Proposed Rule2021-25827
Updating FM Broadcast Radio Service Directional Antenna Performance Verification
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 30, 2021
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 227 (Tuesday, November 30, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Federal Communications Commission's
website: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//</a>. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d3959090e6e3e793b5b0b0fdb4bca5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bddd8d8aeabafdbfdf8f8b5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e3d1f0a16075029171212171f130d3e181d1d50191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="145775607c6d3a437d78787d757967547277773a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.
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
<a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs</a> and the FCC's website at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-117A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-117A1.pdf</a>. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c5a3a6a6f0f5f185a3a6a6eba2aab3">[email protected]</a> 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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 30, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.