**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | MM Docket No. 93-177         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| An Inquiry Into the              | ) |                              |
| Commission\'s Policies and Rules | * |                              |
| Regarding AM Radio Service       | * |                              |
| Directional Antenna Performance  |   |                              |
| Verification                     | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

SECOND REPORT AND ORDER

And

SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

**Adopted: September 24, 2008 Released: September 26, 2008**

**Comment Date: (30 days after date of publication in the Federal
Register)**

**Reply Comment Date: (60 days after date of publication in the Federal
Register)**

By the Commission:

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. AM proof of performance requirements 2

iII. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 14

iV. CONCLUSION 24

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 25

A. Comment Information 25

B. Filing Requirements 26

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 29

D. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 30

E. Congressional Review Act 33

F. Additional Information 34

V. ORDERING CLAUSES 35

Appendix A - List of Commenters

Appendix B - Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Appendix C - Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Appendix D - Final Rules

Appendix E - Proposed Rules

# INTRODUCTION

1.  The *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in this proceeding[^1]
    solicited comment on the use of moment method computer modeling[^2]
    to demonstrate that certain AM directional antennas perform as
    authorized. The *Further Notice* is part of a broad-based
    streamlining initiative to simplify the Media Bureau's licensing
    procedures. In the course of this initiative, the Commission has
    introduced substantially shorter and simpler certification-based
    application forms, established new broadcast application licensing
    procedures, and instituted electronic filing.[^3] The *Report and
    Order* in this proceeding simplified traditional proof of
    performance requirements for directional AM stations.[^4] The
    *Further Notice* sought comment on the use of moment method modeling
    as a more efficient substitute for traditional field strength
    proofs, which are time-consuming and expensive. A subsequent Public
    Notice, responding to comments from an industry group, also sought
    comment on the related issue of using moment method programs to
    assess the effects of nearby towers on AM antenna patterns.[^5] This
    *Second* *Report and Order* further reduces the regulatory burdens
    on AM broadcasters by permitting the use of computer modeling
    techniques to verify AM directional antenna performance. The *Second
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* seeks additional comment on
    new rules regarding tower construction near AM stations that would
    not depend upon the service for which a tower is used .

# AM proof of performance requirements 

2.  [Background.]{.underline} There are approximately 1,900 directional
    AM stations currently licensed in the United States. Directional AM
    stations use antennas which suppress radiated field in some
    directions and enhance it in others. Under our current rules, an AM
    licensee operating with a directional antenna must perform a proof
    of performance to demonstrate that the antenna pattern conforms to
    the station's authorization. An AM station must perform a full proof
    to verify the pattern shape when a new directional antenna system is
    authorized. Partial proofs, which require fewer measurements, are
    occasionally necessary to show that an array continues to operate
    properly. Typically, a full proof requires measurement of the AM
    station's field strength on six to 12 critical bearings, ranging to
    distances of 15 kilometers or more from the antenna.[^6] Making
    necessary antenna adjustments, selecting accessible measurement
    points, and taking measurements can be a daunting, slow, and
    expensive process. Subsequent graphical analysis of proof
    measurements also requires substantial time and expense.

3.  This proceeding began with a *Notice of Inquiry* in response to a
    joint petition for rulemaking (the "Petition") filed by five
    broadcast consulting engineering firms (\"Joint Petitioners\").[^7]
    The Petition requested that the Commission conduct a broad review of
    its rules for directional AM antenna performance verification, many
    of which have been in place for decades. As part of the review, the
    Joint Petitioners proposed that the Commission consider the use of
    computer modeling techniques for AM directional antennas. The
    Commission subsequently issued a *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*
    (*\"NPRM\"*)[^8] seeking comments on proposals to streamline
    existing requirements, including the potential incorporation of
    moment method techniques into our AM rules. The *Report and Order*
    in this proceeding streamlined the rules with respect to
    conventional requirements for directional AM stations, reducing the
    scope of work required for a directional AM proof of performance,
    and also eliminating other obsolete rules. The *Report and Order*
    observed, however, that commenters were divided as to the
    advisability of permitting moment method modeling as a substitute
    for field strength measurements. Therefore, the *Further Notice*
    deferred resolution of this issue and sought additional comments on
    the incorporation of moment method techniques.

4.  In late 2006 and early 2007, an *ad hoc* technical group of radio
    broadcasters, equipment manufacturers, and broadcast consulting
    engineers, acting collectively as the AM Directional Antenna
    Performance Verification Coalition ("Coalition"), convened to assess
    previous comments and to refresh the record in the Commission's
    directional antenna proceeding. The Coalition's members include 24
    broadcast licensees, among them the largest group owners, and ten
    broadcast consulting firms. On May 4, 2007, the Coalition submitted
    comments proposing several rule changes to the Commission in
    response to the *Further Notice*. The Coalition proposed rule
    changes to permit applicants to use moment method computer modeling
    to demonstrate that AM directional antennas perform as authorized.
    The Coalition also proposed rules to permit use of moment method
    modeling to assess the effects of tower construction in proximity to
    AM stations.

5.  The Coalition proposal would allow licensees to verify antenna
    performance based on measurements of internal parameters, *i.e*.,
    the current (or voltage) and phase measured at specific locations on
    antenna elements. These measured internal parameters would then be
    used in moment method programs in conjunction with a physical model
    of the directional antenna, represented with varying degrees of
    complexity as a series of wires, to compute the contribution of each
    antenna element to the directional pattern. The procedures
    recommended by the Coalition include the calibration of the model
    with measured impedances for each tower in the array. In order to
    predict the resulting directional pattern accurately, the internal
    array parameters which the program uses in its calculations must be
    carefully measured. To this end, the Coalition's proposal describes
    in detail the proper construction of the antenna sampling system
    that provides input to the modeling software. The Coalition
    recommended that the Commission permit but not require moment method
    proofs for antenna arrays using simple series-fed elements. AM
    stations using directional arrays consisting of top-loaded or
    sectionalized elements or folded unipoles would not be eligible to
    use moment method calculations in place of field strength
    measurements.

6.  In addition to specifying the procedures which would constitute a
    moment method proof, the Coalition proposal also discusses the
    limitations of traditional field strength measurements to verify
    antenna adjustment. Field strength meters do not directly measure
    electric field strength. Rather, they measure the magnetic field
    component of the electromagnetic wave, and assume an orthogonal
    relationship between magnetic and electric field vectors to derive
    electric field strength. According to the Coalition proposal,
    effects from nearby conductors, reradiating objects, diffraction,
    and terrain anomalies often yield field strength readings that do
    not properly reflect the radiated pattern. The Coalition states that
    "moment method proofs will in many cases yield results that are
    superior to traditional field strength measurement proofs in terms
    of interference protection between stations."[^9]

7.  The Media Bureau subsequently issued a Public Notice inviting
    parties to comment on the Coalition's proposals submitted in
    response to the *Further Notice*[^10] Many Coalition members filed
    individual comments supporting the proposals. Carl T. Jones
    Corporation comments that its engineers have been using the
    techniques proposed by the Coalition "for the setup and initial
    adjustment of directional antenna systems. Our experience using
    these techniques indicates that the methods proposed by the
    Coalition are sound."[^11] Clear Channel Communications, Inc. also
    describes its favorable experience with the proposed procedures,
    including two recent examples in which directional arrays were
    located, respectively, on an island and near a mountain ridge, where
    field strength measurements were problematic. Crawford Broadcasting
    Company points out the difficulties in relying on field strength
    measurements, stating "\[i\]t is often difficult or impossible in .
    . . heavily developed areas to obtain meaningful data from magnetic
    field measurements."[^12]

8.  Other commenters also support the Coalition's proposal. The
    Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers ("AFCCE")
    supports adoption of the proposed new rules, and suggests minor
    changes to several rule sections. The National Association of
    Broadcasters ("NAB") notes that in the past, critics of moment
    method techniques have argued that the results were subject to
    misinterpretation, and were less accurate than traditional proofs.
    "Although there may have been some truth to this argument a decade
    ago, " NAB states, "moment modeling has since become the preferred
    choice among broadcasters, who have gained extensive experience in
    its use."[^13] The Society of Broadcast Engineers sees the proposed
    rules as "a reasonable balancing of new and more efficient
    technologies with prudent oversight safeguards."[^14]

9.  Some commenters take a more guarded view of the Coalition's
    proposal, supporting some aspects and opposing others. Potomac
    Instruments, Inc. recognizes the value of method of moment
    techniques, but cautions that external measurements such as those
    taken at monitoring points are also an essential tool when, for
    example, antenna components malfunction. Mullaney Engineering, Inc.
    supports the concept of using moment method modeling, but suggests
    that the Commission should consider placing some additional
    restrictions on the circumstances in which modeling techniques are
    permitted to substitute for traditional field strength proofs.

10. A minority of commenters oppose the adoption of moment method
    techniques as the principal means of certifying directional antenna
    performance. According to Greater Media, Inc. and Charles A. Hecht &
    Associates, Inc. ("Greater Media"), while the techniques specified
    in the Coalition's proposal produce a directional antenna pattern
    that is "reasonably close" to the authorized pattern, the
    Coalition's procedures are not adequate in themselves for antenna
    performance verification. Greater Media advocates adoption of a
    hybrid method consisting of modeling and a set of field strength
    measurements similar to that required for a partial proof.[^15]
    Several other commenters oppose adoption of the Coalition's proposal
    because of concerns about the method's accuracy, particularly in
    regard to the effects of nearby reradiators on directional antenna
    patterns. [^16]

11. RadiOhio Incorporated observes that it is particularly difficult to
    adjust and maintain directional patterns with extremely deep nulls,
    which often characterize nighttime operation, and suggests that the
    Commission open a new proceeding to address possible changes in
    nighttime allocation rules. duTreil, Lundin & Rackley also suggests
    opening a new proceeding to examine various aspects of the
    Commission's AM rules. We agree that further scrutiny of
    long-standing AM rules may be useful, but such rule changes would be
    outside the scope of this proceeding. We will, however, solicit
    comment on possible AM rule changes in a future proceeding.

12. [Discussion.]{.underline} We are persuaded by the arguments of the
    majority of commenters who conclude that moment method techniques
    offer an efficient and reliable means of verifying the performance
    of AM directional antennas. With minor changes, we will adopt the
    rules proposed by the Coalition, which permit use of moment method
    proofs as an option for AM stations using series-fed radiators. We
    share the view of commenters who recognize the value of some form of
    external measurements as part of a moment method proof. To this end,
    we note that the Coalition's proposal includes the requirement that
    a moment method proof include field strength measurements at
    reference locations. The reference measurements will provide a
    general indication-- the only indication external to the
    antenna--that the antenna continues to function properly. We will
    adopt the suggestion of J.S. Sellmeyer and others that a moment
    method proof should include field strength measurements at three to
    eight locations, and that the descriptions of the measurement
    locations and measured field strengths shall be filed with the Form
    302 covering license application. In consideration of the importance
    of antenna sampling system construction to the accuracy of a moment
    method proof, we also will require the submission of a complete
    description of the sampling system construction as an exhibit to
    Form 302. We note that AFCCE's comments include a sample form for
    recording the required details of sampling system construction that
    licensees may find useful for submission with the Form 302.

13. We acknowledge Greater Media's concern that the procedures proposed
    by the Coalition result in a final pattern adjustment that is close
    to the authorized pattern but not perfectly precise. In support of
    this claim, Greater Media mentions its recent experience with the
    adjustment of a new directional antenna pattern used by WPEN,
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. According to Greater Media, use of
    moment method techniques resulted in an initial adjustment that
    produced lower radiation at pattern minima than the standard
    radiation pattern values. While we respect the concern for accuracy
    expressed by Greater Media and other commenters, we disagree that
    minor differences in pattern adjustment are sufficient to disqualify
    moment method techniques. The uncertainties in the AM assignment
    process, including short- and long-term variations in directional
    antenna performance, seasonal changes in ground conductivities, and
    variations in nighttime propagation caused by sunspot activitity,
    are large enough to obscure any differences between two reasonable
    methods of directional antenna adjustment. Regarding commenters'
    concerns that a moment method proof will not account for the effects
    of nearby reradiators on the AM pattern, we acknowledge that this is
    a potential drawback of relying on moment method proofs, which are
    based on measurements internal to the antenna system. We agree,
    however, with the Coalition's observation that taking field strength
    measurements in the presence of reradiating structures may offer no
    more accurate a depiction of the pattern shape than moment method
    techniques do. Reliance on field strength measurements alone, as our
    present rules requires, makes compliance very difficult for many AM
    stations, particularly when construction and land development occur
    near the AM station. Earlier in this proceeding, commenters
    expressed concern about the number of directional arrays that are no
    longer operating properly. For example, du Treil, Lundin & Rackley,
    Inc. estimated that more than half of the AM directional antenna
    systems were out of adjustment.[^17] We believe that adoption of
    moment method techniques would provide an overall benefit to the AM
    service by substantially reducing the cost of a proof of
    performance, thereby encouraging AM licensees to properly maintain
    directional arrays.

#  Second further notice of proposed rulemaking 

14. [Background.]{.underline} In AM radio, the tower itself functions as
    the antenna. Consequently, a nearby tower may become an unintended
    part of the AM antenna system, reradiating the AM signal and
    distorting the authorized AM radiation pattern. Thus, our rules
    contain several sections concerning tower construction near AM
    antennas that are intended to protect AM stations from the effects
    of such tower construction., specifically, Sections 73.1692, 22.371,
    and 27.63[^18] These existing rule sections impose differing
    requirements on the broadcast and wireless entities, although the
    issue is the same regardless of the types of antennas mounted on a
    tower. Other rule parts, such as Part 90 and Part 24, entirely lack
    provisions for protecting AM stations from possible effects of
    nearby tower construction. The Coalition has proposed that the
    Commission adopt rules to "harmonize the disparate treatment"[^19]
    regarding tower construction near AM stations, and also to
    incorporate moment method techniques in the analysis of the impact
    of nearby structures on the AM station.

15. Existing AM proximity rules governing wireless licensees specify
    fixed distances within which tower construction is presumed to
    affect the AM station. The Coalition's proposal, in contrast, would
    specify critical distances from an AM station in terms of
    wavelengths at the AM frequency, albeit limiting the distance to a
    maximum of three kilometers, as specified in existing rules for
    wireless licensees. The Coalition's proposal designates moment
    method modeling as the principal means of determining whether a
    nearby tower affects an AM pattern. The proposal would, however,
    allow traditional partial proof measurements taken before and after
    tower construction as an alternative procedure when the AM station
    in question was licensed pursuant to field strength measurements.
    The Coalition proposes to eliminate short towers from consideration,
    with critical tower heights also defined in terms of the AM
    wavelength. Existing rules apply to modification of towers, as well
    as to new tower construction near AM stations. The Coalition's
    proposal would define the types of tower modification that may
    affect AM stations, and would exclude many routine cases in which
    antennas are added to existing towers.

16. Nearly all commenters support the concept of a single rule that
    would apply to all parties constructing towers near AM stations.
    According to PCIA---The Wireless Infrastructure Association
    ("PCIA"), "\[a consolidated rule\] would benefit the public by
    ensuring consistent protection to AM stations where appropriate,
    while eliminating the confusion that exists today given the absence
    of explicit rules across all services." [^20] Wireless
    communications industry representatives proposed several
    modifications to the Coalition proposal. The Coalition filed reply
    comments modifying its initial proposal in response to wireless
    industry concerns. [^21] The changes simplified the definition of
    significant tower modifications, and clarified the procedures for
    modeling directional arrays with nearby reradiators. Most commenters
    agree substantially with the Coalition's proposal, with some
    suggesting additional revisions. Hatfield & Dawson supports the
    Coalition's proposal, but cautions that there may be unusual
    circumstances in which tower construction outside the proposed
    distances may affect an AM pattern. Hatfield & Dawson recommends
    that the proposed rule include a section that would protect an AM
    station in cases that fall outside the screening criteria.[^22]
    AFCCE also supports the proposed new rule, and supplies a series of
    moment method modeling studies demonstrating the effects of towers
    of varying heights and distances on AM patterns. AFCCE concludes
    that the proposed criteria "are adequate to protect the vast
    majority of AM stations," but its modeling studies do show instances
    in which a directional pattern may be affected by towers which the
    proposed rule would exclude from study.[^23] Mullaney Engineering,
    Inc. favors the definition of critical distances and tower heights
    in terms of the AM frequency, but cautions that even electrically
    short structures near a directional AM station may affect the
    pattern. Mullaney suggests reducing the height below which towers
    are excluded from study to 20 electrical degrees at the AM
    frequency.[^24]

17. A minority of commenters, while advocating the consolidation of AM
    proximity rules, oppose the use of moment method techniques to
    assess the effect of a newly constructed tower on an AM pattern.
    Greater Media characterizes the substitution of moment method
    studies for field strength measurements to assess a nearby tower's
    effect on an AM pattern as a "gift for telecommunications providers
    at the expense of AM licensees and their listeners."[^25] Greater
    Media advocates maintaining the current distances from AM stations
    specified in rules governing wireless licensees, and relying on
    field strength measurements to determine the effect of a tower on an
    AM pattern.

18. [Discussion]{.underline}. We agree in substance with the Coalition's
    intent to harmonize and update the Commission's existing rules for
    tower construction near AM stations. Accordingly, we are adopting
    this *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* to solicit
    comment from Commission licensees and other interested parties on
    the Coalition's proposal as explained below.

19. Proposed rules based on those advanced by the Coalition appear as
    Appendix E herein. We tentatively conclude that any new rules
    adopted should appear in Part 1 of the Commission's Rules. As
    proposed, the rules would apply to construction of all
    communications towers above a specified height, not just towers
    requiring notice to the Federal Aviation Administration and tower
    registration under Part 17. We seek comment on this proposal. We
    also seek comment on whether the Commission may apply the proposed
    rules to the owners of structures that are not otherwise subject to
    Commission licensing processes, i.e., with regard to structures such
    as towers that do no require registration and which no Commission
    licensee or applicant uses or proposes to use. Do such towers fall
    within Part 15 restrictions as incidental radiators? Alternatively,
    should the Commission prohibit applicants from proposing and
    licensees from using a tower when the owner has not complied with
    notice and detuning requirements?

20. We seek comment on a number of issues that could establish limits on
    the scope of the new rules, and the technical and/or policy grounds
    for such limits. Specifically, we seek comment on the proposed
    rule's exclusion of short towers from consideration. In this regard,
    we are concerned by AFCCE's modeling studies showing that a tower at
    the proposed threshold height of 45 electrical degrees, when located
    within two wavelengths of a directional antenna, may distort a
    directional pattern. We note that AFCCE's corresponding study for a
    36-degree radiator shows little effect on the directional pattern.
    We tentatively conclude that the tower height triggering study and
    notification should be reduced to 36 electrical degrees for towers
    near a directional antenna. In addition, we seek comment on the
    types of structures, such as buildings, that should be categorically
    excluded from the proposed rules. Furthermore, we tentatively
    conclude that towers not subject to FAA or tower registration
    requirements should not be categorically excluded. We seek comment
    on these and any other provisions of the proposed rules.

21. We note Hatfield & Dawson's suggestion that the rules should include
    a provision to cover those unusual circumstances that would be
    excluded by the Coalition's proposal. For example, Hatfield & Dawson
    postulates a situation in which construction of a tall tower outside
    the proposed threshold distance changes field strength readings
    along a monitored radial for a station ineligible to use moment
    method techniques. Additionally, a short tower that would normally
    be excluded from study under the proposed rules may affect the
    operation of an AM antenna if the tower is extremely close, i.e.,
    within the near field of the AM antenna. In consideration of such
    circumstances, should any final rule on this issue, if adopted,
    include a provision requiring tower proponents to protect the AM
    station upon submission of a credible demonstration that the tower
    affects the AM pattern? We tentatively conclude that such a
    provision would be appropriate. We invite comment on these and any
    other issues that would harmonize the rules for any applicant
    proposing tower construction near an AM station, and that would
    extend the proposed rules to cover all communications towers.

22. We seek comment on the notification procedures to AM stations
    regarding planned nearby structure construction that would fall
    within the scope of the proposed new rules. Notice would provide an
    AM licensee with the opportunity to perform its own assessment of
    the possible effects of tower construction, including a
    "traditional" partial proof, if necessary. What minimum notice
    period should be provided before the construction of a new structure
    could commence? We seek comment on when notification procedures
    should apply.  Should a tower proponent be required to notify the
    permittee of an unconstructed AM station? Alternatively, should
    notification procedures apply only when the AM station is licensed
    or operating pursuant to Program Test Authority (PTA) prior to
    construction of the nearby structure?

23. We tentatively conclude that the Commission should continue to rely
    on its current complaint procedures to determine whether detuning
    obligations have been properly fulfilled. We tentatively conclude
    that any new rules adopted should be applied only prospectively for
    towers constructed after the effective date of such new rules, i.e.,
    where actual construction commences after the effective date.
    Finally, we invite comment on the proposed rules and on any other
    changes that would be necessary to establish uniform procedures for
    all communications services and all Commission regulatees with
    respect to communications tower construction and the effects on AM
    stations.

# conclusion

24. The rules adopted herein are designed to ease licensing burdens on
    AM stations without sacrificing the Commission's core responsibility
    to promote and safeguard the technical integrity of the AM service.
    Similarly, the rule changes contemplated in the *Second Further
    Notice* *of Proposed Rulemaking* would use the same techniques to
    streamline and rationalize our rules with regard to the way in which
    the potential impact of construction near AM stations can be
    assessed. Our actions today, made possible by the support and
    contributions of a broad coalition of technical experts and
    broadcasters, represents a significant step forward in modernizing
    our AM licensing procedures.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

# Comment Information

25. *Ex Parte Rules*. The *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*
    in this proceeding will be treated as a "permit-but-disclose"
    subject to the "permit-but-disclose" requirements under Section
    1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.[^26] *Ex parte* presentations
    are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules,
    except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, *ex
    parte* or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons making oral
    *ex parte* presentations are reminded that a memorandum summarizing
    a presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the
    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.[^27] Additional rules
    pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in
    Section 1.1206(b).

26. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
    Commission\'s Rules,[^28] interested parties may file comments on or
    before the dates indicated on the first page of this document.
    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.[^29]

-   Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the
    Internet by accessing the ECFS: <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/> or
    the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
    [http://www.regulations.gov](http://www.regulations.gov/). Filers
    should follow the instructions provided on the website 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 e-mail. To get filing
    instructions, filers should send an e-mail to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and
    include the following words in the body of the message, "get form."
    A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

-   Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
    original and four copies 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
    Service mail (although we continue 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.

-   The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
    messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at
    236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. 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.

-   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 12^th^ Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.

27. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte
    submissions will be available for public inspection during regular
    business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications
    Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., CY-A257, Washington,
    D.C., 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS.
    Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or
    Adobe Acrobat.

28. Accessibility Information. To request information in accessible
    formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and
    Braille), send an e-mail to <fcc504@fcc.gov> or call the FCC's
    Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
    (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document can also be downloaded
    in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at:
    [http://www.fcc.gov](http://www.fcc.gov/).

# Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

29. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended,[^30]
    the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    ("FRFA") of the possible significant economic impact on small
    entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. The
    FRFA is set forth in Appendix B. A Supplemental Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis ("Supplemental IRFA") has been prepared in
    regard to the new rules proposed in the Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking. The Supplemental IRFA is set forth in Appendix
    C.

# Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

30. This document contains new and modified information collection
    requirements and proposed new and modified information collection
    requirements subject to the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
    Public Law 104-13. In addition, it contains new and modified
    "information collection burdens for small business concerns with
    fewer than 25 employees," pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
    Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. §
    3506(c)(4). It will be submitted to the Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. The
    Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
    burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the
    information collection requirements contained in this document, as
    required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In regard to the
    proposed new information collection requirements, pursuant to the
    Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,[^31] we seek specific
    comment on how we might "further reduce the information collection
    burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees." In
    regard to the new and modified information collection requirements
    adopted herein, we previously sought specific comment on how the
    Commission might "further reduce the information collection burden
    for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees."

31. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the new
    rules for directional AM performance verification adopted herein,
    and find that these new rules, which are optional, would greatly
    reduce the information collection burden for licensees.

32. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
    comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection
    requirements contained herein should be submitted to Cathy Williams,
    Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12^th^ Street,
    SW, Washington, D.C., 20554, or via the Internet to
    <Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov> and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer,
    Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20503, or
    via the Internet to <Kristy_L._LaLonde@omb.eop.gov>, or via fax at
    202-395-5167. 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 <Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov>

# Congressional Review Act

33. The Commission will send a copy of the *Second* *Report and Order
    and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, including the
    FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government
    Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.[^32]
    In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the *Second* *Report
    and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration. A copy of the *Second* *Report and Order
    and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, including the
    FRFA (or summaries thereof), will also be published in the Federal
    Register.[^33]

# Additional Information

34. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Ann
    Gallagher, (202) 418-2716, or Susan Crawford, (202) 418-2700, both
    of the Audio Division, Media Bureau.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

35. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to the authority
    contained in Sections 1, 4(i) 303,308, 309, 310, and 319 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i),
    303, 308, 309, 310, and 319, this *Second* *Report and Order* *and
    Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* **IS ADOPTED**.

36. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that, pursuant to the authority contained
    in Sections 1, 4(i) 303, 308, 309, 310, and 319 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i),
    303, 308, 309, 310, and 319 , 47 C.F.R. Part 73 of the Commission's
    Rules **IS AMENDED**, as set forth in Appendix D.

37. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that the rules contained herein **SHALL
    BECOME EFFECTIVE** upon Commission publication of a document in the
    Federal Register announcing that OMB has approved them.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**List of Commenters**

AM Directional Antenna Performance Verification Coalition:

[Broadcasters]{.underline}

Beaseley Broadcast Group, Inc. Family Stations, Inc.

Bonneville International Journal Broadcast Group

Buckley Broadcasting Corporation Lincoln Financial Media

CBS Radio Inc. Morris Communications Company, LLC

Citadel Broadcasting Company Multicultural Radio Broadcasting, Inc.
Clear Channel Radio Peak Broadcasting LLC

Cox Radio, Inc. Radio One, Inc.

Crawford Broadcasting Company Regent Communications

Cumulus Media Inc. Saga Communications

Emmis Communications Corp. Salem Communications Corporation Entercom
Communications Corp. The Walt Disney Company

Entravision Communications Corp.

[Consulting Engineers/Equipment Manufacturers]{.underline}

Carl T. Jones Corporation

Cavell, Mertz & Associates, Inc.

Communications Technologies, Inc.

duTreil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc.

Edward A. Schober, P.E., Radiotechniques Engineering, LLC

Hammett & Edison, Inc.

Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers, LLC

Khanna & Guill, Inc.

Radiotechniques Manufacturing, LLC

Sellmeyer Engineering

Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers

Broadcast Engineering and Equipment Maintenance Company

R. Morgan Burrow Jr.

Carl T. Jones Corporation

CBS Radio Inc.

Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C.

Crawford Broadcasting Company

Communications Technologies, Inc.

Entercom Communications Corporation

Family Stations, Inc.

Georgia-Carolina Radiocasting

Greater Media, Inc. and Charles A. Hecht & Associates, Inc.

Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers, LLC

Henry Communications

Independent Broadcast Consultants, Inc.

Land Mobile Communications Council

Donald L. Markley

Mullaney Engineering, Inc.

National Association of Broadcasters

PCIA -- The Wireless Infrastructure Association

Potomac Instruments, Inc.

RadiOhio Incorporated

Regent Communications, Inc.

J.S. Sellmeyer, P.E.

Sitesafe, Inc.

J.L. Smith, P.E.

Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc.

The Wireless Communications Association International, Inc.

[List of Reply Commenters]{.underline}

AM Directional Antenna Performance Verification Coalition

Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C.

Communications Technologies, Inc.

Delner J. Dayton

duTreil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc.

Greater Media, Inc. and Charles A. Hecht & Associates, Inc.

Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers, LLC

Multicultural Radio Broadcasting, Inc.

RadiOhio Incorporated

Edward A. Schober, Radiotechniques Engineering, LLC

**APPENDIX B**

**Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    ("RFA"),[^34] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA")
    was incorporated in the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* (the
    "*Notice*") to this proceeding.[^35] The Commission sought written
    public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on
    the IRFA. None were received. This Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis ("FRFA") conforms to the RFA.[^36]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order**

2.  This Report and Order adopts rules permitting the use of computer
    modeling techniques based on moment method analysis to verify AM
    directional antenna performance. Adoption of such techniques will
    reduce the substantial costs associated with licensing for
    directional AM stations. These rules also advance the Commission's
    regulatory requirements to the minimum necessary to achieve our
    policy objectives of controlling interference and assuring adequate
    community coverage.

**B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the**

**IRFA.**

3.  None.

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

4.  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 rules adopted herein.[^37] The RFA generally
    defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the
    terms "small business," "small organization," and "small government
    jurisdiction."[^38] In addition, the term "small business" has the
    same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small
    Business Act.[^39] 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).[^40]

5.  The rules adopted in this *Second Report and Order* will apply to
    those AM radio broadcasting licensees and potential licensees. that
    operate with directional antennas. The Small Business Administration
    defines a radio broadcasting entity that has \$6.5 million or less
    in annual receipts as a small business.[^41] Business concerns
    included in this industry are those "primarily engaged in
    broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. According to
    Commission staff review of the BIA Financial Network, Inc. Media
    Access Radio Analyzer Database as of May 1, 2008, 13,457 (about 96
    percent) of 13,977 radio stations in the United States have revenues
    of \$6.5 million or less. AM stations constitute 4,776 of the radio
    station total, and approximately 40 percent of AM stations use
    directional antennas. Consequently, we estimate that 1,910 AM
    stations may be affected by the new rules. Using the 96 percent
    figure to estimate the number of small businesses among directional
    AM stations, we conclude that approximately 1,834 of the affected AM
    stations are small businesses. We note, however, that in assessing
    whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above
    definition, business control affiliations[^42] must be included. Our
    estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities
    that might be affected by any changes to the ownership rules,
    because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not
    include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

6.  In this context, the application of the statutory definition to
    radio stations is of concern. An element of the definition of "small
    business" is that the entity not be dominant in its field of
    operation. We are unable at this time and in this context to define
    or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific
    radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly,
    the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may
    apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a
    small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that
    extent. 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.

> **D. Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping and other
> Compliance Requirements**

7.  In order to control interference between stations and assure
    adequate community coverage, directional AM stations must undergo
    extensive \"proofs of performance\" when initially constructed, and
    from time to time thereafter, to verify conformance with authorized
    operating parameters. The new proof of performance techniques
    adopted here, which are optional, will substantially reduce the
    compliance burden for licensees of directional AM stations and for
    Commission staff. The new compliance requirements associated with
    the rule changes are less onerous than our existing proof of
    performance requirements. The periodic recertification required for
    stations opting to use the new proof of performance techniques is
    the only new record keeping involved. We believe this requirement
    does not represent a significant burden, and is more than offset by
    the efficiency of the new procedures.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
E.  **Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and
    Significant Alternatives Considered**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
8.  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.[^43]

9.  The rules adopted in the *Second* *Report and Order* offer
    alternative procedures that will greatly reduce the compliance
    burden for directional AM stations. Directional AM stations are not
    required to use these new procedures, however. Previous rules
    concerning AM directional antenna performance verification remain in
    effect, and an AM station may continue to use the old rules if these
    are more advantageous. By offering a cost-effective and efficient
    new means of performance verification, but not requiring its use, we
    have increased the options available to all directional AM stations
    for verifying antenna performance. The additional flexibility
    afforded by the new rules will be particularly advantageous to small
    businesses.

**APPENDIX C**

**Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended
    ("RFA"),[^44] the Commission has prepared this Supplemental Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") of the possible significant
    economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
    policies and rules considered in the attached *Second Further Notice
    of Proposed Rule Making* ("*Second Further Notice*"). Written public
    comments are requested on this Supplemental IRFA. Comments must be
    identified as responses to the Supplemental IRFA and must be filed
    by the deadline for comments on the *Second Further Notice*. The
    Commission will send a copy of the *Second Further Notice*,
    including this Supplemental IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
    of the Small Business Administration ("SBA").[^45]

## Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

2.  In May 2007, a coalition of broadcasters, consulting engineers, and
    equipment manufacturers ("AM Coalition") submitted a proposal that
    the Commission update and consolidate its disparate rule sections
    concerning tower construction near AM stations. The AM Coalition's
    proposed new rules for tower construction near AM stations would
    also incorporate moment method modeling techniques similar to those
    proposed for AM proofs of performance. The proposed rules regarding
    tower construction near AM stations, which would apply to all
    Commission licensees who construct towers, would simplify procedures
    and reduce costs. The *Second Further Notice* seeks additional
    comment on these proposed rules.

## Legal Basis

3.  This Notice is adopted pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303, 612, and 616
    of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),
    303, 532 and 536.

## Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

4.  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.[^46] The RFA defines the
    term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
    business," "small organization," and "small governmental entity"
    under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.[^47] In addition, the
    term "small business" has the same meaning as the term "small
    business concern" under the Small Business Act.[^48] 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.[^49]

5.  Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small
    businesses, according to SBA data.[^50] A "small organization" is
    generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently
    owned and operated and is not dominant in its field."[^51]
    Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small
    organizations.[^52] The term "small governmental jurisdiction" is
    defined generally as "governments of cities, towns, townships,
    villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population
    of less than fifty thousand."[^53] Census Bureau data for 2002
    indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in
    the United States.[^54] We estimate that, of this total, 84,377
    entities were "small governmental jurisdictions."[^55] Thus, we
    estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

6.  **Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).** Since
    2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new,
    broad, economic census category.[^56] Prior to that time, such firms
    were within the now-superseded categories of "Paging" and "Cellular
    and Other Wireless Telecommunications."[^57] Under the present and
    prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small
    if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^58] Because Census Bureau data
    are not yet available for the new category, we will estimate small
    business prevalence using the prior categories and associated data.
    For the category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there were 807
    firms that operated for the entire year.[^59] Of this total, 804
    firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had
    employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^60] For the category of
    Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, data for 2002 show
    that there were 1,397 firms that operated for the entire year.[^61]
    Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees,
    and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^62] Thus,
    we estimate that the majority of wireless firms are small.

7.  **Non-Licensee Tower Owners.** Many communications towers, while
    used to support multiple antennas for Commission licensees in
    various services, are owned by entities which are not themselves
    Commission licensees. Thus, non-licensee tower owners may be subject
    to any new or additional requirements adopted in this proceeding.
    Communications towers fall into two categories: those requiring
    antenna structure registration, and those exempt from registration.
    The Commission's rules require that any entity proposing to
    construct an antenna structure over 200 feet or within the glide
    slope of an airport must register the antenna structure with the
    Commission on FCC Form 854.[^63] As of September 3, 2008, there were
    97,617 registration records in a \'Constructed\' status and 13,047
    registration records in a \'Granted, Not Constructed\' status in the
    Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) database. This includes both
    towers registered to licensees and towers registered to non-licensee
    tower owners. The Commission does not keep information from which we
    can easily determine how many of these towers are registered to
    non-licensees or how many non-licensees have registered towers.[^64]
    Regarding towers that do not require antenna structure registration,
    we do not collect information as to the number of such towers in use
    and therefore cannot estimate the number of tower owners who would
    be subject to the proposed new rules. Moreover, the SBA has not
    developed a size standard for small businesses in the category
    "Tower Owners." Therefore, we are unable to estimate the number of
    non-licensee tower owners that are small entities. We assume,
    however, that nearly all non-licensee tower companies are small
    businesses under the SBA's definition for cellular and other
    wireless telecommunications services.[^65]

8.  **Radio Broadcasting**. The Small Business Administration defines a
    radio broadcasting entity that has \$6.5 million or less in annual
    receipts as a small business.[^66] Business concerns included in
    this industry are those "primarily engaged in broadcasting aural
    programs by radio to the public. According to Commission staff
    review of the BIA Financial Network, Inc. Media Access Radio
    Analyzer Database as of May 1, 2008, 13,457 (about 96 percent) of
    13,977 radio stations in the United States have revenues of \$6.5
    million or less. We note, however, that in assessing whether a
    business entity qualifies as small under the above definition,
    business control affiliations[^67] must be included. Our estimate,
    therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might
    be affected by any changes to the ownership rules, because the
    revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or
    aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

9.  In this context, the application of the statutory definition to
    radio stations is of concern. An element of the definition of "small
    business" is that the entity not be dominant in its field of
    operation. We are unable at this time and in this context to define
    or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific
    radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly,
    the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may
    apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a
    small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that
    extent. 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.

10. **FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM Stations.** The proposed
    rule could affect licensees of FM translator and booster stations
    and low power FM (LPFM) stations, as well as potential licensees in
    these radio services. 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 \$6.5 million in annual receipts.[^68] Currently, there
    are approximately 5904 licensed FM translator and booster stations
    and 831 licensed LPFM stations.[^69] Given the nature of these
    services, we will presume that all of these licensees qualify as
    small entities under the SBA definition.

11. **Television Broadcasting.** The proposed rule could affect
    licensees of full power, low power, and television translator
    stations, as well as potential licensees in these services. In this
    context, the application of the statutory definition to television
    stations is of concern. The Small Business Administration defines a
    television broadcasting station that has no more than \$13 million
    in annual receipts as a small business. Business concerns included
    in this industry are those "primarily engaged in broadcasting images
    together with sound."[^70] According to Commission staff review of
    the BIA Financial Network, Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database
    as of May 1, 2008, 1,350 (about 77 percent) of the 1,759 full power
    television stations in the United States have revenues of \$13
    million or less. However, in assessing whether a business entity
    qualifies as small under the above definition, business control
    affiliations[^71] must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely
    overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by
    any changes to the attribution rules, because the revenue figures on
    which this estimate is based do not include or aggregate revenues
    from affiliated companies. Currently, there are approximately 4,271
    licensed TV translator and booster stations, 556 Class A television
    stations, and 2,295 licensed LPTV stations.[^72] Given the nature of
    these services, we will presume that all of these licensees qualify
    as small entities under the SBA definition.

12. An element of the definition of "small business" is that the entity
    not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable
    at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria
    that would establish whether a specific television station is
    dominant in its market of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing
    estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not
    exclude any television stations from the definition of a small
    business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that
    extent. An additional element of the definition of "small business"
    is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. It is
    difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media
    entities, and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply
    may be over-inclusive to this extent.

## Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

13. The *Second Further Notice* seeks comment on proposed rules that, if
    adopted and implemented, may affect compliance requirements for
    small entities. As noted above, we invite small entities to comment
    in response to the proposed rules. Specifically, the *Second Further
    Notice* seeks comment on the use of moment method modeling
    techniques to assess the effect of nearby towers on AM radio
    stations. In AM radio, the tower itself functions as the antenna.
    Consequently, a communications tower erected near an AM station may
    inadvertently become part of the AM antenna system, distorting the
    authorized AM pattern. The *Second Further Notice* seeks comment on
    new rules which would consolidate the disparate rule sections
    currently in place, simplify the requirements of existing rules, and
    extend the rule to all Commission licensees constructing towers.

## Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 

14. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
    that might minimize any significant economic impact on small
    entities. Such alternatives 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.[^73]

15. As noted, we are directed under law to describe any such
    alternatives we consider, including alternatives not explicitly
    listed above.[^74] The *Second Further Notice* seeks comment on a
    new method of assessing the effects of nearby tower construction on
    AM stations. We tentatively conclude that adoption of these proposed
    rules would reduce the compliance burden on most Commission
    licensees, and that this reduction would be particularly beneficial
    to small entities. We invite commenters to propose steps that the
    Commission may take to minimize any significant economic impact on
    small entities.

## Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

None.

**APPENDIX D**

**Final Rules**

[PART 73 -- RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES]{.underline}

[The authority for Part 73 continues to read as follows:]{.underline}

[AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.]{.underline}

Amend § 73.61 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

§ 73.61 AM directional antenna field strength measurements.

\(a\) Each AM station using a directional antenna with monitoring point
locations specified in the instrument of authorization must make field
strength measurements as often as necessary to ensure that the field at
each of those points does not exceed the value specified in the station
authorization. Additionally, stations not having an approved sampling
system must make the measurements once each calendar quarter at
intervals not exceeding 120 days. The provision of this paragraph
supersedes any schedule specified on a station license issued prior to
January 1, 1986. The results of the measurements are to be entered into
the station log pursuant to the provisions of § 73.1820.

\(b\) If the AM license was granted on the basis of field strength
measurements performed pursuant to § 73.151(a), partial proof of
performance measurements using the procedures described in § 73.154 must
be made whenever the licensee has reason to believe that the radiated
field may be exceeding the limits for which the station was most
recently authorized to operate.

\*\*\*\*\*

Amend § 73.68 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows, by adding a
new paragraph (b), and by redesignating the remaining paragraphs.

§ 73.68 Sampling systems for antenna monitors.

\(a\) Each AM station permittee authorized to construct a new
directional antenna system which will be subject to a proof of
performance based on field strength measurements, as described in *§*
73.151(a) or (b), must install the sampling system in accordance with
the following specifications:

\(1\) Devices used to extract or sample the current and the transmission
line connecting the sampling elements to the antenna monitor must
provide accurate and stable signals to the monitor (e.g., rigidly
mounted and non-rotatable loops and all system components protected from
physical and environmental disturbances).

\(2\) Sampling lines for directional antennas may be of different
lengths provided the phase difference of signals at the monitor are less
than 0.5 degrees between the shortest and longest cable lengths due to
temperature variations to which the system is exposed.

\(3\) Other configurations of sampling systems may be used upon
demonstration of stable operation to the FCC.

\(b\) An AM station permittee authorized to construct a directional
antenna system which will be subject to a proof of performance based on
moment method modeling, as described in § 73.151(c), shall install a
sampling system conforming to the requirements set forth in that
section.

\(c\) A station having an antenna sampling system constructed according
to the specifications given in paragraph (a) of this section may obtain
approval of that system by submitting an informal letter request to the
FCC in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau. The
request for approval, signed by the licensee or authorized
representative, must contain sufficient information to show that the
sampling system is in compliance with all requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section.

Note to paragraph (c): A public notice dated December 9, 1985 giving
additional information on approval of antenna sampling systems is
available through the Internet at
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/letter/1985-12-09-sample.html.

\(d\) In the event that the antenna monitor sampling system is
temporarily out of service for repair or replacement, the station may be
operated, pending completion of repairs or replacement, for a period not
exceeding 120 days without further authority from the FCC if all other
operating parameters and the field monitoring point values are within
the limits specified on the station authorization.

\(e\) If the antenna sampling system is modified or components of the
sampling system are replaced, the following procedure shall be followed:

\(1\) Special Temporary Authority (see § 73.1635) shall be requested and
obtained from the Commission\'s Audio Division, Media Bureau in
Washington to operate with parameters at variance with licensed values
pending issuance of a modified license specifying parameters subsequent
to modification or replacement of components.

\(2\) Immediately prior to modification or replacement of components of
the sampling system, and after a verification that all monitoring point
values and operating parameters are within the limits or tolerances
specified in the rules, the following indications must be recorded for
each radiation pattern: Final plate current and plate voltage, common
point current, antenna monitor phase and current indications, and the
field strength at each monitoring point. Subsequent to these
modifications or changes the procedure must be repeated.

\(3\) If monitoring point field strengths or antenna monitor parameters
exceed allowable limits following the replacement or modification of
that portion of the sampling system above the base of the towers, a
partial proof of performance shall be executed in accordance with §
73.154 . The partial proof of performance shall be accompanied by common
point impedance measurements made in accordance with § 73.54.

\(4\) Request for modification of license shall be submitted to the FCC
in Washington, DC, within 30 days of the date of sampling system
modification or replacement. Such request shall specify the transmitter
plate voltage and plate current, common point current, base currents and
their ratios, antenna monitor phase and current indications, and all
other data obtained pursuant to this paragraph.

\(e\) If an existing sampling system is found to be patently of marginal
construction, or where the performance of a directional antenna is found
to be unsatisfactory, and this deficiency reasonably may be attributed,
in whole or in part, to inadequacies in the antenna monitoring system,
the FCC may require the reconstruction of the sampling system in
accordance with requirements specified above.

Amend § 73.151 by revising the introductory paragraph and by adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 73.151. Directional Antenna Performance Verification

The performance of a directional antenna may be verified either by field
strength measurement or by computer modeling and sampling system
verification.

\*\*\*\*\*

\(c\) [Computer modeling and sample system verification of modeled
parameters to establish operation of a directional antenna consistent
with the theoretical pattern.]{.underline} Each element of the
directional array shall be modeled by use of a method of moments
computer program, using the physical characteristics of each element to
establish a model that does not violate any of the internal constraints
of the computer program. Only arrays consisting of series-fed elements
may have their performance verified by computer modeling and sample
system verification.

\(1\) A matrix of impedance measurements at the base and/or feed point
of each element in the array, with all other elements shorted and/or
open circuited at their respective measurement locations, shall be made.
The physical model of the individual antenna elements used in the
computer program may be varied to match the measured impedance matrix,
but the actual spacings and orientations of the array elements must be
used. Towers may be modeled using individual vertical wires to represent
them, or with multiple wires representing their leg and cross-member
sections. The resulting model description (consisting of the length,
radius, and number of segments of each wire for arrays using vertical
wire sections to represent the towers, or the length, end-point
coordinates, and radius of each wire used to represent leg and
cross-member sections for arrays using detailed tower structure
representations) as well as the assumed input feed and base region stray
reactances shall be used to generate the drive impedances and sample
system parameter values for the operating directional antenna pattern
parameters.

\(i\) For arrays using vertical wires to represent each tower, the radii
of cylinders shall be no less than 80 percent and no more than 150
percent of the radius of a circle with a circumference equal to the sum
of the widths of the tower sides.

\(ii\) For arrays using multiple wires to represent leg and cross-member
sections, the individual legs of the tower may be modeled at their
actual diameters with appropriate interconnecting segments representing
cross-members at regular intervals.

\(iii\) No less than one segment for each 10 electrical degrees of the
tower's physical height shall be used for each element in the array.

\(iv\) Base calculations shall be made for a reference point at ground
level or within one electrical degree elevation of the actual feed
point.

\(v\) For uniform cross-section towers represented by vertical wires,
each wire used for a given tower shall be between 75 to 125 percent of
the physical length represented.

\(vi\) For self-supporting towers, stepped-radius wire sections may be
employed to simulate the physical tower's taper, or the tower may be
modeled with individual wire sections representing the legs and cross
members.

\(vii\) The lumped series inductance of the feed system between the
output port of each antenna tuning unit and the associated tower shall
be no greater than 10 μH unless a measured value from the measurement
point to the tower base with its insulator short circuited is used.

\(viii\) The shunt capacitance used to model base region effects shall
be no greater than 250 pF unless the measured or manufacturer's stated
capacitance for each device other than the base insulator is used. The
total capacitance of such devices shall be limited such that in no case
will their total capacitive reactance be less than five times the
magnitude of the tower base operating impedance without their effects
being considered.

\(ix\) The orientation and distances among the individual antenna towers
in the array shall be confirmed by a post-construction certification by
a land surveyor (or, where permitted by local regulation, by an
engineer) licensed or registered in the state or territory where the
antenna system is located.

(2)(i) The computer model, once verified by comparison with the measured
base impedance matrix data, shall be used to determine the appropriate
antenna monitor parameters. The moment method modeled parameters shall
be established by using the verified moment method model to produce
tower current distributions that, when numerically integrated and
normalized to the reference tower, are identical to the specified field
parameters of the theoretical directional antenna pattern. The samples
used to drive the antenna monitor may be current transformers or voltage
sampling devices at the outputs of the antenna matching networks or
sampling loops located on the towers. If sample loops are used, they
shall be located at the elevation where the current in the tower would
be at a minimum if the tower were detuned in the horizontal plane, as
determined by the moment method model parameters used to determine the
antenna monitor parameters. Sample loops may be employed only when the
towers are identical in cross-sectional structure, including both leg
and cross member characteristics; if the towers are of unequal height,
the sample loops shall be mounted identically with respect to tower
cross members at the appropriate elevations above the base insulator. If
the tower height used in the model is other than the physical height of
the tower, the sampling loop shall be located at a height that is the
same fraction of the total tower height as the minimum in tower current
with the tower detuned in the model. Sample lines from the sensing
element to the antenna monitor must be equal in both length (within one
electrical degree) and characteristic impedance (within two ohms), as
established by impedance measurements, including at the open-circuit
resonant frequency closest to carrier frequency to establish length, at
frequencies corresponding to odd multiples of 1/8 wavelength immediately
above and below the open circuit resonant frequency closest to carrier
frequency, while open circuited, to establish characteristic impedance,
and at carrier frequency or, if necessary, at nearby frequencies where
the magnitude of the measured impedance is no greater than 200 ohms with
the sampling devices connected. Samples may be obtained from current
transformers at the output of the antenna coupling and matching
equipment for base-fed towers whose actual electrical height is 120
degrees or less, or greater than 190 electrical degrees. Samples may be
obtained from base voltage sampling devices at the output of the antenna
coupling and matching equipment for base-fed towers whose actual
electrical height is greater than 105 degrees. Samples obtained from
sample loops located as described above can be used for any height of
tower. For towers using base current or base voltage sampling derived at
the output of the antenna coupling and matching equipment, the sampling
devices shall be disconnected and calibrated by measuring their outputs
with a common reference signal (a current through them or a voltage
across them, as appropriate) and the calibration must agree within the
manufacturer's specifications. A complete description of the sampling
system, including the results of the measurements described in this
paragraph, shall be submitted with the application for license.

\(ii\) Proper adjustment of an antenna pattern shall be determined by
correlation between the measured antenna monitor sample indications and
the parameters calculated by the method of moments program, and by
correlation between the measured matrix impedances for each tower and
those calculated by the method of moments program. The antenna monitor
sample indications must be initially adjusted to agree with the moment
method model within +/- 5 percent for the field ratio and +/- 3 degrees
in phase. The measured matrix impedances must agree with the moment
method model within +/- 2 ohms and +/- 4 percent for resistance and
reactance.

\(3\) Reference field strength measurement locations shall be
established in directions of pattern minima and maxima. On each radial
corresponding to a pattern minimum or maximum, there shall be at least
three measurement locations. The field strength shall be measured at
each reference location at the time of the proof of performance. The
license application shall include the measured field strength values at
each reference point, along with a description of each measurement
location, including GPS coordinates and datum reference.

Add § 73.155 to read as follows:

§ 73.155 Periodic Directional Antenna Performance Recertification

A station licensed with a directional antenna pattern pursuant to a
proof of performance using moment method modeling and internal array
parameters as described in § 73.151(c) shall recertify the performance
of that directional antenna pattern at least once within every 24 month
period.

\(a\) Measurements shall be made to verify the continuing integrity of
the antenna monitor sampling system.

\(1\) For towers using base current or base voltage sampling derived at
the output of the antenna coupling and matching equipment, the sampling
devices shall be disconnected and calibrated by measuring their outputs
with a common reference signal (a current through them or a voltage
across them, as appropriate) and the calibration must agree with the
manufacturer's specifications.

\(2\) For towers using base current or base voltage sampling derived at
the output of the antenna coupling and matching equipment, sampling line
measurements shall be made to verify the open-circuit resonant frequency
closest to carrier frequency, to establish length, and also at
frequencies corresponding to odd multiples of 1/8 wavelength immediately
above and below the open-circuit resonant frequency closest to carrier
frequency, while open circuited, to verify their characteristic
impedance. The frequencies measured must be the same as were measured in
the most recent proof of performance and must demonstrate that the
sampling lines continue to meet the requirements of § 73.151(c) with
regard to their length and characteristic impedance.

\(3\) For towers having sampling loops, measurements shall be made at
carrier frequency or, if necessary, at nearby frequencies where the
magnitude of the measured impedance is no greater than 200 ohms with the
sampling loops connected. The frequencies measured must be the same as
were measured in the most recent proof of performance and the measured
impedances must agree within +/- 2 ohms and +/- 4 percent resistance and
reactance of the proof values.

\(b\) Field strength measurements shall be made at the reference field
strength measurement locations that were established by the most recent
proof of performance. If locations have become inaccessible or their
readings contaminated by localized electromagnetic environmental
changes, new locations that meet the requirements of the moment method
proof of performance rules in § 73.151(c)(3) shall be established to
replace them.

\(c\) The results of the periodic directional antenna performance
recertification measurements shall be retained in the station's public
inspection file.

**APPENDIX E**

**Proposed Rules**

Amend § 1 to add Subpart AA as follows:

Subpart AA. Disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns.

§ 1.30000 Purpose. This rule part protects the operations of AM
broadcast stations from nearby tower construction which may distort the
AM antenna pattern. All parties proposing to construct or make a
significant modification to an antenna tower or support structure in the
immediate vicinity of an AM antenna, or proposing to install an antenna
on an AM tower, are responsible for measures necessary to correct
disturbances of the AM radiation pattern, if such disturbances occurred
as a result of the tower construction or modification.

§ 1.30001 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart:

\(a\) Wavelength at the AM frequency. In this subpart, critical
distances from an AM station are described in terms of the AM
wavelength. The AM wavelength, expressed in meters, is computed as
follows:

(300 meters)/(AM frequency in megahertz)=AM wavelength in meters.

For example, at the AM frequency of 1000 kHz, or 1 MHz, the wavelength
is (300/1 MHz) = 300 meters.

\(b\) Electrical degrees at the AM frequency. This term describes the
height of a proposed tower as a function of the frequency of a nearby AM
station. To compute tower height in electrical degrees, first determine
the AM wavelength in meters as described in paragraph (a). Tower height
in electrical degrees is computed as follows:

\[(Tower height in meters)/AM wavelength in meters)\] x 360 degrees =
Tower height in electrical degrees.

For example, if the AM frequency is 1000 kHz, then the wavelength is 300
meters, per paragraph (a). A nearby tower 75 meters tall is therefore
\[75/300\] x 360 = 90 electrical degrees tall at the AM frequency.

\(c\) Proponent. The term proponent refers in this section to the party
proposing tower construction or modification.

§1.30002 Tower construction or modification near AM stations.

\(a\) Construction near a nondirectional AM station. Proponents of
construction or significant modification of a tower which is within one
wavelength of the AM station, and is taller than 60 electrical degrees
at the AM frequency, must notify the AM station at least 30 days in
advance. The proponent shall examine the potential impact of the
construction or modification as described in paragraph (c). If the
construction or modification would distort the radiation pattern by more
than 2 dB, the licensee shall be responsible for the installation and
maintenance of any detuning apparatus necessary to restore proper
operation of the nondirectional antenna.

\(b\) Construction near a directional AM station. Proponents of the
construction or significant modification of a tower which is within the
lesser of 10 wavelengths or 3 kilometers of the AM station, and is
taller than 36 electrical degrees at the AM frequency, must notify the
AM station at least 30 days in advance. The proponent shall examine the
potential impact of the construction or modification as described in
paragraph (c). If the construction or modification would result in
radiation in excess of the AM station's licensed standard pattern or
augmented standard pattern values, the licensee shall be responsible for
the installation and maintenance of any detuning apparatus necessary to
restore proper operation of the directional antenna.

\(c\) Proponents of construction or significant modification of a tower
within the distances defined in (a) and (b) herein of an AM station
shall examine the potential effects thereof using a moment method
analysis. The moment method analysis shall consist of a model of the AM
antenna together with the potential reradiating tower in a lossless
environment. The model shall employ a simplified version of the
methodology specified in § 73.151(c) of this chapter. The AM antenna
elements may be modeled as a series of thin wires driven to produce the
required radiation pattern, without any requirement for measurement of
tower impedances.

\(d\) A significant modification of a tower in the immediate vicinity of
an AM station is defined as follows:

\(1\) Any change that would alter the structure's physical height by 5
electrical degrees or more at the AM frequency.

\(2\) The addition of one or more antennas or a transmission line to a
tower that has been detuned or base-insulated.

\(e\) The addition or modification of an antenna or antenna supporting
structure on a building shall not be considered significant.

\(f\) With respect to an AM station that was authorized pursuant to a
directional proof of performance based on field strength measurements,
the proponent of the tower construction or modification may, in lieu of
the study described in paragraph (c), demonstrate through measurements
taken before and after construction that field strength values at the
monitoring points do not exceed the licensed values. In the event that
the pre-construction monitoring point values exceed the licensed values,
the proponent may demonstrate that post-construction monitoring point
values do not exceed the pre-construction values. Alternatively, the AM
station may file for authority to increase the relevant monitoring point
value after performing a partial proof of performance in accordance with
*§* 73.154 to establish that the licensed radiation limit on the
applicable radial is not exceeded.

\(g\) Tower construction or modification that falls outside the criteria
described in the preceding paragraphs is presumed to have no significant
effect on an AM station. In some instances, however, an AM station may
be affected by tower construction notwithstanding the criteria set forth
above. In such cases, an AM station may submit a showing that its
operation has been affected by tower construction or alteration. If
necessary, the Commission shall direct the tower proponent to install
and maintain any detuning apparatus necessary to restore proper
operation of the AM antenna.

§ 1.30003. Installations on an AM antenna.

\(a\) Installations on a nondirectional AM tower. When antennas are
installed on a nondirectional AM tower the AM station shall determine
operating power by the indirect method (see §73.51). Upon the completion
of the installation, antenna impedance measurements on the AM antenna
shall be made. If the resistance of the AM antenna changes, an
application on FCC Form 302-AM (including a tower sketch of the
installation) shall be filed with the Commission for the AM station to
return to direct power measurement. The Form 302-AM shall be filed
before or simultaneously with the filing of any license application
covering a broadcast station installation.

\(b\) Installations on a directional AM array. Before antennas are
installed on a tower in a directional AM array, the proponent shall
notify the AM station so that, if necessary, the AM station may
determine operating power by the indirect method (see § 73.51) and
request special temporary authority pursuant to § 73.1635 to operate
with parameters at variance in order to maintain monitoring point field
strengths within authorized limits. For AM stations licensed via field
strength measurements (see § 73.151(a)), a partial proof of performance
(as defined by § 73.154) shall be conducted both prior to the
commencement of construction and upon completion of construction to
establish that the AM array has not been adversely affected. For AM
stations licensed via a moment method proof (see § 73.151(c)), the proof
procedures set forth in § 73.151(c) shall be repeated. The results of
either the partial proof of performance or the moment method proof shall
be filed with the Commission on Form 302-AM before or simultaneously
with any broadcast license application associated with the installation.

[^1]: *See An Inquiry Into the Commission's Policies and Rules Regarding
    AM Radio Service Directional Antenna Performance Verification,*
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 16 FCC
    Rcd 5635 (2001) (*"Report and Order"* or *"Further Notice"*).

[^2]: Computer programs to predict antenna performance are generically
    referred to as "moment method" or "NEC" programs. NEC programs are
    based on the Numerical Electromagnetics Code moment method of
    analysis developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
    Livermore, California.

[^3]: *See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review \-- Streamlining of Mass
    Media Applications, Rules and Processes*, Report and Order in MM
    Docket No. 98-43, 13 FCC Rcd 23056 (1998); 63 Fed. Reg. 70,039 (Dec.
    18, 1998).

[^4]: 16 FCC Rcd at 5637.

[^5]: *See Comment Sought on Proposed Rules Permitting Antenna Modeling
    to Verify AM Directional Antenna Performance,* Public Notice, 22 FCC
    Rcd 9279 (MB 2007) ("*May 2007 Public Notice")*.

[^6]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.186.

[^7]: The five broadcast consulting firms which filed the joint petition
    for rulemaking in 1991 are duTreil, Lundin & Rackley (\"DLR\");
    Hatfield and Dawson Consulting Engineers, Inc. (\"Hatfield &
    Dawson\"); Lahm, Suffa & Cavell (\"LSC\"); Moffet, Larson & Johnson,
    Inc. (\"MLJ\"); and Silliman & Silliman.

[^8]: *In the Matter of an Inquiry Into The Commission's Policies and
    Rules Regarding AM Radio Service Directional Antenna Performance
    Verification,* Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 9275 (1999)
    (64 FR 40535).

[^9]: Coalition Reply Comments at 2.

[^10]: *May 2007 Public Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd 9279.

[^11]: Carl T. Jones Corporation Comments at 2.

[^12]: Crawford Broadcasting Company Comments at 2.

[^13]: NAB Comments at 3.

[^14]: Society of Broadcast Engineers Comments at 2.

[^15]: Greater Media Comments at 4.

[^16]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Donald L. Markley, R. Morgan Burrow, and
    Independent Broadcast Consultants, Inc.

[^17]: duTreil, Lundin & Rackley November 1999 Comments at 3.

[^18]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.1692, 22.371, and 27.63.

[^19]: Coalition Comments at 3.

[^20]: PCIA Comments at 2. See also, e.g., Land Mobile Communications
    Council ("LMCC") Comments at 2.

[^21]: *See* Comments of PCIA, Sitesafe, Inc, and The Wireless
    Communications Association International, Inc. ("WCA").

[^22]: Hatfield & Dawson Reply Comments at 3.

[^23]: AFCCE Comments, Appendix A.

[^24]: Mullaney Engineering, Inc. Comments at 10.

[^25]: Greater Media Comments at 12. *See also* Comments of R. Morgan
    Burrow.

[^26]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).

[^27]: *See id.* § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^28]: *See* 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419.

[^29]: *See* *Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*,
    13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).

[^30]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 *et seq.*

[^31]: Pub. L. 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).

[^32]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^33]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^34]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq.*,
    has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
    Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA"), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110
    Stat. 847 (1996). The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract
    With America Advancement Act of 1996.

[^35]: *Exclusive Service Contracts for Provision of Video Services in
    Multiple Dwelling Units & Other Real Estate Developments,* Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 5935 (2007).

[^36]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^37]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^38]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^39]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §
    601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless
    an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the
    Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public
    comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^40]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^41]: *See* NAICS Code 515112.

[^42]: "\[Business concerns\] are affiliates of each other when one
    business concern controls or has the power to control the other or a
    third party or parties controls or has the power to control both."
    13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(1).

[^43]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1) -- (c)(4).

[^44]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

[^45]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^46]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^47]: *Id*. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies, "unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the SBA
    and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of the term where appropriate to the activities of the
    agency and publishes the definition(s) in the Federal Register."

[^48]: *Id.*

[^49]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^50]: *See* SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at
    page 40 (July 2002).

[^51]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^52]: Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference
    (2002).

[^53]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^54]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2006, Section 8, page 272, Table 415.

[^55]: We assume that the villages, school districts, and special
    districts are small, and total 48,558. *See* U.S. Census Bureau,
    Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, page
    273, Table 417. For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total
    number of county, municipal, and township governments nationwide was
    38,967, of which 35,819 were small. *Id.*

[^56]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, "517210 Wireless
    Telecommunications Categories (Except Satellite)";
    <http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517210.HTM#N517210>.

[^57]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517211 Paging";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM>.; U.S. Census
    Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517212 Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM>.

[^58]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210 (2007 NAICS). The
    now-superseded, pre-2007 C.F.R. citations were 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,
    NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).

[^59]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^60]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^61]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^62]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^63]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 17.4(a), 17.7(a).

[^64]: We note, however, that approximately 13,000 towers are registered
    to 10 cellular carriers with 1,000 or more employees.

[^65]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 517212. Under this category, a business is small
    if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.

[^66]: *See* NAICS Code 515112.

[^67]: "\[Business concerns\] are affiliates of each other when one
    business concern controls or has the power to control the other or a
    third party or parties controls or has the power to control both."
    13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(1).

[^68]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112.

[^69]: *See* *News Release*, "Broadcast Station Totals as of December
    31, 2007" (rel. March 18, 2008) ("*Broadcast Station Totals*")
    (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280836A1.doc).

[^70]: OMB, North American Industry Classification System: United
    States, 1997, at 508-09 (1997) (NAICS Code 51320 which was changed
    to 51520 in October 2002). This category description continues,
    "These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to
    affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast
    the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming
    may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or
    from external sources." Separate census categories pertain to
    businesses primarily engaged in produced programming. *See* *id.* at
    502-505, NAICS code 512110. Motion Picture and Video Production;
    Code 512120, Motion Picture and Video Distribution, code 512191, 19
    FCC Rcd 15238 (2004). Teleproduction and Other Post-Production
    Services, and code 512199, Other Motion Picture and Video
    Industries.

[^71]: "\[Business concerns\] are affiliates of each other when one
    business concern controls or has the power to control the other or a
    third party or parties controls or has the power to control both."
    13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(1).

[^72]: *See* *Broadcast Station Totals.*

[^73]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^74]: [5 U.S.C. §
    603(b)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=5USCAS603&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Full&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06).