Source: http://www.fcc.gov/print/node/56156
Timestamp: 2014-07-12 07:41:18
Document Index: 322776542

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 90', 'art 24', 'art 1', 'art 90', 'arts 2', 'art 90', 'art 1', 'art 73', 'art 22', 'art 90', 'art 15', 'art 17', 'art 1', 'art 17', 'art 1', 'art 101']

FCC Updates AM Directional Antenna Performance Verification Rules
An Inquiry Into the Commission's Policies and )
Rules Regarding AM Radio Service Directional )
THIRD REPORT AND ORDER AND SECOND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 2III. THIRD REPORT AND ORDER ........................................................................................................... 3IV. SECOND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION .................................................................................. 23V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 25VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS................................................................................................................ 26
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis .............................................................................................. 26B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis............................................................................................... 27C. Congressional Review Act............................................................................................................. 29D. Additional Information .................................................................................................................. 30
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES...................................................................................................................... 31APPENDIX A - List of CommentersAPPENDIX B - Final RulesAPPENDIX C - Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis I.
In this Third Report and Order, we further our initiative to simplify the Media Bureau's licensing procedures. This Order harmonizes and streamlines the Commission's rules regarding tower construction near AM stations in two respects. First, the Order establishes a single protection scheme for tower construction and modification near AM tower arrays. Second, the Order designates "moment method" computer modeling as the principal means of determining whether a nearby tower affects an AM radiation pattern. These actions take another step in the Commission's modernization by replacing time-consuming direct measurement procedures with an efficient computer modeling methodology that is reflective of current industry practice.
This proceeding is part of a longstanding effort to implement efficiencies in broadcast licensing procedures.1 The Report and Order in this proceeding simplified traditional proof of performance requirements for directional AM stations.2 The Further Notice sought comment on the use of moment method modeling as a more efficient substitute for traditional directional AM station field strength proofs, which can be time-consuming and expensive.3 The Second Report and Order further reduced the regulatory burdens on AM broadcasters by permitting the use of moment method modeling to verify AM directional antenna performance.4 The Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sought additional comment on whether to modify the rules regarding the obligation to protect AM stations from the effects of nearby tower construction and modification. It proposed to replace the current scheme, which is based on the service of the proposed tower user, with uniform rules that would apply to all services and to permit the use of moment method modeling to assess the effects of tower construction or modification near AM stations.5 III.
Background. 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. 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 27.63.6 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 (Private Land Mobile Radio Services) and Part 24 (Personal Communications Services), entirely lack provisions for protecting AM stations from possible effects of nearby tower construction. 4.
The Commission's longstanding "newcomer" policy mandates that a newcomer (i.e., a party constructing a new or modified facility) is responsible, financially or otherwise, for taking steps necessary to eliminate objectionable interference to existing stations.7 This policy has been applied to a 1 See, e.g., 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules, and Processes, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 23056 (1998).2 See An Inquiry Into the Commission's Policies and Rules Regarding AM Radio Service Directional AntennaPerformance Verification, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 16 FCC Rcd 5635 (2001)("Report and Order" or "Further Notice"). An antenna proof of performance establishes whether the radiation pattern of an AM station is in compliance with 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. 3 See Further Notice, 16 FCC Rcd at 5637. Directional AM stations may use either moment method modeling or the traditional method based on field strength measurements to demonstrate that an AM antenna pattern is properly adjusted. 4 See An Inquiry Into the Commission's Policies and Rules Regarding AM Radio Service Directional AntennaPerformance Verification, Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 23 FCC Rcd 14267 (2008) ("Second Report and Order" or "Second Further Notice").5 See Second Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 14272.6 47 C.F.R. 73.1692, 22.371, and 27.63.7 The "newcomer" policy dates back to Midnight Sun Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC 1119 (1947), in which the Commission held a broadcaster responsible for resolving interference caused by its new facilities to other preexisting facilities in close proximity. The Commission does not require a specific rule or express condition on a construction permit to apply the newcomer policy. See, e.g., Athens Broadcasting Co., Inc., (continued....)
variety of services.8 Despite this underlying remediation policy, the absence of explicit rules across all services with respect to tower construction near AM tower arrays9 has led to confusion among tower proponents with respect to the proper procedures to protect nearby AM stations and, therefore, inconsistent protection to the affected AM stations.10 Uniform rules for all services will mitigate confusion and ensure consistent protection to AM stations. 5.
The Second Further Notice tentatively concluded that the issue of tower construction or modification near AM stations should be addressed by a single set of rules applying to all tower construction and sought comment on proposed new rules which would appear in Part 1 of the Commission's Rules.11 The new rules are based on proposals by 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"). The Coalition's members include 24 broadcast licensees, among them the largest group owners, and ten broadcast consulting firms. The Coalition's proposal to consolidate AM proximity rules was also supported by PCIA--the Wireless (Continued from previous page) Memorandum Opinion and Order, 68 FCC 2d 920 (1978) (requiring a newcomer AM radio permittee to remediate any damaging interference caused to a previously authorized CATV headend tower); B&W Truck Service, Letter, 15 FCC 2d 769 (1968) (ordering a Part 90 licensee to dismantle or detune its tower due to interference to a preexisting AM station); Broadcast Corporation of Georgia, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 91 FCC 2d 854 (1982) (finding that a new television station "as the `newcomer' has the responsibility to implement effective measures to rectify the interference caused to other authorized and existing services by its operations" and bears the "burden of correcting the interference, financial and otherwise"). 8 See, e.g., Amendment of Parts 2, 22 and 90 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 91 FCC 2d 1214, 1223 (1982) (noting the applicability of the newcomer interference policy to Part 90 stations and explaining "in resolving interference complaints, if cooperation does not work, we will require the `last person-in' to correct the interference problem); Amendment to Part 1, 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12781 (1999) (explaining that interference rights within MDS and ITFS services are based on a "first in time, first in right" philosophy); Sudbrink Broadcasting of Georgia, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 65 FCC 2d 691, 692 (1977) (clarifying that in interference disputes between two broadcast stations "[i]t is clear that the `newcomer' is responsible, financially or otherwise, for taking whatever steps may be necessary to eliminate objectionable interference."); 47 C.F.R. 74.703(d) ( "When a low power TV or TV translator station causes interference to a CATV [cable] system ... the earlier user, whether cable system or low power TV or TV translator station, will be given priority on the channel, and the later user will be responsible for correction of the interference"); 47 C.F.R. 101.105 (establishing interference protection criteria under which fixed microwave services must protect existing or previously applied for systems).9 As we discuss below, the Commission's rules contained some explicit but dissimilar requirements that certain licensees must follow to protect AM stations from the effects of nearby tower construction, whereas other licensees do not have to follow specific requirements to protect AM stations. See infra, note 68 and accompanying text.10 See, e.g., Amendments to Part 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Certain Changes in Broadcast Facilities, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12371, 12394-95 (adopting Section 73.1692 of the Rules and acknowledging the "inconsistent protection to AM radio stations by different services"); Comments of Crawford Broadcasting Company ("Crawford") at 1 (noting that "Part 22 and 27 licensees do a reasonably good job of protecting nearby AM antennas," but finding that "Part 90 and Part 15 licensees often construct or modify antenna structures close to AM antenna sites without making any notification"). 11 The existing rules (Sections 73.1692, 22.371, and 27.63) apply to all towers within the specified distances of an AM station; the rules are not restricted to towers requiring registration. Similarly, the Commission proposed new rules that would apply to the construction of all communications towers within specified parameters, not just towers requiring notice to the Federal Aviation Administration and tower registration under Part 17. Accordingly, the Commission proposed that any new rules adopted should appear in Part 1 of our Rules, not Part 17, as initially proposed by the Joint Commenters. 3
Infrastructure Association ( "PCIA"), the Land Mobile Communications Council ("LMCC"), the Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. ("WCA"), and most commenters.
Existing Commission rules require licensees and permittees to notify AM stations and take appropriate action when a tower is constructed within a fixed distance of an AM station. In contrast, the Second Further Notice proposed to replace this approach with one that defines the critical distance from both nondirectional (single antenna) and directional (multiple antennas) AM stations based on the pertinent AM station's frequency and the proponent's tower height.12 The proposed rules would require a party proposing to construct a new tower or significantly modify13 an existing tower within the pertinent critical distance to provide notice to the AM station at least 30 days prior to the planned commencement of construction. Such party would be responsible for the installation and maintenance of any detuning apparatus necessary to restore the AM station's radiation pattern. The proposed rules would designate moment method modeling14 as the principal means of determining whether a nearby tower affects an AM pattern. The rules would, however, allow traditional "partial proof" measurements15 taken before and after tower construction as an alternative procedure when the potentially affected AM station was licensed pursuant to field strength measurements, as opposed to computer modeling. The proposed rules would eliminate short towers from consideration16 and would exclude many routine cases in which antennas are added to existing towers. However, the proposed rules would permit an AM station to show that tower construction or modification not otherwise subject to these notice and remediation requirements had affected AM station operations and would authorize the Commission, if necessary, to direct a tower proponent17 or owner to install and maintain any detuning apparatus18 necessary to restore proper operation of the AM antenna.
Nearly all commenters support the proposed rules with minor revisions.19 In joint comments, the Coalition, LMCC, and WCA ("Joint Commenters") state that the new rules "will clarify the proper procedures for ascertaining the impact of nearby construction activities on AM stations, and 12 The critical distance for non-directional AM stations is one wavelength at the frequency of the AM station. The critical distance for directional AMs is any distance less than ten wavelengths of the frequency of the AM station up to a maximum distance of three kilometers, as specified in existing rules for certain wireless licensees. 13 Section 1.30002(d) defines a significant modification as follows: "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 tower's physical height by 5 electrical degrees or more at the AM frequency; or (2) the addition or replacement of one or more antennas or transmission lines on a tower that has been detuned or base-insulated." See Appendix B hereto. 14 Moment method modeling is a computer modeling technique that can be used to verify that an AM directional antenna performs as authorized. 15 Partial proofs, which require fewer measurements than a full proof, are occasionally necessary to show that an AM array continues to operate properly. Partial proof of performance measurements, using the procedures described in Section 73.154 of the Commission's Rules, 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. 16 Short towers are subject to the current rules. See 47 C.F.R. 73.1692, 22.371, and 27.63. 17 As defined by our new rules, tower proponent refers to a "party proposing tower construction or significant modification of an existing tower or proposing installation of an antenna on an AM tower." See Appendix B (adopting new rule 47 C.F.R. 1.30001(c)).18 A detuning apparatus is used to minimize reradiation of the AM signal, thus correcting distortion of the AM station's antenna pattern.19 See, e.g., Comments of the National Association of Broadcasters ("NAB") at 2; Comments of Crawford at 1; Comments of Waterford Consultants, LLC (Waterford") at 2.
will reduce both the time and expense associated with performing that analysis."20 The Joint Commenters suggest several minor changes to the proposed rules. PCIA also expresses substantial support for the proposed rules, stating that "with a few minor clarifications, the Commission's new process as consolidated in Part 1 of the Commission's Rules will provide helpful guidance for those involved with tower construction."21 Greater Media, Inc., while supporting the concept of a consolidated set of rules, expresses reservations regarding the use of moment method analysis by tower owners or proponents of tower construction to assess the effects of a tower on directional AM stations licensed pursuant to a proof based on field strength measurements.22 Greater Media proposes more substantial revisions to the proposed rules. We address these matters below.
Discussion. In the Second Further Notice the Commission requested comment on the proposal to adopt a uniform set of rules applicable to all services,23 the use of moment method modeling to assess the effects of tower construction or modification near AM stations, as well as 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, the Commission sought comment on: (1) the proposed exclusion of short towers and antenna structures mounted on buildings from AM proximity analysis; (2) the proper notification procedures to AM stations regarding nearby tower construction; (3) a rule provision to cover circumstances that would be otherwise excluded from the new rules;24 (4) the structures subject to the new rules; and (5) the proposed application of the new rules to towers constructed or substantially modified after the rules' effective date. 9.
Threshold Heights and Exclusion of Building-Mounted Antennas. The proposed rules
excluded short towers from AM proximity analysis on the grounds that such towers are inefficient re-radiators that would not generally affect an AM pattern. Most commenters agree with the proposed threshold heights of 36 electrical degrees for a directional antenna and 60 electrical degrees for a non-directional antenna.25 Two commenters, however, propose lower threshold heights. Greater Media urges the Commission to reduce the non-directional antenna threshold height from 60 to 36 electrical degrees and adopt a more stringent 1 decibel (dB) pattern distortion threshold.26 Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C. ("CDE") recommends that a 20 degree electrical height be used in lieu of the 36 electrical degree height proposed for directional antennas.27 These commenters, however, offer no analytical support for their alternative proposals. In contrast, our threshold height limits are premised on extensive staff modeling studies and modeling studies previously submitted by the Association of Federal Communications 20See Joint Comments of AM Performance Directional Antenna Performance Verification Coalition, the Land Mobile Communications Council, and the Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. ("Joint Comments") at (i).21 See Reply Comments of PCIA at 1.22 See Comments of Greater Media, Inc. ("Greater Media") at 4.23 See New Section 1.30000 of the Rules.24 For example, a short tower that would be otherwise excluded from study under the new rules could potentiallyaffect the operation of an AM station if it is very close to the AM antenna. There may also be unusual circumstances in which tower construction outside the proposed distances may affect an AM pattern.25 See, e.g., Joint Comments at 3; Comments of Crawford at 1. 26 Comments of Greater Media at 2-3 (asserting that "it is well established in the industry that nondirectional structures in such close proximity to an antenna array can be very highly illuminated and thus have a high potential for significant rerediation"). 27 Comments of CDE at 2 (explaining that the "firm found it necessary to detune a structure who possessed an electrical height of about 25 degrees in a field of 100 mV/m"). 5
Consulting Engineers.28 The Commission's proposed 2 dB pattern distortion threshold, which was supported by the majority of commenters, is the criterion utilized in assessing the circularity of a nondirectional pattern in other broadcast services.29 Accordingly, we adopt the 2 dB pattern distortion threshold and the threshold heights of 36 electrical degrees for a directional antenna and 60 electrical degrees for a non-directional antenna, and therefore, exclude shorter towers from consideration. 10.
Similarly, the proposed rules excluded all antenna structures mounted on buildings from AM proximity analysis. The Joint Commenters, while agreeing in substance with the exclusion of building-mounted antennas, suggest a modification of the proposed rule. The Joint Commenters warn that, in some cases, buildings may support towers tall enough to be significant re-radiators at an AM frequency. According to the Joint Commenters, "[s]ignificant tower structures can be mounted on buildings, and [we] are aware of several instances where the height of a microwave or other type of tower actually exceeds the height of the building on which the tower is mounted."30 Therefore, the Joint Commenters suggest that the new rules should apply to any tower that would increase "the overall physical height of a building by more than 10 electrical degrees."31 We acknowledge the Joint Commenters' concern regarding taller towers atop buildings, and we agree that the proposed categorical exemption of all antennas mounted on buildings is overly broad, and therefore, could potentially expose AM stations to adverse pattern distortions. We believe, however, that the criterion of 10 electrical degrees is not a practical solution because: (1) it is difficult, if not infeasible, to predict and accurately measure re-radiation from a building; and (2) it is impossible to detune a building and similarly, impossible to detune the combination of a building and a tower. Accordingly, because it is not feasible to analyze the combined effects of the building and tower, we believe that it is more appropriate to consider the potential effects of a tower separately from any building on which it is mounted. We therefore revise the rule to exclude most antenna structures atop buildings, except where the antenna structure alone would be a significant re-radiator as defined in Section 1.30002(a) or (b).32
Notification. Commenters were divided on the provisions of the proposed rules requiring
30 days' prior notice of tower construction, including significant tower modifications, to a nearby AM station.33 Greater Media considers the proposed 30-day notice period too short, advocating instead for a 120-day notice period.34 PCIA prefers that the rules require no minimum notice when tower construction is deemed not to affect the AM pattern. Alternatively, PCIA supports procedures for expedited notice to reduce delays.35 The Joint Commenters support the 30-day notice proposal, but also suggest procedures for expedited notice of tower construction, citing similar provisions in the Commission's rules governing 28 See Comments of the Association of Federal Communications Commission Engineers, Docket No. 93-177 (July 24, 2007) at 16-19.29 A nondirectional antenna produces a circular radiation pattern, i.e., the same radiation value in every direction from the antenna. The +/-2 dB circularity is a routine specification for VHF and UHF non-directional patterns.30 See Joint Comments at 4.31 Id. at 5. As defined in our new rules, a tower height in electrical degrees is equal to [(Tower height in meters)/AM wavelength in meters)] x 360 degrees. See Appendix B (adopting new rule 47 C.F.R. 1.30001(b)).32 See Appendix B, Section 1.30002(e) of the new Rules. We have also revised Section 1.30003(b) of the proposed rules ("Installations on a directional AM array"), which is an updated version of Section 73.1692(a) and (b) of the Commission's Rules. The rule has been updated to reflect our experience with the new moment method proofs, Section 73.151(c), adopted earlier in this proceeding. 33 See Section 1.30002(a) and (b) of the new Rules.34 See Comments of Greater Media at 4.35 See Comments of PCIA at 2. 6
fixed microwave services in Part 101.36 Further, the Joint Commenters recommend that the rules incorporate a narrow exception to the prior notice requirement to address "urgent but temporary needs in the event of an emergency situation."37 Finally, the Joint Commenters propose that the rules include detailed notification procedures, explicitly listing the information to be included in the notice, such as a physical description of the planned construction, and adding a requirement for a response by the affected AM station.38 We agree with the Joint Commenters' proposals, and accordingly, adopt the 30-day notification period, with the addition of specific notification procedures, requests for expedited notice, and an emergency exception.39 We believe this represents a reasonable compromise between the competing proposals. A 30-day notification period, in lieu of the 120-day period proposed by Greater Media, will minimize unnecessary deployment delays. The detailed notification procedures will enable AM stations to effectively assess the impact of the proposed construction within the shorter 30-day period. Finally, the expedited notice process we adopt should allay PCIA's concerns and reduceconstruction delays.40 We believe these new notification procedures, which are based on existing Commission rules,41 will reduce the potential for disputes, provide adequate notice to AM licensees, and enable affected AM licensees to more easily verify the proponent's analysis without unnecessary duplication of work.
The Commission also sought comment on the point in the AM licensing process at which
the notification procedures should apply. Specifically, the Second Further Notice asked whether a tower proponent should be required to notify the permittee of an unconstructed AM station, or whether notification procedures should apply only when the AM station is licensed or operating pursuant to Program Test Authority (PTA) prior to construction of the nearby structure. In the absence of any comments on this issue, we will apply the notification procedures to AM stations that are licensed or operating pursuant to PTA. We will not require a tower proponent to notify the permittee of an unconstructed AM station. Because the facilities authorized by AM station construction permits often remain unconstructed when the permit expires or the permits are modified before the authorized facilitiesare constructed, we believe it would be unproductive to require tower proponents to analyze and protect unconstructed AM facilities. Moreover, because both the field strength measurements described in 36 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R 101.103(d)(2). The Joint Commenters recommend that if the tower proponent delivers a notice of construction that is identified as "expedited," the proponent would then be permitted to commence construction upon receipt from the potentially affected AM station licensee of either a written concurrence to the construction project, or a verbal concurrence that is followed by a written concurrence. See Joint Comments at 6.37 Joint Commenters Reply Comments at 6. In emergency situations involving essential public services, public health, or public welfare, the Joint Commenters propose that a tower proponent should be permitted to erect a temporary new tower or make a temporary significant modification to an existing tower without prior notice to potentially affected AM stations, provided that the tower proponent provides written notice to such AM stations within five days of the erection or modification of the tower and cooperates with such AM stations to promptly remedy any pattern distortions that arise as a consequence of such construction. 38 See Joint Comments at 6. The Joint Commenters recommend that the new rules specify that construction notices should be in writing, and that such notices include: (1) the coordinates of the tower to be constructed or modified; (2) a physical description of the planned construction; and (3) the results of the analysis showing the predicted effect on the AM pattern, if performed.39 See Appendix B (adopting new rule 47 C.F.R. 1.30004(d) and (e))40 See PCIA Reply Comments at 3 (acknowledging that an expedited notice process "would permit the rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure").41 New Section 1.30004 ("Notice of tower construction or modification near AM sta