5 FCC Red No. 15 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 90·136 MM Docket No. 87·267 TABLE OF CONTENTS In the Matter of NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING national and international leaders into our homes, mak ing us witnesses to hisrory. It entertained us. Each night families and friends gathered around the radio and tuned to AM stations to learn of world. national and local events and to hear the latest episode in their favorite radio show. During the last twenty years, however, channel conges tion, interference and low fidelity receivers have taken their tolL dulling the competitive edge of this once vital service. Not surprisingly, once loyal AM listeners have shifted their allegiance to newer mass media services that offer them higher technical quality. 2. As a result of these developments, the once preemi nent AM service is now in critical need of attention. For the past several years the Commission has involved itself in an intensive effort to identify the service's most press ing problems and the sources of and solutions to those problems. In September of last year we challenged broad· casters, radio manufacturers and the listening public to tell us how we could revitalize the AM radio service. In an en bane hearing lasting a full day in November they responded to the challenge. Their response reaffirms our conviction that a concerted effort by this Commission, the broadcasting community and radio manufacturers can re juvenate the AM radio service. In this /'v'olice we set forth our comprehensive strategy to reach this objective. a strat egy requiring coordinated action by both the Commission and the industry. 3. One principal point must be recognized at this junc ture. In developing the proposals contained in this Notice, our focus has been on what measures will, in our judg ment, attain the objective of restoring the AM service rather than on measures that might more directly benefit one or more segments of the industry itself. Therefore. we acknowledge that the actions we propose today will not satisfy those whose primary focus has been on one par ticular segment of the industry. Nevertheless. in this Rule Making weare dealing with no less an issue than the survival of the AM service. In light of that fact, the Commission trusts that those commenters whose interests are not fully realized by these proposals will perceive that we have attempted to balance their individual perspectives and needs with the overarching need to revitalize the AM service as a whole. We will now turn to our specific proposalS. 4 i8 13 26 53 64 Released: July 18, 1990 VI. Consolidation III. History V. Technical Standards VII. Migration to the Expanded Band IV. Associated Rule Makings Il. Goal I. Introduction Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service Paragraph Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Adopted: April 12, 1990; By the Commission: Commissioner Barrett issuing a separate statement. VIII. Receiver Model 96 I. INTRODUCTION 1. This Notice of Proposed Rule i\1aking (Notice) con stitutes the penultimate step toward the achievement of this Commission's overall goal for AM broadcasting - the transformation and revitalization of the AM broadcast service by the year 2000. For the first fifty years since its debut in the 1920's, AM radio's contribution to daily life in America was unquestioned. As our first national me dium of mass communications, AM radio united the na tion in good times and bad. It brought the voices of IX. Other Matters X. Summary and Conclusion XI. Administrative Matters XIl. Ordering Clause 100 105 106 114 II. GOAL 4. To provide specific structures for the revitalization of the AM service we have defined two models. one for the new spectrum between 1605 and 1705 kHz. and a vari· ation for the existing band between 535 and 1605 kHz. These models will serve as two focal points for defining the future of the AM service. Our intention is to encour age and approve those measures which move the service in the direction of the models: similarly, we intend to discourage and disapprove proposals that do not. 5. The model for what has come to be called the expanded band (1605-1705 kHz) enjoys the advantage that it will apply in the spectrum as yet unused by broad casters. Therefore we can select for it those characteristics that are both desirable and immediately attainable. 4381 FCC 90·136 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Red No. 15 Model 1: 1605-1705 kHz o Fulltime operation with stereo modulation o Competitive technical quality o 10 kW daytime power o 1 kW nightime power (more, if circumstances permit) o Non-directional antenna (or simple directional array) o 400-800 kilometers (249-497 miles) separation between co-ehannel stations A model I station should possess a daytime service radius of 56 to 72 kilometers (35 to 45 miles), free from co channel and adjacent channel interference. This service radius will obviously be less during the night depending on actual separations, power and number of operating stations. Station separations will vary depending on geo graphic location. 6. The model for the existing broadcast band. however. must reflect the fact that the band is densely populated with stations having wide variations in p·ower. spacing. antenna patterns and protection from interference. Be cause these and other considerations make it very difficult to define ideal or uniform characteristics. we havese~ lee ted for our second model those attributes toward which the service should aspire as a minimum. Model 11: 535 • 1605 kHz o Fulltime operation with stereo modulation o Competitive technical quality o Daytime coverage - 6400 square kilometers (2500 square miles). free ofco~channeland adjacent channel interference o Nighttime coverage~at least 15% of daytime coverage. free of co-channel and adjacent channel interference o Simplified antenna arrays In both models the term "competitive technical quality" means a level of audible quality that is competitive with FM broadcasting when heard in the typical automobile and home environment. We seek to achieve that quality while preserving and building on AM's distinctive ability to cover large distances without disruptions caused by shadowing and multipath interference. 7. Model I is based on the technical criteria used to develop the allotment plan for the western hemisphere. l The co-channel separation has been increased so as to assure better nighttime service. We anticipate that stations will operate with these parameters. Model II is somewhat reduced to account for a greater density and variety of stations. The expected non-directional service radius is approximately 45 kilometers (28 miles) during the day and 18 kilometers (11 miles) at night. We believe it highly desirable for all stations to attain these values or beller. We seek comment on both of these models, particularly with regard to our inclusion of stereo broadcasting. In the expanded band (Model I), should all stations be required to transmit in stereo or should a commitment to transmit 4382 in stereo be treated as a preference factor? In the existing band (Model 11), should stereo transmissions become mandatory as. a part of any measure to increase service and reduce interference or after a certain number of years? 8. As we endeavor to move toward a model service, we must also deal with the many problems that exist today. Apart from competition from FM broadcasting. AM sta tions must contend with skywave interference, irregular coverage, irregular operating hours, poor receivers and interference from nature and electrical devices. Thesefac~ tors have reduced the attractiveness of AM, as its audience share shows. There is a critical need to restore thetech~ nical and operational integrity of the service. It would disserve the public and lead to further deterioration if we were simply to continue adding new stations. 9. Our comprehensive strategy to move from a troubled to a model service depends on a reduction in the density of stations. The particular plan we have developed calls for the Commission to use three weapons from its regula tory arsenal to attack interference and congestion on AM channels. First, we intend to revise and implement the AM technical standards in such a manner as to achieve a reduction in the interference with which AM broadcasters must contend in their primary service areas. Through a series of discrete Rule Making proceedings, we haveal~ ready begun this task. In this docket, however. we will coordinate the timing and substance of revised technical standards so that they do, in fact, lead to a significantly improved AM service. Second, we intend to give broad casters both the ability and the incentive to use their own initiative to improve AM radio service to the public. Again, we have already begun this effort. In a Report and Order 2 adopted tOday, we authorize licensees to under· take private negotiations to reduce interference among AM stations. To encourage broadcasters to use this tool, we now propose that the Commission issue tax certificates to broadcasters agreeing to reduce interference to co channel or adjacent channel stations. To create an addi tional incentive for licensees to reduce interference, we also propose a limited relaxation- of our multiple- owner ship rules. We propose to permit ownership of AM sta tions with overlapping principal city contours if the licensee agrees to adjust operation of either station to reduce co-channel or adjacent channel interference to other AM broadcasters. 10. A recent international agreement (see paragraph 16, infra), which becomes fully effective in July 1990, has allocated ten additional channels to the domestic AM radio service. This allocation offers us a unique opportu nity to reduce congestion and interference on existing AM channels. It is an opportunity that we intend to seize. Thus. the third step in our plan to improve AM service will be to encourage those AM stations making the most significant contribution to congestion and interference in the existing band to move their operations to one of the new channels. This Notice proposes principles to govern allocation and assignment of these new channels as well as eligibility criteria and preferences designed to achieve this objective. 11. As part of our strategy to improve transmission quality, we will also seek to improve the performance of receivers. In particular, we aim to use the draftrec~ ommendation of the National Radio Systems Committee to define the characteristics of a good quality receiver which we would use to develop standards for improving 5 FCC Rcd No. 15 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 90-136 the AM service. While we would not require radio manu facturers to incorporate these characteristics in their pro ducts, we believe such a model would serve as a useful benchmark for government and industry. 12. We believe the Commission must take each of the steps outlined above if we are to raise the quality and thus the competitive posture of the AM radio service signifi cantly. This Commission action is only the first compo nent of OUf strategy to restore AM radio's competitive edge. For OUf strategy to succeed, both AM broadcasters and radio manufacturers must make a commitment to take those actions within their power to meet the pUblic demand for a technically superior service. The en bane hearing has convinced us that each is ready to make that commitment. For this reason we are confident thaL work ing together, this Commission and the industry can create a revitalized AM service. a service of superior technical quality that can meet fully the communications needs of the American public as we enter the twenty-first century. Ill. HISTORY 13. DOmeSlic. On April 3, 1986. the Mass Media Bureau released a repon examining many of the technical. legal. and policy issues related to the AM broadcast service. J The Report sought to identify changes to existing rules that would free AM broadcasters to meet the competitive challenges facing them and to enhance their service to the public. Comments received in response to the Report guided the Commission's subsequent efforts to identify technical issues ripe for funher study. 14. The first of these was an omnibus iVOlice of Inquiry flnquiry)J initiating a comprehensive review of the com plex, interrelated technical principles that underlie AM station assignment criteria. The Inquiry asked whether we should revise field strength values for the protected con tours of AM stations, the prescribed minimum usable field strength. the prescribed co-chan cl and adjacent channel protection ratios. and the way we measure the effects of atmospheric and man-made noise. and skywave and groundwave propagation. In addition, the Inquiry asked whether the public would benefit if we permitted interested parties themselves to resolve interference rights and responsibilities through private negotiations. The Commission promised to begin Rule Making actions when the record developed supported such action. IS. The comments filed in response ro the Inquiry prompted Commission action on several fronts. In 1988, the Commission opened five rule making proceedings proposing changes to its technical rules s and a sixthpro~ posing policy changes to achieve interference reduction through voluntary agreements among AM licensees. Q We have taken final action in three of these proceedings today. We believe this will help the Commission and industry resolve more quickly those issues remaining be fore we can achieve our ultimate goaL a revitalized AM broadcast service. We will. however. delay the effective dates of the associated rule changes until we complete our work in this proceeding. These delays will permit us to coordinate all the changes required to assure a positive net result. As to the the remaining three technical rule makings, we will consider them further herein. 16. International. The 1979 International Telecommuni cation Union World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC) allocated 1605-1705 kHz to the broadcasting ser vice in Region 2 (the western hemisphere). giving that 4383 service an exclusive allocation of 1605 to 1625 kHz and primary status from 1625 to 1705 kHz with implementa tion to occur in accordance with a future regional plan. A twowsession Regional Administrative Radio Conference (RARC) held in 1986 and 1988 planned the spectrum and produced the rules under which we would share this new allocation with the other nations of Region2.~ 17. The RARC adopted an allotment plan for the ten additional channels(1610~1700 kHz) made available for AM broadcasting in this hemisphere. With few excep tions.' the U.S. was allotted 1620. 1640. 1660. 1680 and 1700 kHz for nationwide use. Generally. these channels were alloted for use in the U.S. without restriction except in the vicinity of Canada and Mexico, where adjacent channel coordination would be required. The remaining frequencies were allotted to Canada and Mexico, and therefore their use in the U.S. within 330 kilometers (205 miles) of either border would be restricted.',l The Con ference also adopted technical standards lO inclUding mini mum spacings of 330 kilometers (205 miles) between broadcast stations on the same channel and additional technical criteria designed to ensure that non-broadcast use does not interfere with broadcasting. IV. ASSOCIATED RULE MAKINGS 18. We now briefly describe the six AM rule making proceedings that followed the Inquiry. 19. AfM Docket iVa. 88-508. This proceeding considered changes to the way we calculate skywave field strength. We proposed to use a new. more accurate skywave propa gation model that takes into account the effects of the geomagnetic latitude of the propagation paths. We also proposed changes to our rules for calculating skywave field strength. In a Report and Order adopted today, we are making these changes to our rules. l1 With these changes, we should be able to depid more accurately nighttime skywave service and interference on all chan nels. :20. ;\1A1 Docket ;Vo. 88 - 510. This proceeding consid ered changes to the way we calculate groundwave field strength. We proposed to replace our groundwave curves with new ones that would cure certain "curve fitting" deficiencies. In a Report dnd Order adopted today, we are substituting these new groundwave propagation curves for the current curves. I:? Using these new curves. we should be able to predict more accurately groundwave service and interference. 21. M!v( Docket No. 89 - 46. A Report and Order adopt ed today will allow licensees, subject to Commission ap proval. to reach agreements to make facilities changes that would reduce interference and will eliminate the "grandfathering" of deleted AM stations. lJ Specifically, the Commission will accept contingent applications that would reduce AM interference but will not entertain competing applications in those situations. Additionally. we wish to avoid "daisy-chain" applications when consid ering interference reduction agreements. These arise when a series of proposals serving substantially different areas become interlocked (or mutually exclusive) because of prOhibited overlapping contours. See paragraph 56. infra. 22. MM Docket No. 88 - 376. [n the First Report and Order in this proceeding,14 we adopted, with minor modi fications, the National Radio Systems Committee (NRSC) emission standard. Equipment meeting this standard will reduce its emitted AM signal bandwidth, and consequent- FCC 90-136 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Red No. 15 ly the level of adjacent channel interference. This should encourage manufacturers to produce receivers with wider effective bandwidth, thereby improving AM service fidel ity. This new emission standard goes into effect June 30, 1990, and will serve as a basis for any new adjacent channel protection ratios. 23. Awaiting action in the same docket is a proposal to revise Section 73.37(b) of our rules to allow AM ap plicants to accept some service contour overlap. Under this proposal, applicants for new or modified AM facilities could elect to protect their 1.0 mV/m daytime contour rather than the traditional 0.5 mV/m daytime contour, provided they fully protect all other stations. For the reasons given in paragraph 31, infra, we will take no further action on this proposal and will terminate the docket. 24. i.\1M Docket No. 88 . 509. Commission rules cur rently allow certain daytime-only stations to operate dur ing nighttime hours. Under these rules, however, many daytime-only stations can operate at night only with very low level power. In this proceeding, we proposed to elimi nate restrictions on the antenna systems that could be used for such nighttime operations to compensate, in part. for the power restrictions. Because these proposals are closely related to our current AM improvement efforts, we believe that they should be considered herein. See paragraph 42, infra. for further discussion on this subject. To permit a proper evaluation of the issues, we will incorporate herein the record developed in MM Docket No. 88-509. In view of this, no further action appears necessary and we delegate authority to the staff to termi nate MM Docket No. 88-509. 25. i'4Af Docker No. 88-511. In this proceeding, we proposed to revise the procedures for calculating night time protection levels of AM stations. In particular, we proposed to modify how we calculate nighttime RSS (root-sum-square) interference levels of Class II and Class III stations, and the skywave service contours of Class I stations. Because these proposals are closely related to our current AM improvement efforts, we believe that they should be considered herein. See paragraphs 38-41, infra, for further discussion on this subject. To permit a proper evaluation of the issues, we will incorporate herein the record developed in MM Docket No. 88-511. In view of this, no further action appears necessary and we delegate authority to the staff to terminate MM Docket No.88~511. V. TECHNICAL STANDARDS 26. Introduction. As the first step in our plan to im prove AM service, we intend to revise our technical stan dards to force a reduction in the interference AM licensees face in their primary service areas. We intend to base our efforts to improve AM broadcasting on a solid technical foundation. Technical standards will guide our efforts to restore the existing band to a competitive posi tion, to determine which stations should be given priority to migrate to the expanded band and to establish planning criteria to insure that stations in the expanded band ex hibit Model I characteristics. 27. New technical standards applied to the existing band must reflect an awareness of a station's interference pro tection and radiation rights that were initially established on the basis of more relaxed standards. The process of restoration, however, requires that new stations ormodi~ fications to existing stations provide greater protection to 4384 other AM broadcasters than has been required in the past. The creation of technical standards striking a new balance between service and interference can achieve this. Because we do wish to accommodate some new stations and modi fications to existing stations, these standards must con tinue to permit small incremental increases in interference to existing stations, but in limited circum stances and by an amount less than presently tolerated. 28. We believe that the process of migration to the expanded band should be based on a method that ranks existing band stations according to the total nighttime interference they cause. For this method to provide mean ingful comparisons, we further believe that all nighttime skywave signals should be considered as sources of inter ference. This differs from our current practice which defines interference as occuring only if the calculated skywave field strength exceeds prescribed levels. 29. AM technical assignment principles are complex and interrelated. To be certain that the cumulative effect reSUlting from multiple rules changes will be an AM service of enhanced quality, we cannot ignore these rela tionships. Our technical assignment principles are based upon a system of "protected contours l1 that depends upon the frequency relationship of the protected station and the interfering station, the class of the former and its hours of operation. The field strength values defining these nor mally protected contours, called the nominal usable field strength, or E nom ' are chosen to assure satisfactory recep tion in the presence of atmospheric noise,man~made noise and interference from other transmitters. In defin ing the protected contour for each class of AM station, the Commission weighed these objective factors and other subjective factors. 30. Normally Prolecred Contours. During the past twenty years, the number of new radio stations, both AM and FM, has dramatically changed the listening habits of the public. The protected contours currently prescribed in our rules, however. were developed well before this sig nificant growth. The Inquiry asked whether. weighing the habits of today's listening public, the field strength values of these protected contours should be redefined. The ma jority of commenting parties agreed that the contours should not be redefined. We tentatively conclude that Changing these contours would not significantly improve AM service and consequently we propose to leave them unchanged. One minor exception to this conclusion is discussed in paragraph 44. infra. 3!. In MM Docket No. 88-376. we proposed to allow stations to accept interference within their normally pro tected contour. Although adoption of this change would provide greater flexibility for stations seeking increased service areas, it would also foster increased congestion and distorted service areas. For this reason, we find. such a revision inconsistent with our goal. Therefore, we will take no further action on this subject and delegate author ity to the staff to terminate MM Docket No. 88-376. In a related matter, we note that Section 73.37(b) of the rules permits interference within the normally protected con tour of a station that is the only licensed station in its community. Since the creation of additional interference is contrary to our goal of reducing interference, we pro pose to eliminate that rule. Comments are requested on this proposal. 32. Technical factors used to derive a station's protected contours are the minimum usable field strength, or Emin,lS and noise, both atmospheric andman~made.t6 In 5 FCC Rcd No. 15 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 90·136 the Inquiry. we asked whether these factors should be revised. The comments offered no compelling policy rea son to revise these factors and we tentatively conclude that these factors should remain unchanged. 33. Noise within the AM band can also be generated by radio frequency (RF) devices. regulated under Part 15 of our rules, and by RF lighting, regulated under Part 18. In 1989, the Commission adopted a comprehensive revision of Part 15. 17 In that proceeding, several changes were made to reduce the potential for interference to AM reception from radio frequency devices. This included applying emission standards to all intentional and un intentional radiators, and changing to a more accurate method of measuring emissions. In 1983, the Commission adopted standards for RF lighting that limited, on AM frequencies, the amount of RF energy that could be con ducted into AC power lines. t8 In 1986, the Commission proposed radiated limits for RF lighting 19 but declined to adopt them because the existing conduction limits have proven effective in reducing radiated emissions. 2o 34. Protection Ratios. Co-channel and adjacent channel protection ratios prescribe the maximum permissible in terference from one station to another. Their values re flect a compromise between maximizing the quality of received AM signals and the number of AM broadcast stations. The Inquiry posed many questions to determine whether we needed to change these ratios to improve AM service quality. A majority of the commenters supported no change in the co-channel ratio, but an increase in the adjacent channel ratio. We tentatively conclude that no change in the co-channel protection ratio is warranted and address only adjacent channel protection ratios in this Notice. 35. Adjacent Channel Protection Ratios. Currently, first adjacent channel protection is afforded only to the day time operation of stations on the basis of a 1:1 (0 dB) desired/undesired ratio. Adjacent channel nighttime skywave interference is not now considered. To assure protection from second and third adjacent channel inter ference, the current rules include no protection ratios but instead require that stations be separated a certain dis tance determined by the location of specific field strength contours. 36. A vast majority of comments strongly recommended changing the first adjacent channel ratio to a value ap proaching 16 dB. Many commenters cite two comprehen sive studies commissioned by the National Association of Broadcasters. 2t A principal conclusion of the second study, known as the Angell Study, was that for adjacent channel interference, the preferred ratios were "16 dB for music, 16 dB for talk with talk interference and 20 dB for talk with music interference." 37. For the second and third adjacent channel cases, there were limited comments and no comments,respec~ tively; and we infer that there is general satisfaction with our present requirements. Further we have no basis for seeking a revision and believe that our current standards are adequate. In view of the foregoing, we propose to change the first adjacent channel value to 16 dB with no change in our second and third adjacent channel protec tion requirements.Z2 38. Nighuime Interference Calculations. The current method of determining nighttime interference was adopt ed years ago to provide for orderly development of the AM broadcast service. The number of stations grew but at the expense of incremental increases in actual interfer- 4385 ence. The Inquiry proposed to limit increased interference by including adjacent-channel nighttime skywave interfer ence in RSS calculations and by lowering the threshold (called the RSS exclusion) used to determine whether interference occurs. In response to our original proposal, the Radio Advisory Committee expressed concern that its adoption would lead to a net increase in interference in the AM band and suggested an alternative. 39. We believe that neither our original proposal nor the alternative suggested by the Advisory Committee would lead to the benefits we seek in this proceeding. We have tentatively concluded that more substantial change is required. In general, a station's normally protected con tour at night currently ranges from 2.5 to 10 mV/m with the interference-free (RSS limitation) even higher. If we continued to protect high contour values, little improve ment in AM service would be expected to occur. How ever, if we set the protection level low and consider only single signal protection, generally greater interference pro tection would be achieved. We initially believe that a I mV/m nighttime limitation would represent an appro priate protection level from which AM improvement would follow. Viewed in perspective, this value would be equivalent to protecting a 2 mV/m RSS (using 50% exclu sion). Therefore. we propose that applications for new or modified AM stations would be acceptable if their individ ual nighttime limitations at the site of another co-channel or first adjacent channel station would not exceed 1.0 mV/m. B Consistent with this reasoning, for protection to skywave service of Class I stations, the maximum allowa ble level would be 0.25 mV/m at or within the 0.5 mV/m 50% contour. 24 This would be equivalent to protecting the 0.5 mVJm 50% contour (using 50% exclusion). In the event an existing station already causes a nighttime limita tion in excess of either of the above values. modification of the station's operation will be acceptable if thecal~ culated nighttime limitation described above is reduced by at least 10%. We seek comments on this proposaL 25 40. Because of fading, skywave service generally lacks the quality of groundwave service. Further, because of the existing level of adjacent channel interference (which our technical rules currently ignore), we believe that our new protection criteria should assume the use of narrowband receivers at night. This assumption avoids an unacceptable trade~offbetween interference and service and allows lis teners with narrowband radios to continue receiving skywave service. Thus, our proposal reflects an adjustment for adjacent channel interference to Skywave service. 41. Although no longer required for determination of station protection under our above proposal, RSS calcula tions (without exclusion) would be used to evaluate city coverage of a station and to compute the ranking factor for migration preference purposes. 42. Nighuime Enhancement for Daytimers, Fordaytime~ only stations, we propose adoption of the nighttime en hancement provisions appearing in MM Docket No. 88-509, including allowing separate daytime and nighttime antennas and transmitting sites and relaxed nighttimecar~ riage requirements. As each station would be required to protect other stations in accordance with the new stan dards, no impact on other stations would result. 43. Reclassification/Power Increases. The omnibus nature of this proceeding makes it an appropriate docket to consider reclassifying AM stations to conform with the nomenclature used in international agreements to which the U.S. is a party. In general, Class I stations would be FCC 90-136 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Red No. 15 renamed Class A stations; Class II and Class III stations would be labeled Class B; and Class IV stations would become Class C. The sub-classes, I-A. I-B and I-N would easily fit into a Class A category. However, sub-classes, II-A, II-B, II-C and III would. if changed to Class B. require changes to current protection levels. 44. We propose to adopt a nighttime protection level of 2.0 mV/m for all Class II-A. II-B. II-C and III stations. Whereas the selection of this level of contour protection would constitute an obvious improvement for Class II-B, II-C and III stations, it would appear to have a deleterious effect upon the service of Class II-A stations which are presently protected to the 0.5 mV/m contour. However, this consequence is essentially negated since 11 Out of the 12 stations designated as Class II-A presently have service contours that are limited to values of 2.0 mY/m Or greater with the twelfth being limited to a level of 1.8 mY/m. Stations presently possessing nighttime limits greater than 2,0 mV/m would be protected at the higher leveL Addi tionally. we propose a power ceiling of 50 kW for Class B stations. which would allow stations to increase coverage in cases where all other technical criteria can be met. Comments are sought concerning these proposed changes to our AM classification system and associated changes to protected contours. Zb 45. We also propose the establishment of a fourth class of station which would facilitate the identification of those stations which lack fully protectedunlimited~timeoper ations. This category, Class D. would include all stations that are currently classified as: Class II-D. Class II-S, Class III-D and Class III-S. Creation of this separate class would help in providing a keener focus on a category of stations which has its own set of special needs. 46. Advanced Antennas. NAB is currently conducting tests on new types of antenna systems that might improve AM broadcast service. Licensees are experimenting with non-standard antenna systems (such as the PARAN an tenna). We believe that we should defer changes in our antenna standards until these tests have been completed and their results analyzed. 47. Splil Frequency Operalions. Split frequency operation occurs when a station uses one frequency during the day and another at night. This mode of operation has been suggested as one possible solution to the problem daytime only stations face. It would offer only a limited solution, however. because each daytime-only station would need to find an additional frequency that would permit operation without causing interference and that also would not pre clude another daytime operation. Such frequencies are few in number and. in fact. exist only in the absence of an adjacent channel nighttime protection standard. 48. Up to now, we have treated split frequency requests on acase~by-casebasis. We now tentatively conclude that split frequency operations use the spectrum inefficiently. Each such operation precludes reuse of as many as four teen channels to varying degrees. compared to a seven channel preclusion for single frequency operations. Preclusion when skywave signal propagation is involved is even more pronounced and difficult to assess, particularly when we propose to accord stations first adjacent channel nighttime protection. Accordingly, we tentatively con clude that split frequency operations would beinconsis~ tent with our efforts to improve AM service. Commenters who believe otherwise should address specifically how such operations would not impede our efforts to reduce interference and congestion. 4386 49. Expanded Band Technical Standards. Before we can discuss anticipated coverage areas and other operational aspects of stations in the expanded band, we must first establish the technical standards that will define how we assign, and licensees construct, stations in the band. Cur rently, we have no rules governing broadcast use of the frequency range. 1605 to 1705 kHz, Because these fre quencies are adjacent to the existing AM band. however. a vast body of relevant information concerning technical operation on adjacent spectral territory is readily available and can be easily applied to these frequencies. We pro pose that the technical standards applying to the existing AM band apply, generally, to operations in the expanded band. 27 50. We wish to minimize the need for directional anten nas in the expanded band. Whenever applicants propose to use directional antennas, we would require demonstra tion of antenna pattern achievement. Because the ex pected spacing between individual stations III the expanded band will provide adequate interference protec tion in the majority of cases. we anticipate that the en gineering studies required of applicants will be significantly less burdensome than those required for sta tions in the existing band. Measured radials taken only in critical protection directions should be adequate to dem onstrate compliance with radiation restrictions. We seek comment on our technical standards proposals forex~ panded band operations and the observations and assump tions on which they are based. 51. City Coyerage for Expanded Band Stations. In the existing band, there is a fundamental requirement that licensees provide a minimum field strength over the com munity of license. Currently. during the day a 5 mY/m signal is required at all locations within a community: at night. a station's interference-free contour using the cur M rent RSS method must encompass the community of license. We routinely grant waivers of the nighttime cov erage requirement when a licensee can show that at least 80 percent of the city will be served. 52. If a particular applicant were a suitable candidate for a specific allotment in the expanded band. but the Commission could not be assured of the requisite 100% nighttime coverage of its community. a plan possessing the flexibility to permit this assignment to be made with M out a burdensome waiver process would appear to serve the public interest. Consistent with such flexibility. the plan could still prescribe a required daytime coverage: complete 5 mV/m daytime envelopment has never been a problem for applicants to attain. Difficulties in meeting the prescribed coverage would arise only at night. This suggests that we should require only 50% nighttime city coverage (using the RSS method without exclusion) when we attempt to match applicants and allotments in the expanded band. We seek comment on this tentative con clusion and its underlying assumptions. including theop~ tion of allowing 50% on a temporary basis and ultimatelv returning to the 100/80% standard. -' Vi. CONSOLIDATiON 53. A key goal of this proceeding is to reduce interfer ence among stations in the existing AM band. This sec tion. presenting the second prong of our three-prong plan to improve AM. explores changes tonon~technicalpoli cies and rules intended to motivate broadcasters to reduce interference in that band. These changes include: (1) 5 FCC Rcd No. IS Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 90-136 granting tax certificates to AM licensees who receive pay ment from other licensees to surrender their licenses: (2) relaxing our multiple ownership rules to permit a li censee signficantly reducing interference to co-channel or adjacent channel stations to own AM stations whose 5 mV/m contours overlap; and (3) permitting little or no duplication of programming by commonly owned AM and FM stations serving the same area. 54. Voluntary Arrangements. Section 1071 of the Inter nal Revenue Code. 26 U.S.c. §I07l, permits the Commis sion to issue tax certificates to the seller of a regulated property when that sale will give effect to a new or changed Commission policy concerning the ownership and control of radio broadcasting stations. These certif· icates enable a seller of broadcast property to defer any capital gain it realizes by acquiring a "qualifying replace ment property" within two years of the sale or by reduc ing the basis of other depreciable property. The Commission has in the past used tax certificates to en· courage, inler alia, voluntary divestitures of grandfathered ownership interests inconsistent with changes to its mul tiple ownership rules and broadcast property sales to mi norities. 55. Voluntary agreements among licensees under which one licensee may pay another to surrender its license or to reduce interference to the first station can significantly improve the overall quality of reception by reducing con gestion and interference in the existing AM band. For this reason. in MM Docket No. 89-46. the Commission has today adopted rules to encourage licensees to reach such agreements. But. as one commenter in that proceeding observed, the tax consequences of receiving compensation in such situations could discourage a licensee from enter ing into such agreements. 28 We now tentatively conclude that we should issue tax certificates to licensees receiving payment from other licensees to surrender their licenses. thereby reducing congestion or interference in the exist ing AM band. We seek comment on this tentative conclu sion and ask commenters to discuss several related issues including: (a) whether the use of tax certificates in this case would be consistent with our past uses of this tool; (b) what are the tax implications of voluntary li cense surrender agreements, i.e., how could they be structured to constitute a sale of property under 26 U.S.c. §I07l; (c) whether we should require a showing that inter ference will be reduced by some prescribed amount as a prerequisite to our issuing the certificate; and, (d) when that certificate should issue. We also seek comment on whether we should also issue tax certificates to licensees receiving payment from other licensees to reduce their service area. In particular, in this regard. we seek comment on whether and how such an agreement to reduce coverage would constitute a sale of property falling within the scope of 26 U.S.c. §1071 and how any tax certificate would apply in such a situation. 56. We are also concerned that parties filing contingent applications as part of a voluntary arrangement may find their applications mutually inconsistent with other ap plications. contingent or not. If clusters of contingent arrangements become entangled in this way. it could be 4387 years before the comparative hearing process can resolve which proposals should be approved. Both private and public interests would suffer because the improvements to AM service promised by these arrangements would be delayed. We propose three measures to avoid this out come. First we would require that no application to move to a frequency in the expanded band be part of any package of contingent applications associated with a voluntary agreement. We would also give the proponents of mutually exclusive clusters of applications a period of sixty days to resolve their conflicts and to file modified proposals curing them. That period would run from the date we issue a public notice identifying their conflict. Finally. recognizing the potential for delay inherent in the comparative hearing process, we propose instead of hav ing comparative evidentiary hearings to use a simple. objective criterion to select between or among mutually exclusive clusters of contingent applications unable to resolve their conflicts in the allotted time. This approach would be similar to the one followed in awarding licenses in the Instructional Television Fixed Service. 29 Because we find it to be consistent with our primary goal in this proceeding, the improvement of the AM broadcast ser· vice, we propose to use the measure of net interference reduction associated with each cluster of contingent ap· plications as the decisive criterion. We seek comment on these measures and any others we might use to reduce and to resolve quickly and fairly conflicts among groups of contingent applications designed to improve the AM service. 57. Common Ownership of Alv! Stations with Overlapping Contours. In October 1988. we relaxed Section 73.3555(a) of our rules to prOhibit cognizable ownership interests in two or more commercial AM stations if their predicted or measured 5 mY/m groundwave contours overlap.JO We now propose to relax the rule even more if this would help reduce interference in the existing AM band. We tentatively conclude that we should consider waiving the contour overlap rule, on a case·by-case basis. to permit common ownership of two commercial AM stations with overlapping 5 mY/m contours if an applicant shows that a significant reduction in interference to adjacent or co channel stations would accompany that common owner· ship. Simultaneous broadcasting of the same program on both stations would be permitted if the stations served substantially different markets or communities. In this case-by-case analysis, we would, of course. remain sen sitive to the interests in viewpoint diversity and against undue market concentration that underlies the Commis sion's multiple ownership rules. To ensure that arrange ments actually lead to the promised interference reduction. we would require that applicants submit, along with their waiver requests, a contingent application for the major or minor facilities change needed to achieve the reduction. 58. We request comment on our tentative conclusion that relaxing the AM contour overlap rule for licensees agreeing to reduce interference to co·channel and adjacent channel stations would lead to the model AM operations we seek. We ask commenters concluding that such a relaxation would further our goals to discuss: (a) how much interference reduction we should require to merit waiver of the multiple ownership rule; (b) whether the number of square kilometers of contour overlap permitted should correspond to the number of square kilometers for which interference is reduced; and (C) FCC 90-136 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Red No. 15 whether we should consider factors other than the num ber of square kilometers for which interference is reduced in deciding whether to permit such AM/AM combina tions. Such additional factors would include effects on diversity and market concentration and might include: the classes of the stations involved; the extent of the overlap between their service contours; interference limitations in the signals of these stations; the relative audience shares or ratings of each; and how great would the costs be to applicants of making detailed proposals to reduce interfer ence and to the Commission of reviewing such proposals. We also seek comment on the relative advantages and disadvantages of using the waiver process or an exception to our rules like that in place for overlapping television satellite stations to process requests for relaxing thecon~ tour overlap rule tied to interference reduction. Commenters should also address the implications of the simulcasting restriction. 59. Possible Reimposition of AM - FM Nonduplication Rule. Prior to 1964 there were no program duplication limits on co-owned AM and FM stations serving the same market. In that year the Commission began prohibiting FM stations from duplicating more than 50% of their programming from a co-owned AM station in the same local area. 31 The Commission had two objectives. The first was to foster development of the FM service by requiring separate programming of FM stations. which would en courage people to buy and use FM receivers. The second objective was to improve spectrum efficiency by reducing duplicate programming on two channels, both serving the same audience. In 1976 the Commission further limited the FM station in anAM~FMcombination to not more than 25% duplication if either station served a commu nity of more than 25,000 population. 32 60. In 1986, citing three reasons for its action, the Commission deleted the program duplication rule in its entirety.33 First, the rule's retention was no longerneces~ sary for the purpose of promoting FM development.Sec~ and, its elimination could be expected to result in increased hours of operation since some stations in AM FM combinations had shortened their broadcast day as one way to comply with the rule. Finally, its elimination would provide increased flexibility for licensees ofAM~ FM combinations to respond to economic forces, i.e., by reducing operating costs for marginal AM stations. 61. The duplication of programming on two channels serving essentially the same audience can be an effective means of either assisting a fledgling service or propping up financially weak stations. However. its usefulness may be limited. Where established stations have experienced a steady decline in audience share and then resorted to program duplication as a way to reduce costs. we are not aware of any cases for which such measures have reversed the decline in audience share or established a permanent sound economic base. We request comment on the utility of program duplication as a means of aiding marginal broadcast operations. 62. We must also consider the fact that where a channel is licensed to a party for use at a particular location, other parties are prevented from using that channel and six adjacent channels at varying distances up to hundreds of kilometers. The licensed station will also cause an in cremental increase in interference to other operating sta· tions and will restrict the ability of other facilities to make modifications and improvements. Commenters are asked to address whether the preclusionary effect and the 4388 need to reduce interference in this context outweighs Commission policy as articulated in MM Docket No. 85-357. 34 63. Given our objective of revitalizing the AM service by the year 2000 through the measures proposed in this Notice, we request comment on whether the continuation of program duplication will aid in or hinder the attain ment of that objective. Parties favoring retention of our current policy should present data supporting the public interest and economic benefits of program duplication. Interested parties disfavoring the continuation of program duplication are requested to present proposals that, ide ally, would provide incentives for the elimination of this practice on a voluntary basis. We also seek comment on what, if any, exceptions should be allowed if program duplication were to be precluded, such as, for example. where the amount of overlap of the AM and FM service areas is smalL VII. MIGRATION TO THE EXPANDED BAND 64. IntroduClion. The third prong of our master plan for improving the AM service calls for moving existing AM stations into the expanded band. This would meet two objectives: first. it would reduce interference and conges tion in the eXisting AM broadcastservice~and second. it would offer a prompt method for establishing service in the expanded band. 65. We are convinced that significant improvement in existing AM service depends on the willingness of stations causing heaVy interference to migrate to the expanded band. We recognize that the decision to migrate to the expanded band would depend on a licensee's particular circumstances. Many existing stations use relatively uncomplicated antenna systems during daytime hours but switch to elaborate multi-tower systems for nighttime op eration. For such licensees, the expanded band may present an attractive alternative to the frustrations and expenses associated with their existing operations and of fer the opportunity for improved Signal quality in a rela tively noise free environment. We anticipate that most operations in the expanded band would require simple antenna systems and relatively small antenna sites. Some expanded band licensees may even choose to dipiex at an existing tower site. requiring minimal site costs. As a result. many stations could profit significantly by moving to the expanded band and selling their existing real estate holdings which. in some cases, are valued in excess of station values. Also, a licensee may find migration a fea sible alternative if the service area of an expanded band facility compares favorably with its existing operation. 66. Our definition of Model I service was created to provide for 25 to 30 stations per channel. We expect expanded band stations to be spaced relatively far apart in the heartlands but closer (by using directional antennas) along the coast and near urban areas. This would ensure licensees relatively large service areas with concomitantly low interference levels. 67. At the en bane hearing last November. some sug gested that channels in the expanded band should be reserved for use by daytimers. minorities and public radio stations. Although the arguments for such reservations are not without merit, we believe that the most efficient and effective use of the expanded band is to resolve theinter~ ference problems of the existing band. The expanded band is limited to only ten channels. Were we to reserve one or 5 FCC Red No. 15 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 90-136 more channels for the exclusive use of daytimers, minor ities or public radio stations, we would severely limit our ability to meet the pressing needs of the entire AM broad cast service. It is OUf belief that the reassignment of a station to the expanded band will benefit both that station and, by reducing interference and congestion, thosesta~ tions remaining in the existing band. We have no reason to believe that our proposed approach will promote or disadvantage one segment of the industry more than oth erS though we would consider any evidence to the con trary that commenters may provide. Recognizing that some short term discomfort may be necessary to restore the long term health and overall good of the service, we have endeavored to make our approach neutral and ob jective. Commenters may wish to address how set*asides could be reconciled with our goal. 68. Travelers Information Stations. The frequencies 530 and 1610 kHz are assigned in the Local Government Radio Service for the operation of Travelers Information Stations (TIS). These stations are used to transmit noncommercial voice information pertaining to traffic and road conditions, traffic hazard and travel advisories. rest stops and service stations, directions, availability of lodging and local points of interest. Local governments share these two frequencies with federal agencies provid ing similar services. TIS must be located at least 15 km outside the 0.5 mVim daytime contour of any AM station operating on a first adjacent channel (540 or 1600 kHz). The field strength of a TIS must not exceed 2 mVim at a distance of 60 meters from a cable antenna or 1.5 km from a vertical antenna. 69. In the Third NOlice of Inquiry in Gen. Docket No. 84-467." we suggested moving the TIS on 1610 kHz to 1700 kHz. We did not believe that TIS could provide effective service on 1610kHz because of potential prob lems with future Canadian and Mexican stations operating on that channel and domestic broadcast operations on the upper adjacent channels of the existing AM band. Repeat ing this proposal. the subsequent Fourth Notice of Inquiry posed a series of questions regarding technical standards. protection and similar matters. 36 70. When we proposed to move TIS to 1700 kHz. we were still anticipating that new AM stations, assigned in either the con\o'entional manner or through an option described as "national licensing." would fill the expanded band. Because our goal was simply to devise an orderly and effective means for initiating new service and because we anticipated that the density of stations per channel would be greater than we now propose. we did not be lieve that exclusive allocation of one channel to TIS would materially affect the expansion of the AM service. 71. The master plan presented in this docket is based upon two premises radically different from those in ear lier procee,dings 'associated with improving the AM ser vice. These premises are (1) that interference and congestion must be reduced and (2) that this reduction can be' achieved only if existing stations migrate to the expanded band. While we appreciate the value of having a special service uniquely identified with its own channel, we do not believe that it justifies exclusive use of 10% of the expanded band's limited capacity. especially when the proposal we make today could offer TIS more opportu nities for growth than would be achievable on a single channel. 4389 72. Accordingly, we propose to modify Parts 2 and 90 to permit TIS to be assigned to any of the ten channels between 1605 and 1705 kHz. Because the density of broadcast stations will be comparatively low, with co channel spacings ranging from 400 to 800 kilometers (249 to 497 miles), we believe that TIS will have greater op portunities for more stations, nationwide as well as in any given market, than would be possible with a single exclu sive channeL Our proposal will permit TIS to easily avoid adjacent channel conflicts. Finally, this proposal may ob viate the need for many existing TIS to vacate 1610 kHz. We seek comment on this and also on whether it is operationally feasible for TIS to be assigned to any of the existing channels between 535 and 1605 kHz. 73. Because TIS would be intermingled with broadcast stations, several issues relating to protection must be re solved. Toward this end, we seek comment on an appro priate co-channel separation standard. At the present time the rules provide that the transmitting site of a TIS must be located at least 15 km outside the 0.5 mV/m daytime contour of any broadcast station operating on the first adjacent channel. We seek such an administratively sim ple rule for co-channel separations. Also. in light of our proposal to increase the broadcasting adjacent channel protection ratio to 16 dB we seek information as to whether the current TIS standard should be modified. 74. The rules provide that TIS are authorized on a secondary basis to stations authorized on a primary basis in the band 1605-1705 kHz. Since broadcast stations will be authorized on a primary basis. we must determine how we will resolve incompatibilities where broadcast stations are assigned to markets where TIS are already operational. We pose three options: ' (1) A TIS must change frequency. at its own ex pense, if it is predicted to cause interference to a broadcast station. The change in frequency would not be required until the broadcast station became operational. (2) A TIS must change frequency, at its own ex pense, only if it causes actual interference to a broadcast station. (3) A TIS must change frequency if it is predicted to cause interference or if it'causes actual interference to a broadcast station but only if the broadcast station bears the cost of the frequency change. We seek comment on these options and on any other rules needed to ensure that TIS and broadcasting can effectively share the band. 75. Eligibility. We have tentatively concluded that the public interest will be served best by using the expanded band to improve the quality of AM service by lessening interference. 37 Because of severe congestion in the existing band that limits clear reception of many stations, we have tentatively concluded that, at least initially, the additional spectrum should not generally be open to new applicants. However, we contemplate that once the transition has been completed, new applicants may apply for unused capacity in the expanded band under the same rules and regulations governing other applicants for new AM sta tions. 76. We tentatively find that we can lawfully impose this temporary restriction on eligibility to apply for a fre quency in the expanded band. In Ashbacker the Supreme FCC 90-136 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Rcd No. 15 Court held that Section 309 of the Communications Act 38 requires the Commission to consider all mutuallyexclu~ sive applications at the same time. It stated, however, that the Commission may define the class of eligibleappli~ cants,39 Thus, the parties that must be afforded an op portunity for a comparative hearing are only those eligible under criteria established by the Commission. Subsequently, in Storer Broadcasting, the Supreme Court held that the Commission may by general rule establish eligibility standards prior to denial of an application. 40 We have limited or declined to consider competingapplica~ tions in several other contexts when we found that this would promote the public interest.,H Similarly, in this proceeding we propose to limit the initial class of eligible applicants to existing AM licensees. In light of the public interest benefits set forth above, defining the class of eligible applicants in this manner is consistent with Ashbacker and with those other proceedings in which we have limited the eligible class to those with specific char acteristics. We seek comment on our tentative conclusions regarding eligibility criteria for a slot in the expanded band. 77. Preferred i-\figrators. Because we are unable to fore cast the demand for migration to the expanded band. we must consider procedures to deal with a demand that may exceed the capacity. In developing such procedures. we focus our efforts on minimizing interference and maxi mizing high quality audio service. Since congestion in the existing band is the direct cause of most of the interfer ence that has degraded AM service. we must conclude that there are too many stations in the existing AM band. If the heaviest contributors of interference migrated from the cluttered existing band to the now signal-free sur roundings of the expanded band. the quality of the former could improve sUbstantially. Thus. we believe that those existing licensees who by moving to the expanded band would most reduce interference and congestion should be preferred applicants for slots in that band."u 78. Several medium size cities in or adjacent to major metropolitan areas now lack a local fulltime aural station. This situation arose many years ago because of the domi nance of nearby larger cities. These larger cities received all available AM and FM frequencies -" the medium size cities were overlooked. The expanded band offers an op portunity to change this. We propose to consider ahead of all other daytime-only applicants. the applications of sta tions proposing to migrate to the expanded band that would also provide a first local fulltime aural service to cities with populations of 100.000 or more. Because the migration of these stations would not reduce nighttime interference in the existing band. we would consider these applicants only after our initial processing of all full-time station applicants. 79. Options - Allotmems or Assignments. The method we now use to assign stations in the existing band would enable us to maximize the number of stations assigned to a single channel. This method would require each ap plicant to custom design its technical parameters like frequency. power and antenna systems to protect existing assignments. Another method would assign stations atpre~ determined distances with generally fixed technical pa· rameters. The distance separating stations would depend upon the minimum service desired. Under the latter ap· proach. specific channel allotments usually would be sep arated by prescribed distances and thus protected from interference, This approach would limit full use of chan· 4390 nels compared to our assignment method. It would, how ever. offer several advantages over our present approach. First. most stations would. if anything, be better protected. assuring that each CQuid offer its listeners a high quality, interference free service. Second, this system, by its na ture. would give licensees flexibility in selecting antenna sites. Finally, this system would be relatively simple to administer. in part because it would avoid the "daisy chains" that could cause application processing to proceed at a glacial pace. 80. We tentatively find that the second method is more likely to produce the high quality service we seek for the expanded band. By making this band attractive to existing licensees, this method will also encourage migration and thus lead to an improved AM service in the existing band. For this reason we tentatively conclude that such a meth od is preferable to the traditional assignment method. We recognize. however, that because of the technical char· acteristics of the AM signal. AM broadcasting does not lend itself easily to such an approach. We also realize that the urban areas most likely to produce migraters are also likely to accommodate few allotments if we regularly space stations. For these reasons we tentatively conclude that a method incorporating flexible station separations would lead to optimal results in the expanded band. 81. SampLe ALLotment PLan. In order to demonstrate how we will develop a plan in response to migration demand. we will collect letters of intent from existing AM stations interested in migrating to the expanded band. Since the capacity of the expanded band is limited. we intend to rank stations based upon the qualitative improvement to the existing band which will result from the eventual deletion of these station's current assignments. This pro cess would enable us to determine objectively how the potential areas should be established and the number of channels that we should allot to each area. We intend to group them by geographic area. including all interested stations within eighty kilometers of the worst interferers within the same area. 82. After ranking the stations. we would derive a sam ple allotment plan. First. we would evaluate the feasibility of using channels 1610. 1620 or 1630 in each area based upon our technical standards and applicable international agreements. The location of existing stations on channels 1580, 1590 and 1600. and an allotment area·s proximity to international borders will determine the outcome of this evaluation. In order to prOVide high quality service in the expanded band. we would require all allotments in a sample plan to be at least 800 kilometers (497 miles) from the nearest co-channel allotment area, and 200 kilometers (124 miles) from the nearest adjacent-channel allotment area. except in Zone 1 (as shown in Figure 1 of section 73.699 of the Commission's Rules). There we would per mit separations of 400 and 200 kilometers (249 and 124 miles). subject to the provision of adequate protection. We propose the reduced co-channel separation in Zone 1 because we anticipate a high demand for channels in this area. and with the understanding that licensees could use simple directional antennas to achieve desired protection levels. We propose the same adjacent-channel separations for all allotments, including those in Zone 1, because simple directional antennas could not give adjacent·chan nel skywave protection in addition toco~channelskywave protection, 5 FCC Red No. 15 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 9()'136 83. After the first three channels have been considered, we would extend the draft allotment plan to cover use of channels 1640, 1650 and 1660. with reference to alloted use of 1610, 1620 and 1630 and with the same technical and separation requirements. At this time, potential allot ment areas with the highest aggregate improvement fac tors would be considered for a second allotment. Finally the last four channels would be considered in the same way. We will publish the sample allotment plan when the Report and Order is issued in this proceeding; it would show a plan based on letters of intent only. The final plan would reflect actual petitions filed after this proceeding is concluded and would not necessarily coincide with the sample plan. We urge all interested parties to file non binding letters of intent. The sample plan will consider only letters of intent filed on or before October 15, 1990. 84. Selection of ll4igrating Stations. We propose to an nounce a filing window during which licensees of stations in the existing band would file petitions for authority to move to the expanded band: J3 Our initial examination of the petitions will determine whether more than one seeks to operate in the same area, If a petition is filed for a particular area and no competing petitions have been filed, that petitioner would be eligible to receive an allot ment. If, however. a number of petitioners have filed for allotments in the same area and that number exceeds the number of available allotments, we will need selection criteria to choose among them. 85. Rather than using comparative evidentiaryhear~ ings. 44 we propose to rank petitioners based upon the extent to which the migration of each would improve service quality in the existing band. 45 Our proposed way to do this would be to rank them based upon the total magnitude of the interference attributable to each. This would grant the highest preference to those creating the heaviest interference. but not necessarily to those creating interference to the greatest number of stations. 86. A station contributes to the congestion of a given channel if it precludes other stations from mOdifying their facilities to achieve model AM service areas. The addi tional freedom for other stations to improve facilities if a congesting station migrated would be another measure of the extent to which a station"s moving would improve service quality. To achieve our ultimate goal of establish ing a model service area for as many stations as possible. we propose to rank stations seeking to migrate to the expanded band by using a composite measure that com bines both ways of ranking the station. 87. The method used to rank stations must permit a comparison of stations that operate in the existing band on different channels and with different power levels. This calls for a ranking factor that reflects each station's unique operating situation. We propose such a ranking factor defined as the ratio of the nighttime interference caused by a station to the amount of nighttime service that station provides. We believe this ratio captures for each station the net effect on its channel of its migration. To determine the numerator of the ratio. we would first evaluate the coverage of each station to which the peti tioner causes nighttime interference. The petitioner'sin~ terference would be excluded from the RSS calculation for each of the other stations and their expanded coverage areas would then be recomputed. The total of these area increases would be the numerator of the improvement ratio. The denominator of the ratio would be the night time interference-free area of the petitioner's station. 4391 These ratios. called "improvement factors". would be used to rank all stations in the AM band. 46 Frequency bias would be minimized since each ratio is normalized on the station's own channel before it is used to compare one station with another. We seek comment on our proposal for ranking stations entitled to a first preference, and in particular whether the factors we have identified are those most likely to assure improved service in the existing band. 88. The station with the highest ratio would be the one causing the greatest diminution of nighttime service to other stations relative to the amount of service it provides. Among all stations causing interference. this station would receive the highest ranking. 89. If no full-time station petitioned for a particular area, we would consider petitions from existing daytime only stations. Among these petitioners, we propose to give first priority to stations located within the 0.5mY/m 50% contours of Class I stations and which are licensed to serve communities with populations of 100.000 or more that currently lack a local full time aural service. Second priority would go to other daytime-only stations that un der the current rules cannot operate at night. Lastly. for the remaining daytime-only stations. the ranking would be based on permitted nighttime power calculated in ac cordance with current Section 73.182 of the rules in order of least to most. Again, we propose to apply theseobjec~ tive criteria without resort to comparative hearings. 90. We would require petitioners to support theirre~ quest with sufficient technical information to enable us to determine how the station should be ranked, Unlike our present application process. no showing would be re quired for the proposed new operation: the technical exhibits would address only the petitioner's currentlyli~ censed station. 47 We would assume that all candidates would operate model I facilities, see paragraph 5. supra. unless restricted by international agreements, In itsde~ cision granting petitions. the Commission will specify the frequency to be used and any additional technical details that are pertinent. such as the need to operate at power levels departing from the 1 kW norm and/or use ofdirec~ tional antenna systems. To receive an assignment.success~ ful petitioners would then be required to file within 60 days a complete application using FCC Form 301. 91. Ownership Limitations and Transition Period. Rec ognizing that the AM broadcast service has had declining revenues. profits. audience ratings, and station sale prices over the past several years. 48 we asked in the Fourth /Votice of Inquiry whether the national ownerShip limits 49 or the local ownershif restrictions should apply toex~ panded band stations. 5 We also asked whether we should waive these rules for any entity licensed in the expanded band for a five year (or longer) period of time. 92. Commenters addressing these issues agreed that there should be new ownership rules for the expanded band. 51 We agree with these commenters. that at least for a transitional period of time. we should permit individuals or entities to own and operate a commercial AM station in the existing band and one in the expanded band in the same area as long as the license for the existing band station would ultimately be surrendered. This could ultimately help reduce congestion andinterfer~ ence in the existing AM band and. at the same time, enable existing AM licensees to improve service quality by moving to the expanded band. FCC 96-136 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Red No. 15 93. We cannot predict how quickly wideband receivers will become widely available. Nor can we forecast au dience listening patterns or potential advertising revenues for stations operating in the expanded band. These uncer· tainties make operation in that band a financially risky undertaking. For this reason we propose to add a note to the multiple ownership rules to permit, without waiver request or other public interest showing, the simultaneous ownership and operation of an expanded band and an existing band station in the same area for a transitional period of time. At the end of this period, operation in the existing band would no longer be authorized. Because joint ownership will only be permitted for a transition period and because the number of radios capable of re ceiving stations in the expanded band will, at first, be small, we also propose to allow a licensee to duplicate without limit on the expanded band channel the program ming carried over its existing AM band channeL We seek comment on our proposal to adopt a new note to the multiple ownership rules permitting the simultaneous ownership and operation of a commercial AM station in the 535-1605 kHz band and a commercial AM station in the expanded band with overlapping 5 mV/m contours, for a transitional period of time, after which the existing band station would be surrendered. We also seek com ment on the length of this transitional periOd; should it be linked to the penetration of fullband receivers locally, regionally, or nationally? We also seek comment on our proposal to permit unlimited program duplication be tween the existing and the expanded band. 94. We also propose a note to our national ownership rule to permit an existing AM licensee to own and op erate an expanded band station during this transitional period even if this gives the licensee a cognizable owner ship interest in excess of our national ownership limits. We seek comment on how the national ownership rule should treat a licensee owning the maximum number of AM stations permitted by Our national ownership rules that seeks to construct a station in the expanded band. Our preliminary view is that we should establish this limited exception to the national ownership rules for a transitional period of time since this would facilitate the development of the expanded band. 95. We propose that following construction, the permittee would apply for a license to operate the ex panded band station and, if all the terms of the construc tion permit have been met. a license for that facility would issue. The license would issue, however. condi tional on the eventual surrender of the existing band license. During the interim we would prOhibit the li censee from operating on one of its authorized frequen cies and selling its operation on the other frequency. If a station is authorized to move to the expanded band, and later decides to operate on only its former frequency, we would require it to surrender its expanded bandauthori~ zation and its allotment would be made available to other eligible applicants. Once a station is licensed to operate in the expanded band and the transition period has expired, the existing band station would go silent; new petitioners for its former existing band frequency would then have to meet the standards in effect at the time of their filing. They would not "inherit" the previous station's radiation rights. 4392 Vlll. RECEIVER MODEL 96. We believe that this document is an appropriate forum for comments on the characteristics of a model AM receiver. We must continually make several assump tions about average receiver performance as we develop allotment and assignment criteria. Rather than attempt to base these criteria on the widely varying characteristics of actual receivers which change from year to year, webe~ lieve the service would benefit if we settled on a single hypothetical model possessing desirable and yet affordable performance attributes. We note that the National Associ ation of Broadcasters and the Electronic Industry Associ" ation are refining the specifications they have developed for a high quality AM radio. We believe that their work and our adoption of a "reference" model will induce manufacturers to make a significant improvement in the performance of AM tuners. We are convinced that, as the service improves, good quality, wideband receivers will become common. By "good qualityll we mean receivers with a standardized frequency response that complements the broadcast audio preemphasis limitation defined in NRSC_1. 52 These receivers would also reject frequencies outside the bandwidth of the transmitted signal to which they are tuned. Generally, giving licensees protection from adjacent channel interference should encourage manufacturers to make and consumers to buy wideband receivers. These radios should improve the quality of the AM signal reaching a listener's ear and thus enhance AM broadcasters' ability to compete. 97. We propose to use as our planning assumptions the draft recommendation of the National Radio Systems Committee. We intend to treat them as recommendations to the receiver industry, not requirements. Few commenters to the Inquiry believed that we should estab lish mandatory receiver standards. Although we have heard of many creative and worthwhile improvements, we are also aware that they embody tradeoffs among features, performance and cost. Attempts to incorporate these in compulsory standards would reduce choices and raise prices. Consequently, we agree with the majority that there is now no reason for such standards and we do not intend to mandate receiver standards. 98. Use of the NRSC-2 emission limitation will reduce the occupied RF bandwidth of AM broadcast transmitters from 30 kHz to a nominal 20 kHz. leading to a reduction in adjacent channel interference levels and to improved reception quality for the AM service. 53 After we adopted the NRSC-2 emission standard, the NRSC developed, and circulated for approval, a proposed set of AM receiver technical parameters.54 While the NRSC has not yet given final approval to it, the draft proposal calls for receivers of substantially higher quality than those available today. We seek comment on whether the NRSC proposal is a complete and acceptable standard for Our purposes. Are there other requirements that we should assume? For example, should we assume that receivers can select, auto matically or manually. between wideband and narrowband transmission so that skywave service is pro tected from adjacent channel interference? If so, should characteristics of the narrowband operation also be speci fied? Would it be desirable to include recommendations that do not directly relate to interference protection cri teria, such as that all receivers with FM stereo capability should also have AM stereo capability? What assumptions are valid regarding industry implementation of the draft NRSC standards and the transition to wideband receivers? 5 FCC Red No. 15 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 90-136 99. We are considering developing a list of those receiv ers that satisfy the minimum criteria needed for the good quality receiver discussed above. We propose that such a list be updated and released as a public notice every six months. The intent of this list would be to help all parties identify those receivers with technical characteristics com plementing the improved transmissions we are working to achieve. IX. OTHER MATTERS 100. In a Petition For Rule A1aking filed February 2. 1989. Crawford Broadcasting Co., requests changes to Sec tion 73.182 of the rules regarding protection of Class I stations. Specifically, Crawford proposes that we: (1) eliminate consideration of secondary service, (2) adopt a protected contour of 2.0 mV/m groundwave, and (3) use 50% skywave curves for interference calculations. In a Petition for Rule Making filed May 9. 1989. Lloyd B. Roach, Inc., proposes changes to thepost~sunsetauthority rules, Section 73.99. to allow fulltime Class III stations their authorizedpre~sunrisepower level during the period between local sunset and 6:00 p.m. Both of thesepropos~ als, in essence. request a relaxation in interference protec tion standards and would. if adopted. cause increased levels of interference to numerous AM stations resulting in a general reduction in existing service in the AM band. Since this is inconsistent with the major theme of this proceeding, interference reduction. we will dismiss the instant petitions. Any comments these petitioners wish to file in this proceeding will be fully considered by the Commission. 101. In addition to proposing rules covering the sub jects discussed herein, we believe a general revision of the AM rules is appropriate at this time. Therefore, some of the rules proposed in Appendix 5 relate to subjects not discussed in this proceeding but which. if adopted, would update. correct or clarify the current rules. In view of this. we welcome comments and suggestions on any other changes to the rules that would produce an improved version of the AM rules. 102. The impetus for these changes has come from many sources. In general. the proposed rules which in volve modifications of existing procedure reflect the im plementation of practices which are currently in use and in effect have already superseded the printed require ments. The need for such changes has been brought to our attention over time by broadcasters and their repre sentatives, as well as by members of the Commission staff who deal with the daily administration of broadcasting functions. Two examples of this process can be seen in the changes proposed for Sections 73.150 and 73.152. Computerized methods in the area of directional antenna pattern calculation have dramatically reduced the amount of documentation needed in the application filing process. In reality much of the paperwork required for submission under Section 73.150 has not been demanded by the staff for many years. This fact and others are the subject of a Petition for Rule Making filed by Karl D_ Lahm on April 28. 1989. In light of the above. several of Mr. Lahm's recommendations have been incorporated in the new text of Section 73.150 in Appendix 5. 103. The current language in Section 73.152 lacks suffi cient specific directions regarding the filing of directional antenna augmentation applications. This has resulted in a set of instructions which the Commission staff has used 4393 internally and has over the years evolved into a policy. These guidelines are now included in the text of Section 73.152 to help reduce the number of amendments that must now be requested from applicants who initially seek excessively high levels of augmented radiation that are nor consistent with our primary goal of maintaining spectrum efficiency. Further on the subject of pattern augmenta tion, we seek comment on the need to extend thisproce~ dure to directional antennas for stations that will operate in the frequency range 1605 to 1705 kHz. With the ten dency toward the use of simple arrays along with the proposed reduced proof requirements for stations in this band. sufficient latitude may already be included to war rant the elimination of this added variable from direc tional pattern adjustment practices. 104. A number of changes are required to Part 2. Table of Frequency Allocations, Section 2.106 of the Rules 55 and to Part 90 of the Rules to implement the AM band expansion and to make new provisions for Travelers In formation Stations (TIS) as proposed herein. They are also shown in Appendix 5 and generally reflect our proposals to use the expanded band for broadcast operations, to permit TIS to operate on any expanded band frequency. and to allow for continued operation of non-broadcast stations provided interference is nor caused to broadcast stations. 105. On March 29. 1990. we released an Order 5ti that curtailed the filing of most applications for new or changed facilities. That action was taken so as to avoid compounding present difficulties with a continuing flow of applications based upon existing. possibly inadequate. standards. The Order included interim procedures that identified limited categories of applications which could continue to be filed. We believe that those procedures should be effective as long as this proceeding is open. X. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 106. In this ,Voliee. we have outlined our three-pronged attack on the problems confronting the existing AM ser vice. We have proposed changes to our technical stan dards. changes to some non-technical requirements. and have described our planned use of the expanded band. Such a combined approach. we believe. is necessary to improve the AM service. This proceeding covers a wide range of issues with no simple answers. We request com ments on the issues and proposals addressed in this ,Volice and encourage full participation of station licensees. theif engineering and legal representatives and receiver manu facturers. The comments should specifically address the issues identified herein. We will. however. consider all relevant comments regarding improvement of the AM service. XI. ADM1NISTRATiVE MATTERS 107. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFAl of the expected 'Impact on small entities of the proposals suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix 6. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These com ments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the Notice, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility FCC 90-136 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Rcd No. 15 Analysis. The Secretary shall send a· copy of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the RegUlatory Flexibility Act. Pub. L No. 96-354. 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.c. Section 601 el seq. (1981). 108. The proposal contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, and found to impose a new or modified information collec tion requirement on the public. Implementation of any new or modified requirement will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget as prescribed by the Act. 109. For purposes of this non-restricted notice and comment rule making proceeding, members of the public are advised that ex parte presentations are permitted ex cept during the Sunshine Agenda period. See generally 47 CFR 1.1206(a). The Sunshine Agenda period is the period of time which commences with the release of a public notice that a matter has been placed on the Sunshine Agenda. and terminates when the Commission (1) releases the text of a decision or order in the matter: (2) issues a public notice stating that the matter has been deleted from the Sunshine Agenda: Or (3) issues a public notice stating that the matter has been returned to the staff for further consideration. whichever occurs first. Section 1.1202(f). During the Sunshine Agenda period, no pre sentations. ex parte or otherwise, are permitted unless specifically requested by the Commission or staff for the clarification or adduction of evidence or the resolution of issues in the proceeding. Section 1.1203. 110. In general. an ex parle presentation is any presenta tion directed to the merits or outcome of the proceeding made to decision-making personnel which (l) if written. is not served On the parties to the proceeding. or (2) if oraL is made without advance notice to the parties to the proceeding and without opportunity for them to be present. Section 1.1202(b). Any person who makes or submits a written ex parte presentation must provide, on the same day it is submitted. two copies of same under separate cover to the Commission's Secretary for inclu sion in the public record. The presentation (as well as any transmittal letter) must clearly indicate on its face the docket number of the particular proceeding(s) to which it relates and the fact that two copies of it have been submit ted to the Secretary and must be labeled or captioned as an ex parte presentation. Ill. Any person who in making an oral ex parte pre sentation presents data or arguments not already reflected in that person's written comments, memoranda. or other previous filings in that proceeding shall provide. on the day of the oral presentation, an original and one copy of a written memorandum to the Secretary (with a copy to the Commissioner Or staff member involved) which summa rizes the data and arguments. The memorandum (as well as any transmittal letter) must clearly indicate on its face the docket number of the particular proceeding and the fact that an original and one copy of it have been submit ted to the Secretary. and must be labeled or captioned as an ex parte presentation. Section 1.1206. 112. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, in· terested parties may file comments on or before October 15, 1990, and reply comments on or before November 14, 1990. All relevant and timely comments will be consid· 4394 ered by the Commission before final action is taken in this proceeding. To file formally'in this proceeding, par ticipants must file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments. and supporting comments. If participants want each Commissioner to receive a per sonal copy of their comments, an originaJ plus nine copies must be filed. Comments and reply comments should be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for pub lic inspection during regular business hours in the Dock ets Reference Room (Room 239) of the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington. D.C. 20554. 113. Authority for the actions proposed above is con tained in Section 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 47 USc. Sections 154(i) and 303. 114. For further information on this proceeding, con tact William H. Hassinger, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 632-6460, or Larry W. Olson, Policy and Rules Division. Mass Media Bureau, (202) 632-6955. XII, ORDERING CLAUSES liS. IT IS ORDERED, That, pursuant to §5(c)(l) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. §155(c)(l), and §0.201(d)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §0.201(d)(2), the Mass Media Bureau shall prepare and the Bureau Chief shall sign orders terminating MM Docket No. 88-376. MM Docket No. 88-509 and MM Docket No. 88-51 L 1l6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED. That. pursuant to §4(i) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. §154(i), and §1.401(e) of the Commission's rules. 47 CF.R. §1.401(e), the Petitions for Rule Making filed by Crawford Broadcasting, Co.. and Lloyd B. Roach, Inc. ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Donna R. Searcy Secretary FOOTNOTES I Final .4ets of the Regional Administrative Radio Conference to Establish a Plan for the Broadcasting Service in the Band l605-1705 kHz in Region 2, Rio de Janeiro, 1988. 2 See Report and Order. MM Docket No. 89-46. FCC 90-139 (adopted April 12. 1990). 3 See Report on the Status of the AM Broadcast Rules, RM 5532 (Report). 4 See Review of Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87-267, 2 FCC Rcd 5014 ([987). 5 See Improved Methods for Calculating Skywave Field Strength in the 04,\1 Broadcast Band, MM Docket No. 88-508, 3 FCC Red 6431 (1988); Enhanced Nighttime Operation for Class [[-S and Class I[[-S AM Stations, MM Docket No. 88·509. 3 FCC Red 6444 (1988); Improved Methods for Calculating Groundwave Field Strength in the AM Broadcast Band, MM Docket No. 88-510, 3 5 FCC Red No. 15 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 90-136 FCC Red 65i7 (1988); Review of the Methods for Calculating Nighttime Protection for Stations in the AM Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 88-511, 3 FCC Red 6448 (1988); and, Amend ment of the Commission's Rules EO Improve the Quality of the AM Broadcast Service by Reducing Adjacent Channel Interference and by Eliminating Restrictions Pertaining to the Protected Day lime Contour, MM Docket No. 88-376, 3 FCC Red 5687 (1988). 6 See Policies to Encourage Interference Reduction Between AM Broadcast Stations, MM Docket No. 89-46, 4 FCC Red 2430 (1989). Prior to the Conference's completion, the Commission adopted a Fourth Notice of Inquiry to expedite domestic im piementation. In it, we posed important technical andproce dural questions relating to: national licensing; eligibility criteria; technical criteria; processing procedures; and travelersinforma~ tion stations (TIS), See Preparation for an International Tele· communication Union Region 2 Administrative Radio Conference for the Planning of Broadcasting in the 1605-1705 kHz Band, General Docket No. 84·467. 3 FCC Rcd 2345 (1988), We treat relevant domestic issues associated with the expanded band in this proceeding. We will keep Gen, Docket No 84-467 open so that we can consider there any remaining international matters. The first three notices and reports were in preparation for the two sessions of the RARC, see First Notice of Inquiry, 49 Fed, Reg. 21419 (May 21. 1(84); First Report, 50 Fed. Reg. 33844 (August 21, 1985); Second Notice of Inquiry. 50 Fed. Reg. 2077 (January 15, 1(85); Second Report, 51 Fed. Reg. 8706 (March 13. 1986); Third Notice of Inquiry. 2 FCC Red ·<295 (1987); and Third Report, 3 FCC Red 2345 (1988). II The U.S. was alloted 1660, 1080 and 1700 kHz in southern Florida, 1620 and 1690 kHz in the Virgin Islands, and 1660 kHz in Puerto Rico. 9 We are currently negotiating with Canada and Mexico reo garding border area use of the expanded band. Our goal is to develop agreements preserving flexibility for our domestic de· cisions and minimizing the need to coordinate proposals. 10 A standard station was defined as a fulltime station with power of I kWand a 90 degree omnidirectional antenna. Non standard powers up to 10 kW were permissible if other admin· istrations were accorded protection equivalent to that given by a standard station, l! See Report and Order, MM Docket No. 88-508. FCC 90·137 (adopted April 12. 19(0). 12 See Report and Order. MM Docket No. 88-510, FCC 90-138 (adopted April 12, 1990). 13 Report and Order, supra n. 2. I~See Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Improve the Quality of the AM Broadcast Service by Reducing Adjacent Chan nel Interference and by Eliminating Restrictions Pertaining to the Protected Daytime Contour, MM Docket No. 88·376, 4 FCC Rcd 3835 (1989); recon denied, 5 FCC Red 2598 (1990). 15 The value of Emin represents the minimum field strength necessary to permit a desired reception quality in the presence of atmospheric and man·made noise. \6 Atmospheric noise is created mainly by lightning discharges in thunderstorms. Man·made noise, found mainly in populous areas, arises from sources such as power lines, industrial rna· chinery. ignition systems and appliances. I' See First Report and Order, Docket 87·389, 4 FCC Rcd 3493 ( 1989). III See Order Granting Limited Waiver, FCC 83·361, released August 5, 1983, para. 20. See also Third Report and Order, Docket 20718, 50 FR 36061 (1985) and Erratum, Docket 20718. released August 29, 1985. 4395 19 See Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Docket 83-806, 51 FR 18004 (1986). 20 See Report and Order, Docket 83-806, 2 FCC Rcd 6775 para. 10 (1987). 21 See Comments of NAB on Sections I and IV of the Notice of Inquiry in MM Docket No. 87·267, Appendices A and B. Appendix A is the Klein Study and Appendix B is the Angell Report. 22 Appendix 1 illustrates the effects of this proposal. 23 The protection ratios used for this purpose would be 26 dB (co-channel) and 16 dB (first adjacent channel). 24 The protection ratios used for this purpose would be 26 dB (co-channel) and 0 dB (first adjacent channel), 25 Appendix 2 illustrates the effects of this proposal. 26 Adoption of these proposals depends upon elimination of international restrictions and final action on our proposal re H garding nighttime interference calculations. See paragraphs 38-41, supra. 27 Thus, we propose that AM stations in the expanded band meet a minimum efficiency requirement of 282 mVim at one km; use a quarter wave ground system; exhibit the antenna radiation characteristics of Figures 5 and 8. Section 73. 19(j of the rules; meet a one ohm loss resistance for directional antenna systems; and satisfy blanketing interference requirements. 28 See Comments of Westinghouse Broadcasting Company. Inc.• filed in MM Docket No. 89-46. 29 See Second Report and Order in Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in regard to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, MM Docket No. 83·523. 101 FCC 2d .9 (1985), on recon.. 59 RR 2d (P & F) 1355 (/986), remanded on other grounds sub nom. Telecommunications Re· search and Action Center, 836 F. ld 1349 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 83-523. 3 FCC Rcd 4564 (1988). 30 An individual has a cognizable interest in a broadcast station if the individual is an officer. director. partner or owner of 5% or more of the voting stock of the station. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555, Notes 1 and 2. 31 See Report and Order in Docket No. 15084, 45 FCC 1515 (1964). 32 See Report and Order in Docket No. 20016, 59 FCC 2d 147 (1976). 3) See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 85·357, 59 RR 2d 1611 (1986). 3-1 As pan of the record in this proceeding on this issue we intend to include the petition for rule making filed by Earl J. Weinreb on May 25. 1989 in which he requested that the Commission reimpose its AM·FM nonduplication rule. 35 2 FCC Red 4295 (1987), see supra n. 7. 36 3 FCC Rcd 4497 (1988). see supra n. I. 37 Consequently, we are abandoning the proposal for national licensing of the expanded band presented in the Fourth Notice of Inquiry in Gen. Docket No. 84·467. See n, 7. supra, 38 .7 U.s.c. §309 (1988). 39 Ashbacker Radio Corp. v, F.Ce., 326 U.S. 327. 333 n.9 (1945). 40 Uniled States v. Storer Broadcasling Co., 315 U.S. 192 (1956). 41 See, e.g., .4mendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modificalion of FAt and TV Authorizations to Specify a New Community ofLicense, 4 FCC Rcd 4870 (1989); Second Report and Order, Gen. Docket No. 82·243, 4- FCC Rcd 2012 (1989). FCC 9()"136 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Rcd No. 15 42 Because of the high density of Class IV stations on local channels, we believe that relatively little improvement would result if they were permitted to migrate. Accordingly. wepro~ pose initially to restrict Class IV stations from migrating to the expanded band. 43 Since these petitions would be the initial step used by the Commission to identify and rank stations proposing to migrate. the information required to be filed would be limited to an accurate description of the existing band station (call sign. toea· tion and frequency) and the information necessary to rank the station (interference caused and service rendered). .14 See para. 56, supra. 45 Appendix 3 is a sample channel study· "AM Interference Improvement on a Sample Channel as a Result of a Random Migration Process". 46 Appendix 4 demonstrates the application of thisimprove~ ment factor showing results on a sample channel. 47 See n. 43, supra. 48 See Appendix I of the Report on the Status ofAM Broadcast Rules, Mass Media Bureau Staff. April 3. 1986. 49 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(d). This rule generally prohibits cognizable ownership interests in more than 12 commerical AM stations. so See 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3555(a) which currently prohibits an attributable ownership interest in two or more commercial AM stations if their predicted or measured 5 mV/m groundwave contours overlap. 51 See Comments of NAB at 15-19: Comments of ABES at 17~18.Comments of Bonneville International Corporation at 7: and Comments of CBS at 9-1 L 52 See National Radio Systems Committee. NRSC-I AM Preemphasis/Deemphasis and Broadcast Audio Transmission Bandwidth Specifications (ANSIIEIA-549-1988). 53 Being greater than The separation of to kHz separating them. adjacent channel's transmitter bandwidths overlap. Re ducing bandwidth will reduce that overlap, thus improving reception quality. 54 See "Proposal for a Voluntary National Standard.Perfor~ mance Recomendations for AM Broadcast Receivers," dated Jan uary 9, 1990 and circulated for publication approval on January 22, IWO. A copy has been placed in the Docket file. " 47 C.F.R. §2.106. 56 5 FCC Rcd 2136 (19'10). 4396 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ANDREW C. BARRETT Re: Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service MM Docket No. 87·267 I applaud the Commission's efforts to improve the AM radio service. Like most people of my generation, I grew up listening to AM radio as it entertained and informed me of events in my community and around the world. I understand the problems this service faces. These con cerns were made all the more apparent during an all day En Bane hearing on AM improvement. I listened intently as some of those concerned with the fate of AM explained the steps that needed to be taken to assist in AM radio's survival. I fully support the policy goals enunciated in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making of transforming and revitalizing the AM radio service. I write separately to voice my concerns over the alloca tion of channels on the expanded AM band (1605-1705 kHz). I understand the desire to remove interference and congestion from the existing AM band. However, the cure for AM may be the denial of opportunity for new en trants. including minorities. women and public broad casters. I am concerned particularly about the plight of new minority broadcasters who could assist in adding to the level of diversity in broadcasting. Currently. minor ities own only about 3 percent of the approximately 11.000 broadcast stations in this country. There is a need to ensure that minorities are not precluded from owner ship opportunities as this Commission allocates new spec trum. I recognize that through our actions today some existing minority and female broadcast station owners will be able to trade up to technically better facilities on the expanded AM band. This reality makes the denial of new entry for these groups more palatable. Yet, I also would hope that this Commission would continue to look favorably upon providing opportunities for minorities. women and those proposing non-commercial public radio on the expanded AM band in situations where (1) no broadcasters in the existing AM band request the allocation or (2) where none of the stations requesting the allocation would. in fact, reduce the interference or congestion on the existing AM band. Such a scheme would appear consistent with our efforts to improve AM radio. Moreover, it would assist us in accomplishing our long held goal of diversity of programming through media ownership. Appendix 1 Proposed Changes in Daytime First Adjacent Channel Protection Standards Protection ratios are used in conjunction with protected contours to determine the service and interference relationships between stations. The value of the protection ratio varies depending on the frequency relationship of the stations involved. In the case of stations separated by one channel, i.e., first adjacent channel, the current rules apply a value of 0 dB while the proposed rules specify a value of 16 dB. The significance of such a change in values is related to the contours that would be considered as "interfering". Using a protected contour of 0.5 mV/m, the interfering contour would be 0.5 mV 1m for the current rules and 0.079 mV/m for the proposed rules. Such a change in the protection ratio would, in effect, extend the distance to a station's interfering contour, thereby resulting in the depiction of interference where presently no interference is predicted. To demonstrate the effects of this change, Exhibit 1.1 shows the service and interference relationship of four stations. The subject station, KZIM, Cape Girardeau, MO (960 kHz) is located relatively close to first adjacent channel stations WMAY, Springfield, MO (970 kHz), KLIK, Jefferson City, MO (950 kHz) and KNEA, Jonesboro, AR (970 kHz). Note that under the present first adjacent channel standard, the revelant contours (0.5 mV/m) of the stations are no worse than tangential and that no interference to KZIM is predicted. However, when the protection standard is changed from 0 dB to 16 dB, a considerable area of interference to KZI M results (shown as cross-hatched areas). As these stations are licensed entities, such an illustration is only useful to show the existence of interference in areas where licensees may have thought service was being provided. The proposed rules would not require existing stations to make modifications to correct these interference situations that have been identified based on a more accurate value of the protection ratio. However, the real benefit from these changes would be manifest where eXisting service is further protected from incursions which may come from proposals for new stations and increases in existing operations that would be allowed under the current standards. Finally, licensees may use this new information to identify areas under interference which may be the subject of future agreements to improve their service. 4397 \ ( I , l I oj J I. i , . I "1 I I . , .;-098 ._.4 AREA n,w ---".---- ~ ~"-.- :\ -I, / \ 1 '., , , , ---------~,~-------- K I LO:'jETER:3 .----- ---,-----------1 CROSS HATCHEO AREA SIGNIFIES NEW INTERFERENCE TO KZIM RESULTING FROM 16dB FIRST AOJACENT CHANNEL PROTECTION FACTOR EXH IBIT 1. 1 4398 Appendix 2 Effects of Proposed Standards on AM Nighttime Operations This proceeding proposes numerous .revisions to the standards and methods we currently use to authorize new or modified AM nighttime operations. The effects of the proposed changes on AM stations relate to either service area calculations or interference protection requirements. It is believed that implementation of these changes would result in a more accurate depiction of nighttime service and interference and would require applicants to provide greater interference protection to existing stations. To illustrate the effects of these changes, nighttime limits of stations on a sample frequency, 600 kHz, were calculated using our current rules (existing skywave curves,50~exclusion and no consideration of first adjacent channel sky lola ve inte rference) and Our proposed rules (new skywave model, no eXClusion, and a 16 db protection ratio for first adjacent channel skywave interference protection). A nighttime limi t is the value of field strength of the desired signal necessary to overcome interfering signals from other undesired stations. Interference-free service is obtained within the contour determined by that nighttime limit. The r,igher the limit, the snaller the interference free service area. The Commission's current database was used as a basis for the calculations. Although the data may contain inconsistencies or errors originating from sources such as unstudied foreign notifications, their use appears reasonable for the purposes of this study. To show the relative locations and radiation characteristics of stations considered in this study, the attached maps (EXhibits 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3) indicate the location of nighttime stations on the sample frequency (600 kHz) as well as those on the first adjacent channels (590 and 610 kHz). Table I shows the individual calculated nighttime limits imposed on KCLS from each of 94 interference sources and the "running" RSS which is computed as each new limit is considered. Twenty-six of those limits are from stations operating on KCLS's frequency; the remainder are those on 590 and 610 kHz. Since the current rules disregard adjacent channel signals, the calculated limits for stations 27 to 94 are zero as shown in the limit column. Note that the ROS in the current rules column is 11.0665 and remains unchanged regardless of the existence of addi tional signals from other stations. This is because the signal levels for stations 2 to 94 are less than50~of the signal from station 1 and are therefore oisregarded under our current RSS procedure. Data for stations 36 thru 93 were omitted since they have little or no effect on KCLS. The right hand columns are based on the proposed rules in which no signals are omitted. Note that the proposed method Includes contributions from first adjacent channel stations. 4399 Table II is a comparison of RSS nighttime limitation values for fulltime U.S. stations on 600 kHz and was compiled from calculations similar to Table I for the fifteen U.S. nighttime stations on 600 kHz. The current and proposed RSS are those derived from line 94 of Table I for each set of calculations. These RSS values are used to describe the interference-free service area of a station and, in general, are higher under the proposed standards. Root sum squared (RSS) values are computed for each station using, first, the present standards and then, the proposed standards. Resultant coverage areas are given along with the RSS values. The RSS values obtained using the proposed rules are a more accurate depiction of the actual coverage provided by the listed stations. Table III compares the protection afforded KCLS under the current rules and the proposed rules. The table identifies stations and their limits to KCLS. Also shown is the channel relationship with KCLS. For instance, station KKLQ operates on the same channel (indicated by a zero in the Ch column) as KCLS and causes a limit of 11. 01 mV 1m to KCLS. This is the highest limit to KCLS and thus becomes the first limit in the KCLS RSS. \.Ising the current50~ exclusion method, the next permissible limit would be 5.53 mV/m (11.01/2). Since the KKLQ limit is already inclUded in KCLS's RSS, KKLQ would not be permitted to increase radiation in the direction of KCLS. This is shown by the 0.00 in the I ncrease Allowed. column. Under the proposed rules, the KKLQ limit to KCLS is 10.11 mV 1m which exceeds the permissible limit of 1.00 mV/m. Thus, KKLQ would be required to reduce its radiation by10~towards KCLS if future modifications were made. Table I V illustrates the effects of tt,,, new standards on the flexibility of KCLS. The table identifies the limi ts r;CLS causes to other stations. The information is similar to that shown in Table III except that columns inclUding bearing (Az.) and distance (Dist.) from KCLS are provided to aid in evaluating the restrictions on KCLS. For instance, KCLS operates on the next higher channel (indicated by a + HI the Ch column) as KOJM and causes a limit of 0.00 mV/m to KOJM under the present rules which do not consider adjacent channel operations. The.50~RSS nighttime limitation of KOJM is 10.32 mV/m, giving a permlssible limit of 5.16 mV/m. Under the current rules, KCLS is not restricted from increasing radiation towards KOJM. Under the proposed rules, the KCLS limit to KOJM is 0.4. mV/ra, permitting an increase in radiation towards KOJM of 2.5 times its present value. 4400 Table 1 Interference (Limits) to KCLS Current Rules Proposed Rules # Call Limit (mV/m) RSS (mV/m) # Call Limit (mV/m) RSS (mV/m) 1 KKLQ 11.0665 11.0665 1 KKLQ 10.7148 10.7148 2 KSJB 4.0606 11.0665 2 KSJB 3.4090 11.2441 3 KllX 3.9254 11.0665 3 KROD 3.0939 11.6620 4 KROD 3.4717 11.0665 4 WMT 2.8653 12.0088 5 KTBB 3.0378 11. 0665 5 KTBB 2.8426 12.3406 6 WMT 2.7196 11.0665 6 KUX 2.7494 12.6432 7 KHTE 2.5158 11.0665 7 KSUB 2.3309 12.8563 8 XEDN 2.1771 I I .0665 8 WREC 2.2869 13.0581 9 KGEZ 1.9993 11.0665 9 XEDN 1.8504 13.1885 10 WREC 1.8324 11.0665 10 KRSO 1.8158 13.3129 I I CFQC 1. 6554 11.0665 I I KFRC 1.8085 13.4352 12 CHRX 1.2896 11.0665 12 KHTE 1.7765 13.5522 13 XEMN 0.7169 I I .0665 13 KAVL 1.7290 13.6620 14 XEBB 0.3780 11.0665 14 KZSS 1.6261 13.7585 15 XEGT 0.3606 11.0665 15 KVNU 1.5531 13.8458 16 XEZ 0.2666 11. 0665 16 CFQC 1.4454 13.92 I I 17 WOKV 0.2053 1I .0665 17 KGEZ 1. 4371 13.9951 18 WSJS 0.1487 11.0665 18 CHRX 1.2204 14.0482 19 WlCC 0.1105 11. 0665 19 KAQQ 1.1036 14.0914 20 CFCT 0.1072 I 1.0665 20 XEHQ 0.9961 14.1266 . 21 WCAO 0.1011 11.0665 21 KCSJ 0.9918 14.1614 22 CBNA 0.0931 I 1.0665 22 KlD 0.9240 14.1915 23 CFCH 0.0569 11.0665 23 wow 0.8915 14.2195 24 CFCF 0.0520 11. 0665 24 WDAF 0.8699 14.2461 25 CKCL 0.0447 I I .0665 25 KLBJ 0.8615 14.2721 26 WTAC 0.0218 11. 0665 26 XEBB 0.7649 14.2926 27 CKYL 0.0000 11 .0665 27 XEMN 0.6968 14.3095 28 CHNL 0.0000 I I .0665 28 XEPH 0.6028 14.3222 29 CJAT 0.0000 11.0665 29 XEGS 0.5451 14.3326 30 CHTM 0.0000 11. 0665 30 XEZ 0.5398, 14.3428 31 CKYQ 0.0000 11.0665 31 KTHO 0.5315 14.3526 32 CKTB 0.0000 11 .0665 32 XEGT 0.5302 14.3624 33 CFLO 0.0000 11.0665 33 KYJC 0.5090 14.3714 34 CHNC 0.0000 11.0665 34 KUGN 0.4966 14.3800 35 CKRW 0.0000 11.0665 35 KILT 0.4747 14.3878 94 WLVA 0.0000 11.0665 94 CKYQ 4401 0.0025 14.4281 Table II Current versus Proposed RSS Current Rules Proposed Rules Call Location RSS (mV/M) Area (sq. mi. ) RSS (mV/M) Area (Sq. mL) KCLS Flagstaff, AZ 11 .067 278.5 14.428 179.7 KHTE Redding, CA 10.552 498.3 12.418 395.4 KKLQ San Diego, CA 2.724 29398.4 8.365 5528.7 KIlX Wellington, CO 19.979 98.9 18.699 111. 1 WICC Bridgeport, CT 3.911 705.2 11. 122 214.7 WOKV Jacksonville, FL 11.285 2017 .6 16.998 789.3 WMT Cedar Rapids, IA 2.642 10725.6 9.291 2186.6 WCAO Baltimore, MD 3.809 2570.0 12.082 668.8 WTAC Flint, MI 9.053 329.6 21.002 84.9 KGEZ Kalispell, MT 17.813 150.3 15.126 190.8 WSJS Winston-Salem, NC 5.309 952.0 8.765 524.8 KSJB Jamestown, NO 11 . 186 3259.8 9.871 4005.9 WREC Memphis, TN 2.262 10228.3 9.038 2090.0 KROD El Paso, TX 7.886 1330.0 14.013 667.0 KTBB Tyler, TX 21.800 306.6 21. 793 306.7 4402 Table III How KCLS Restricts Other U.S. Stations Current Rules Proposed Rules Permiss Permiss Limit Limit Increase Limit Limit Increase Call Ch (mV/m) (mV/m) Allowed (mV/m) (mV/m) Allowed KKLQ 0 11.07 5.53 O.CO 10.71 1.00 .... KSJB 0 4.06 5.53 1.36 3.41 1.00 .. KROD 0 3.47 5.53 1. 59 3.09 1.00 ... WMT 0 2.72 5.53 2.03 2.&7 1.00 ... KTBB 0 3.04 5.53 1.82 2.84 1.00 .... KllX 0 3.93 5.53 1. 41 2.75 1.00 .- KSUB 0.00 5.53 • 2.33 1.00 .'* WREC 0 1.83 5.53 3.02 2.29 1.00 .. KRSO 0.00 5.53 .. 1.&2 1.00 •• KFRC + 0.00 5.53 .. 1. &1 1.00 ** KHTE 0 2.52 5.53 2.20 1.78 1.00 .. KAVL + 0.00 5.53 • 1.73 1.00 ... KVNU + 0.00 5.53 .. 1.55 1.00 .. KGEZ 0 2.00 5.53 2.77 1.44 1.00 .- KAQQ 0.00 5.53 ..- 1. 10 1.00 .. KCSJ 0.00 5.53 .. 0.99 1.00 1. 01 WDAF + 0.00 5.53 .. 0.87 1.00 1. 15 KUGN 0.00 5.53 .. 0.50 1.00 2.01 KILT + 0.00 5.53 • 0.47 1.00 2.11 WOKV 0 0.21 5.53 26.95 0.35 1.00 2.85 WlOD + 0.00 5.53 *' 0.26 1.00 3.83 KDAL + 0.00 5.53 ... 0.25 1.00 4.04 KOJM + 0.00 5.53 .. 0.23 1.00 4.27 WSJS 0 0.15 5.53 37.21 0.22 1.00 4.52 WIP + 0.00 5.53 .. 0.14 1.00 6.93 WCAO 0 0.10 5.53 54.72 0.14 1.00 7.38 KARV + 0.00 5.53 ..- 0.13 1.00 7.43 WICC 0 0.11 5.53 50.08 0.13 1.00 7.47 WCEO 0.00 5.53 • 0.12 1.00 8.31 WAFC. 0.00 5.53 .. o.oB 1.00 12.40 KONA + 0.00 5.53 .. 0.05 1.00 21.51 lIMBS 0.00 5.53 *' 0.03 1.00 37.58 WTAC 0 0.02 5.53 253.28 0.03 1.00 37.85 WJMS 0.00 5.53 .. 0.02 1.00 %.17 .. No restriction. ** No increase allowed. Modification would be permitted if limit is reduced at least 10%. 4403 Table IV How Other U.S. Stations Restrict KCLS Current Rules Proposed Rules Permiss Permiss Az. Dist. Limit Limit Increase Limit Limit Increase c: ' 1 Ch --i:!1 (mi. ) (mV/m) (mVlm) Allowed (mV/m) (mV/m) Allowed KOJM + 5.8 931.2 0.00 5.16 • 0.40 1.00 2.50 KSJB 0 36. 1 1047.4 1.23 5.59 4.53 1.04 1.00 .. KIlX 0 41.9 522.0 5.44 9.99 1.84 3.84 1.00 .. KDAL + 45.9 1286.4 0.00 5.89 • 0.21 1.00 4.87 KCSJ - 58.7 446.6 0.00 5.79 • 1.48 1.00 .. WMT 0 60.4 1182.3 0.80 1.32 1.66 0.84 1.00 1. 19 WTAC 0 61.9 1588.6 0.35 4.53 13.07 0.42 1.00 2.38 WKZO - 62.8 1484.5 0.00 5.33 • 0.16 1.00 6.34 WROW - 64.4 2082.8 0.00 4.77 • 0.06 1.00 15.44 WSNG + 66.0 2120.1 0.00 6.88 • 0.06 1.00 15.82 WICC 0 67.2 2114.9 0.17 1. 96 11.54 0.21 1.00 4.86 WDAF + 69.4 974.0 0.00 1. 61 • 0.39 1.00 2.54 WMBS - 70.0 1770.0 0.00 2.82 • 0.11 1.00 9.31 WCAO 0 70.9 1929.4 0.21 1.90 9.23 0.28 1.00 3.62 WUSQ + 71.5 1852.0 0.00 8.29 • 0.10 1.00 10.28 WLVA - 75.5 1805.2 0.00 4.59 • O. 11 1.00 9.37 WSJS 0 78.7 1752.5 0.25 2.65 10.72 0.37 1.00 2.71 WROQ + 80.8 1730.5 0.00 5.83 • 0.12 1.00 8.30 WREC 0 83.7 1221. 3 0.63 1. 13 1.80 0.78 1.00 1.28 KARV + 84.2 1044.0 0.00 8.36 • 0.33 1.00 3.01 WZZK + 87.6 1416.5 0.00 5.84 • 0.18 1.00 5.47 KZSS + 90.8 283.3 0.00 4.27 • 2.16 1.00 .. WOKV 0 92.5 1764.9 0.22 5.64 26.10 0.37 1.00 2.70 WGNE - 95.5 1550.6 0.00 4.67 • 0.15 1.00 6.72 KTBB 0 97.3 966.6 1. 18 10.90 9.25 1.10 1.00 .. WAFC - 99.3 1906.2 0.00 12.27 • 0.10 1.00 10.19 KROD 0 125. 1 379.0 3.32 3.94 1. 19 2.90 1.00 •• KKLQ 0 242.8 353.5 0.89 1.36 1. 54 0.84 1.00 1. 19 KFRC + 290.3 617.8 0.00 1.96 • 0.49 1.00 2.04 KHTE 0 305.9 691.4 2.22 5.28 2.38 1.56 1.00 •• KUGN - 318.8 862.9 0.00 8.08 • 0.38 1.00 2.64 KSUB - 334.5 192.6 0.00 5.38 • 3.25 1.00 •• KGEZ 0 352.3 906.4 1. 81 8.91 4.92 1.30 1.00 .. KVNU + 358.2 448.5 0.00 4.77 • 1.45 1.00 .. • No restriction. n No increase allowed. Modification would be permitted if limit is reduced a t least W.. 4404 _F . ,r;; ~,j', ,CJ~ _~II \ _. , __._. _. __~__ .~_.~__, __ -.i •__ •__~~~__~,... __ i ! (;; .-='. 0. ;";-i t Z UJ u « -, C> « t V> 0:: .... 0:: UJ ::< . <> . ..J, N :c -'" o '" ...., ..J UJ Z Z .« :c u ':--" .- I· ~I - ---.-- .' ---, -' -e- -I . I ~! I _~I ~: ( . I -; " . l~' .~\:~~ ';- I I ; I - . ,. r ._ . . _.. ..... . -- . ... ..(. o . -. :r-:;-~,! I',-V 1 EXHIBIT 2.1 4405 i::J 1'_ IS , :.. ..- .'-" .- I I.~., I· i i ! I I I i . i I J I ; ..~., '" e! .. rn I .... _..•. _. "'G- I I I I I V> :z o ...J W :z :z ex: :I: u I o· u o ." , I ! , . 0"; I .... " .. N :I: -". o o .., ::--." ,",.j: fXHIBIT 2,2 4406 ------ ..... ,.- . .......... '., . I I tho"~I \l.! i - ... ' a: • w· 0.. ' 0..: :::> N :I: -" a '" , s: l"t, 1 .. .. - 'B'·j I I , ... Z W u 8).. Represents the theoretical inverse distance fields at one kilometer for the given azimuth and elevation. • • • The standard radiation pattern shall be constructed in accordance with the fo !low ing ma thematical expression: • (Eq. 2) where: ~.~.8)...Represents the inverse fields at one kilometer which are deemed to be produced by the directional antenna in the horizontal and vertical planes. £(4)8).. Represents the theoretical inverse distance fields at one kilometer as computed in accordance with Eq. 1, above. Q is the greater of the following quantities: 0.025 9 (0) E ,&. or 10.0 9 «(J )..JP kW .. .. .. * • (ji) ••• (2) All patterns shall be computed for integral multiples of five degrees, beginning with zero degrees representing true north, and, shall be plotted to the largest scale possible on unglazed letter-size paper (main engraving 4428 appl'oximately 7" x 10") using only scale divisions and subdivisions of 1, 2, 2.5, or 5 times lO nth . The horizontal plane pattern shall be plotted on polar coordinate paper, with the zero degree point corresponding to true north. Patterns for elevation angles above thehor~ontalplane may be plotted in polar or rectangular coordinates, with the pattern for each angle of elevation on a separate page: Rectangular plots shall begin and end at true north, with all azimuths labelled in increments of not less than 20 degrees. If a rectangular plot is used, the ordinate showing the scale for radiation may be logarithmic. Such patterns for elevation angles above the horizontal piane need be submitted only upon specific request by Conunission staff. Minor lobe and null detail occurring between successive patterns for specific angles of elevation need not be submitted. Values of field strength on any pattern less than ten percent of the maximum field strength plotted on that pattern shall be shown on an enlarged scale. Rectangular plots with a logarithmic ordinate need not utilize an expanded scale unless necessary to show clearly the minor lobe and null detail. (3) The effective (RMS) field strength in thehor~ontalplane of :£<0.0).... E(.~I),.and the root sum square (RSS) ·value of the inverse fields of the array el€;ments at 1 kilometer, derived fronf the equation for E <.0)... These values shall be tabulated on the page on which the horizontal plane piittern is plotted, which shall be specifically labelled as the StandardHor~ontal·PlanePattern. (4) * * * (5) * * * (iv) Where waiver of the content of this section is requested or upon request of the Commission staff, all assumptions made and the basis therefor, particularly with respect to the electrical height of the elements, current distribution along elements, efficiency of each element, and ground conductivity. (v) Where waiver of the content of this section is requested, or upon request of the Commission staff, those formulas used for computing E(,O),. and Eiice that of the other, should not be assigned in the same groundwave service area unless special precautions are taken to avoid interference from the second harmonic of the lower frequency. Additionally, in selecting a frequency, consideration should be given to the fact that occasionally the frequency assignment of two stations in the same area may bear such a relation to the intermediate frequency of some broadcast receivers as to cause so-called "image" interference. However, since this can usually be rectified by readjustment of the intermediate frequency of such receivers, the Commission, in general, will not take this kind of interference into consideration when authorizing stations. (t) Two stations operating with synchronized carriers and carrying the identical program will have their groundwave service subject to some distortion in areas where the signals from the two stations are of comparable strength. For the purpose of estimating coverage of such stations, areas in which the signal ratio is between 1 to 2 and 2 to 1 will not be considered as having satisfactory service. Note: Two stations are considered to be operated synchronously when the carriers are maintained within 0.2 Hz of each other and they transmit identical programs. 28. Section 73.183 is amended by f'emoving paragraph (b) and adding the note that follows paragraph (a). and by redesignating paragraphs (c) through (f) as (b) through (e), and revising new paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as follows: §73.183 Groundwave signals. (a) * * * Note: Groundwave field strength measurements will not be accepted or considered for the purpose of establishing that interference to a station in a foreign country other than Canada, or that signal strength at the border thereof. would be less than indicated by the application of the ground conductivity maps and engineering standards contained in this part and applicable international agreements. Satisfactory groundwave measurements offered for the purpose of demonstrating values of conductivity other than 4438 those shown by Figure M3 in problerrs ir,V01VlrJg protection of Canadian stations will be considered only if, after review thereof, the appropriate agency of the Canadian government notifies the Commission that they are acceptable for such purpose. • • • • • (c) Example of determining interference by the graphs in §73.184: It is desired to find whether objectionable interference may exist between a proposed 5 kW Class B station on 990 kHz and an existing 1 kW Class B station on the adjacent channel of 1000 kHz. The spacing between the two stations is 260 kilometers and both stations operate nondirectionally with antenna systems which produce an effective field of 282 mV/m at one kilometer. (See §73.185 in case of use of directional antennas.) The conductivity at each station and of the intervening terrain is determined as 6 mS/m. The protection to Class B stations during daytime is to the 500~V/m(0.5 mVm) contour using a 16 dB protection factor. The distance to the 500~V/mgroundwave contour of the 1 kW station is determined by the use of the appropriate curve in §73.184. Since the curve is plot ted for 100 mV 1m at a 1 kilometer, to find the distance to the 0.5 mV/m contour of the 1 kw station. it is necessary to determine the distance to the 0.1773 m/Vm contour. (100 X 0.5/282 = 0.1773) Using the 6 mS/m curve, the estimated radius of the 0.5 mV/m contour is seen to be 62.5 kilometers. SUbtracting this distance from the distance between the two stations leaves 197.5 kilometers. Using the same propagation curve, the signal from the 5 kW station at this dlStance is seen to b!, 0.059 mV/m. Since a protection factor of 16 dB, desired to undesired signal, applies to stations separated by 10 kHz, the undesired signal could have had a value of up to o. 079 mV /m 101 i thout causing objectionable interference. For co-channel studies. a desired to undesired signal ratio of no less than 20 to 1 (26 dB) is required to avoid causing objectionable interference. (d) ••• (e) An example of the use of the equivaler,t diStance method follows: It is desired to determine the distance to the 0.5 mV/m and 0.025 mV/m con tours of a station on a frequency of 1000 kHz with an inverse distance field of 100 mV/m at one kilometer being radiated over a path having a conductivity of 10 mS/m for a distance of 20 kilometers, 5 rnS/m for the next 30 kilometers and 15 mSm/m thereafter. Using the appropriate curve in §73.184, Graph 12, at a distance of 20 kilometers on the curve for 10 mS/m it is seen that the field strength is2.8~mV/m. On the 5rnS/m curve, the equivalent distance to this field strength is seen to be 14.92 kilometers, which is 5.08 (20 - 14.92) kilometers nearer to the transnitter. Continuing on the propagation curve, the distance to a field strength of 0.5 mV/m is seen 4439 to be 36.11 kilometers. The aCLU2} le"gtt, of the path travelled,ho~everis 41.19 (36.11 + 5.08) kilometers. Contlnulng on this propagation curve to the conductlVlty change at 44.92 (50.00 - 5.(8) kilometers, it is seen that the field strength is 0.304 mV/m. On the i5 mS'm propagation curve, the equivalent distance to this field strength is seen to be 82.94 kilometers, which changes the effectlve path length by 38.02 (82.94 - 44.92) kilometers. Continuing on this propagatlOn curve, the distance to a field strength of 0.025 mV/m is seen to be 224.4 kilometers. The actual length of the path travelled, however, is 191.46 (224.4 + 5.08 - 38.02) kilometers. 29. Section 73.184 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and the note follow ing paragraph (b), removing par'agraph (c), and revising and redesignating paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) as (c), (d), and (e), to read as follows: §73.184 Groundwave field strength charts. (a) Graphs 1 to 20sho~,for each of 20 frequencies, thecom~utedvalues of groundwave field strength as a function of groundwave conductivity and distance from the source of radiation. The groundwave field strength is here considered to be tha t par t of the vertIcal component of the electric field which has not been reflected from the ionosphere nor from the troposphere. These 20 families of curves are plotted on log-log graph paper and each is to be used for the range of frequpncies Shown thereon. Computations are based on a dielectric constant of the ground (referred to air as unity) equal to 15 for land and 80 for sea water and for' the ground conductivities (expressed in mS/m) given on the curves. The curves show the variation of the groundwave field strength with distance to be expected for transmission from a vertical antenna at the surface of a uniformly conducting spherical earth with the ground~aveconstants shown on the curves. The curves are for an antenna power of such efficiency and current distribuCion that the inverse distance (unattenuated) field is 100 mV/m at 1 kilometer. The curves are valid at distances large compared to the dimensions of the antenna for other than short vertical antennas. ,b) ••• NOTE: Thecomput~dvalues of field str·eil,;tr. versus distance used to plot Graphs 1 to 20 are available in tabular form. Copies of these tabulations may be ordered from the FCC offlcl then shifted vertically until the best fit is obtained with one of the curves on the graph; the intersection of the inverse di.>tance line on the graph with the 1 kilometer abscissa on the chart determines the inverse di.>tance field strength at 1 kilometer. For other values of dielectric constant, the following procedure may be used for a determination of the dielectric constant of the ground, conductivity of the ground and the inverse di.>tance field strength at 1_ kilometer. Graph 21 gives the relative values of groundwave field strength over a plane earth as a function of the numerical di.>tance p and phase angle b. On graph paper with coordinates similar to those of Graph 21, plot the measured values of field strength as ordinates versus the corresponding distances from the antenna in kilometers as absci.'lsae. The data should be plotted only for distances greater than one wavelength (or, when thi.> i.> greater, five times the vertical height of the antenna in the case of a single elOOlent, i.e., nondirectional antenna or 10 times the spacing between the elements of a directional antenna) and for di.>tances less than 80f 1 / 3 /rnHz kilometers (i.e., 80 kilometers at 1 mHz). Then, U.'3ing a light box, place the sheet with the data plotted on it over the sheet with the curves of Graph 21 and shift the data sheet vertically and horizontally (making sure that the vertical lines on both sheets are parallel) until the best fit with the 'data is obtained with one of the curves on Graph 21. When the two sheets are properly lined up, the value of the field strength corresponding to the intersection of the inverse distance line of Graph 21 with the 1 kilometer abscissa on the data sheet is the inverse di.>tance field strength at 1 kilometer, and the values of the numerical distance at 1 kilometer, P" and of b are also determined. Kno'iing the values of band P1 (the numerical distance at one kilometer), we may substitute in the following approximate values of the grounc conductivity and dielectric constant. 7f ( ) "V A - -p. R/f, l' COS b (Eq. 1) (RIA) 1 = Number of 'iave]engths in • • • kiJometer, f MHz -')'i: frequency expr'essed in megahertz, (Eq. 3) E ::. dielectric constant of thegrou:~cJt"ef2t'red to air' as unity. First solve forA. by subst uting the~:;;D,~TJv2.lues of P1 J (Rdl 1 and cos b in equation (l) < EqLctlon (2) may then be solved for b and equation (3) for G. At distances gt'eater thdn SOif-;!3 MHz kilometers the curves of Graph 21 do not pve the correct relative v8.lues of field strength since the curvdture of thE. ear-en ;'ieake:ls the field more r'apidly than these plane :_- ·• · • • • • ", . , , fIl .. .. ., t .. ~ .. -=== -- ..l 0 <: --- :E " 'A .~ .~ .~ " KILOMETERS 1-"'ROM ANTENNA DLOMETEkSiT~O;"i,<\...~jEc'\.\A GRi">PH 4442 • ........,.........- .,+..",-.~._;... GR.OUND WAVE FtE1D ST'Ra"'GrH VF'.ASUS DiSTANCE 540-560 kHz ~FOR5SOlih "", ! ,4.:' , - KILOMETERS FROM ANiENNA ,. ',' - "..... ,,'" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~; '~"'::~~:~~l""'-".-- ,. ,- _. "- <.-- --;_.. __._...l.... ,._--= __\0~ ._~~-~-_.-.................- =~:::~~:S='::::..._.. _..~::::,:!,=-:::gg-;:;=- =--=-_-=:~7_~..:f-=-=-:':.;===i~-__.-B" ~i~~i0~~ • ". . , ~. · « · • K.lLn~jLTFRSFRO?\1AJ''TE~:-'':", GRAPll :: 4443 KILOMETERS FROM AATEJ-.JNA .. " " " \ ," , " , •• .~ • • .. • •, • , -~- • • -II1II_ ~II.- ,- - = .~._- - - - - - KILOMETERS fROM A.NTENNA GRAPH 3 4444 KILOMETERS FROM ANTEJ".,'NA • I' \~I *~- • • KJLOMETERS FROM Al'<'TEl""!\'A GRAPi' -1 4445 ~ · ·• • • • • .. · · , · . 00 00 ,- .' . .. 0> 0.'" .. •• .. - - - --_.I'S._ --'=-,-'- _~.=§E=-I- KlLOMETERS FROM ANTENNA KJLOMETERS FROM Al'\'TEt'J'A GRAPH 5 4446 • /= /,~ ~;: /;; 1,1/ /l~ 1/ ',I ! / '// '/ ", I • '", , ,,~. ".0 : • · • · • • .. · · , · .. .. ., .. , o~ o. 0.0" .. KILOMETERS FROM ANTE1'I'NA " :-;:;;~::..:=::..";,,~:.-;.~.:.t~:~.._'"!ll: ~~~~~~~:-f]~:$;;t,..,~ •. 1..,.; ..1....'." KILOME rERS FROM A.",rEN1"0 • >0 >0 >0 • · , ., .. <' .. KILOMETERS J-"ROM ANTE/'l"NA K1LOMFTt·.K5 FRO.'.1 '!'.TF.:\"<·\ CRAf'H '" 4449 .:. >0 , '" " ---- '-." . ·,"1 '~_II • ". . , . __ ._=","=='-'0 .:-:.__:;:-:--'---:7-'-~ ---- .::::=.- -_:::~= KILOMETERS FROM ANTENNA KILOMETERS FROM Al'-jEN:\'A GRAPH 9 4450 C 1/" I II ,, ./i :ro /; I / 1/ .I ;15 '" KJLOMETERS FROM M'TENNA :- ,.~--- • • • • , .< ., ".. " " ,. .. .. .. .. .. .. .~ . .. - - - .'1m; KJL'':'MFTERS FROMA~TE:-\1\.'\ GRAPH 10 4451 • GROUND WAVE FIELD STRENGTH VERSUS DISTANCE 870-910 kHz • ( I 'I I' / " KILOMETERS FROM ANTENNA " , . , , ::•• "u " ,. .. .. ~ '" '" "' ... KILOMETERS FROM Al'-.'TE1't"NA GRAPH 11 4452 " ,""" , I~ Ii 1/ :)Q ifi :v. 11'1 1// " ";; I '/: // fil/, '/ / / " '/ ; / f, ! / / . .-' / ,6 f/ I , '/ , . lilii_II} KlLOMETERS FROM ANTENNA ,. ,1~ ,~~' , / .ll ;1 '" 11/ ;r/,", .. if / ~:_•.._•.._ ..-- ~~,····t,...,..,....'~..~_.......,~.. ___. _ ••_~~.,.J••~._:::;..,., ... ::._II··..·_··.·~·•...~~ GROUND WAVE FlEW STRENGTH VERSUS DISTANCE 970-1030 kHz .:'•.:~.... ~ .- 0""," _.... _::.:'.:::::.::+:-:. -"--+- _...~.._. ifd±f;;;::;.. = ----:0:::0 Kil,C'.j- fTRS f-Rm·; i\ ~ " < •• - - - --- ... KILOMETERS FROM ANTENNA KlLOMETERS FROM ANTENNA GRAPH 15 '+456 ---, - KILOMETERS FROM ANTENNA ". " ., - ,. ,~ ~ .-~~-_.~._-- - .-.:::---':,-~~ _:':"':':::=1 ........, _,-~::§:...~. 1'_- · 1'~!-':'!-:-!~I·:-I::'I;~I~I~I·i·~I=!-:"-li--=I--!eCII""T;i~II·llllllllilllilllllll '~~::~~'~~~~_._.~ri;,=-=~............. .- ~~,~:.:==-=--~_. KlL(lMETERS l-R> 1M,\)\'IL..'.-:,~,1I, (IF: ·\I'li )!'1 4457 GROUND WAVE FIELD STRENGTH VERSUS DISTANCE 1250-1330 kHz COMPUTED FOR 1290 Uil c ,I I; II )l) i/ I 1//( iIII I' I " ! I ,Ii l,' 10 ',iii I i/ // / -'I ' // , I .' ,I' , ,. .. or ~ .ro -----_.,.~ __~__~._..r::= KILOMETERS FROM ANTEt-.'NA KILOMETERS FRO!\1 AJ\tTL!';l'\A GRAPH J7 4458 ~..... GROUND WAVE FIELD SlljGTH VERSUS DISTANCE 1340-1420 kHz " KJLOMEITRS FROM AAiEf\lNA '1~----·._ -~ • · • • "._- " ,. .. '" ".. ~ ~ " :0 > ~~ d -- :;; . .. " .~ .. '"7::..:;=-" __~ .. ".~.. ... ''".£~==.. :T ...=:=l2 " .. :: -" =:::-:"=~::~~j==-::~'~--.:~:~~~:: ~~~~~~~~~-~~E'4r@~:I§~f§g~~.·~~~~!O.W ... .",' KILOMETERS F}:O:-'l"'\~.TH.~I\ GRAPI11~ 4459 GROUND WAVE FIELD STRENGTH VERSUS DISTANCE 1430-1510 kHz COMPUTED FOR 1470 kHz ,. KILOMETERS FROM ANTENNA "'", I~(l Ii 1/ Y) /if l il,2(J /iii . /1 I' jil, /.:f.J I' if 10 if;I; i! , • , .. .. ".. .. .. , .. " .. •• i I ~, ~ ~ " .. e" = ."" - - - .- - - -~- - • KlLOMEITRS FROM AJ\.'TENNA GRAPH 19 4460 '1fIII .. '" .. ... c.' ~ ~ /, = .-; KlLOMETERS FROM AA'TEI\,'NA "D' K!LOMED.2RS FROM A!'\'TE!'"\;A GRAPH .:'f! 4461 • GROUND WAVf,FlELD STRENGTH VERSUS DJSTANCE 1610-1700 kHz it' " /iI?oO 1 !; / Ii w I ii, i iii .I // /l~ ,. earth curves would indicate. Thus, no attempt should be made to fit experimental data to these curves at the larger distances. NOTE: For other values of dielectric constant use can be made of the computer program which was employed by the FCC in generating the curves in Graphs 1 to 20. A printout of this program can be ordered from the FCC official copy center whose name and address may be obtained by calling or writing the Consumer Affairs Office, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 200554, (202) 632-7000. (d) At sufficiently short distances (less than 55 kilometers at broadcast frequencies), such that the curvature of the earth does not introduce an additional attenuation of the waves, the curves of Graph 21 may be used for determining the groundwave field strength of transmitting and receiving antennas at the surface of the earth for any radiated power, frequency, or set of ground constants in the folloWing manner: First, layoff the straight inverse distance line corresponding to the power radiated on transparent log log graph paper similar to that of Graph 21, labelling the ordinates of the cha,t in terms of field strength, and the abscissae in terms of distance. Next, by means of the formulas given on Graph 21, calculate the value of the numerical distance, p, at 1 kilometer, and the value of b. Then superimpose the log-log chart over Graph 21, shifting it vertically until the inverse distance lines on both charts coincide and shifting it horizontally until the numerical distance at 1 kilometer on Graph 21 coincides with 1 kilometer on the log-log graph paper. The curve of Graph 21 corresponding to the calculated value of b is then traced on the log-log graph paper giving the field strength versus distance in kilometers. (e) This paragraph consists of the following Graphs 1 to 20 and 21. Note: The referenced graphs are not pUblished in the CFR, nor will they be included in the Commission's automated rules system. Copies are available by calling or writing the Consumer Affairs Office, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554,Tei~phone:(202) 632-7000. 30. Section 73.185 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to paragraph (b) and revising the new paragraph (b), by reVising and redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as (c) and (d), by removing paragraphs 0) and (j), and revising and redesignating paragraphs (h) and (U as (e) and (fl, and by revising new paragraph (f)(2) to read as follows: §73.185 Computation of interfering signal. (a) • • • (b) For skywave signals from stations operating on all Channels, interference shall be determined from the appropriate formulas and Figure 6a contained in §73.190. 4462 (c) The formulas in §73.190(d) depicted in Figure 6a of §73.190, entitled "Angles of Departure versus Transmission Range" are to be used in determining the angles in the vertical pattern of the antenna of an interfering station to be considered as pertinent to transmission by one reflection. To provide for variation in the pertinent vertical angle due to variations of ionosphere height and ionosphere scattering, the curves 2 and 3 indicate the upper and lower angles within which the radiated field is to be considered. The maximum value of field strength occurring between these angles shall be used to determine the multiplying factor to apply to the 10 percent skywave field intensity value determined from Formula 2 in §73. 190. The multiplying factor is found by dividing the maximum radiation between the pertinent angles by 100 mV/m. (d) Example of the use of skywave curves and formulas: Assume a proposed new Class B station from which interference may be expected is to be located at a distance of 724 kilometers from a licensed Class B station. The proposed station specifies geographic coordinates of 40° 00' 00" Nand 100° DO' 00" W and the station to be protected is located at an azimuth of 45° true. The critical angles of radiation as determined from Figure 6a of §73.190 are 9.6° and 16.3°. If the vertical pattern of the antenna of the proposed station in the direction of the other station is such that, between the angles of 9.6° and 16.3° above the horizon the maximum radiation is 260 mV/m at one kilometer, the value of the50~field, as derived from Formula 1 of §73.190, is 0.06127 mV/m at the location in question. To obtain the value of the10~ field, the50~value must be adjusted by a factor derived from Formula 2 of §73.190. The value in this case is 8.42 dB. Thus, the10~field is 0.1616 mV/m. Using this in conjunction with the co-channel protection ratio of 26 dB, the resultant night limit from the proposal to the licensed station is 3.232 mV/m which is in excess of 1.0 mV/m, the level permitted under §73.182(q) for new operations. (e) In the case of an antenna which is lntended to be non-directional in the horizontal plane, the vertical distribution of the relative fields should be computed pursuant to §73.160. In the case of an antenna which is directional in the horizontal plane, the vertical pattern in the great circle direction toward the point of reception in question must first be calculated. In cases where the radiation in the vertical plane, at the pertinent azimuth, contains a large lobe at a higher angle than the pertinent angle for one reflection, the method of calculating interference will not be restricted ,to that just described; each such case will be considered on the basis of the best knowledge available. (f) In performing calculations to determine permissible radiation from :;tations operating presunrise or postsunset in accordance with §73.99, calculated diurnal factors will be multiplied by the values of skywave signals for such stations obtained from Formula lor 2 of §73.190. (1) • • * 4463 (2) Constants used in calculating diurnal factors for the presunrise and postsunset periods are contained in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii) respectively. The columns labeled T b T • otherwise k = 1. 4467 (b) Formula 2 is used for calculation of 10J skywave field strength values. F';rmula"2. "Skywave field stl'ength, 10% of the time (at SS+6), The sky....ave field strength, F.(lO), is given by: F.(lO) = F.(SO) + A dB(p"Ian) Where: A = 6 ....hen I 60 • * • • • (e) In the event of disagreement between computed values using the formulas shown above and values obtained directly from the f1gures, the computed values will control.~ 3lI. Section 73.1030 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (b) to read as follows: §73.1030 Notifications concerning interference to radio astronomy, research and receiving installations. * * • • * 4468 (b) ••• Frequency range Below 540 kHz 540 to 1700 kHz 1. 7 to 470 MHz 470 to 890 MHz Above 890 MHz Field strength 10 20 10 30 1 Power nux density • 21 -65.8 -59.8 **-65.8 **-56.2 **-85.8 11 (mV/m) in authorized bandwidth of service. 21 (dBW/m 2 ) in authorized bandwidth of service. • Equivalent values of power flux density are calculated assuming free space characteristic impedance of 376.7 = 120 ohms. •• Space stations shall conform to the power nux density limits at the earth's surface specified in appropriate parts of the FCC rules, but in no case should exceed the above levels in any 4 kHz band for all angles of arrival. * * * * * 35. Section 73.1125 is amended by adding a note to read' as follows: §73.1125 Station main studio location. • * * • * Note: AM stations licensed to a community which simulcast using a frequency in the 535-1605 kHz band along with a frequency in the 1605-1705 kHz band need only have the studio be located within the 5 mV/m contour of the lower band operation during the term of the simultaneous operating authority. Upon termination of the 535-1605 kHz band portion of the multiple frequency operation, the above rule shall then become applicable to the remaining operation in the 1605-1705 kHz band. 36. A new paragraph (c) is added to section 73.1150 to read as follows: §73.1150 Transferring a station. * * • • * \c) Licensees and lor permittees authorized operation in the 535-1605 kHz band along with operation in the 1605-1705 kHz band pursuant to the Report and Order MM Docket 87-267 will not be permitted to assign or transfer control of 4469 the license or permit for a single frequency during the period that joint operation is authorized. 37. Section 73.1201 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: §73.1201 Station identification. • • • * * (c) • • • (2) Simultaneous AM (535-1605 kHz) and AM (1605-1705 kHz) broadcasts. If the same licensee operates an AM broadcast station in the 535-1605 kHz band and an AM broadcast station in the 1605-1705 kHz band with both stat'ions licensed to the same community and simultaneously broadcasts the same programs over the facilities of both such stations, station identification announcements may be made jointly for both stations for periods of such simultaneous operation. * • • • * 38. Paragraph (b)( 1)i1) of Section 73.1570 is revised to read as follows: §73.1570 Modulation levels: AM, FM, and TV aural. • • • • * (b) • • • (1) • • • (ii) For AM stations transmitting telemetry signals for remote control or automatic transmission system operation, the amplitude of modulation of the carrier by the use of subaudible tones must not be higher than necessary to effect reliable and accurate datatransm~ionand may not, in any case, exceed6~. • • * • • 39. Section 73.1650 is amended by reVlswg paragraph (b)(2) and adding. paragraphs (b)(2)(1) and (b)(2)(ii) to read as follows: §73.1650 International broadcasting agreements. • • • • It (b) • • • 4470 (2) Regional Agreements for the Broadcasting Service in Region 2: (i) MF Broadcasting 535-1605 kHz, Rio de Janeiro, 1981. (ij) MF Broadcasting 1605-1705 kHz, Rio de Janeiro, 1988. if if if • if 1i0. A note is added at the end of Section 73.1665 to read as follows: §73.1665 Main transmitters. if if if • if Note: Pending the availability of AM broadcast transmitters that are type accepted for use in the frequency band 1605-1705 kHz, transmitters which appear on the FCC's "Radio Equipment List" that are type-accepted for use in the 535-1605 kHz band may be utilized in the 1605-1705 kHz band if it can be shown that the requirements of §73.114 have been met. Positive outcome of the manufacturer's application for type-acceptance will supersede the applicability of this note. 1i1. Paragraph (c) in Section 73. 17u5 1S revised to read as follows: §73.1705 Time of operation. if if if • • (c) AM stations in the 535-1705 kHz band will be licensed for unlimited time. In the 535-1605 kHz band, stations that apply for share time and specified hours operations may also be licensed. AM stations licensed to operate daytime-only and limited-time may continue to do so; however, no new such stations will be authorized. 112. Section 73.1725 is revised to read as follows: §73.1725 Limited time. \a) Operation is applicable onlY to Class B (secondary) AM stations on a clear channel with facilities authorizea before November 30, 1959. Operation of the secondary station is permit ted during daytime and until local sunset if located west of the Class A station 0n the channel, or until local sunset at the dominant station if locdted €dst of that station. Operation is also permitted during nighttime hours not used by the Class A station or stations on the channel. (b) No authorization will be granted for: 4471 (1) A new limited time station; (2) A limited time station operating on a changed frequency; (3) A limited time station with a new transmitter site materially closer to the 0.1 mV 1m contour of a co-channel U.S. class A station; or (II) Modification of the operating facilities of a limited time station resulting in increased radiation toward any point on the O.1mV/m contour of a co-channel U.S. class A station during the hours after local sunset in which the limited time station is permitted to operate by reason of location east of the class A station. (c) The licensee of a secondary station which is authorized to operate limited time and which may resume operation at the time the Class A station (or stations) on the same channel ceases operation shall, with each application for renewal of license, file in triplicate a copy of its regular operating schedule. It shall bear a signed notation by the licensee of the Class A station of its objection or lack of objectiont~ereto.Upon approval of such operating schedule, the FCC will affix its file mark and return one copy to the licensee authorized to operate limited time. This shall be posted with the station license and considered as a part thereof. Departure from said operating schedule will be permitted only pursuant to §73. 1715 (Share time). 43. Section 73.1740 is amended oy revising paragraph (a){1){i) to read as follows: §73.17110 Minimum operating schedule. (a) • • • ( 1) • • • (1) Class D stations which have been autnorized nighttime operations need comply only with the minimum requirements for operation between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., local time. * * * * * 44. New paragraphs (c) and (d) and Notes 1 and 2 are added to Section 73.3517 to read as follows: §73.3517 Contingent applications. * * * * if (c) Upon payment of the filing fees prescribed in §1. 1111 of this chapter, the Commission will accept two or more applications filed by existing AM licensees for modification of facilities that are contingent upon granting of both, if 4472 granting such contingent applications will reduce interference to one Or more AM stations or will otherwise increase the area of interference-free service. The applications must state that they are filed pursuant to an interference '. reduction arrangement and must cross-reference all other contingent applications. (d) Modified proposals curing conflicts between mutually exclusive clusters of applications filed in accordance with section (c) will be accepted for 60 days following issuance of a public notice identifying such conflicts. Note 1: No application to move to a frequency in the 1605-1705 kHz band may be part of any package of contingent applications associated with a voluntary agreement. Note 2: ln cases where no modified proposal is filed pursuant to section (d), the Commission will grant the application resulting in the greatest net interference reduction. 45. Paragraph (j) in Section 73.3:050 is revised to read as follows: §73.3550 Requests for new 01' modified call sign assignments. 'It * .. .. 'It (i) Stations in different broadcast services (or operating jointly in the 535-1605 kHz band and in the 1605-1705 kHz band) which are under common control may request that their call Signs be conformed by the assignment of the same basic call sign if that call sign is not being used by a non-commonly owned station. For the purposes of this paragraph,50~or greater common ownership shall constitute a prima facie showing of common control. * * .. * * 46. Section 73.3555 is amended by revising Note 4 and adding new Notes 8 and 9 and 10 to read as follows: §73.3555 Multiple ownership. * .. .. .. * Note 4: Paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section will not be applied to l"equire divestiture, by any licensee, of existing facilities, and will not apply to applications for increased powe: for Class C stations, to applications for assignment of license or transfer of control filed in accordance with §73.3540(f) or §73.3541lb) of this part, or to applications for assignment of license or transfer of control to heirs or legatees by will or intestacy if no new or increased overlap would be created between commonly owned, operated, or controlled broadcast stations in the same service and if no new encompassment of communities proscribed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 4473 this section as to commonly owned, operated, or controlled broadcast stations or daily newspapers would result. Said paragraphs will apply to all applications for new stations, to all other applications for assignment or transfer, and to all applications for major changes in existing stations except major changes that will result in overlap of contours of broadcast stations in the same service with each other no greater than already existing. (The resulting areas of overlap of contours of such broadcast stations with each other in such major change cases may consist partly or entirely of new terrain. However, if the population in the resulting overlap areas substantially exceeds that in the previously existing overlap areas, the Commission will not grant the application if it finds that to do so would be against the public interest, convenience, or necessity.) Commonly owned, oper:>ted, or controlled broadcast stations, with overlapping contours or with community-encompassing contours prOhibited by this section may not be assigned or transferred to a single person, group, or entity, except as provided above in this note. If a commonly owned, operated, or controlled broadcast station and daily newspaper fall within the encompassing proscription of this section, the station may not be assigned to a single person, group or entity if the newspaper is being simultaneously sold to such single person, group or entity. it * .. * .. Note 8: Paragraph (a)( 1) of this section will not apply to an application for an AM radio license in the 535-1605 kHz band where grant of such application will result in the overlap of 5 mV/m groundwave contours of the proposed station and that of another AM station in the 535-1605 kHz band that is commonly owned, operated or controlled if the applicant shows that a significant reduction in interference to adjacent or co-channel stations would accompany such common ownership. Such AM overlap cases will be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether common ownership, operation or control of the stations in question would be in the public int'erest. Applicants in such cases must submit a contingent application for the major or minor facilities change needed to achieve the interference reduction along with the application which seeks to create the 5 mV/m overlap situation. Note 9: Paragraph (a)( 1) of this section will not apply to an application for an AM radio license in the 1605-1705 kHz band where grant of such application will result in the overlap of the 5 mV/m groundwave contours of the proposed station and that of another AM station in the 535-1605 kHz band that is commonly owned, operated or controlled. Paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) of this section will not apply to an application for an AM radio license in the 1605-1705 kHz band by an entity that owns, operates, controls or has a cognizable interest in AM radio stations in the 535-1605 kHz band. Note 10: Authority for joint ownerShip granted pursuant to Note 9 will expire at 3:00 a.m. local time on the fifth anniversary of the date of issuance of a construction permit for an AM radio station in the 1605-1705 kHz band. 4474 47. Section 73.3564 is amended by ddoing a new paragraph (e) to read as follows: §73.3564 Acceptance of applications. • • • • • (e) Applications for operation in the 1605-1705 kHz band will be accepted only if filed pursuant to the terms of §73.30(b). 48. Section 73.3570 is redesignated as Section 73.23. 49. Section 73.3571 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), and (a)(1), by adding a new paragraph (a)(3), by removing paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(4), and (e), by revising and redesignating paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) as (d)(1) and (d)(2), by redesignating paragraphs (f) through (il as (e) through (h) and revising new paragraphs (f) and (h), by redesignating paragraphs (j)( 1), (j)(2), (j)(3), and (j)(4) as (i)(1), (i)(2) , (i)(3), and (i)(4) and revising the text of new paragraph (i)( 1), and by redesignating paragr'aphs (k) and (1) as paragraphs (j) and (k) to read as follows: §73.3571 Processing of AM broadcast station applications. (a) Applications for AM broadcast facilities are divided into three groups. (1) In the first group are applications for new stations or for major changes in the facilities of authorized stations. A major change is any increase in power except where accompanied by complementary reduction of antenna efficiency which leads to the same amount, or less, radiation in all directions (in the horizontal and vertical planes when skywave propagation is involved, and in the horizontal plane only for daytime considerations), relative to the presently authorized radiation levels}, or any change in frequency, hours of operation, or community of license. However, the FCC may, within 15 days after the acceptance for filing of any other application for modification of facilities, advise the applicant that such application is considered to be one for a major change and therefore is subject to the provisions of §§73.3580 and 1.1111 pertaining to major changes. (2) • • • (3) The third group consists of applications for operation in the 1605-1705 kHz band which are filed subsequent to Commission notification that allotments have been awarded to petitioners under the procedure specified in §73.30. • • * * * id) Applications proposing to increase the power of an AM station are subject to t he follow ing requirements: 4475 ( 1) I n order to be acceptable for filing, any application which does not involve a change in site must propose at least a 20J increase in the station's nominal power. (2) Applications involving a change in site are not subject to the requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. • • • • • (f) Applications for change of license to change hours of operation of a Class C station, to decrease hours of operation of any other class of station, or to change station location involving no change in tranllllitter site will be considered without reference to the processing line. * * • • * (h) When an application which has been designated for hearing has been removed from the hearing docket, the application will be returned to its proper position (as determined by the file number) in the processing line. Whether or not a new file number will be assigned will be determined pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section, after the application has been removed from the hearing docket. (i)( 1) A new file number will be assigned to an application for a new station, or for major changes in the facilities of an authorized station, when it is amended to change frequency, to increase power, to increase hours of operation, or to change station location. Any other amendment mOdifYing the engineering proposal, except an amendment regarding the type of equipment specified, will also result in the assignment of a new file number unless such amendment is accompanied by a complete engineering study showing that the amendment would not involve new or increased interference problems with existing stations or other applications pending at the time the amendment is filed. If, after submission and acceptance of such an engineering amendment, subsequent examination indicates new or increased interference problems with either existing stations or other applications pending at the time the amendinent was received at the FCC, the application will then tle assigned a new file number and placed in the processing line according to the numerical sequence of the new file number. • • • * • 50. New paragraph (c) is added to Section 73.3598 to read as follows: §13.3598 Period of construction. • • • • • (c) An existing AM station operating in the 535-1605 kHz band that receives a conditional permit to operate in the 1605-1105 kHz band; such 4476 permit shall specify a period of not more than 18 months from the date of issuance of the original construction permit within which construction shall be completed and application for license filed. 51. Section 73.4160 is removed. 52. Section 73.4255 is revised to read as follows: §73.4255 Tax certificates: Issuance of. (a) See Public Notice, FCC 76-337, dated April 21, 1976. 59 FCC 2d, 91; 41 FR 17605, April 27, 1976. (b)Se~Report and Order MM Docket 87-267, FCC -- adopted, FR 4477 FCC Rcd Part 90 of Title 41 of the CFR is amended as follows: 53. The authority citiation for part 90 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 154 and 303. 54. Section 90.11(b) is amended by adding 1620, 1630, 1640, 1650, 1660, 1610, 1680, 1690 and 1100 kHz in the Table of Frequencies as follows: §90.11 Local Government Radio service (a)11111 (b) Frequencies available. • • • • • Local Government Radio service Frequency Table Freguency or band Class of station(s) I Limi tations I Kilohertz: I 530 Base (T. J .S. ) I 23 1610 do I 23 1620 do I 23 1630 do I 23 1640 do I 23 1650 do I 23 1660 do I 23 1610 do I 23 1680 do I 23 1690 do I 23 1100 do I 23 2126 Base or Mobile I 1 • • • • • 55. Section 90.242 is amended by revlslng the first sentence of (a), the first sentence of (a)(2)(i), and (a)(2)(ii) to read as follows: §90.242 Travelers Information Stations. (a) The frequencies 530, 1610, 1620, 1630, 1640, 1650, 1660, 1610, 1680, 1690, and 1100 kHz. I • • • * * • * (a)(2)(i) A statement certifying that the transmitting site of the Travelers Information will be located at least 15.0 Ian (9.3 miles) measured orthogonally 4478 outside the measured 0.5 mV/meter daytime contour of any AM broadcast station operating on a first adjacent channel or at least 130 Ian (80.6 miles) outside the measured 0.5 mV/m daytime contour of any AM broadcast station operating on the same channel. * * * (a)(2)(ii) In consideration of possible cross-modulation and inter-modulatioon interference effects which may result from the operation of a Travelers Information Station in the vicinity of an AM broadcast station on the second or third adjacent channel, the applicant shall certify that he has considered these possible interference effects and, to the best of his knowledge, does not forsee harmful interference occuring to broadcast stations operating on second or third adjacent channels. • • • • • 4479 Appendix 6 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis I. Reason for the Action: Channel congestion, interference, low fidelity receivers, and the higher technical quality of newer services have worked to dull AM radio's competitive edge. In particular, current AM broadcast rules do not reflect advances in technological knowledge and applications that could improve the quality of the AM service. II. Objective of this Action: The goal of the proposed action is to improve the quality of the AM broadcast service and thus, with the participation of AM broadcasters and radio manufacturers, to revitalize its role in broadcast competition. Ill. Legal Basis: Authority for the proposals contained in this decision is provided in Sections 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. IV. Number and Type of SlIaJl Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule: Approximately 5,000 currently operating AM radio stations would potentially benefit from the proposals, in addition to radio manufacturers. V. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements Inherent in the Proposed Rule: One proposal suggested in this document would permit the Conunission to issue tax certificates to broadcasters agreeing to reduce interference to cochannel or adjacent channel stations. The proposals, on the whole, should reduce rather than increase reporting and recordkeeping requirements on AM broadcasters and potential AM broadcasters. However, in cases involving directional antennas, we would require an engineering study demonstrating antenna pattern achievement. These studies would be less budensome than those required for stations in the existing band. The proposed reimposition of the AM -F M nonduplica tion rule could raise operating costs for affected radio stations. Licensees interested in migrating to the expanded band would have to submit non-binding letter of intent with the Conunission. The Commission would establish a filing window during which time stations in the eXisting band could file for authority to move to the expanded band, supporting their request with technical exhibits showing how the applicant shou:.d be ran«ed. But, unlike the current application process, no showing woul,j be required for the proposej new operation; the technical exhibits woul,j address only the applicant's currently licensed station. Finally, offsetting any increase in compliance requirements resulting from our 4480 proposals in this proceeding, the proposed relaxation of the AM multiple ownership rules could allow licensees to own two stations in the same market or community. and share a main studio, thus reducing the stations' administrative costs and workload. VI. Federal Rules which Overlap. Duplicate, or Conflict with the Proposed Rule: None. VII. Any SignU1cant Alternative Minimizing Impact on Small Entities and Consistent with the Stated Objective of the Action: All of the proposals are intended to benefit AM broadcasters by increasing their ability to compete for listeners through optimal use and recognition of technological advances. 4481