago, especially in and near urbanized areas. However, the
Commission questioned MMTC's other premise, that electricity is more
plentiful and more readily available, finding that it is not well
established in the record of the Radio Rescue Petition proceeding. The
Commission also observed that the MMTC proposal is unclear as to both
the exact problems that MMTC perceives with current regulations, the
specifics of the rule or rules it proposes to eliminate or replace, and
why its proposed solution is preferable. While MMTC's proposal calls
for a ``minimum radiation'' standard expressed in mV/m, current rules
already provide such a standard as an alternative to the minimum
antenna heights set forth therein. 47 CFR 73.189(b)(1) states that good
engineering practice requires an AM applicant either ``to install a new
antenna system or to make changes in the existing antenna system which
will meet the minimum height requirements, or submit evidence that the
present antenna system meets the minimum requirements with respect to
field strength, before favorable consideration will be given thereto.''
Thus, for Class B, Class D, and Alaskan Class A AM stations, an antenna
must either meet the minimum height requirements set forth in curves A,
B, and C of Figure 7 of 47 CFR 73.190, or must provide a minimum
effective field strength of 282 mV/m for 1 kilowatt at 1 kilometer from
the transmitter. 47 CFR 73.189(b)(2)(ii). The rules already provide for
non-standard antennas, as long as they meet minimum field strength
standards. It is unclear how the current rules differ from MMTC's
proposed ``minimum radiation'' standard.
23. However, while the record as to this proposal was not
sufficiently developed to propose wholesale rule changes at this time,
and accepting MMTC's claim that scarcity of land and height
restrictions may restrict some AM broadcasters, especially those at
lower frequencies and thus longer wavelengths, from installing antenna
systems that can meet current Commission standards for AM
transmissions, the Commission believed that reducing the existing
minimum effective field strength values in 47 CFR 73.189(b) would offer
AM broadcasters some relief by enabling them to propose shorter
antennas. The Commission therefore seeks comment as to whether it
should reduce the minimum field strength values set forth in 47 CFR
73.182(m) and 73.189(b)(2)(i)-(iii) by approximately 25 percent, and
revise 47 CFR 73.182(m) and 73.189(b)(2) accordingly. 47 CFR 73.182(m)
and Note (2), 73.189(b)(2)(i)-(iii). The new minimum field strength
values would be as follows: for Class C stations, and stations in
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands on 1230, 1240,
1340, 1400, 1450, and 1490 kHz that were formerly Class C and were
redesignated as Class B pursuant to 47 CFR 73.26(b), the minimum
effective field strength would be 180 mV/m for 1 kW at 1 km (90 mV/m
for 0.25 kW at 1 km); for Class A (Alaska), Class B, and Class D
stations other than those covered in 47 CFR 73.189(b)(2)(i), the
minimum effective field strength would be 215 mV/m for 1 kW at 1 km;
and for Class A stations, a minimum effective field strength of 275 mV/
m for 1 kW at 1 km.
24. What would be the benefit to AM broadcasters, or to the
listening public, of reducing these values? What would be the impact on
the public and the ability of stations to provide service to their
communities? Would some other reduction be more appropriate? Would
modifying the current minimum efficiency standards have negative
consequences for other AM stations or the public? Have broadcasters, in
particular those with lower-frequency stations, experienced
difficulties in complying with the current rules? Would the proposed
rule modifications provide AM broadcasters with more flexibility in
site selection? The Commission asks that broadcasters discuss their
specific experiences with the minimum efficiency standards and any
instances in which the rules prevented or impeded a station from
[[Page 69637]]
changing location or using a lower-cost or more site-specific antenna
system. The Commission also asks that commenters describe and, if
possible, quantify the costs of the current minimum efficiency
standards, and the corresponding benefits of this proposal or any
suggested alternatives.
25. To the extent that commenters believe that the minimum field
strength values should be reduced further, eliminated entirely, or that
other rule modifications be employed to provide AM broadcasters the
relief sought by MMTC, the Commission asks that commenters provide
specifics as to any proposed replacement or alternative standard for AM
transmission systems, including radiation and/or field strength
standards, antenna input power, and minimum specifications for AM
towers and ground systems, and the respective potential costs and
benefits of such proposals. The Commission seeks comment on technical
and policy considerations that may limit the extent to which it can
lessen efficiency requirements; specifically, it also seeks comment as
to the potential interference and stability ramifications of lower
efficiency transmission systems. Would such systems produce higher
levels of skywave, groundwave, blanketing, or other forms of
interference? Are the methods described in the current rules sufficient
to assess the performance of systems of electrically very short
antennas, or would other rule changes be required to permit the use of
such antennas? Would they produce excess heat that would harm the
transmission systems? Would they produce greater amounts of radio
frequency radiation, requiring amendments to the Commission's fencing
and other rules? Is there a limit to the extent to which AM antenna
systems' efficiency can be lowered, to the point where such systems are
no longer stable and cannot produce predictable radiation patterns? If
so, are there potential rule modifications that can afford AM
broadcasters the flexibility to build less efficient antenna systems
than those specified by the standards in the rules, but without
allowing them to expend needless time and expense on ultimately
unstable transmission systems? The Commission requests that commenters
provide details as to any proposed rule modifications, additions, or
deletions.
26. The Commission encourages all interested parties to comment on
the specific proposals set forth in the NPRM, including the specific
issues and questions posed by each, and to provide detailed analyses
and exhibits in support of their comments. Commenters should describe
and, to the extent possible, quantify both the costs and the benefits
to the industry and to the public that would result from these
proposals and any alternatives suggested in the comments. However, the
foregoing proposals are not intended to be an exhaustive recitation of
all the possible means of revitalizing the AM service. Rather, they
constitute concrete proposals that can be implemented expeditiously to
assist AM broadcasters in providing needed radio service to the public.
The Commission recognizes that there are other ideas that have been
proposed to assist in revitalizing AM radio. These include: changes to
nighttime skywave protection for Class A AM stations; adopting rules to
permit the permanent licensing of AM synchronous transmission systems;
permitting or requiring stations to convert to all-digital AM
operation; and modification of the pre-sunrise/post-sunset AM operating
rules. These more complex suggested reforms would require additional
comment, research, and analysis. The Commission therefore encourages
parties to submit comments in this docket for the purpose of advancing
these and other specific proposals to revitalize the AM service. In
particular, the Commission asks parties to provide any proposals to
improve the long-term future of the AM service, emphasizing that any
such submissions should contain details as to the rule additions,
deletions, or modifications sought, as well as specifics as to the
reasons underlying any proposals submitted.
27. Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.415, 1.419), interested
parties must file comments on or before January 21, 2014, and must file
reply comments on or before February 18, 2014. Comments may be filed
using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS);
(2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper
copies.
28. Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/, or the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow
the instructions provided on the Web sites for submitting comments. For
ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the
caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of
the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the
caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include
their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an
electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions for
email comments, commenters should send an email to [email protected], and
should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get
form.'' A sample form and directions will be sent in response.
29. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number
appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal. All
filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
30. 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. The filing hours
at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
31. Commercial 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 must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
32. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to [email protected], or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
33. The full text of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also
be downloaded at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-30.pdf. Alternative formats are available to persons with
disabilities by contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260 or TTY (202)
418-2555.
[[Page 69638]]
34. Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the 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.
35. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 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).
36. As required by the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 603, the 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 proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM
set forth above. The Commission will send a copy of this entire NPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the
NPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register. Id.
37. Need For, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. This
rulemaking proceeding is initiated to obtain further comments
concerning certain proposals designed to revitalize the AM broadcast
radio service. It is based in part on proposals raised in Petitions for
Rule Making filed by various parties, including duTreil, Lundin &
Rackley, Inc., Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers, LLC, and the
Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. Specifically, the
Commission seeks comment on the following: (1) Whether to open a one-
time window for AM licensees and permittees to apply for FM translator
stations to fill in parts of their signal contours; (2) whether to
reduce the daytime community signal coverage requirements for existing
AM stations to 50 percent of the area of the community of license or 50
percent of the community's population; (3) whether to eliminate the
nighttime community coverage requirement for all AM stations; (4)
whether to eliminate the AM ``ratchet rule,'' which requires an AM
broadcaster seeking to make changes, which would modify its AM signal,
to demonstrate that the improvements will result in an overall
reduction in the amount of skywave interference that it causes to
certain other AM stations; (5) whether to allow AM broadcasters to
commence operation using MDCL control technologies without prior
Commission authorization, by notifying the Commission within 10 days
after initiating such operation; and (6) whether to modify the
Commission's AM antenna efficiency standards by reducing the minimum
field strength values set forth in the rules. Additionally, the
Commission seeks comment on any additional proposals designed to reduce
burdens upon AM broadcasters, or to enhance AM service to the public.
38. Legal Basis. 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).
39. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. 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. 5 U.S.C.
603(b). The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as
encompassing the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and
``small governmental entity.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term
``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business
concern'' under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 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). 15 U.S.C. 632.
40. Radio Stations. The proposed policies could apply to radio
broadcast licensees, and potential licensees of radio service. The SBA
defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if such station
has no more than $7 million in annual receipts. See 13 CFR 121.201,
NAICS Code 515112. Business concerns included in this industry are
those primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the
public. Id. According to Commission staff review of the BIA
Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer Database as of August
2, 2013, about 10,811 (97 percent) of 11,162 commercial radio station
have revenues of $7 million or less and thus qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition. In assessing whether a business concern
qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control)
affiliations must be included. 13 CFR 121.103(a)(1). Our estimate,
therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be
affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based
does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In
addition, an element of the definition of ``small business'' is that
the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We
[[Page 69639]]
are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would
establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of
operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which 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. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these
criteria in the context of media entities and our estimates of small
businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
41. FM translator stations and low power FM stations. 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 $7 million in annual receipts. See 13 CFR
121.201, NAICS Code 515112. Currently, there are approximately 6,053
licensed FM translator and booster stations. In addition, there are
approximately 646 applicants with pending applications filed in the
2003 translator filing window. Given the nature of these services, we
will presume that all of these licensees and applicants qualify as
small entities under the SBA definition.
42. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements. The proposed rule and procedural changes may,
in some cases, impose different reporting requirements on potential
radio licensees and permittees, insofar as they would require or allow
certain AM applicants to demonstrate their qualifications to apply for
an FM translator station meeting the current rules for FM translator
use by AM stations. However, the information to be filed is already
familiar to broadcasters, and the specific information requested to
apply for a new FM translator station involves engineering similar to
that of full-power FM stations (and, in fact, less complex than the
engineering for a full-power AM station), so any additional burdens
would be minimal. Reducing the AM daytime signal coverage requirements
should not increase burdens on AM broadcasters; they would still have
to calculate their signal contours and the populations covered, but the
percentage of the community that must be covered would be lower, so to
the extent that broadcasters find it difficult to cover 80 to 100
percent of the community of license with a 5 mV/m signal, burdens
should be decreased. Likewise, eliminating the nighttime community
coverage requirement will decrease burdens on AM broadcasters, who
would no longer have to provide calculations of their nighttime
interference-free or 5 mV/m contours. Elimination of the ``ratchet
rule'' would substantially decrease burdens on AM broadcasters seeking
to make changes to their facilities, by eliminating the requirement
that they reduce skywave interference to certain other broadcasters.
Should the Commission adopt its proposal to allow AM broadcasters to
use MDCL technologies without prior authorization, this would reduce
burdens on such broadcasters, who would no longer have to apply for
waivers or experimental authorizations, but would need only to inform
the Commission through the Media Bureau's electronic Consolidated Data
Base System (CDBS). Finally, if the Commission were to adopt its
proposal to reduce the minimum efficiency standards for AM
broadcasters, this would reduce burdens on such broadcasters by
affording them more flexibility in antenna siting and construction.
43. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5
U.S.C. 603(b). In the NPRM, the Commission seeks to assist AM
broadcasters by providing them with an opportunity to acquire single-
purpose FM translator stations to fill in their signal contours; by
providing relief from community signal coverage requirements (day and
night) which may have become problematic due to geographic and
population shifts and a dearth of land suitable for AM transmission
systems; by eliminating the ``ratchet rule'' that imposes interference-
amelioration requirements as a quid-pro-quo for certain facility
improvements, but which has had the effect of discouraging such
improvements; by simplifying the process of initiating energy-saving
MDCL technologies; and by reducing the minimum effective field strength
values for AM stations. 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 whom are small businesses. There may be
unique circumstances these entities may face, and we will consider
appropriate action for small broadcasters when preparing a Report and
Order in this matter.
44. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission's Proposals. None.
45. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to [email protected], or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27838 Filed 11-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P