Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 212 / Friday, November 3, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 51161 

1 82 FR 16093 (Mar. 28, 2017). 

guidance documents, policies, and any 

other similar agency actions 

(collectively, ‘‘agency actions’’) that 

potentially burden the development or 

use of domestically produced energy 

resources[.]’’ 1 The Executive Order also 

orders the EPA to review specific rules. 

As part of E.O. 13783, agencies are to 

develop a report detailing this review 

that includes recommendations for 

reducing unnecessary regulatory 

burdens. The EPA’s final report is 

available at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/regulatory-reform. 

Dated: October 30, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23988 Filed 11–2–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 13–249; FCC 17–119] 

Revitalization of the AM Radio Service 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document amends 

certain Commission rules applying to 

AM broadcast stations using directional 

antenna arrays. AM directional antenna 

arrays are multiple-tower installations 

designed to direct radio energy 

primarily in certain directions in order 

to avoid interfering with other AM 

broadcast stations. Approximately 40 

percent of all AM broadcasters use 

directional arrays during some part of 

the broadcast day. These rule 

amendments are intended to decrease 

the burdens and expense of installing 

and maintaining directional arrays, 

especially for AM broadcasters using 

Method of Moments (MoM) modeling 

for proofs of performance of their 

directional arrays. 

DATES: Effective December 4, 2017, 

except for the amendments to 47 CFR 

73.151(c)(1)(ix) and (x) and (c)(3), 47 

CFR 73.154(a), and 47 CFR 73.155, 

which contain new or modified 

information collection requirements that 

require approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

and which will become effective after 

the Commission publishes a document 

in the Federal Register announcing 

such approval and the relevant effective 

date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Doyle, Chief, Media Bureau, 

Audio Division, (202) 418–2700 or 

Peter.Doyle@fcc.gov; Thomas Nessinger, 

Senior Counsel, Media Bureau, Audio 

Division, (202) 418–2700 or 

Thomas.Nessinger@fcc.gov. 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Third 

Report and Order (Third R&O), FCC 17– 

119, adopted September 22, 2017, and 

released September 25, 2017. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection and copying during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street 

SW., Room CY–A257, Portals II, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

The Third R&O contains new and 

modified information collection 

requirements subject to the PRA (Pub. L. 

104–13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in 

44 U.S.C. 3501–3520)). It will be 

submitted to the OMB for review under 

section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 

general public, and other Federal 

agencies will be invited to comment on 

the new or modified information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proceeding in a separate Federal 

Register notice. 

Synopsis 

1. In the Third R&O, the Commission 

adopted many of the proposals set forth 

in the Further Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making in this proceeding (FCC 15–142, 

30 FCC Rcd 12145 (2015)) (AMR 

FNPRM). Specifically, the Commission 

modified the partial proof of 

performance rules to reduce the expense 

and burden of such proofs, and made a 

number of changes to the rules and 

policies surrounding Method of 

Moments (MoM) modeling, also to 

reduce burdens on broadcasters using 

AM directional antenna arrays. 

2. Partial proof of performance 

measurements are currently required for 

AM stations using directional antennas 

whenever the licensee has reason to 

believe that the radiated fields may be 

exceeding the limits for which the 

station is authorized. Such 

measurements are also required 

whenever minor directional antenna 

system repairs are made that result in 

certain changes to the station’s licensed 

operating parameters. Some 

commenters, in response to the original 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this 

proceeding (FCC 13–139, 28 FCC Rcd 

15221 (2013)) (AMR NPRM) requested 

that the current rule governing partial 

proof of performance field strength 

measurements for AM directional 

antenna arrays, 47 CFR 73.154, be 

modified to require measurements only 

on radials containing a monitoring 

point. Currently, the rule requires field 

strength measurements on radials from 

the latest complete field strength proof 

of performance that are adjacent to the 

monitored radials, if the array has fewer 

than four monitored radials, in addition 

to measurements on monitored radials. 

Commenters claimed that eliminating 

the requirement to take measurements 

on non-monitored radials will reduce 

the cost to maintain AM directional 

antenna systems without affecting 

authorized service. The Commission 

proposed in the AMR FNPRM to require 

measurements only on radials 

containing a monitoring point. 

3. The Commission adopted the rule 

change as proposed in the AMR 

FNPRM. Many commenters stated that a 

partial proof of performance measuring 

only the monitored radials will 

adequately demonstrate that the 

directional pattern is properly adjusted, 

and would result in cost savings to AM 

broadcasters. Other commenters noted 

that radials containing a monitor point 

provide the best indication of a station’s 

directional pattern condition. Although 

some commenters favored a return to 

the prior rule requiring ten field 

strength measurements along each 

radial containing a monitoring point, 

compared to the current rule requiring 

at least eight such measurements, the 

Commission’s experience showed that 

the eight-point partial proof minimum is 

sufficient to evaluate antenna system 

performance, and that returning to the 

10-point minimum would only increase 

the burden on AM broadcasters in 

exchange for little more in the way of 

useful data. The Commission therefore 

rejected the request to require 10 field 

strength measurements, and adopted 

this rule change as proposed. 

4. Since the Commission first 

permitted MoM computer modeling to 

verify AM directional antenna 

performance, over 220 MoM directional 

antenna proofs of performance have 

been prepared and submitted to the 

Commission in support of AM station 

applications for license. This analysis 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
51162 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 212 / Friday, November 3, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

technique has proven to reliably verify 

directional antenna system performance 

at a much lower cost. Based on this 

experience, in the AMR FNPRM the 

Commission proposed several 

modifications or eliminations of rules 

pertaining to AM directional arrays 

using MoM proofs, intended to improve 

the quality of the MoM proofs and 

eliminate expenses to AM licensees. 

First, 47 CFR 73.155 currently requires 

that an AM station licensed with a 

directional antenna pattern pursuant to 

an MoM proof of performance be recertified at least once within every 24- 

month period, including disconnection 

and calibration of base sampling 

devices. Because of the demonstrated 

reliability of MoM models, the 

Commission proposed in the AMR 

FNPRM to eliminate or modify this 

requirement. The Commission’s review 

of the comments led it to adopt the 

proposal to eliminate the recertification 

requirement, with one exception. 

Commenters favoring the proposal to 

eliminate the recertification rule stated 

that other means could be employed to 

troubleshoot and restore the system to 

its initial condition, and that 

disconnecting and reconnecting 

sampling system components was 

expensive and possibly damaging to the 

components. The Commission found 

that system recertification becomes less 

valuable when the removal of base 

sampling devices is no longer required, 

thus refuting commenters who argued 

for longer recertification intervals but 

without disconnection of such devices. 

Therefore, the Commission agreed with 

those commenters who supported the 

proposal to eliminate the recertification 

requirement altogether. The 

Commission, however, adopted one 

commenter’s suggested change to the 

original proposal: To retain 47 CFR 

73.155 but, rather than prescribing a set 

recertification interval, to require 

recertification only in the case of repair 

to or replacement of affected system 

components, and then only as to the 

repaired or replaced components, such 

recertification to be conducted on such 

component(s) in the same manner as an 

initial certification of the component(s) 

pursuant to the standards set forth in 47 

CFR 73.151(c)(2)(i). 

5. In the AMR FNPRM, the 

Commission proposed to modify the 

requirement for reference field strength 

measurements set forth in 47 CFR 

73.151(c)(3). Currently, when an initial 

license application is submitted for a 

directional antenna system based on 

MoM modeling, reference field strength 

measurements are required. The 

proposed rule change would eliminate 

the need to submit new reference field 

strength measurements with subsequent 

license applications for the same 

directional antenna system and physical 

facilities, while still retaining the 

requirement of initial reference field 

strength measurements, 

notwithstanding commenter suggestions 

that this requirement be eliminated in 

its entirety. Although commenters were 

roughly evenly divided between those 

supporting the proposal and those 

favoring elimination of the requirement 

for reference field strength 

measurements in its entirety, the 

Commission found on balance that the 

original proposal should be adopted, 

stating that at least one, initial set of 

reference measurements provides 

external verification that an AM 

directional array is operating properly, 

while agreeing with commenters that 

the expense of further reference field 

strength measurements should not be 

required on subsequent license 

applications when the antenna pattern 

and physical facilities are unchanged. 

The Commission adopted the proposed 

rule change as set forth in the AMR 

FNPRM. 

6. Section 73.151(c)(1)(ix) of the rules 

(47 CFR 73.151(c)(1)(ix)) requires that a 

station applying for a directional 

antenna array using MoM modeling to 

confirm the antenna pattern must obtain 

a post-construction certificate from a 

licensed surveyor, verifying that the 

towers in the array have the proper 

spacing and orientation. The 

Commission’s Media Bureau clarified 

that a licensed station applying to be relicensed under the MoM rules was 

exempt from the survey requirement 

provided that there was no change in 

the authorized theoretical pattern or 

patterns. A commenter responding to 

the AMR NPRM suggested, and the 

Commission therefore proposed in the 

AMR FNPRM, that the Commission 

exempt from the survey requirement 

any directional antenna pattern on any 

frequency using towers in an authorized 

AM array, as long as the tower geometry 

is not altered and no towers are added 

to the array. The commenter contended 

that such an exemption would 

encourage stations to co-locate on 

existing arrays and provide relief to 

broadcasters that would otherwise have 

difficulty locating sufficient land for 

their own directional arrays. The 

Commission proposed to adopt this 

exemption and, as all but one 

commenter to the AMR FNPRM 

supported the proposal, it adopted the 

proposal as set forth in the AMR 

FNPRM, and modified 47 CFR 

73.151(c)(1)(ix) to codify this 

exemption. 

7. Section 73.151(c)(1)(viii) of the 

rules (47 CFR 73.151(c)(l)(viii)) 

provides: ‘‘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.’’ The Commission proposed 

to clarify that this rule applies only 

when total capacitance used to model 

base region effects exceeds 250 pF and 

should apply only when base current 

sampling is used. No commenters 

opposed this proposal, and therefore the 

Commission adopted it as proposed. 

8. The Commission also posed a set of 

specific inquiries in the AMR FNPRM 

concerning whether to permit use of 

MoM modeling for skirt-fed towers. A 

skirt-fed tower employs a design 

different from that of the more typical 

AM tower. Because the physical 

characteristics of a skirt-fed tower vary 

from those of a traditional monopole, 

and are much more difficult to model, 

skirt-fed towers are excluded from 

computer modeling. Commenters were 

asked whether the Commission and the 

engineering community had gained 

sufficient experience with MoM 

modeling to allow such modeling of 

skirt-fed towers. Some commenters 

stated that such modeling should be 

allowed, while other opined that more 

experience was needed. The 

Commission agreed with commenters 

that stated that more experience was 

necessary before allowing MoM 

modeling of skirt-fed towers, and so 

retained the present limitation on the 

use of MoM modeling to those arrays 

using simple, series-fed towers with 

standard ground systems, excluding 

antenna systems with skirt-fed or 

sectionalized towers, and arrays that use 

non-standard ground systems such as 

those consisting of short, elevated 

radials. The Commission stated that it 

may revisit this conclusion at a later 

date and propose specific standards for 

use in more complex analyses. 

9. The Commission also proposed to 

clarify when new MoM proofs must be 

submitted after antennas were added or 

other changes were made above the base 

of a tower in an AM directional array. 

The Commission adopted this AMR 

FNPRM proposal, noting that Subpart 

BB of its Part 1 rules sets forth 

procedures to be followed when 

Commission authorization holders or 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 212 / Friday, November 3, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 51163 

applicants propose to, among other 

things, add an antenna to an AM tower, 

and specifically that 47 CFR 

1.30003(b)(2) dictates procedures to be 

followed when adding an antenna to a 

tower in an AM directional array when 

the station is licensed via an MoM proof 

of performance, requiring a base 

impedance measurement on the tower 

being modified, and submission of a 

new license application only if the base 

resistance and reactance values exceed 

a specified deviation from those values 

as contained in the last MoM proof. 

Although that rule refers specifically to 

the addition of antennas, the 

Commission agreed with commenters 

and clarified that the rule applies to any 

modification to tower or system 

components above the tower base, 

stating that re-proofing should not be 

needed if a change is made that does not 

affect the modeled values used in the 

license proof. The Commission thus 

modified 47 CFR 73.151(c)(1) to reflect 

the applicability of the 47 CFR 

1.30003(b)(2) procedures in such 

instances. 

10. Finally, the Commission proposed 

to eliminate the requirement, found in 

the conditions attached to a 

construction permit for an AM station, 

that current distribution measurements 

be made when the applicant employs a 

top-loaded antenna, instead permitting 

use of MoM modeling to determine 

antenna characteristics. The 

Commission received no objections to 

this proposal, which will eliminate an 

unnecessary regulatory burden. The 

Commission therefore directed its staff 

to modify the conditions attached to AM 

construction permits accordingly. 

11. The Commission also noted that, 

as part of a Notice of Inquiry set forth 

with the AMR FNPRM, it requested 

comment as to whether the main studio 

requirements, contained in 47 CFR 

73.1125 and in Commission precedent, 

should be relaxed in order to offer relief 

to AM broadcasters. This aspect of the 

Notice of Inquiry, however, has been 

superseded by a new proceeding, MB 

Docket No. 17–106, in which the 

Commission proposed to eliminate the 

main studio requirements for all 

broadcasters. Accordingly, the 

Commission will not further consider 

issues pertaining to main studio 

requirements for AM stations in the AM 

Revitalization proceeding. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

12. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603), an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

was incorporated in the AMR FNPRM 

(30 FCC Rcd 12145, 12202–05 (2015)). 

The Commission sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the AMR 

FNPRM, including comment on the 

IRFA. The Commission received no 

comments on the IRFA. This Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

conforms to the RFA (see 5 U.S.C. 604). 

Need for, and Objectives of, the First 

Report and Order 

13. This Third Report and Order 

(Third R&O) adopts several changes to 

the rules, many of which were first 

suggested by commenters in the initial 

round of commenting in this 

proceeding. First, the Commission 

proposed to modify the rules on 

submission of partial proofs of 

performance of directional AM antenna 

arrays. The current rules require that 

field strength measurements be taken on 

all radials containing a monitoring point 

(a specific location at which regular 

measurements are taken), as well as on 

radials adjacent to monitored radials if 

the array has fewer than four monitored 

radials. The Commission proposed to 

eliminate the second requirement, of 

taking measurements on non-monitored 

radials, in order to ease regulatory 

burdens on and expense to AM 

broadcasters using directional antenna 

arrays. Most commenters concurred 

with the proposal or with slight 

variations to it, with two commenters 

suggesting more stringent analyses of 

such directional antenna arrays. Overall, 

the Commission agreed with most 

commenters that measurement of 

monitored radials is sufficient to verify 

the integrity of the antenna pattern, and 

that dropping the adjacent-radials 

requirement would save broadcasters 

time and expense. The Commission 

therefore adopted the rule change as 

proposed. 

14. The next set of proposed changes 

concerned modifications of rules 

pertaining to Method of Moments 

(MoM) proofs of directional AM antenna 

system performance. The rules provide 

for two methods of verifying the 

performance of a directional AM array. 

The traditional method is by taking field 

strength measurements of the antenna 

pattern. In 2008, the Commission 

promulgated rules for verifying 

directional array performance through 

MoM proofs. An MoM proof allows an 

AM licensee to verify antenna 

performance with MoM software, which 

uses measurements of internal 

parameters in conjunction with a 

physical model of the antenna to 

compute the contribution of each 

antenna element to the directional 

pattern. MoM proofs are thus a less 

expensive alternative to taking field 

strength measurements of the 

directional pattern. In the years since 

the Commission first allowed 

submission of MoM proofs, over 220 

such proofs have been submitted. Based 

on that experience, the Commission 

took note of commenter requests to 

modify some of the rules pertaining to 

MoM analyses in order to make them 

even less burdensome. 

15. The Commission proposed and, 

based on comments, adopted the 

following rule changes: (1) Eliminating 

the requirement for biennial 

recertification of the performance of a 

directional pattern licensed pursuant to 

an MoM proof, except as to any system 

components that have been repaired or 

replaced, under 47 CFR 73.155; (2) 

retaining the requirement for an initial 

set of reference field strength 

measurements, but eliminating the 

requirement to submit further reference 

field strength measurements on 

relicensing, under 47 CFR 73.151(c)(3); 

(3) eliminating the requirement of a 

licensed surveyor’s certification under 

47 CFR 73.151(c)(1)(ix) for relicensing of 

any existing AM station directional 

array, provided that the tower geometry 

is not being modified and no new 

towers are being added to the array; and 

(4) clarifying that the provisions of 47 

CFR 73.151(c)(1)(viii) apply only when 

total capacitance used to model base 

region effects exceeds 250 pF and 

should apply only when base current 

sampling is used. All of these changes 

received support in the record, 

sometimes with variations suggested, 

and were adopted in order to lessen the 

burdens and expense to AM licensees. 

16. Additionally, the Commission 

proposed in the AMR FNPRM to allow 

MoM modeling of skirt-fed towers, but 

based on comments it concluded that 

more experience with modeling such 

towers is needed before allowing and 

promulgating standards for such 

analyses. It did not adopt any new rules 

in this regard. Finally, the Commission 

proposed to codify the standards under 

which a new proof of performance was 

to be filed when adding antennas or 

adding or modifying other system 

components above the base insulator of 

a tower in an AM array. The rules (47 

CFR 1.30003(b)(2)) already provide such 

standards in reference to adding 

antennas to towers. The Third R&O 

adopts a rule section codifying the same 

procedures already set forth in 47 CFR 

1.30003(b)(2) with regard to the addition 

or modification of any system 

components above the base insulator, 

not limited to antennas. This clears up 

any ambiguity regarding whether 

addition or modification of such 

components requires filing new proofs 

of performance with the Commission. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
51164 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 212 / Friday, November 3, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

17. The Commission also released a 

Notice of Inquiry along with the AMR 

FNPRM, in which among other things it 

asked whether its rules for siting and 

staffing an AM station main studio 

should be relaxed. Since release of the 

Notice of Inquiry, however, the 

Commission released a Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making in a new 

proceeding, in which it proposes to 

eliminate main studio rules for all 

broadcast services. (Elimination of Main 

Studio Rule, Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making, MB Docket No. 17–106, 32 FCC 

Rcd 4415 (2017)). Accordingly, in the 

Third R&O the Commission stated that 

it would no longer consider this issue in 

the AM Revitalization proceeding. 

Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

18. There were no comments to the 

IRFA filed. 

Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

19. Pursuant to the Small Business 

Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the 

RFA, the Commission is required to 

respond to any comments filed by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA), and to 

provide a detailed statement of any 

change made to the proposed rules as a 

result of those comments. 5 U.S.C. 

604(a)(3). The Chief Counsel did not file 

any comments in response to the 

proposed rules in this proceeding. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Rules 

Apply 

20. 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. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 

The RFA generally defines the term 

‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

government jurisdiction.’’ 5 U.S.C. 

601(6). In addition, the term ‘‘small 

business’’ has the same meaning as the 

term ‘‘small business concern’’ under 

the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 

A small business concern is one which: 

(1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

15 U.S.C. 632. 

21. The subject rules and policies will 

apply to those AM radio broadcasting 

licensees and potential licensees 

employing directional antenna arrays. A 

radio broadcasting station is an 

establishment primarily engaged in 

broadcasting aural programs by radio to 

the public. 15 U.S.C. 632. Included in 

this industry are commercial, religious, 

educational, and other radio stations. Id. 

Radio broadcasting stations which 

primarily are engaged in radio 

broadcasting and which produce radio 

program materials are similarly 

included. Id. However, radio stations 

that are separate establishments and are 

primarily engaged in producing radio 

program material are classified under 

another NAICS number. Id. The SBA 

has established a small business size 

standard for this category, which is: 

Firms having $38.5 million or less in 

annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS 

code 515112 (updated for inflation in 

2008). According to the BIA/Kelsey, 

MEDIA Access Pro Database on July 27, 

2017, 4,644 (99.94%) of 4,647 AM radio 

stations have revenue of $38.5 million 

or less. Therefore, the majority of such 

entities are small entities. We note, 

however, that, in assessing whether a 

business concern qualifies as small 

under the above definition, business 

(control) affiliations (13 CFR 

121.103(a)(1)) must be included. Our 

estimate, therefore, likely overstates the 

number of small entities that might be 

affected by our action, because the 

revenue figure on which it is based does 

not include or aggregate revenues from 

affiliated companies. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

22. As described, the rule changes 

will not result in substantial increases 

in burdens on applicants, and in fact 

will decrease burdens on many 

applicants. The rule changes adopted in 

the Third R&O do not involve 

application changes, and to the extent 

they affect reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements they reduce those burdens 

by exempting AM broadcasters with 

directional antenna arrays from certain 

field strength measurements; from 

biennial recertification of antenna 

arrays; from filing new proofs of 

performance or surveyor’s reports in 

many cases; and from making current 

distribution measurements. Thus, the 

rule changes adopted in the Third R&O, 

at most, do not change reporting 

requirements, or recordkeeping 

requirements beyond what is already 

required, and in many cases reduce 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for AM broadcasters 

operating with directional antenna 

arrays. The elimination of main studio 

rules for AM stations will also eliminate 

certain reporting requirements, but the 

Commission has indicated that it will 

not consider the elimination of such 

rules further in this proceeding. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Impact of Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

23. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)– 

(c)(4). 

24. The majority of commenters who 

commented on the proposals adopted in 

the Third R&O supported the proposals. 

Some suggested variations on the rule 

changes as proposed; a few rejected the 

proposed changes, some with little 

comment other than to voice their 

opposition. Based on the comments, the 

Commission adopted the proposed 

change to the partial proof of 

performance rules, and six out of seven 

discrete proposals with regard to MoM 

proofs. The Commission concurred with 

those commenters that stated, at some 

length, that the Commission and the 

engineering community did not yet have 

sufficient experience with MoM 

modeling of skirt-fed towers to allow the 

Commission to set forth rules regarding 

such analyses. The Commission also 

changed the proposal regarding 

recertification of an AM station licensed 

with a directional antenna pattern 

pursuant to an MoM proof from that 

originally proposed. While the 

Commission proposed in the AMR 

FNPRM to delete the recertification 

requirement entirely for an AM station 

licensed with a directional antenna 

pattern pursuant to an MoM proof, the 

Commission based on a commenter 

suggestion decided to retain the 

recertification requirement only in the 

case of repair to or replacement of 

affected system components, and then 

only as to those components. In general, 

the Commission favored those 

comments that resulted in relaxed 

regulatory burdens on AM broadcasters, 

to the extent this could be accomplished 

without compromising the technical 

integrity of the AM broadcast service. 

25. Report to Congress. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 212 / Friday, November 3, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 51165 

Third R&O, including this FRFA, in a 

report to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(a). In addition, the 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Third R&O, including the FRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. A copy of the 

Second R&O and FRFA (or summaries 

thereof) will also be published in the 

Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 604(b). 

Ordering Clauses 

26. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, and 307 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 

151, 152, 154(i), 303, and 307, this 

Third Report and Order is adopted. 

27. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority found in Sections 1, 2, 

4(i), 303, and 307 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 

151, 152, 154(i), 303, and 307, the 

Commission’s rules are hereby amended 

as set forth in Appendix A to the Third 

Report and Order. 

28. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Third Report and Order, including 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

29. It is further ordered that the 

Commission shall send a copy of this 

Third Report and Order in a report to be 

sent to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

30. It is further ordered that the rule 

change to 47 CFR 73.151(c)(1)(viii) 

adopted herein will become effective 30 

days after the date of publication in the 

Federal Register. 

31. It is further ordered that the rule 

changes to 47 CFR 73.151(c)(1)(ix), 

73.151(c)(1)(x), 73.151(c)(3), 73.154(a), 

and 73.155, all of which contain new or 

modified information collection 

requirements that require approval by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the PRA, will become 

effective after the Commission publishes 

a notice in the Federal Register 

announcing such approval and the 

relevant effective date. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Communications equipment, Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Final Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 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, 309, 310, 

334, 336, and 339. 

■ 2. Section 73.151 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(1)(viii) and (ix), 

adding paragraph (c)(1)(x), and revising 

paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 73.151 Field strength measurements to 

establish performance of directional 

antennas. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(viii) The shunt capacitance used to 

model the 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. This ‘‘five times’’ 

requirement only applies when the total 

capacitance used to model base region 

effects exceeds 250 pF and when base 

current sampling is used. 

(ix) The orientation and distances 

among the individual antenna towers in 

the array shall be confirmed by a postconstruction 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. Stations 

submitting a moment method proof for 

a pattern using towers that are part of an 

authorized AM array are exempt from 

the requirement to submit a surveyor’s 

certification, provided that the tower 

geometry of the array is not being 

modified and that no new towers are 

being added to the array. 

(x) An AM station that verified the 

performance of its directional antenna 

system using computer modeling and 

sampling system verification under this 

rule section, that makes modifications to 

tower or system components above the 

base insulator, shall follow the 

procedures set forth in section 

1.30003(b)(2) of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

(3) When the application for an initial 

license for a directional antenna system 

is submitted that is based on computer 

modeling and sample system 

verification, reference field strength 

measurement locations shall be 

established in the 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. New 

reference field strength measurements 

are not required for subsequent license 

applications for the same directional 

antenna pattern and physical facilities. 

■ 3. Section 73.154 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 73.154 AM directional antenna partial 

proof of performance measurements. 

(a) A partial proof of performance 

consists of at least 8 field strength 

measurements made on each of the 

radials that includes a monitoring point. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Revise § 73.155 to read as follows: 

§ 73.155 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 the antenna 

monitor sampling system only in the 

case of repair to or replacement of 

affected system components, and then 

only as to the repaired or replaced 

system components. Any recertification 

of repaired or replaced system 

components shall be performed in the 

same manner as an original certification 

of the affected system components 

under § 73.151(c)(2)(i) of this part. The 

results of the recertification 

measurements shall be retained in the 

station’s public inspection file. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23908 Filed 11–2–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES