Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26491

consistent with stated objectives: The

NPRM solicits comments on a variety of

alternatives.

58. Comments are solicited: Written

comments are requested on this Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. These

comments must be filed in accordance

with the same filing deadlines set for

comments on the other issues in this

NPRM but they must have a separate

and distinct heading designating them

as responses to the Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall

send a copy of the Notice to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration in accordance

with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 Analysis

59. This NPRM contains either a

proposed or modified information

collection. As part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we

invite the general public and the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) to

take this opportunity to comment on the

information collections contained in

this NPRM, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.

L. No. 104–13. Public and agency

comments are due at the same time as

other comments on this NPRM; OMB

comments are due 60 days from date of

publication of this NPRM in the Federal

Register. Comments should address: (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

D. Comment Filing Procedures

60. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R.

§§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may

file comments on or before June 11,

1996 and reply comments on or before

June 26, 1996. To file formally in this

proceeding, you must file an original

and six (6) copies of all comments, reply

comments, and supporting comments. If

you want each Commissioner to receive

a personal copy of your comments, you

must file an original and eleven (11)

copies. Comments and reply comments

should be sent to Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, NW., Room 222,

Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to

Janice Myles of the Common Carrier

Bureau, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 544,

Washington, DC 20554. Parties should

also file one copy of any documents

filed in this docket with the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 1919 M Street, NW, Room 239,

Washington, DC. 20554.

61. In order to facilitate review of

comments and reply comments, both by

parties and by Commission staff, we

require that comments be no longer than

twenty-five (25) pages and reply

comments be no longer than fifteen (15)

pages. Copies of specific proposed rules

that conform to the C.F.R. format,

relevant state orders, sample CPNI

notification and authorization forms or

letters, and empirical economic studies

will not be counted against these page

limits. Comments and reply comments

must also comply with Section 1.49 and

all other applicable sections of the

Commission’s Rules. See 47 C.F.R.

§ 1.49. However, we require here that a

summary be included with all

comments and reply comments,

regardless of length, although a

summary that does not exceed three

pages will not count toward the page

limit for comments or reply comments.

This summary may be paginated

separately from the rest of the pleading

(e.g., as ‘‘i, ii’’).

62. Parties are also asked to submit

comments and reply comments on

diskette. Such diskette submissions

would be in addition to and not a

substitute for the formal filing

requirements addressed above. Parties

submitting diskettes should submit

them to Janice Myles of the Common

Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, NW.,

Room 544, Washington, DC 20554. Such

a submission should be on a 3.5 inch

diskette formatted in an IBM compatible

form using MS DOS 5.0 and

WordPerfect 5.1 software. The diskette

should be submitted in ‘‘read only’’

mode. The diskette should be clearly

labelled with the party’s name,

proceeding, type of pleading (comment

or reply comments) and date of

submission. The diskette should be

accompanied by a cover letter.

63. Written comments by the public

on the proposed and/or modified

information collections are due June 11,

1996. Written comments must be

submitted by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/

or modified information collections on

or before 60 days after date of

publication in the Federal Register. In

addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Dorothy

Conway, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the

Internet to dconway@fcc.gov and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725—17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fainllt@al.eop.gov.

VI. Ordering Clauses

64. Accordingly, it is ordered that

pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 222, 275, and

303(r) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,

154, 222, 275, and 303(r), a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking is hereby

Adopted.

65. It is further ordered that, the

Secretary shall send a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

including the regulatory flexibility

certification, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration, in accordance with

paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

(1981).

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–13329 Filed 5–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96–62; FCC 96–124]

Broadcast Blanketing Interference

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes

consolidation of FCC regulations to

combine the blanketing interference

rules into a new single rule section for

AM, FM, and TV broadcast services.

This rulemaking proceeding also

proposes to amend signal contour

determinations in establishing AM radio

and TV broadcast blanketing areas,

provide detailed clarification of

broadcast licensee’s responsibility in

resolving blanketing interference, and

provide a list of protected and nonprotected devices.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before June 25, 1996 and reply

comments filed on or before July 25,

1996. Written comments by the public
26492 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules

on the proposed and/or modified

information collections are due on or

before June 29, 1996. Written comments

must be submitted by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on the

proposed and/or modified information

collections on or before July 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the information collection contained

herein should be submitted to Dorothy

Conway, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the

Internet to dconway@fcc.gov, and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10234

NEOB, 725—17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fain ll t@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bernard Gorden (202) 418–2190, or

Robert Greenberg (202) 418–2720, Mass

Media Bureau. For additional

information concerning the information

collection contained in the NPRM,

contact Dorothy Conway at (202) 418–

0217, or via the Internet at

dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Information Collection

Notification

The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following proposed and/or continuing

information collections, as required by

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. The NRPM has been

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget for review under Section

3507(d) of the PRA. Comments are

requested concerning (a) whether the

proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the Commission,

including whether the information shall

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of

the Commissions burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information collected and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

OMB Control Number: None.

Title: Proposed Section 73.1630

Blanketing Interference.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: New.

Respondents: Broadcast Licensees.

Number of Respondents: 21,000

Complainants.

Estimated time per response: The

burden ranges from 1 hour to 2 hours.

Annual Burden: 41,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost per Respondent: 0.

Needs and Uses: This rulemaking

proceeding proposes to provide detailed

clarification of the AM, FM, and TV

licensee’s responsibilities in resolving/

eliminating blanketing interference

caused by their individual stations.

Under the current rules (Section 73.88

(AM), Section 73.318 (FM), Section

73.685(d) (TV)), the licensee is

financially responsible for resolving

complaints of interference within one

year of program test authority when

certain conditions are met. After the

first year, a licensee is only required to

provide technical assistance in

determining the cause of the

interference. In this NPRM, we are

proposing to consolidate all blanketing

interference rules under a new Section

73.1630, Blanketing Interference. This

new rule is designed to facilitate the

resolution of broadcast interference

problems and sets forth all

responsibilities of the licensee/

permittee of a broadcast station. For one

year after the broadcast station

commences program tests, the licensee

is financially responsible for resolving

blanketing interference complaints.

After the first year, the licensee is

obligated to provide technical assistance

to resolve complaints of blanketing

interference. The information provided

to complainants will be used to

facilitate the resolution of complaints of

blanketing interference.

This is a synopsis of the

Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rule

Making in MM Docket No. 96–62

adopted March 21, 1996, and released

on April 26, 1996. The complete text of

this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Dockets Branch (Room 230), 1919

M St., NW., Washington, DC, and may

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 2100 M St., NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule

Making

1. This proceeding is initiated, on the

Commission’s own motion, in order to

clarify to what extent broadcast

licensees are responsible for eliminating

blanketing interference caused by their

individual stations. In addition, this

action is taken to refine and specify

methods for determining the

geographical blanketing area. In many

cases, the licensee’s responsibility in

eliminating blanketing interference is

misunderstood by listeners and

broadcasters alike. Thus, the objectives

of this action is intended to remove

confusion and facilitate the resolution of

broadcast blanketing interference

problems.

2. Receivers are designed to operate in

an environment consisting of desired

and undesired signals. As long as the

levels of the signals remain within the

design specifications of the receiver, it

will operate in a predictable manner. If

any of the signals in the environment

exceed the design specifications of the

receiver, the receiver will begin to

operate with unpredictable results. In

addition to broadcast receivers, as

mentioned above, a wide range of

electronic devices can suffer blanketing

interference from the signals of nearby

radio and TV stations. For example, we

are aware of problems with telephone

equipment (including answering

machines, hard-wired, cordless, and

cellular telephones), hi-fi audio

amplifiers, public address systems,

electronic music keyboard instruments,

professional studio and home recording

components, and electronic medical

equipment. Currently, however,

protection of these devices are not the

responsibility of the broadcast licensee.

Blanketing Interference Contours

3. Section 73.88 currently requires

licensees of each AM broadcast station

to satisfy all reasonable complaints of

blanketing interference within the 1 V/

m contour. Unlike the rules for FM,

which define the method of calculating

the blanketing contour, no such method

is specified for AM. Thus, the licensee

may find it convenient to determine the

1 V/m contour by field measurements.

As an alternative, determining the AM

blanketing contour mathematically for a

single tower antenna may result in a

close approximation of the measured

contour. Determination of the AM

blanketing contour from multi-tower

directional antenna arrays, however,

may need to be calculated with nearfield considerations.

4. In continuing to use the current AM

blanketing contour, we propose that for

directional antenna array systems, the

determination of the 1 V/m contour

along each radial direction should be by

actual mathematical vector summation

of the field radiated by each antenna.

Since this approach may require nearfield considerations, we believe that a

more realistic determination of the 1 V/

m contour AM blanketing area would be

reflected with this method. Therefore,

we propose to amend the rules for the

method of calculating the blanketing
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26493

interference contour for AM broadcast

stations as presented under proposed

Section 73.1630(a) below.

5. Because many of the transmitting

antenna signal characteristics and

structural locations are the same for

both FM and television broadcast

stations, we are not aware of any

apparent reason, at this time, not to

utilize for television stations the same

blanketing area contour currently used

for FM stations. Therefore, for

regulatory consistency, we propose to

amend the rules by specifying that the

TV blanketing area be defined by the

115 dBu contour, as presented under

proposed Section 73.1630(b) below.

6. When the 115 dBu contour was

originally proposed for FM blanketing

in BC Docket No. 82–186, most of the

commenters agreed with its use. Now

that the industry has had much

experience with this contour level, we

seek information as to whether it

continues to be an appropriate contour

for defining FM blanketing areas, and

should be extended for defining

television blanketing areas. In addition,

because the 1 V/m contour used for

describing the AM blanketing area was

established at an even earlier period

than the FM blanketing contour, we

seek information as to whether the 1 V/

m contour continues to be an

appropriate contour level in today’s

radiofrequency environment.

Licensee’s Responsibility

7. Under the current rules, which we

propose to continue, the licensee is

financially responsible for resolving

complaints when all three of the

following conditions are met: (1) The

complainant’s affected device is located

inside the station’s blanketing contour;

(2) the complainant filed notice to the

station within the first year of program

test authority; and (3) the interference is

not to electrical devices excluded from

protection by Section 73.318(b). When

these conditions are met, the licensee

must provide effective technical

assistance in determining the cause of

the problem and advising on corrective

measures. Resolution of such blanketing

interference complaints may involve the

installation of electrical or electronic

filters and traps, or the replacement of

the complainants’ affected equipment,

and these efforts are at the licensee’s

expense and without cost to the

complainant. If an otherwise valid

complaint is lodged after the one year

period, the licensee is only required to

provide effective technical assistance in

determining the cause of the problem

and advice on corrective measures; the

licensee is not financially responsible

for any necessary corrective equipment

or measures. If a complainant is located

outside of the blanketing contour area

and files after the one year period or the

complaint involves devices and

equipment excluded from protection,

the licensee has no obligation under our

rules to resolve the interference

problem. However, as noted earlier,

many licensees take voluntary steps to

assist in alleviating the interference to

promote goodwill within the station’s

community.

8. To give broadcast licensees further

detailed guidance in resolving

blanketing interference problems, we

propose to publish in the rules an

outlined summary of the station’s

responsibilities. We propose that the

licensee responsibility will vary

depending on (1) whether or not the

complaint was filed within the first year

of operation, (2) whether the

complainant is located inside or outside

the blanketing contour, and (3) whether

the device experiencing interference is

covered under the blanketing rule.

9. Additionally, we note that in

today’s highly transitory society,

neighborhoods may have many

residents move in after the initial one

year period specified in the rules.

Further, the proliferation of new

communications services and

technology may bring into established

neighborhoods many new devices

subject to blanketing interference.

Therefore, we seek comment on whether

the Commission’s rules should be

modified for situations when blanketing

interference occurs after the one year

period. Further, we seek comment on

whether locations of temporary lodging

or transient residences, e.g., hotels,

university student dormitories, and

rental properties should be subject to

the blanketing rules beyond the one year

limit. In other words, we seek comment

on whether a station’s obligation ends

with that initial group of complainants

that files within one year, or whether

the station’s obligation should extend to

subsequent residents. Further, we seek

comment on whether these types of

cases should be considered on a caseby-case basis.

Effective Technical Assistance

10. Section 73.1630(d) of the

proposed rules states, ‘‘[f]ollowing the

one year period of full financial

obligation to satisfy blanketing

complaints, licensees shall provide

technical information or assistance to

complainants on remedies for

blanketing interference.’’ The rule

requires that a licensee provide

information and assistance sufficiently

specific to enable the complainant to

eliminate all blanketing interference and

not simply that the station attempt to

correct the problems. Effective technical

assistance entails providing specific

details about proper corrective measures

to resolve the blanketing interference.

For example, licensees may provide

complainants with diagrams and

descriptions which explain how and

where to use radiofrequency chokes,

ferrite cores, filters, and/or shielded

cable. In addition, effective technical

assistance also includes the

recommendation on replacement

equipment that would work better in the

high radiofrequency fields. We note that

the licensee may authorize a consultant

or service company to provide this

information or assistance. However,

effective technical assistance is not

rendered merely by referring the

complainant to the equipment

manufacturer.

High Gain Antennas

11. Section 73.318(b) specifies the

conditions under which licensees and

permittees must satisfy complaints of

blanketing interference. It states, in

pertinent part, that ‘‘[t]hese

requirements specifically do not include

interference complaints resulting from

malfunctioning or mistuned receivers,

improperly installed antenna systems,

or the use of high gain antennas or

antenna booster amplifiers.’’ It has been

our experience that high gain antennas

have not been a factor in blanketing

interference problems. Therefore, we

propose to delete reference to high gain

antennas from our blanketing rules and

seek comment accordingly.

Telephone Interference

12. A great number of blanketing

interference complaints are submitted

because of interference to telephones.

The Commission’s blanketing rules,

however, do not currently require

broadcasters to resolve telephone

interference. Hard-wired telephones are

considered non-RF devices under the

current blanketing interference rules

and thus, are excluded from protection

per Section 73.318(b). Cordless

telephones are covered by Part 15 of the

Commission’s rules and thus, Section

15.5(b) states, in pertinent part, that

cordless telephones may not cause

harmful interference and that

interference to cordless telephones

caused by the operation of an

authorized radio station must be

accepted. Portable and mobile cellular

telephones are RF devices licensed

under Part 22, Subpart K, and are

considered as mobile receivers, and

thus, not protected by the current

blanketing interference rules. Because

cell sites are fixed locations, however,
26494 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules

they would be protected from

blanketing interference by the

Commission’s rules.

13. We are concerned about

interference to all telephones and

wireless devices, including interference

that may develop in future PCS and

specialized mobile radio (SMR) systems.

Therefore, we seek specific comment on

the following questions:

a. Should the Commission require

broadcasters to resolve interference to

telephones, either hard-wired or

wireless?

b. If so, to what extent should

broadcast licensees be responsible for

resolving the interference? The

Commission found, while conducting

the telephone interference survey, that

filters are not always reliable in

eliminating residential telephone

interference. Thus, if such filtering

devices are ineffective and licensees are

not required to furnish them, to what

extent should licensees provide other

technical information and assistance?

c. Should the Commission rely on

industry voluntary efforts to implement

interference free design standards for

telephones, or should the Commission

initiate a separate rulemaking

proceeding to consider imposing higher

interference immunity standards for

residential telephones?

d. If voluntary standards for

interference immunity are developed,

should there be any blanketing

requirements for telephones that do not

meet the voluntary standards for

interference free telephones?

Licensee’s Response Time

14. There is currently no criteria for

speed of service for correcting

blanketing interference caused by new

or modified station operation. Based on

case history, many stations have been

slow to respond, i.e., months before a

complaint was acted upon, and often

even further delay before the

interference was finally corrected. There

is also no specific requirement to

maintain records of name, location, type

of complaint, etc. The public inspection

file requirements, however, do specify

that license application engineering

related matters need not be retained

longer than three years in the local

public inspection file. Accordingly, in

that blanketing interference is of

engineering related circumstances, the

Commission expects broadcast licensees

to maintain all letters of such

complaints that are timely filed with the

station per the proposed Section

73.1630. However, in order to establish

a station’s definitive efforts to solve

blanketing interference, should we

require stations to maintain a specific

log for some period of time, such as two

years after new construction or

transmitter modification which would

include name, location, phone number,

date complaint filed, date complaint

resolved, type of complaint, list of

affected equipment (manufacturer’s

name and model number), and what

action it took to resolve the complaint?

And finally, should we require licensees

to respond to complaints within a

specified period such as 10 working

days and to resolve the complaints

within an additional period of time such

as 30 calendar days?

Conclusion

15. In light of the proliferation of

electronic equipment available to

consumers, the increase in the number

of broadcast stations, and our concern

about the effects of blanketing

interference on future wireless

communication systems, we believe that

it is time to revisit the subject of

broadcast blanketing interference. In

addition to proposing amendments to

refine the Commission’s rules and

regulations in this area for broadcast

licensees, this proceeding may stimulate

various related industry manufacturers

to begin to meet the challenge of

producing components that are less

susceptible to blanketing interference.

We are proposing specific rule

amendments in the broadcast services

that primarily clarify our current

requirements. Additionally, we seek

specific comment on the questions

raised, especially those regarding

telephone interference, and the specific

rule amendments proposed below.

Administrative Matters

Ex Parte Rules—Non-Restricted

Proceeding

16. This is a non-restricted notice and

comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex

parte presentations are permitted,

except during the Sunshine Agenda

period, provided they are disclosed as

provided in Commission rules. See

generally 47 CFR §§ 1.1202, 1.1203 and

1.1206(a).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

17. As required by Section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Commission has prepared the following

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) of the expected impact on small

entities of the proposals suggested in

this document. Written public

comments are requested on the IRFA.

These comments must be filed in

accordance with the same filing

deadlines as comments on the rest of the

NPRM, but they must have a separate

and distinct heading designating them

as responses to the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall

send a copy of this Notice of Proposed

Rule Making, including the IRFA, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration in accordance

with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (Public Law No. 96–354,

94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

(1981)).

Reason for Action. This action is

taken in order to clarify to what extent

broadcast licensees are responsible for

eliminating blanketing interference

cause by their individual stations. In

addition, this action is taken to refine

and specify methods for determining the

geographical blanketing area.

Objectives. In many cases, the

licensee’s responsibility in eliminating

blanketing interference is

misunderstood by listeners and

broadcaster alike. Thus, the objectives of

this action is intended to remove

confusion and facilitate the resolution of

broadcast blanketing interference

problems.

Legal Basis. Authority for the actions

proposed in this Notice may be found in

Sections 4 and 303 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154 and 303.

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other

Compliance Requirements. None.

Federal Rules which Overlap,

Duplicate, or Conflict with the Proposed

Rule. None.

Description, Potential Impact and

Number of Small Entities Involved.

None.

Any Significant Alternatives

Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities

and Consistent with the Stated

Objectives. There are none apparent.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Analysis

18. This NPRM contains either a

proposed or modified information

collection. As part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we

invite the general public and the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) to

take this opportunity to comment on the

information collections contained in

this NPRM, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law No. 104–13. Public and

agency comments are due June 25, 1996,

OMB comments are due July 29, 1996.

Comments should address: (a) whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the Commission,

including whether the information shall

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of

the Commission’s burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26495

clarity of the information collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Comment Information

19. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of

the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR

§§ 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties

may file comments on or before June 25,

1996 and reply comments on or before

July 25, 1996. To file formally in this

proceeding, you must file an original

plus five copies of all comments, reply

comments, and supporting comments. If

you want each Commissioner to receive

a personal copy of your comments, you

must file an original plus nine copies.

You should send comments and reply

comments to Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting, Television

broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Rule Changes

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for Part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334.

§ 73.88 [Removed]

2. Sections 73.88 is removed.

§ 73.318 [Removed]

3. Section 73.318 is removed.

4. Section 73.685 is amended by

revising paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

§ 73.685 Transmitter location and antenna

system.

* * * * *

(d) (See Section 73.1630 concerning

blanketing interference)

* * * * *

5. A new Section 73.1630 is added to

Subpart H to read as follows:

§ 73.1630 Blanketing interference.

(a) Calculation of the Blanketing

Interference Contour for AM Stations.

Areas adjacent to the transmitting

antenna that receive a signal with a

strength of 1 V/m or greater will be

assumed to be blanketed. The

determination of the location of the 1 V/

m contour along a radial shall be by

actual field strength measurement or by

iterative vector summation of the field

radiated by each antenna until the 1 V/

m contour is located. The distance from

each tower to the point at which the

fields are being summed, shall be

calculated using the Cosine Law with

the distance from the tower to the array

reference point being one side, the

distance to the point of summation from

the reference point being the second

side and the angle between the two

sides being the included angle. The field

radiated by each tower is attenuated

using only inverse distance attenuation

and the phase of the field component

from each tower shall be taken as the

phase of the current at the tower’s

current loop minus the space phase

from the tower to the point of

summation.

Note to paragraph (a): If dn is the distance

from the reference point to the point of

summation, sn the distance from the

reference point to the tower n, and Φn the

included angle, the distance Dn, from tower

n, is given by Dn = (dn

2 + sn2 ¥2dnsncos(Φ ))1⁄2.

The Field θ, a vector quantity, is given by θ

= Σ θn/Dn where θn is the field radiated by

tower n and Dn is the distance from tower n.

(b) Calculation of the Blanketing

Interference Contour for FM and TV

Stations. Areas adjacent to the

transmitting antenna that receive a

signal with a strength of 115 dBu (562

mV/m) or greater will be assumed to be

blanketed. In determining the blanketed

area, the 115 dBu contour is determined

by calculating the inverse distance field

using the effective radiated power of the

maximum radiated lobe of the antenna

without considering its vertical

radiation pattern or height. For

directional antennas, the effective

radiated power in the pertinent bearing

shall be used. The distance to the 115

dBu contour is determined using the

following equation:

D (in kilometers) = 0.394√P

D (in miles) = 0.245√P

Where P is the maximum effective

radiated power (ERP), measured in

kilowatts, of the maximum radiated

lobe.

(c) After January 1, 1997, permittees

or licensees who either commence

program tests, replace their antennas, or

request facilities modifications and are

issued a new construction permit must

satisfy all complaints of blanketing

interference which are received by the

station during a one year period. The

period begins with the commencement

of program test, or commencement of

programming utilizing the new antenna.

Resolution of complaints shall be at no

cost to the complainant. These

requirements specifically do not include

interference complaints resulting from

malfunctioning or mistuned receivers,

improperly installed antenna systems,

or the use of antenna booster amplifiers.

Mobile receivers and non-RF devices

such as tape recorders or hi-fi amplifiers

(phonographs) are also excluded. (See

the Appendix to § 73.1630 for covered

devices and non-covered devices.)

(d) A permittee collocating with one

or more existing stations and beginning

program tests on or after January 1,

1997, must assume full financial

responsibility for remedying new

complaints of blanketing interference

for a period of one year. Two or more

permittees that concurrently collocate

on or after January 1, 1997, shall assume

shared responsibility for remedying

blanketing complaints within the

blanketing area unless an offending

station can be readily determined and

then that station shall assume full

financial responsibility.

(e) Following the one year period of

full financial obligation to satisfy

blanketing complaints, licensees shall

provide technical information or

assistance to complainants on remedies

for blanketing interference.

(f) A summary of the station’s

responsibilities are as follows:

(1) Complainant Within the

Blanketing Contour.

(i) Complaint Received Within First

Year of Operation—Paragraph (c) of this

section.

(A) DEVICES COVERED UNDER

Section 73.1630—Licensee/permittee is

financially responsible for resolving

interference complaints.

(B) DEVICES NOT COVERED UNDER

Section 73.1630—Licensee/permittee is

not financially responsible for resolving

interference complaints.

(ii) Complaint Received After First

Year of Operation—Paragraph (e) of this

section.

(A) DEVICES COVERED UNDER

Section 73.1630—Licensee/permittee is

not financially responsible for resolving

interference complaints. Licensee/

permittee is required to provide

technical assistance to complainants.

This entails the providing of

information on the cause of the

interference and also providing

information on proper corrective

measures.
26496 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules

(B) DEVICES NOT COVERED UNDER

Section 73.1630—Same as paragraph

(f)(1)(i)(B) of this section.

(2) Complainant Outside the

Blanketing Contour.

(i) Complaint Received Within First

Year of Operation—Paragraph (c) of this

section.

(A) DEVICES COVERED UNDER

Section 73.1630—Licensee/permittee is

not financially responsible for resolving

interference complaints. However, the

licensee/permittee is expected to

cooperate with complainants by

providing technical assistance in

determining the cause of the problem

and providing advice on corrective

measures.

(B) DEVICES NOT COVERED UNDER

Section 73.1630—Same as paragraph

(f)(1)(i)(B) of this section.

(ii) Complaint Received After First

Year of Operation—Paragraph (e) of this

section.

(A) DEVICES COVERED UNDER

Section 73.1630—Same as paragraph

(f)(1)(i)(B) of this section.

(B) DEVICES NOT COVERED UNDER

Section 73.1630—Same as paragraph

(f)(1)(i)(B) of this section.

Appendix to § 73.1630—Covered and

Non-Covered Devices

I. Devices Covered Under 47 CFR § 73.1630

Receivers, Tuners, and RF Amplifiers

—Radio (stationary or portable)

—TV (stationary or portable)

—Satellite TV

—VCR

—Cable TV head-end

—Fixed radio sites for cellular systems,

private radio services, SMR and PCS

systems.

II. Devices Not Covered Under 47 CFR

§ 73.1630

—Malfunctioning or mistuned receivers

—Improperly installed antenna systems

—Antenna booster amplifiers

—Mobile receivers and non-RF devices

such as:

—Mobile receivers (i.e. Walkman or

Watchman)

—Car radios

—Musical instrument amplifiers

—All Telephones (including hard-wired,

cordless, mobile or pocket cellular or

PCS)

—Answering machines

—Digital or Analog tape recorders

—CD players

—Phonographs

—Computers

III. Definitions

Mobile Receivers—Devices that do not

remain in one fixed location. These devices

are excluded due to their inherently transient

nature.

Portable Receivers—Capable of being

carried, whether operating by electric cord or

batteries.

Note: Not all portable receivers are

operated in the mobile mode.

[FR Doc. 96–12946 Filed 5–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Chapter 1

Federal Acquisition Regulation;

Elimination of Nonstatutory

Certifications

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD),

General Services Administration (GSA),

and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Agenda for public meeting.

SUMMARY: By Federal Register notice

dated May 14, 1996 (61 FR 24263), the

Administrator for Federal Procurement

Policy and the Federal Acquisition

Regulatory Council announced a public

meeting to discuss implementation of

Section 4301(b) for the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996

(Public Law 104). The notice stated that

there would be an interactive meeting

between the Federal Acquisition

Regulatory Council, other Government

representatives (from the procurement,

legal and Inspector General

communities), and industry. The

purpose of this notice is to provide a

sample of the types of issues/questions

that will be posed for discussion and to

solicit additional questions/issues from

the public. Suggestions thus far include:

1. What are the requirements of

Section 4301(b) of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996

(Public Law 104–106)?

2. What role do certifications required

in the FAR play in the Federal

procurement process? Is this role one

that should be preserved or

discontinued? Why?

3. What are the positive aspects of

FAR certification requirements? What

concerns or issues, if any, do they create

for Government? What concerns or

issues, if any, do they create for offerors/

contractors?

4. What are the negative aspects of

FAR certification requirements? What

concerns or issues, if any, do they create

for Government? What concerns or

issues, if any, do they create for offerors/

contractors?

5. Do FAR requirements for prime

Government contractors to include

certification requirements in their

subcontract provide benefits for

Government or for offerors/contractors?

Do such requirements create concerns or

issues for Government or offerors/

contractors?

6. Identify any existing FAR

certification requirements that are

especially burdensome to offerors/

contractors. Describe the nature of the

burden, and indicate whether or not any

benefit derived from the requirement

outweighs the burden.

7. In implementing the requirements

of Section 4301, what criteria should be

used to determine whether or not a

particular certification, other than those

mandated by statute, should be retained

or deleted?

8. Do the FAR certification

requirements affect whether or not

commercial firms, or commercial

divisions of firms, are interested in

selling supplies or services to the

Government? Why or why not?

9. If the FAR certification

requirements do provide a benefit to the

Federal procurement process that is

worth preserving, is there an alternative

means by which the same benefit can be

provided?

10. Do certifications promote socially

useful efforts by companies to assure

that they are in compliance with the

law? How useful are these certifications

in ensuring the integrity of the

procurement process?

11. How should we view the

suggestion that certifications make it

easier to prosecute cases against those

the Government suspects of criminal

wrongdoing? Do certifications make it

‘‘too easy’’ for the Government to win,

or does it allow the Government to

overcome the proof of burden that

would otherwise be almost impossible

to meet?

DATES: The public meeting will be

conducted at the address shown below

from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern

daylight time, on June 3, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the White House Conference Center,

Truman Room, 726 Jackson Place, NW,

Washington, DC 20503. Suggestions for

other questions/issues should be sent

prior to the meeting to Mike Mutty,

Defense Acquisition Regulations

Council, PDUSD (A&T) DP(DAR), IMD

3D129, 3062 Defense Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20301–3062, or by FAX

to (703) 602–0350.