.\ FCC Red :\o. l Q Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-252
1i(lns. as well as C\)nsideratilln of the minimum usable Before the signal strength as a function of listener prefcrem:e. at Federal Communications Commission mnspheric and man-made noise. and receiver design. It Washington. D.C. 20554 discussed the equally important co-channel and adjacent channel signal ratios that constitute the basic tradeoff in the AM s~rvice between the quality of received signals and the quantity of stations authorized. In :iddition. it :\1\1 Docket No. 88-376 invited comments on a new proposal to permit AM broad casters to enter into mutual agreements concerning the ln the matter \)f degree of interference protection to be afforded in specific cases. as well as approval for the use of new. internation .-\mcndment nf the Cnmmissinn·s RM-5S32 ally developed AM service propagation curves. Rules to improve the quality RM-617.+ .+. Other potentially less complex issues included discus sion of the suitability of the current AM emission of the .-\l\1 Broadcast Sen·ice limitations. audio signal processing practices and the meth by redlH.:ing adjacent channel od of determining the cumulative intei-ference resulting interference and by eliminating from the reception of multiple signals. We also solicited restrictinns pertaining to the comment on the desirability of amending Section 73.37(b) protected daytime contour. of the Rules to permit AM station licensees to increase their transmitter output power provided that no additional interference would be caused to co-channel or adjacent ~OTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING channel licensees. and notwithstanding the fact that inter ference from other stations would be caused to areas Adopted: July 20. 1988; Released: September 12, 1988 within the expanded service area. The intent of this change was not necessarily to increase the size of the original service area (although some expansion is possi Ih the Commission: ble). but rather to increase the signal level within the original service area. thereby improving the quality of service in areas normally subject to protection from inter INTRODUCTION ference. l. The ClH11mission has under consideration comments 5. On November 6. 1987 (subsequent to issuance of the and reply comments in response to the .\'mice of Inquiry Inquiry), the Commission received a petition (RM-6174) (Inquiry) in MM Docket No. 87-267. which solicited com from the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) re ments on a comprehensive review of the techmcal questing formal adoption of an AM transmitter audio assignment principles currently applicable. to AM _broa~i standard developed by the National Radio Systems Com casting.1 This review was prompted by comments filed 111 mittee (NRSC). 3 Because the NRSC standard is intended response to the Mass Media Bureau ·s 1986 Report on the to reduce adjacent channel interference by requiring sub Si BACKGROUND REVISION OF THE EMISSION LIMITATIONS 3. Our Inquiry addressed a wide varie~y o_f fundal!1ental 7. The existing AM service transmission system emission but nevertheless complex assignment cntena us.ed in the limitations are set forth in Section 73.44 of the Rules.5 AM radio service. For example. it included a review of the Basically, they permit an AM broadcaster to transmit an suitability of the current signal strength values which de unattenuated audio signal between 0 and 15 kHz. How fine the protected contours (or service areas) of AM sta- ever, the best possible AM performance is seldom ever 5687 FCC 88·252 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Red No.· 19 approached in practice for many reasons, one of which is troduction of wider bandwidth receivers with substantially the narrow receiver bandwidth that is necessary because improved fidelity compared to current models. Such an frequency assignments in the AM service are made in 10 improvement in fidelity, they argue, would make the AM kHz increments throughout the band.6 This can result in service more competitive with the FM broadcast service. situations (particularly at night, when reception of very 12. The rules recommended by NAB 5688 3 FCC Red No. 19 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-252 some transmitters contain clipping or limiting circuits that quality concerns. This course of action would not only am intended to prevent overmodulation. Any clipping or provide the benefit sought by NAB, but would be com limiting done to the audio after it is passed through the patible with voluntary use of the NRSC audio standard.21 NRSC filter could introduce harmonic baseband signal 20. In spite of the many arguments in favor of adopting components that could circumvent, to some degree, the the NRSC emission limitation in lieu of its audio standard, benefits intended to result from the filter's use. Also, concerns have been expressed that implementation and improper transmitter tuning may produce incidental phase compliance costs associated with the former may be great modulation with excessive bandwidth. er than the latter. The allegation has also been made that 16; Moreover, compliance with the NRSC audio stan adoption of the audio stanqard would do more to reduce dard .does not preclude problems arising from over first adjacent channel interference. modulation. As Harrison J. Klein, a professional AM 21. At this juncture, we can find little evidence to consulting engineer, notes: " ... overmodulation is one of support these contentions. Inasmuch as licensees are al the basic mechanisms by which an amplitude modulated ready responsible for assuring compliance with the emis carrier can be degraded. On the surface, overmodulation sion standards, it is unclear how alteration of these appears a straightforward phenomenon which should be standards would affect compliance cost. Furthermore, test easily understood and prevented. Yet rriany stations over equipment would undoubtedly be required to install and modulate, some intentionally, implying that overmodula maintain the equipment needed to comply with the audio tion mechanisms are not fully understood or that the standard. Therefore, compliance costs under either an stations ·do not believe there are benefits to preventing emission or an audio standard appear to be roughly equiv overmodulation. On the other hand, receiver manufactur alent. We therefore seek comment on the cost of com ers consider overmodulation a significant AM problem. In plying with either the emission or the audio standard. We numerous industry meetings they have indicated their be also request information as to whether differences in com lief that splatter caused by overmodulation is a major pliance cost between the two standards may be dispropor factor preventing the manlf,facture of improved, high - fidel tionately large for certain categories of stations. 15 ity AM radios. " [Emphasis in original) 22. It is also difficult, at this point, to assess either 17. It is therefore our tentative view that greater atten standard's effect on adjacent channel interference because tion should be given to the radiated emissions that directly little information is known about the current audio pre cause interference to other stations than to the characteris emphasis practices of AM broadcasters. The limits on tics of the audio signals fed to transmitter. Audio process amplitudes of frequencies above 10 kHz imposed by the ing pursuant to the NRSC standard. alone cannot ensure NRSC audio standard are substantial and would clearly the absence of interference. To be guaranteed effective, help in the reduction of adjacent channel interference the NRSC audio standard would need to be supplemented generally. However, adherence to the NRSC emission by additional rules concerning transmitter distortion limits. limitation should be just as effective. It is true that below The current record is deficient with respect to proposals 10 kHz, the emission standard imposes no limits, whereas in these areas. Moreover, input standards are of the the audio standard appears to impose an absolute limit of "how-to" variety that the Commission has consistently 10 dB pre-emphasis of frequencies between 9 and 10 kHz. striven to eliminate over the years, because they poten This may or may not be less than what broadcasters tially limit licensees' flexibility in achieving compliance in currently use. Also, we seek comments confirming that the least cost way and reduce their ability to implement broadcasters perceive the NRSC audio pre-emphasis char new technology quickly and to respond to changing cir acteristic as an absolute audio frequency response limit, cumstances in the communications marketplace_ rather than merely as a post-audio processing signal ad 18. At this point in time, it appears that the better justment, and identifying any other regulations (e.g., fre alternative is adoption of the NRSC's recently developed quency response limits applicable to equipment preceding emission limitation standard. 16 This standard defines an the NRSC filter in the audio line) that may be necessary RF emission mask that would effectively restrict the emis to ensure this result. sions from an AM broadcast transmitter to a 20 kHz 23. On the basis of the record to date, we tentatively bandwidth channel.17 Emissions outside the channel would conclude that revision of our emission limitations is the be attenuated to the point where their levels would not most effective way to reduce adjacent channel interference cause significant adjacent channel interference.18 and encourage production of higher quality receivers. Ac 19. Moreover, relying on emission limitations to control cordingly, we propose to modify Section 73.44 by adopting interference would obviate complex rules addressing mod new emission limitations based on the NRSC draft Emis ulation and transmission parameter limits that imposing sion limitation for AM broadcast transmission (June 17, the NRSC audio processing standard as a means of reduc 1988).22 The proposed rules also include certain measure ing adjacent channel interference would entail. Excessive ment instrument parameters as suggested by the NRSC bandwidth resulting from overmodulation also would be (e.g., spectrum analyzer resolution bandwidth, filtering, limited.19 Enforcement of emission limitations might also and hold time) in order to eliminate any ambiguity about be more easily accomplished, since our enforcement per proper measurement procedure. However, we propose sonnel could monitor off-the-air signals of AM stations that licensees be permitted to determine compliance with and determine compliance without the need for a physical the NRSC emission limitation with any appropriate mea inspection of the transmitter facilities.20 Such a standard is surement device, provided that any dispute over measure also more consistent with our efforts at technical de ment accuracy be resolved in favor of measurements regulation, and could therefore better maximize efficien provided by a properly calibrated swept frequency spec cies in the rendition of aural service, potentially improve trum analyzer. the quality of programming and more effectively ensure 24. Our tentative conclusions on this matter notwith the development of receivers better able to satisfy public standing, as a result of information submitted responding to the discussion in paragraphs 14 through 23, supra, may 5689 FCC 88-252 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Red No. 19 lead us to conclude that, at least for some stations, a more are those that currently are receiving more than 26 dB favorable public interest benefit cost comparison would protection. Such protection, however, is the result of for result if a greater reliance were placed on the NRSC audio tuitous circumstances rather than by design. The listeners standard than on the emission standard. Therefore, com at or outside of these stations' 0.5 mV/m contours are menters are also asked to assess the advantages and dis likely to be few. Any marginal service such listeners cur advantages of modifying the proposed emission limitation rently receive must be weighed against the improved ser standard to establish a presumption that stations com vice that would be afforded to the many listeners within plying with the NRSC audio standard are also in compli the service areas of the station applying for the power ance with the emission standard. We envision that under increase. We believe the latter is more important and it is this approach the finding of presumptive compliance the fundamental assumption underlying our proposal. We could be rebutted by evidence of interference to adjacent solicit additional comment on whether this assumption is channel operations which is attributable to non correct, since the comments filed in response to the Notice compliance with the emission standard. of Inquiry on this matter were divided. 29. NAB, for example, opposed any action that would increase interference levels in the AM service. It expressed ELIMINATION OF THE RESTRICTIONS the view that permitting increased interference would CONTAINED IN SECTION 73.37 (b) make a mockery of the Commission's technical standards, 25. Section 73.37(a) of the Commission's Rules specifies and that by permitting interference beyond that currently the necessary desired-to-undesired signal contour ratios provided by the technical standards would encourage the applicable to the various classes of AM stations. More manufacture of receivers designed for a commensurately particularly, it proscribes overlap of the 0.5 mV/m daytime lower quality, higher interference environment. NAB also contour of a new station by the 0.025 mV/m conto-ur of expressed the view that individual broadcasters should not any other co-channel station. Section 73.37(b) provides for be given the right to make a decision to accept additional an exception to this rule in cases where the new station interference, since their decision would affect other li would be the first AM broadcast facility in a community censees who would suffer from the institutionalization of a located outside of an urbanized area, or the first AM lower standard of quality. broadcast facility in a community of 25,000 or more popu 30. However, GSM Media Corporation (GSM) disagreed lation wholly or partly within an urbanized area, or when with this view. It noted that th~ extra power would enable the facilities would provide the first primary service to at AM service to better penetrate buildings and overcome least 25% of the interference-free area within the pro atmospheric and man-made noise. Hence, populated areas posed 0.5 mV/m contour. However,· the proposed new near the station would gain improved reception. GSM also station must meet the requirements of Section 73.37(a) in expressed the belief that relaxation of Section 73.37(b) all other respects, and no overlap may occur between the could allow stations to maintain more stable radiation the 1 mV/m contour of the proposed station and the 0.05 patterns, since many stations now have highly suppressed mV/m contour of any other co-channel station. patterns designed to prevent now-forbidden overlaps be 26. All but Class I (clear channel) AM stations are tween the station's protected contour and another station's afforded 26 dB co-channel protection to their 0.5 mV/m interfering contour. GSM also supported the Commission's daytime contours. The effect of Section 73.37(b) is to fully view that while a new area of predicted interference protect the 0.5 m Vim contours of existing stations, but to would be created, it would occur in areas not previously permit assignment of new stations based on protection of served, and that there would be a net gain in interference the 1 mV/m contour. Interference between the two con free service area. Lastly, GSM proposed that Section tours has been considered acceptable, since a substantial 73.37(b) be modified to allow licensees, by mutual agree amount of new service would still be afforded the public. ment, to increase radiation toward each other by accepting 27. It is conceivable that if applicants or licensees were interference up to their 1.0 m V/m contours, but without free to accept a greater amount of interference than the causing interference to existing service areas.24 rules now permit (while continuing to provide full protec 31. After reviewing these and other arguments submit tion to other stations), service to the public could be ted in response to the Notice of Inquiry, it is our tentative improved significantly. For example, the power of some belief that significant benefits for AM licensees and their stations currently not operating pursuant to Section listeners could result from giving applicants for new and 73.37(b) could be increased if they choose to afford the 26 modified facilities some latitude as to the amount of inter dB protection to their 1 mV/m contours rather than their ference they would receive in the new or expanded por 0.5 m V/m contours. (They would be expected to continue tion of their proposed service areas, so long as interference to protect the 0.5 mV/m contours of other co-channel is not increased for other stations. 25 Accordingly, we pro stations.) While interference would be accepted in some of pose to amend Section 73.37(b) as set forth in Appendix the "expanded" service area that would normally be ex A to generally permit licensees to seek an increase in pected to result from the power increase, received signal station power, provided: that the 0.5 mV/m contours of levels would still be increased throughout the original other co-channel facilities, and the relevant contours of service area.23 Thus, the additional power could be useful adjacent channel facilities, would continue to be protected in overcoming the effects of natural and man-made noise, in accordance with the requirements of Section 73.37(a); and signal attenuation within larger (metallic) buildings. and that the 1.0 mV/m contour of the proposed facility is 28. We wish to emphasize that any power increase made not overlapped by the 0.05 mV/m contour of any other possible as a result of eliminating the restrictions in Sec co-channel authorized facility.26 tion 73.37(b) would be possible only if the 0.5 mV/m 32. The rule changes proposed herein have been ana contours of other co-channel stations continue to be af lyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of forded the 26 dB protection currently provided for in the 1980 and found to contain no new or modified form, rules. Stations that could be affected by this rule change information collection, and/or record keeping, labeling, 5690 3 FCC Red No. 19 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-252 disclosure, or record retention requirements; and will not vide on the day of the oral presentation, a written increase or decrease the burden hours imposed on the memorandum to the Secretary (with a copy to the Com public. missioner or staff member involved) which summarizes the data and statements. Each ex pane presentation de scribed above must state on its face that the Secretary has COMMENT PROCEDURE been served, and must also state by docket number the 33. Under procedures set out in Section 1.415 of the proceeding to which it relates (see Section 1.1206). rules and regulations, 4 7 CFR § 1.415, interested persons may file comments on or before November 22, 1988 and reply comments on or before December 22, 1988. All ORDERING CLAUSE relevant and timely comments will be considered by the 37. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexi Commission before final action is taken in this proceeding. bility Act, the Commission has prepared an initial regula In reaching its decision, the Commission may take into tory flexibility analysis (IFRA) of the expected impact on consideration information and ideas not contained in the small entities of the proposals advanced herein. Written comments, provided that such information or a writing public comments are requested on the IFRA. These com indicating the nature and source of such information is ments must be filed in accordance with the same filing placed in the public file, and provided that the fact of the deadlines as comments on the rest of the Notice, but they Commission's reliance on such information is noted in must have a separate and distinct heading designating Report and Order. them as responses to the regulatory flexibility analysis. 34. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1.419 The copy shall order that a copy of the Notice, including of the Rules and Regulations, 47 CFR §1.419, formal the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, be sent to the participants shall file an original and 5 copies of their Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Admin comments and other materials. Participants wishing each istration, as required by Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Commissioner to have a personal copy of their comments Flexibility Act (Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. should file an original and 11 copies. Members of the Section 601 et seq., (1981)). general public who wish to express their comments are 38. Further information on this matter may be obtained given the same consideration, regardless of the number of from Hank VanDeursen, Mass Media Bureau, Engineering copies submitted. All documents will be available for pub Policy Branch, (202) 632-9660. lic inspection during regular business hours in the Com mission's Public Reference Room at its headquarters in FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. EX PARTE CONSIDERATIONS 35. For purposes of this non-restricted notice and com H. Walker Feaster, III ment rule making proceeding, members of the public are Acting Secretary advised that ex parte presentations are permitted except during the Sunshine Agenda period. See , generally, Sec tion l.1206(a) of the Commission's Rules. The Sunshine APPENDIX A Agenda period is the period of time which commences with the release of a public notice that a matter has been 47 CFR 73 is proposed for modification as follows: placed on the Sunshine Agenda and terminates when the Commission: (1) releases the text of a decision or order in 1. In Section 73.37, subparagraph (b) would be amended the matter; (2) issues a public notice stating that the to read. as follows: matter has been deleted from the Sunshine Agenda; or, (3) issues a public notice stating that the matter has been Section 73. 37 Applications for broadcast facilities, show returned to the staff for further consideration, whichever ing required. occurs first. During the Sunshine Agenda period, no pre sentation, ex parte or otherwise, are permitted unless spe cifically requested by the Commission or staff for * * * * * clarification or adduction of evidence, or the resolution of issues in the proceeding (see Section 1.1203). (b) An application for a new daytime station or a 36. In general, an ex parte presentation is any presenta change in the daytime facilities of an existing station may tion directed to the merits or outcome of the proceeding be granted notwithstanding overlap of the proposed 0.5 made to decision-making personnel .which: (1) if written, mV/m contour by the 0.025 mV/m contour of another co is not served on the parties to the proceeding, or (2), if channel station, provided that: oral, is made without advance notice to the parties to the proceeding and without opportunity for them to be (1) * * * present. See Section l.1202(b) of the Commission's Rules. Any person who submits a written ex parte presentation (2) must provide on the same day it is submitted, a copy of * * * same to the Commission's Secretary for inclusion in the public record. Any person who makes an or.al ex parte presentation that presents data or arguments not already reflected in that person's previously filed written com ments, memoranda or filings in the proceeding, must pro- 5691