[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 30, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67886-67892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25827]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MB Docket No. 21-422; FCC 21-117; FR ID 58894]


Updating FM Broadcast Radio Service Directional Antenna 
Performance Verification

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, in which it sought comment on proposals to change the rules 
governing verification of FM and Low Power FM (LPFM) directional 
antennas by broadcast station applicants. These specific rule changes 
were proposed based on a Petition for Rule Making filed by four antenna 
manufacturers and one broadcaster.

DATES: Comments may be filed on or before December 30, 2021 and reply 
comments may be filed on or before January 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 21-422, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Federal Communications Commission's 
website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (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.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no

[[Page 67887]]

longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a 
temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of 
individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
     During the time the Commission's building is closed to the 
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers 
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
    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 202-418-0432 (TTY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Shuldiner, 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 [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), MB Docket No. 21-422; FCC 21-117, 
adopted and released on November 15, 2021. The full text of this 
document is available for public inspection and copying via ECFS at 
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs and the FCC's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-117A1.pdf. Documents will be available 
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. 
Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities 
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an 
email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 
(TTY).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The NPRM in document FCC 21-117 seeks comment on proposed rule 
amendments that may result in modified information collection 
requirements. If the Commission adopts any modified information 
collection requirements, the Commission will publish another notice in 
the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the 
requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, Public Law 
104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks comment on 
how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. Public Law 107-198; 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

    1. Some broadcast stations use antennas that suppress the radiated 
field in certain directions and enhance it in others, known as 
directional antennas. Whether used by an AM, FM, Low Power FM (LPFM), 
or digital television (DTV) station, the goal is the same: To radiate 
more radiofrequency energy in some directions than others, in order to 
prevent interference to other broadcast stations, or to prevent the 
signal from radiating outside the station's authorized service area.
    2. The Commission's rules require that upon completion of the 
construction of a broadcast antenna system, a showing is required to 
demonstrate that the facility is operating in compliance with its 
construction permit in order to be licensed. Joint Petitioners cite 
specifically to the Commission's rules regarding FM and TV directional 
station licensing, particularly 47 CFR 73.316 and 73.685, respectively. 
They note that since the Commission adopted these rules in 1963, and 
continuing through almost 60 years' worth of amendments, the major 
difference between the FM and TV rules is that Sec.  73.316 requires an 
applicant for a license to cover a construction permit specifying an FM 
directional antenna system to provide a ``tabulation of the measured 
relative field pattern'' set forth in the construction permit, while 47 
CFR 73.685 requires only a ``tabulation of the relative field pattern'' 
of a TV directional antenna without requiring that the pattern be 
``measured.''
    3. In order to provide permittees with the measurements that 47 CFR 
73.316(c)(2)(iii) requires to verify the performance of a directional 
FM broadcast antenna, directional antenna manufacturers may mount a 
full-scale model of the antenna or some elements of it on a test range, 
which is a large open area maintained by the antenna manufacturer (in 
most cases) for such testing, with pre-positioned testing probes for 
measuring signal strength in the far field of the antenna pattern. Such 
a re-creation of the antenna includes replicating the tower or pole on 
which the antenna is to be mounted, and may also include replicating 
any structures on or near the ultimate site of the antenna, as such 
structures can affect the antenna's radiation pattern in specific ways. 
The other common method is to construct a smaller, scale model of the 
antenna, mounting structure, and nearby structures, and to take 
measurements of the signal generated by the scale model in an indoor 
anechoic (non-reflecting) chamber.
    4. Joint Petitioners point out these methods for measuring FM 
directional antenna patterns greatly increase expenses for broadcasters 
and potentially lead to inaccurate results. Broadcasters bear the 
expense of physically re-creating the environment in which the 
directional FM antenna is to be installed, including occasionally 
needing to create single-use components to duplicate non-standard 
mounting structures. The Joint Petitioners additionally note it is 
difficult to produce accurate mechanical and, thus, electrical 
alignment of the test range. Any mis-alignments can cause deviations of 
the test range from the idealized perfectly aligned range, and can lead 
to inaccurate test results. According to Joint Petitioners, 
computerized models can reduce or eliminate these mechanical errors.
    5. Joint Petitioners note other instances in which the Commission 
has allowed the use of computer modeling to demonstrate compliance with 
the rules. For example, the Commission in 2008 allowed AM broadcasters 
using series-fed radiators in their directional antenna arrays to 
replace measured proofs of performance of their directional antenna 
systems with computer models using the ``method of moments'' system, 
based on the Numerical Electromagnetics Code (NEC) moment method of 
analysis developed at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, 
California. The Commission allowed applicants for certain AM 
directional stations to use method of moments computer modeling to 
demonstrate the performance of their directional antenna arrays.
    6. Joint Petitioners thus argue that the time is ripe for the 
Commission to update its rules to allow computer modeling, at the 
applicant's option, in lieu of physical modeling and measurement when 
verifying FM directional antenna performance. In further support of 
their argument, Joint Petitioners include results of a sample study of 
an actual directional FM station, comparing results of a computer-
modeled directional pattern proof to a previous scale-model physical 
measurement of performance of that station's directional antenna. The 
comparison showed close correlation

[[Page 67888]]

between the results of the physical model measurements and those 
predicted by the computer model. Although Joint Petitioners further 
maintain that there should be no need, based on current rules, to 
establish the qualifications of the antenna design engineer(s) (as 
opposed to the engineer(s) supervising antenna installation, as 
required in 47 CFR 73.316(c)(2)(vii)), Joint Petitioners' proposed 
amendment to Sec.  73.316 includes a requirement identifying and 
describing the software tools and procedures used in designing the 
antenna, and setting forth the qualifications of the engineer(s) who 
designed the antenna, who performed the modeling, and who prepared the 
instructions for mounting of the antenna at the site. By including this 
information, Commission staff would be able to evaluate the methods 
used and, presumably, the accuracy of the computer-modeled verification 
of the directional pattern.
    7. The Commission tentatively concluded that requiring FM and LPFM 
applicants to provide physical measurements as the only means to verify 
directional antenna patterns is outdated. This restriction places such 
applicants on an unequal footing with their AM and DTV counterparts. 
The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether it should adopt Joint 
Petitioners' proposed rule amendments, attached hereto as Appendix A, 
to give applicants proposing directional FM and LPFM facilities the 
option of using computer modeling for pattern verification. As 
discussed below, it solicits commenter input on Joint Petitioners' 
proposed rule amendments, as well as any concerns about whether 
computer modeling, without any physical confirmation, will provide 
sufficient assurance that an applicant's FM directional antenna will 
perform in the field as predicted in the model.
    8. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change would 
provide regulatory parity and ongoing relief for both antenna 
manufacturers and FM broadcasters while maintaining the integrity of 
its licensing requirements. Commission records indicate that over 2,000 
full-service FM broadcast stations, 21.5% of such stations, use 
directional antennas. Our records also indicate that 10 LPFM stations, 
0.5% of the total, use directional antennas. The proposed rule change 
would allow any of those stations that replace existing antennas to 
avoid the expense of field measurements. Additionally, given the 
ongoing demand for FM spectrum and the need for new stations to avoid 
interference to existing broadcasters, the Commission anticipates an 
increase in the use of directional antennas. It believes those future 
broadcast applicants would benefit from this proposal. Petitioners 
assert that the requirements of 47 CFR 73.316(c)(2) can require 
sometimes substantial expenditures of time and money to such 
applicants. The Commission agreed with the Joint Petitioners that when 
Sec.  73.316 was first added to the rules over five decades ago, the 
computer tools enabling design and modeling of directional antennas did 
not exist. As the Joint Petitioners point out, broadcasters and the 
Commission now can take advantage of the newly developed modeling 
tools. The Commission seeks comment on whether use of these tools will 
increase the risk of interference to adjacent stations. Finally, 
adopting the proposed rule change would align Sec.  73.316 with the 
rules regarding AM and TV directional station licensing. The Commission 
seeks comment on these issues.
    9. Correlating physical measurements. The Commission seeks comment 
on whether it should require any physical measurement in addition to 
computer modeling. Historically it has been rare for the Media Bureau 
to receive complaints from stations about interference attributable to 
directional FM broadcast stations. Is this because manufacturing 
standards are so high that the risk of incorrect directional patterns 
is minimized? Or has Sec.  73.316 forced manufacturers and broadcasters 
to take extra and necessary steps to minimize risk? The Commission 
seeks input on whether computer modeling by itself is sufficient or 
whether some reduced level of field measurement is still necessary. Is 
there a less resource intensive and costly level of field verification 
that would enhance the reliability of computer modeling? Although Joint 
Petitioners point to the method of moments modeling of AM directional 
systems in support of their proposal, the AM directional procedures do 
not rely solely on computer modeling, but rather such modeling must be 
verified by correlation with monitored antenna sample indications. See 
47 CFR 73.151(c)(1), (c)(2)(ii). Thus, in the case of AM directional 
arrays, proper adjustment of the antenna pattern is determined by 
comparing the method of moments computer model with measurements taken 
of the antenna array. Joint Petitioners' proposed rule changes do not 
propose any such measured parameters for pattern verification. The 
Commission seeks comment as to whether there are physical measurements 
that should be taken from an installed FM directional antenna that can 
similarly be correlated with the computer model of that antenna, in 
order to verify adjustment of the antenna pattern.
    10. Directional FM antenna modeling software. The Commission also 
seeks input on whether it should adopt a specific computer program or 
underlying model for directional FM antenna verification. Joint 
Petitioners state that there currently exist ``several software 
programs that can be used for modeling antennas as well as 
environmental objects in proximity to the antennas, plus filters, 
transmission lines, hybrids, lumped constant RF components, and so 
on.'' Is there a common program or model that antenna manufacturers 
and/or broadcast engineers agree provides the greatest accuracy? For 
example, the method of moments is the accepted method for modeling AM 
directional antenna arrays. Is there a similarly accepted method for 
modeling directional FM antennas? Is any other local, state, or Federal 
Government agency currently using a model that would be suitable for 
this purpose? Similarly, are there suitable models currently in use 
outside the United States? Is there a voluntary consensus standard for 
modeling directional FM antennas and, if so, is there any reason use of 
such a standard would be impractical or otherwise unsuitable? If there 
is a voluntary consensus standard for directional FM antennal 
verification, commenters should discuss the process by which the 
standard was developed with reference to openness of the process to a 
broad and balanced range of stakeholders, transparency of the process, 
due process considerations (e.g., notice of meetings), any appeals 
process, and consensus procedures. Commenters should also state whether 
any voluntary consensus standard is an international standard. 
Additionally, 47 CFR 2.1093(d)(2) by its terms requires ``adequate 
documentation'' demonstrating full validation of the numerical method 
used in the computer software for evaluating compliance with limits on 
specific absorption rates of radiofrequency energy, and further 
requires that the equipment used must be modeled under FCC-accepted 
standards or procedures. Should a similar provision be included in any 
amendment to Sec.  73.316? Commenters should discuss the extent to 
which any amendment of our rules based on computer models would 
establish performance rather than design criteria, as well as the 
ability of small and medium-size enterprises to use and

[[Page 67889]]

benefit from using an approved or designated computer model.
    11. Assuming that there is no single voluntary consensus standard 
as to FM directional modeling software, the Commission invites comment 
on what computer modeling software it should accept from applicants to 
verify FM directional antenna patterns. It asks, for example, whether 
verification should be limited to the computer modeling software used 
by the various antenna manufacturers in evaluating their products. Do 
these programs have a common theoretical basis, such that results 
generated by manufacturers' in-house software programs should be 
accepted as accurate? Alternatively, should we accept results from 
other software products created by engineering consultants or other 
third-party vendors that are commonly used in the industry to verify FM 
directional antenna patterns? Do such third-party software products 
also share a common theoretical basis with each other and with antenna 
manufacturers' software, such that all may be relied upon to the same 
degree? Are commenters aware of significant differences among the 
results of the prediction models generated by the several software 
programs available, indicating that some are more accurate than others? 
Commenters are also asked to address whether we should accept results 
from modeling software written by an individual engineer or broadcaster 
for a specific antenna, and if so what showings, if any, must be made 
to vouch for the accuracy of such software?
    12. In the event that commenters believe we should accept computer-
modeled FM pattern verifications, no matter what models or software are 
used, the Commission asks that they address how the staff should 
evaluate the directional antenna models used and how any model will 
incorporate advances in technology. While the Joint Petitioners' 
proposed rules require submission of a detailed description of the 
software tools and procedures being used and the qualifications of the 
engineer(s) constructing the computer models, given the number of such 
software programs, the Commission asks commenters to discuss how 
Commission staff should accept or confirm the accuracy of such models. 
Are there specific types of antenna installations where measurements 
should still be required (for example, installations on the sides of 
buildings)? What information regarding submitted computer models should 
be provided in license applications? Should that information be greater 
or less than that proposed by Joint Petitioners? To what extent will 
the Commission staff be able to use any recommended computer model to 
confirm or replicate the results submitted by applicants?
    13. Additionally, in discussing the software proposed to be used in 
modeling FM directional antenna patterns, the Commission asks 
commenters specifically to enumerate the costs and benefits of the 
proposed software and any alternatives proposed by commenters. This 
should include the costs to license any software needed to run an 
approved or designated computer model, and the distribution of costs 
and benefits among stakeholders. To the extent possible, commenters 
should also quantify projected costs and benefits, identify supporting 
evidence and any underlying assumptions, and explain any difficulties 
faced in trying to quantify benefits and costs of the proposals and how 
the Commission might nonetheless evaluate them.
    14. Interference complaints. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether our existing policies are sufficient to resolve any 
interference complaints or disputes pertaining to the directional FM 
antennas. See 47 CFR 73.209, 73.211. Are new or modified rules 
necessary to address such complaints or disputes? Should the burden of 
proof fall on the applicant providing verification of antenna pattern 
performance via computer modeling, or on the complaining party? Should 
the burden shift if the operator of the FM directional station provided 
measurements as opposed to solely computer model data? What level of 
proof is needed to overcome a complaint that a directional FM antenna 
is not performing as predicted? Duplication or scale modeling of the 
installed antenna for purposes of measurement to overcome an accusation 
of faulty pattern performance would involve considerable expense. What 
safeguards, if any, are needed to prevent frivolous complaints of 
inaccurate FM directional pattern performance?
    15. Experience with computer modeling of directional FM antennas. 
Perhaps most importantly, the Commission is interested in comments from 
broadcasters, engineers, and manufacturers who have used both computer 
modeling of FM directional antennas and physical models of the same, 
and who can discuss their experience regarding the accuracy of 
computer-modeled antennas vis-[agrave]-vis the performance of such 
antennas as installed. Based on such experience, are commenters 
confident that computer modeling can take the place of physical 
measurements of FM directional antennas or scale models of such 
antennas? Are there specific procedures that in commenters' experience 
would affect the accuracy of such computer models, in either a positive 
or negative manner? Are there particular difficulties in simulating 
certain environments in which a computer-modeled FM directional antenna 
is to be installed that would argue against use of computer modeling in 
those situations, and are there ways in which those difficulties can be 
minimized or overcome? Again, are there measurable attributes of an 
installed FM directional antenna that can be used to confirm the 
accuracy of a computer-generated model of the antenna's pattern without 
performing field measurements? The Commission invites comment on these 
and any other issues relevant to this proposal to update its FM 
directional antenna rules.
    16. Digital Equity and Inclusion. Finally, the Commission, as part 
of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including 
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural 
or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically 
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty 
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and 
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues 
discussed herein. The term ``equity'' is used here consistent with 
Executive Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and 
impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who 
belong to underserved communities that have been denied such 
treatment.\1\ See Exec. Order No. 13985, 86 FR 7009, Executive Order on 
Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through 
the Federal Government (January 20, 2021). Section 1 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 as amended provides that the FCC 
``regulat[es] interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire 
and radio so as to make [such service] available, so far as possible, 
to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the 
basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.'' 47 U.S.C. 
151. Specifically, it seeks comment on how its proposals may promote or 
inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and

[[Page 67890]]

accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal 
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Such individuals include Black, Latino, and Indigenous and 
Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and 
other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, 
gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with 
disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise 
adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedural Matters

Ex Parte Rules

    17. The proceeding this NPRM initiates 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. Memoranda must 
contain a summary of the substance of the ex parte presentation and not 
merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two 
sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally 
required. 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

    18. 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).
    19. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), 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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (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 
provided on the first page of the NPRM. 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). In addition, the 
NPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the 
Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    20. The Commission initiates this rulemaking proceeding to obtain 
comments regarding its proposal to allow an applicant for an FM 
broadcast station utilizing a directional antenna to verify the 
antenna's directional pattern through the use of computer modeling, 
rather than physical modeling and measurements. An applicant for a 
directional FM station currently must verify the accuracy of the 
directional pattern by way of measurements, which are made either on a 
full-scale replica of the antenna on a test range, or on a scale model 
of the antenna in an anechoic chamber. In either case the model must 
include elements replicating the environment of the antenna as it is to 
be installed, including the support structure, transmission lines, 
other nearby antennas, or other structures that could affect the 
directional pattern. The NPRM proposes to give applicants proposing 
directional FM facilities the option, in lieu of such physical models 
and measurements, to verify antenna pattern performance via computer 
modeling, which is less expensive and able to be adjusted to account 
for conditions in the installed environment.

B. Legal Basis

    21. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 
4(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and 319 of the Communications Act, 
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319.

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

    22. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' 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. 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. The rules proposed herein will directly affect 
small television and radio broadcast stations. Below, we provide a 
description of these small entities, as well as an estimate of the 
number of such small entities, where feasible.
    23. Radio Stations. This Economic Census category ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by 
radio to the public.'' The SBA has created the following small business 
size standard for this category: Those having $41.5 million or less in 
annual receipts. Census data for 2012 show that 2,849 firms in this 
category operated in that year. Of this number, 2,806 firms had annual 
receipts of less than $25 million, and 43 firms had annual receipts of 
$25 million or more. Because the Census has no additional 
classifications that could serve as a basis for determining the number 
of stations whose receipts exceeded $41.5 million in that year, we 
conclude that the majority of radio broadcast stations were small 
entities under the applicable SBA size standard.
    24. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the 
number of licensed commercial FM radio stations to be 6,682, the number 
of licensed FM translator and booster stations to be 8,771, and the 
number of

[[Page 67891]]

licensed LPFM stations to be 2,081, for a total number of 17,534. As of 
July 2021, 6,676 of 6,677 FM stations had revenues of $41.5 million or 
less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media 
Access Pro Database (BIA). In addition, the Commission has estimated 
the number of noncommercial educational (NCE) FM radio stations to be 
4,214. NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be 
small entities. Therefore, we estimate that the majority of full-
service FM broadcast stations are small entities.

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

    25. The NPRM proposes to amend existing rules to provide more 
flexibility and reduce expenses to applicants for FM broadcast stations 
proposing directional antenna patterns. The proposed revisions require 
additional paperwork obligations for those applicants opting to use 
computer modeling rather than the currently accepted physical 
measurements to verify FM directional patterns.

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

    26. 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.
    27. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to amend existing rules to 
allow the same computer modeling for proposed FM directional antennas 
that is allowed for verifying directional antenna patterns in the AM 
and TV/DTV services. The proposed rules will eliminate the requirement 
that applicants provide measured tabulations of FM directional antenna 
patterns, and allow them to verify FM directional antenna patterns by 
use of computer models. These revisions will reduce the expense to 
station applicants of having to create physical models of FM 
directional antennas and their environs in order to make the 
measurements required by the current rules. The proposed rule 
amendments will therefore reduce costs to these FM applicants and will 
reduce the amount of time needed to construct and install directional 
FM antennas.
    28. Alternatives considered by the Commission include retaining the 
existing rules, and requiring measurement of certain antenna parameters 
to assist in verification of FM directional antenna coverage patterns 
if the applicant uses computer modeling. The Commission seeks comment 
on the effect of the proposed rule changes on all affected entities. 
The Commission is open to consideration of alternatives to the 
proposals under consideration, including but not limited to 
alternatives that will minimize the burden on broadcasters, most of 
which are small businesses.

F. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the 
Commission's Proposals

    29. None.

Ordering Clauses

    30. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and 
319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 
154(i), 154(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and 319, this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    31. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 
336, 339.

0
2. Amend Sec.  73.316 by revising paragraph (c)(2)(iii), redesignating 
paragraphs (c)(2)(iv) through (ix) as paragraphs (c)(2)(v) through (x), 
and adding new paragraph (c)(2)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec.  73.316  FM antenna systems.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) A tabulation of the measured or computer modeled relative 
field pattern required in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The 
tabulation must use the same zero degree reference as the plotted 
pattern, and must contain values for at least every 10 degrees. 
Sufficient vertical patterns to indicate clearly the radiation 
characteristics of the antenna above and below the horizontal plane. 
Complete information and patterns must be provided for angles of -10 
deg. from the horizontal plane and sufficient additional information 
must be included on that portion of the pattern lying between + 10 deg. 
and the zenith and -10 deg. and the nadir, to conclusively demonstrate 
the absence of undesirable lobes in these areas. The vertical plane 
pattern must be plotted on rectangular coordinate paper with reference 
to the horizontal plane. In the case of a composite antenna composed of 
two or more individual antennas, the composite antenna pattern should 
be used, and not the pattern for each of the individual antennas.
    (iv) When a directional antenna is computer modeled, as permitted 
in paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (x) of this section and in Sec.  
73.1690(c)(2), a statement from the engineer(s) responsible for 
designing the antenna, performing the modeling, and preparing the 
manufacturer's instructions for installation of the antenna, that 
identifies and describes the software tool(s) used in the modeling, the 
procedures applied in using the software, and lists such engineers' 
qualifications. Such computer modeling shall include modeling of the 
antenna mounted on a tower or tower section, and the tower or tower 
section model must include transmission lines, ladders, conduits, other 
antennas, and any other installations that may affect the computer 
modeled directional pattern.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  73.1620 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  73.1620  Program tests.

    (a) * * *
    (3) FM licensees replacing a directional antenna pursuant to Sec.  
73.1690 (c)(2) without changes which require a construction permit (see 
Sec.  73.1690(b)) may immediately

[[Page 67892]]

commence program test operations with the new antenna at one half (50%) 
of the authorized ERP upon installation. If the directional antenna 
replacement is an EXACT duplicate of the antenna being replaced (i.e., 
same manufacturer, antenna model number, and measured or computer 
modeled composite pattern), program tests may commence with the new 
antenna at the full authorized power upon installation. The licensee 
must file a modification of license application on FCC Form 302-FM 
within 10 days of commencing operations with the newly installed 
antenna, and the license application must contain all of the exhibits 
required by Sec.  73.1690(c)(2). After review of the modification-of-
license application to cover the antenna change, the Commission will 
issue a letter notifying the applicant whether program test operation 
at the full authorized power has been approved for the replacement 
directional antenna.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  73.1690 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  73.1690  Modification of transmission systems.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Replacement of a directional FM antenna, where the measured or 
computer modeled composite directional antenna pattern does not exceed 
the licensed composite directional pattern at any azimuth, where no 
change in effective radiated power will result, and where compliance 
with the principal coverage requirements of Sec.  73.315(a) will be 
maintained by the measured or computer modeled directional pattern. The 
antenna must be mounted not more than 2 meters above or 4 meters below 
the authorized values. The modification of license application on Form 
302-FM to cover the antenna replacement must contain all of the data in 
the following sections (i) through (v). Program test operations at one 
half (50%) power may commence immediately upon installation pursuant to 
Sec.  73.1620(a)(3). However, if the replacement directional antenna is 
an exact replacement (i.e., no change in manufacturer, antenna model 
number, AND measured or computer modeled composite antenna pattern), 
program test operations may commence immediately upon installation at 
the full authorized power.
    (i) A measured or computer modeled directional antenna pattern and 
tabulation on the antenna manufacturer's letterhead showing both the 
horizontally and vertically polarized radiation components and 
demonstrating that neither of the components exceeds the authorized 
composite antenna pattern along any azimuth.
    (ii) Contour protection stations authorized pursuant to Sec.  
73.215 or 73.509 must attach a showing that the RMS (root mean square) 
of the composite measured or computer modeled directional antenna 
pattern is 85% or more of the RMS of the authorized composite antenna 
pattern. See Sec.  73.316(c)(9). If this requirement cannot be met, the 
licensee may include new relative field values with the license 
application to reduce the authorized composite antenna pattern so as to 
bring the measured or computer modeled composite antenna pattern into 
compliance with the 85 percent requirement.
    (iii) A description from the manufacturer as to the procedures used 
to measure or computer model the directional antenna pattern. The 
antenna measurements or computer modeling must be performed with the 
antenna mounted on a tower, tower section, or scale model equivalent to 
that on which the antenna will be permanently mounted, and the tower or 
tower section must include transmission lines, ladders, conduits, other 
antennas, and any other installations which may affect the measured or 
computer modeled directional pattern. See Sec.  73.316(c)(2)(iv) for 
details of the showings required in connection with an application 
filed for a station utilizing an FM directional antenna.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2021-25827 Filed 11-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P