**Before the**

### FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

### Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )

)

Establishment of an Improved Model for )

Predicting the Broadcast Television Field ) ET Docket No. 00-11

Strength Received at Individual Locations )

**[FIRST REPORT AND ORDER]{.underline}**

Adopted: May 22, 2000; Released: May 26, 2000

By the Commission:

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

> [Para. No.]{.underline}

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. BACKGROUND 3

III\. DISCUSSION 7

[The ILLR Model]{.underline} 8

[Other Matters]{.underline} 21

IV\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 24

V. ORDERING CLAUSES 27

Appendix A: Technical Data

Appendix B: Rule Changes

Appendix C: Commenting Parties

#### I. INTRODUCTION {#i.-introduction .unnumbered}

1.  In this First Report and Order, we prescribe an improved
    point-to-point predictive model for determining the ability of
    individual locations to receive an over-the-air television broadcast
    signal of a specific intensity through the use of a conventional,
    outdoor rooftop receiving antenna. This model will be used to
    establish whether individual households are eligible to receive
    certain satellite home viewing services. Under the provisions of the
    1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA), a household that cannot
    receive the over-the-air signal of a local network affiliate is
    eligible to receive the distant network signal through satellite
    carriers.[^1] In the absence of on-site measurements of signal
    intensity, this model will provide a reliable and presumptive means
    for determining whether the over-the-air signal of a network
    affiliated television station can be received at an individual
    location.  In prescribing the improved predictive model, we are
    complying with new statutory requirements set forth in the Satellite
    Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA).[^2] 

2.  In addition to prescribing the model to be used for these
    determinations, we are also providing for the model's continued
    refinement by the use of additional data as they become available. 
    Refinements based on such additional data may be proposed by
    referencing the docket of this proceeding, which will be held open
    for this purpose. 

#### II. BACKGROUND {#ii.-background .unnumbered}

3.  [Statutory Basis]{.underline}. The SHVIA revises and extends
    statutory provisions established by Congress in the SHVA. With
    regard to prediction of signal availability, the SHVIA adds a new
    section 339(c)(3) to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47
    U.S.C. § 339(c)(3)), which requires that "\[W\]ithin 180 days after
    the date of enactment of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act
    of 1999, the Commission shall take all actions necessary, including
    any reconsideration, to develop and prescribe by rule a
    point-to-point predictive model for reliably and presumptively
    determining the ability of individual locations to receive signals
    in accordance with the signal intensity standard in effect under
    section 119(d)(10)(A) of title 17, United States Code."[^3] Section
    339(c)(3) further provides that "\[I\]n prescribing such a model,
    the Commission shall rely on the Individual Location Longley-Rice
    model set forth by the Federal Communications Commission in Docket
    No. 98-201, and ensure that such model takes into account terrain,
    building structures, and other land cover variations. The Commission
    shall establish procedures for the continued refinement in the
    application of the model by the use of additional data as it becomes
    available."[^4] The SHVIA also requires that the courts rely on the
    Individual Location Longley-Rice (ILLR) model established by the
    Commission for making presumptive determinations of whether a
    household is capable of receiving broadcast television signals of at
    least a certain threshold intensity.[^5]  The threshold signal
    intensity for determining eligibility is the Grade B standard set
    forth in §73.683(a) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR
    § 73.683(a)).[^6]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  In a *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* (*Notice*) issued on January
    20, 2000, we addressed the statutory requirement for prescribing the
    Individual Location Longley-Rice model.[^7] At issue is how the
    basic Longley-Rice radio propagation prediction model should be
    refined so that it will accurately take land cover variations into
    account as required by the SHVIA. In the *Notice* we proposed a
    specific computational procedure based on a certain database of land
    cover variations published by the United States Geological
    Survey. According to this procedure, individual locations are to be
    identified as lying in one of 10 land use and land cover (LULC)
    categories ranging from open land to urban environments.[^8] The
    computational procedure then finds a clutter loss value (a reduction
    in available signal intensity) associated with this environmental
    class for the TV channel of interest, and subtracts that clutter
    loss from the signal intensity predicted by the Longley-Rice model.

 

5.  We also proposed a specific set of clutter loss values based on the
    results published in a recent engineering journal by Thomas N.
    Rubinstein.[^9] However, since the Rubinstein values of clutter loss
    are derived exclusively from measurements made at receiver sites
    with Fresnel clearance, we proposed that the values should apply
    only to matching situations.[^10] For other situations, the clutter
    loss was to remain equal to the default value of zero dB, the value
    it effectively has in the basic Longley-Rice model where there is no
    explicit use of LULC data. We requested comment on whether other
    data are available that would allow us to expand the application of
    clutter loss considerations, and whether there are other approaches
    that are scientifically supported and could be integrated into the
    ILLR model to take into account losses due to vegetation and
    man-made structures.

6.  Fifteen parties, representing the interests of satellite service
    providers, television network affiliates, consumers, and engineering
    firms, submitted comments and/or reply comments. There is general
    agreement in these comments that the ILLR model should be held to
    high standards of prediction accuracy. However, the comments
    recommend changes in the proposed model. Commenters representing
    satellite services believe the proposed model does not go far enough
    in applying the data developed by Rubinstein; commenters
    representing the interests of television network affiliates believe
    the model is flawed and inappropriate; and engineering firms have
    provided diverse suggestions for improving or replacing the model.

####  {#section .unnumbered}

#### III. DISCUSSION {#iii.-discussion .unnumbered}

7.  There are three major issues to be resolved in this matter. These
    are first, whether it would improve the accuracy of the ILLR model
    to assign clutter loss values as a function of the LULC category of
    the receiving location, as proposed in the *Notice*; second, whether
    there are specific clutter loss values that would have the desired
    effect of improving prediction accuracy; and third, the provisions
    to be made for the introduction of further improvements in
    prediction accuracy as additional data become available. We also
    address certain matters of technical detail raised by the comments
    having to do with error flags and the surface refractivity parameter
    of the ILLR model. In a separate but related matter, we designate an
    independent and neutral entity to designate who shall conduct the
    objective test of received signal intensity for verification
    purposes in case a satellite provider and network station cannot
    agree on a person to conduct such a test.

[The ILLR Model]{.underline}

8.  [Clutter Loss Assignment by LULC Category]{.underline}. The proposal
    to assign clutter loss values according to LULC category is
    supported by the major providers of direct-to-home satellite
    services, DIRECTV, Inc. (DIRECTV) and EchoStar Satellite Corporation
    (EchoStar). These organizations state that the LULC database is a
    source of credible and verifiable information regarding vegetation,
    water and other features on the land surface, and that it is widely
    relied upon by the scientific and technical communities for a
    variety of applications. The engineering firms generally agree that
    this approach has merit, at least until a more up-to-date source of
    land use and land clutter information with finer resolution, such as
    Landsat, becomes available.[^11]

9.  Commenters representing terrestrial broadcasting interests, however,
    argue that increased prediction accuracy will not be obtained by the
    approach proposed in the *Notice*. The ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC
    Television Affiliates Association (Affiliates Association) states
    that there are serious deficiencies with the LULC database that make
    its use for purposes of modifying the ILLR model highly
    questionable. According to the comments of the Affiliates
    Association and the joint comments of the National Association of
    Broadcasters and the Association for Maximum Service Television,
    Inc. (NAB/AMSTV), the grid scale used in the LULC database is far
    too coarse to accurately reflect the land cover variations at the
    receiving antenna site. These organizations also point out that the
    USGS=s LULC database was generated from data obtained more than 20
    years ago and, consequently, much of the data for urban regions and
    their immediate environs are likely to be wrong due to development
    over the past two decades. Fox Television Stations, Inc., and Fox
    Broadcasting Company (collectively "FOX") state that Rubinstein
    himself noted that the LULC categories are not ideal for application
    to radiowave propagation. FOX believes the over-generaliza­tion of
    types of ground clutter proposed in the *Notice* will not produce
    reliable predictions of service or lack of service because, for
    example, the losses from different types of houses change
    dramatically depending on the radio opacity of the materials used in
    constructing the house, and the LULC database does not provide any
    information about the height of buildings and vegetation, without
    which no reasonable calculation of loss is possible.

10. We find that the assignment of clutter loss values based on LULC
    categories would enhance the accuracy of predictions made with the
    ILLR model. Therefore, although they are not ideal, we are adopting
    the LULC categories proposed in the *Notice* as an integral part of
    the ILLR. The addition of these LULC categories will provide the
    ILLR with an approximate means for accounting for the reception
    environment of individual locations, as those environments are
    affected by vegetation and building structures as well as the
    specific terrain elevation features already accounted for by the
    basic Longley-Rice model. The comments did not provide any alternate
    schemes for categorizing the reception environment of individual
    locations with respect to vegetation and buildings, and we are not
    aware of any such scheme from other technical or scientific
    sources. We recognize that the LULC categories are rather coarse and
    that the LULC database does not reflect the urban development that
    has occurred during the last 20 years. The LULC database is,
    however, the best resource available at this time for defining land
    use and clutter characteristics, and we find that its use would, on
    balance, significantly enhance the accuracy of predictions made with
    the ILLR model. The LULC categories defined in the *Notice*
    therefore represent the best choice available to us for this
    purpose. We also note that if satellite service subscribers are
    concerned that the environment at their locations has changed such
    that the LULC data are no longer accurate for prediction purposes,
    those subscribers would, as discussed below, have the option of
    requesting a test to verify their inability to receive signals that
    meet the signal intensity standard. The effect of each reception
    environment on signal reception is dependent on the clutter loss
    value assigned to each of the LULC categories. Those clutter loss
    values are discussed below.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
11. [Clutter Loss Values]{.underline}. Commenters express strongly
    opposing views on the specific clutter loss values to use for
    improving ILLR predictions. DIRECTV and EchoStar urge that the ILLR
    model be defined as including the clutter losses of the Rubinstein
    technical journal article as proposed in the *Notice*, but without
    any limitation relative to Fresnel clearance. The opposite is urged
    by parties representing the interests of television network
    affiliates. The Affiliates Association, FOX, NAB/AMSTV, and Paxson
    Communications Corporation (Paxson) all argue that the Rubinstein
    measurements are not directly applicable to television reception but
    instead apply to land mobile radio where reception conditions are
    significantly different, especially with regard to the height of the
    receiving antenna, its polarization, and the frequencies at which
    the Rubinstein measurements were made. Several engineering
    consulting firms offer advice similar to that advanced by television
    affiliates. The Association of Federal Communications Consulting
    Engineers (AFCCE) notes that Rubinstein\'s clutter loss values are
    derived by comparison of measurements with the predictions of a
    propagation model developed by Okumura for land mobile operation
    rather than the Longley-Rice model.[^12] The firm of du Treil,
    Lundin & Rackley (dLR) calls the *Notice*'s reliance on Rubinstein's
    analysis "an imprecise approach" because its baseline signal level
    reference is the Okumura model rather than Longley-Rice. In the view
    of Harry R. Anderson of EDX Engineering, Inc. (EDX), the results of
    Rubinstein's analysis are not clutter losses, but simply propagation
    model corrections that include clutter loss. As evidence of this,
    EDX points to the fact that Rubinstein\'s clutter loss table
    contains odd values that are difficult to justify with physical
    reasoning, like high clutter losses in \"open areas.\"

12. While DIRECTV and EchoStar recommend specific values for clutter
    loss, namely those proposed in the *Notice*, parties representing
    the interests of the network affiliates believe that the predictions
    of the ILLR model in its present form already include the effects of
    clutter so that no prescription of additional losses is
    appropriate. Middle ground is found in the comments of engineering
    firms. These generally favor assignment of clutter loss values to be
    determined by further study of existing measurement data or data
    acquired by further measurement programs. Richard L. Biby (Biby)
    urges the adoption of a scheme based on a combination of theory, the
    measurements made by Okumura, and Biby's own experience in
    estimating clutter loss.[^13]

13. We believe the values assigned as clutter losses should be
    determined by statistical study of actual measurements in the
    specific LULC environments to which they are to be applied. The
    results of a study of this type are reported in the comments of
    NAB/AMSTV.[^14] The NAB/AMSTV study compared predictions of all the
    various proposed models with measured data to determine the relative
    accuracy of the models. See the tables below. The prediction at each
    of approximately 1000 locations was classified as correct, an
    under-prediction, or an over-prediction. A model was deemed to have
    made an **under-prediction** if it predicted that a location could
    *not* receive a signal of at least Grade B strength, when the
    location in fact *did* receive a Grade B signal; it was charged with
    an **over-prediction** if it predicted that a location *could*
    receive a signal of at least Grade B when the household in fact was
    measured *not* to receive a Grade B signal.

**Table 1**

**Comparison of Effect of Clutter Modifications**

**on Accuracy of ILLR Model**

-- VHF Channels --

  ------------------------------ --------------- -------------------- ---------------------
  **Station & Model**            **% Correct     **%                  **%
                                 Predictions**   Over-Predictions**   Under-Predictions**

  **WBTV, Charlotte, Channel 3**                                      

  ILLR, Clutter Loss 0 dB        88              1                    11

  Biby                           86              1                    13

  DirecTV/EchoStar               78              1                    21

  **WFOR, Miami**, **Channel 4**                                      

  ILLR, Clutter Loss 0 dB        100             0                    0

  Biby                           100             0                    0

  DirecTV/EchoStar               100             0                    0

  **Charlotte, NC, DTV Test                                           
  Channel 6**                                                         

  ILLR, Clutter Loss 0 dB        88              5                    7

  Biby                           83              5                    12

  DirecTV/EchoStar               80              5                    15

  **WTVD, Durham, Channel 11**                                        

  ILLR, Clutter Loss 0 dB        96              0                    4

  Biby                           80              0                    20

  DirecTV/EchoStar               77              0                    23

  **WJZ, Baltimore, Channel 13**                                      

  ILLR, Clutter Loss 0 dB        91              4                    5

  Biby                           75              3                    22

  DirecTV/EchoStar               83              2                    15
  ------------------------------ --------------- -------------------- ---------------------

**Table 2**

**Comparison of Effect of Clutter Modifications**

**on Accuracy of ILLR Model**

-- UHF Channel 53 --

  ------------------------------ --------------- -------------------- ---------------------
  **Station & Model**            **% Correct     **%                  **%
                                 Predictions**   Over-Predictions**   Under-Predictions**

  **Charlotte, NC, DTV Test                                           
  Channel 53**                                                        

  ILLR, Clutter Loss 0 dB        81              16                   3

  Biby                           79              8                    13

  DirecTV/EchoStar               79              6                    15

  **WPGH, Pittsburgh, Channel                                         
  53**                                                                

  ILLR, Clutter Loss 0 dB        79              17                   4

  Biby                           75              6                    19

  DirecTV/EchoStar               74              6                    20
  ------------------------------ --------------- -------------------- ---------------------

14. For VHF channels, the comparisons shown in Table 1 indicate that a
    prescription of additional losses would make the ILLR model less
    accurate because it already produces more under-predictions than
    over-predictions (a condition that favors the interests of satellite
    service providers). UHF comparisons are shown in Table 2. For both
    VHF and UHF, the ILLR model without clutter corrections proves
    superior to other models by making the correct prediction more
    often. For UHF, however, even though more correct than the competing
    models, the ILLR model tends to over-predict the field intensity
    substantially more often than it under-predicts. This is a condition
    that could be restored to approximate balance by assigning clutter
    losses.

15. Therefore, based on the available measured data of television
    signals, we are reducing the clutter loss values from those proposed
    in the *Notice* in order to make the ILLR model more accurate. We
    are setting the clutter loss values for VHF channels to zero because
    the measurement data of Table 1 indicate that larger values produce
    fewer correct predictions. Thus the ILLR model is not being changed
    for VHF. For UHF channels, we are setting small clutter loss values
    in order to obtain a better balance between under-predictions and
    over-predictions. Specifically, we are reducing the clutter loss
    values to one-third of those proposed in the *Notice* because our
    assessment of the data indicates that this will produce a better
    balance between under-predictions and over-predictions without
    adversely affecting the overall percentage of correct predictions.

16. The comments were nearly unanimous in recommending that the improved
    ILLR model should not limit the application of clutter loss
    measurements to situations with Fresnel clearance. In the *Notice*
    we prescribed this limitation so that clutter losses would be
    applied only to situations matching those in which the Rubinstein
    measurements were made. We now accept the technical advice offered
    by nearly all commenters \-- that Rubinstein's analysis excludes
    sites without Fresnel clearance in order to make proper use of the
    Okumura model, not because clutter loss is less significant in the
    absence of Fresnel clearance. We therefore will not limit the
    applications of clutter loss measurements to only situations where
    there is Fresnel clearance.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
17. [Error Flags.]{.underline} In the *Notice* we proposed to presume
    lack of service in the rare instances where the output of the
    Longley-Rice computational procedure includes an error flag along
    with the predicted field strength to indicate a possible error in
    the prediction. DirecTV supports this convention, while Fox and NAB
    urge that the error condition be treated as indicative of service,
    as it was in the development of digital television allotments. No
    argument can be made for the accuracy of either convention, since
    the error flag simply indicates uncertainty in the predicted value
    of field strength due to the fact that the parameters presented to
    the ILLR are somewhat outside their proper limits. We believe that
    the best approach is to ignore the error flag and simply accept the
    predicted value for comparison with the signal intensity
    standard. Thus, in uncertain cases we are preferring neither
    under-prediction nor over-prediction errors. This procedure is
    prescribed in Appendix A. 

18. [Surface Refractivity]{.underline}. The comments of FOX and the
    Affiliates Association point out that predictions of the ILLR model
    depend to some extent on the value presumed for surface
    refractivity.[^15] These commenters state that it could improve the
    accuracy of the ILLR model to use the actual surface refractivity in
    the geographical region between the transmitter and individual
    reception point in place of the fixed median value proposed in the
    *Notice*.[^16] However, commenters have not proposed a precise
    algorithm or particular database for determining the refractivity
    value to be used for individual radio paths. While we agree that it
    would be desirable to include surface refractivity in the ILLR model
    as a geographic variable, we believe the effects on the precise
    signal strength predictions made by the ILLR model would be too
    small to make a difference, as a practical matter, in the
    determination of served/unserved status of individual
    locations. Therefore, lacking a precise procedure and database for
    this proposed ILLR refinement, we are retaining the fixed median
    value of surface refractivity in the ILLR model that we proposed in
    the *Notice*.

19. [Additional Technical Matters]{.underline}. Some commenters urge
    that we address the creation of a predictive model that would take
    into account additional factors including ghosting and urban
    noise. For example, EchoStar has initiated engineering studies to
    determine the feasibility of correlating LULC categories with signal
    quality as affected by ghosting. Additionally, several parties
    recommend that we modify the ILLR model to account for urban noise
    on the basis of the measurements of noise included in the Rubinstein
    report. However, we believe these are matters of signal quality
    rather than intensity. In this rule making we are concerned with the
    ability of the ILLR model to predict the availability of signals of
    a specific intensity as directed by Congress, and we decline to
    extend the scope of the issues addressed in this proceeding to
    include signal quality.

20. [The Improved ILLR Model -- Summary]{.underline}. Consistent with
    the above decisions, the new ILLR model to be used in determining
    whether a houshold is eligible to receive distant network signals
    transmitted by satellite shall consist of Longley-Rice 1.2.2
    augmented by considerations of clutter loss according to the LULC
    categories defined in Appendix A. These categories remain the same
    as proposed in the *Notice* while the associated clutter loss values
    have been modified to make the model predictions as accurate as
    possible in view of the analyses of measurement data provided in the
    comments. The field strength predicted by the basic Longley-Rice
    model shall be reduced by the clutter loss value associated with the
    respective LULC category.[^17] For VHF channels the clutter loss
    values have been set to zero; for UHF channels the clutter loss
    values have been reduced from those proposed in the *Notice* in
    order to obtain a better balance between under-predictions and
    over-predictions.

[Other Matters]{.underline}

21. [Provisions for Further Improvements in Prediction
    Accuracy]{.underline}. The comments indicate that improvements in
    the accuracy of the ILLR model beyond those specifically proposed
    may be possible either by obtaining additional measurement data or
    through further analysis of existing data. The AFCCE suggests that
    the TASO database maintained on the FCC web site is an appropriate
    source of existing data.[^18] DIRECTV comments that the *Notice*
    correctly anticipates that industry efforts and the availability of
    higher quality data, such as the data being collected by Landsat
    satellites, may contribute to further improvements. In the *Notice*
    we stated that, because of the copyright law implications of the
    SHVIA, future changes to the ILLR model should be introduced by rule
    making. We will initiate a further rule making, *i.e.*, a standard
    notice-and-comment procedure, to improve the accuracy of the ILLR
    model upon the filing of a petition for such rule making that is
    supported by high quality engineering studies containing conclusions
    based on reliable and publicly available measurement data. The
    highly technical nature of the comments reinforces our view that
    engineering studies of such high quality are requisite. Changes to
    the ILLR model based on such additional data may be proposed by
    referencing the present Docket, which will be held open for this
    purpose.

22\. [Designation of Neutral and Independent Entity for Signal Tests
Purposes]{.underline}. The SHVIA relies on the ILLR model to determine
presumptively whether a subscriber is served or unserved for purposes of
eligibility to receive satellite retransmission of distant network
signals.[^19] The SHVIA further provides that subscribers who are denied
retransmission of distant signals may request that the satellite carrier
seek a waiver of the denial from the network station that is asserting
that retransmission is prohibited.[^20] If the network station rejects
the waiver request, the subscriber may submit to the carrier "a request
for a test verifying the subscriber's inability to receive a signal that
meets the signal intensity standard . . ."[^21] The SHVIA specifies that
under these circumstances, "the satellite carrier and the network
station or stations asserting that retransmission is prohibited shall
select a qualified and independent person to conduct a test in
accordance with section 73.686(d) of \[the Commission's\]
regulations."[^22] The statute requires that the test be conducted
"within 30 days after the subscriber submits a request for the test" and
if the test demonstrates that the subscriber "does not receive a signal
that meets or exceeds the signal intensity standard . . ., the
subscriber shall not be denied the retransmission of a signal of a
network station . . ."[^23]

23. To address those circumstances in which the satellite provider and
network station cannot "agree on such a person to conduct the test, the
person shall be designated by an independent and neutral entity
designated by the Commission by rule."[^24] In the *Notice*, we sought
comment on this requirement,[^25] but received very few comments and
none that proposed specific entities to perform this function.[^26] The
American Radio Relay League (ARRL) has offered to serve as the
independent and neutral entity to designate the person or organization
to conduct measurements if the satellite carrier and the network station
are unable to agree on the selection of a tester. We believe that the
ARRL is particularly appropriate in this role since it has no commercial
connection with delivery of television services, its field offices cover
the United States, and its members are actively engaged in activities
related to the measurement of radio field intensity. We are providing in
the rules, at §73.686, that the ARRL shall serve as the independent and
neutral entity to perform the functions set forth in the SHVIA. It is
not required that the ARRL find persons qualified to conduct the tests
in question. Instead, the ARRL may examine the qualifications of persons
proposed as testers by any interested party after their qualifications
have been submitted in writing. Based on its review of these written
qualifications, the ARRL will designate a qualified and independent
person to conduct the test in accordance with the statute and the
Commission's rules.[^27] The ARRL indicates through an exchange of
letters with the Commission that it will accept this
responsibility.[^28]

#### IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS {#iv.-procedural-matters .unnumbered}

24. [Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis]{.underline}. The decision
    herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act
    of 1995 (the \"1995 Act\") and would impose no new or modified
    information collection requirements on the public.

25. [Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification]{.underline}. The
    Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)[^29] requires
    that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking
    proceedings, unless the agency certifies that \"the rule will not
    have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
    entities.\"[^30] The RFA generally defines \"small entity\" as
    having the same meaning as the terms \"small business,\" \"small
    organization,\" and \"small governmental jurisdiction.\"[^31] In
    addition, the term \"small business\" has the same meaning as the
    term \"small business concern\" under the Small Business Act.[^32] A
    small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and
    operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
    satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
    Administration (SBA).[^33]

26. In this First Report and Order, the Commission prescribes a
    prediction technique for determining the ability of individual
    households to receive television signals broadcast over-the-air by
    local stations. The prediction technique applies exclusively to the
    sources of data for certain engineering calculations and to the
    manner in which these calculations are made. Television station
    licensees, Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) operators, and other
    Direct to Home (DTH) Satellite operators may use the technique to
    establish the eligibility or non-eligibility of individual
    households for satellite delivery of distant television
    programming. These determinations will usually be made at the point
    of sale of satellite receiving equipment for homes and will tend to
    increase the number of eligible customers. As noted in paragraph 3,
    *supra*, the statute requires that we increase the accuracy of the
    prediction model based on technical data regarding terrain and land
    cover variations. Thus, the prediction technique we prescribe is of
    a purely electrical engineering, scientific nature, and our aim is
    to improve its scientific accuracy. Moreover, the changes we are
    prescribing in the technique are small and will have only a minor
    effect on the proportion of households that are eligible to receive
    distant network signals. The number of viewers served by network
    affiliate stations will not be significantly reduced, and hence the
    economic effect on network affiliates and satellite carriers will
    not be significant. Therefore, we certify that the requirements of
    this First Report and Order will not have a significant economic
    impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission
    will send a copy of the First Report and Order including a copy of
    this final certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, *see* 5
    U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the First Report and Order and
    this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
    the Small Business Administration, and will be published in the
    Federal Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

#### V. ORDERING CLAUSES {#v.-ordering-clauses .unnumbered}

27. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i),
    and 154(j); Section 1008 of the Intellectual Property and
    Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, PL 106-113, 113 Stat.
    1501, Appendix I; and Section 119(d)(10)(a) of the Copyright Act, 17
    U.S.C. § 119(d)(10)(a), the rule amendments set forth in Appendix B
    SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication of this First Report
    and Order in the Federal Register.

28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    First Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

29. For additional information concerning this matter, contact Robert
    Eckert (202-418-2433), Harry Wong (202-418-2437), or Nam Pham
    (202-418-2438), Office of Engineering and Technology, Technical
    Research Branch.

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

> Magalie Roman Salas

##### Secretary

APPENDIX A

####### Technical Data

This appendix specifies technical details and input parameters that are
to be used with Longley‑Rice Version 1.2.2 to qualify the latter as the
Individual Location Longley-Rice (ILLR) propagation prediction model per
Section 73.683(d) of the FCC rules. The method for including Land Use
and Land Clutter (LULC) classifications of locations with attributed
clutter loss values is defined here. This appendix will be republished
as OET Bulletin No. 72 and included in FCC rules by reference.

Computer code for the Longley-Rice radio propagation prediction model is
published in an appendix of NTIA Report 82-100, *A Guide to the Use of
the ITS Irregular Terrain Model in the Area Prediction Mode*, authors
G.A. Hufford, A.G. Longley and W.A. Kissick, U.S. Department of
Commerce, April 1982. The report may be obtained from the U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia, by requesting Accession No. PB 82-217977. Some
modifications to the code were described by G.A. Hufford in a memorandum
to users of the model dated January 30, 1985. With these modifications,
the code is referred to as Version 1.2.2 of the Longley-Rice model. It
is available for downloading at the U.S. Department of Commerce Web
site, \<http://elbert.its.bldrdoc.gov/itm.html\>.

When run under the conditions given in Table 1, the Longley-Rice model
is the ILLR prescribed by Section 73.683(d) of the FCC rules. Note
especially the following unique features of the ILLR prediction
procedure (these distinguish the ILLR model from, for instance, the use
of Longley-Rice for digital television coverage and interference
calculations as detailed in OET Bulletin No. 69):

-   the time variability factor is 50%, presuming that the ILLR field
    strength prediction is to be compared with a required field (the
    Grade B field intensity defined in Section 73.683(d) of the FCC
    rules) that already includes an allowance for long term (daily and
    seasonal) time fading;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   the confidence variability factor is 50%, indicating median
    situations;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   the model is run in individual mode;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   terrain elevation is considered every 1/10 of a kilometer;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   receiving antenna height is assumed to be 6 m (20 feet) above ground
    for one-story buildings and 9 m (30 feet) above ground for buildings
    taller than one-story;

-   in the rare cases that error code 3 occurs (KWX=3), the predicted
    field strength is nevertheless accepted as indicative of whether a
    Grade B field strength is available at that location;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   land use and land cover (e.g., vegetation and buildings)
    considerations are included through a look-up table of clutter
    losses additional to those inherent in the basic Longley-Rice 1.2.2
    model and keyed to the Land Use and Land Cover categories defined by
    the United States Geological Survey.

The field strength of a network TV station at an individual location is
predicted as follows:

1)  Find the engineering facilities data for the network affiliate
    station of interest by, for example, consulting the FCC Web site at
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/vsd/\>. The most accurate source of these
    data should be used. Necessary data are station latitude and
    longitude, height above mean sea level of the radiation center, and
    the effective radiated power (ERP) in the direction of the
    individual location under study.

2)  Run Longley-Rice 1.2.2 in the point-to-point mode with the
    parameters specified in Table 1 to find the propagation path loss
    relative to free space propagation.

3)  Find the USGS Land Use and Land Cover classification of the
    individual location under study by consulting the LULC database,
    available from the USGS web page at
    \<http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/glis/hyper/guide/1_250_lulc\>.

4)  Convert the USGS Land Use and Land Cover classification to the
    corresponding ILLR clutter category using Table 2, and find the
    associated clutter loss from Table 3.

5)  Finally, calculate the ILLR field strength prediction from the
    formula

Field = (Free Space Field) -- (Longley-Rice 1.2.2 Path Loss) -- (ILLR
Clutter Loss)

where the [Free Space Field]{.underline} in dB = 106.92 +
10log~10~(ERP) - 20log~10~(distance),

and [distance]{.underline} is the path length in kilometers from
transmitter to the individual

location under study.

HG(1) in Table 1 is the height of the radiation center above ground. It
is determined by subtracting the ground elevation above mean sea level
(AMSL) at the transmitter location from the height of the radiation
center AMSL. The latter may be found in the FCC's TV Engineering Data
Base while the former is retrieved from the terrain elevation data base
as a function of the transmitter site coordinates also found in the TV
Engineering Data Base.

Terrain elevation data at uniformly spaced points between the
transmitter and receiver must be provided. The ILLR computer program
must be linked to a terrain elevation data base with values every 3
arc-seconds of latitude and longitude or closer. The program should
retrieve elevations from this data base at regular intervals with a
spacing increment of 0.1 kilometer (parameter XI in Table 1). The
elevation of a point of interest is determined by linear interpolation
of the values retrieved for the corners of the coordinate rectangle in
which the point of interest lies.

**Table 1.**

**Parameter Values for ILLR Implementation of the Longley-Rice Fortran
Code**

  ----------- ----------- ------------------------------------------------
  Parameter   Value       Meaning/Comment

  EPS         15.0        Relative permittivity of ground.

  SGM         0.005       Ground conductivity, Siemens per meter.

  ZSYS        0.0         Coordinated with setting of EN0. See page 72 of
                          NTIA Report.

  EN0         301.0       Surface refractivity in N-units (parts per
                          million).

  IPOL        0           Denotes horizontal polarization.

  MDVAR       1           Code 1 sets individual mode of variability
                          calculations.

  KLIM        5           Climate code 5 for continental temperate.

  XI          0.1 km      Distance between successive points along the
                          radial from transmitter to individual reception
                          point.

  HG(1)       see text    Height of the radiation center above ground.

  HG(2)       6 m, or 9 m Height of TV receiving antenna above ground. Use
                          6 m for one-story building; otherwise 9 m.

  KWX         numeric     KWX is an output indicating the severity of a
              error       possible error due to parameters being out of
              marker      range. Accept the field strength prediction when
                          KWX is 3.
  ----------- ----------- ------------------------------------------------

**Table 2.**

Regrouping of LULC Categories for ILLR Applications[^34]

> The United States Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a database on
> land use and land cover indicating features such as vegetation and
> man-made structures. It is often called the LULC database and is
> available from the USGS web page at
> \<http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/glis/hyper/guide/1_250_lulc\>.

+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| LULC\     | LULC\                    | ILLR       | ILLR Clutter\   |
| Class     | Classification\          | Clutter\   | Category\       |
| ification | Description              | Category   | Description     |
| Number    |                          | Number     |                 |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 11        | Residential              | 7          | Residential     |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 12        | Commercial and services  | 9          | Commer          |
|           |                          |            | cial/industrial |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 13        | Industrial               | 9          | Commer          |
|           |                          |            | cial/industrial |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 14        | Transportation,          | 1          | Open land       |
|           | communications, &        |            |                 |
|           | utilities                |            |                 |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 15        | Industrial and           | 9          | Commer          |
|           | commercial complexes     |            | cial/industrial |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 16        | Mixed urban and built-up | 8          | Mixed           |
|           | lands                    |            | urban/buildings |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 17        | Other urban and built-up | 8          | Mixed           |
|           | land                     |            | urban/buildings |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 21        | Cropland and pasture     | 2          | Agricultural    |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 22        | Orchards, groves,        | 2          | Agricultural    |
|           | vineyards, nurseries,    |            |                 |
|           | and horticultural        |            |                 |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 23        | Confined feeding         | 2          | Agricultural    |
|           | operations               |            |                 |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 24        | Other agricultural land  | 2          | Agricultural    |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 31        | Herbaceous rangeland     | 3          | Rangeland       |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 32        | Shrub and brush          | 3          | Rangeland       |
|           | rangeland                |            |                 |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 33        | Mixed rangeland          | 3          | Rangeland       |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 41        | Deciduous forest land    | 5          | Forest land     |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 42        | Evergreen forest land    | 5          | Forest land     |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 43        | Mixed forest land        | 5          | Forest land     |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 51        | Streams and canals       | 4          | Water           |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 52        | Lakes                    | 4          | Water           |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 53        | Reservoirs               | 4          | Water           |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 54        | Bays and estuaries       | 4          | Water           |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 61        | Forested wetland         | 5          | Forest land     |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 62        | Non-forest wetland       | 6          | Wetland         |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| **Table   |                          |            |                 |
| 2,        |                          |            |                 |
| Con       |                          |            |                 |
| tinued.** |                          |            |                 |
|           |                          |            |                 |
| R         |                          |            |                 |
| egrouping |                          |            |                 |
| of LULC   |                          |            |                 |
| C         |                          |            |                 |
| ategories |                          |            |                 |
| for ILLR  |                          |            |                 |
| App       |                          |            |                 |
| lications |                          |            |                 |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| LULC\     | LULC\                    | ILLR       | ILLR Clutter\   |
| Class     | Classification\          | Clutter\   | Category\       |
| ification | Description              | Category   | Description     |
| Number    |                          | Number     |                 |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 71        | Dry salt flats           | 1          | Open land       |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 72        | Beaches                  | 1          | Open land       |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 73        | Sandy areas other than   | 1          | Open land       |
|           | beaches                  |            |                 |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 74        | Bare exposed rock        | 1          | Open land       |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 75        | Strip mines, quarries,   | 1          | Open land       |
|           | and gravel pits          |            |                 |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 76        | Transitional areas       | 1          | Open land       |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 77        | Mixed barren land        | 1          | Open land       |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 81        | Shrub and brush tundra   | 1          | Open land       |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 82        | Herbaceous tundra        | 1          | Open land       |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 83        | Bare ground              | 1          | Open land       |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 84        | Wet tundra               | 1          | Open land       |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 85        | Mixed tundra             | 1          | Open land       |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 91        | Perennial snowfields     | 10         | Snow & ice      |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 92        | Glaciers                 | 10         | Snow & ice      |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+-----------------+

**Table 3.**

**Clutter Loss as a Function of ILLR LULC Clutter Category and TV
Channel**

+-------+----------------+------------+------------+---------+--------+
| ILLR  | ILLR Clutter   | ### Cl     |            |         |        |
| Clu   | Category\      | utter Loss |            |         |        |
| tter\ | Description    |            |            |         |        |
| Cat   |                | dB to be   |            |         |        |
| egory |                | added to   |            |         |        |
| N     |                | Lo         |            |         |        |
| umber |                | ngley-Rice |            |         |        |
|       |                | prediction |            |         |        |
|       |                | of path    |            |         |        |
|       |                | loss       |            |         |        |
+-------+----------------+------------+------------+---------+--------+
|       |                | Low Band   | High Band  | UHF     |        |
|       |                | VHF,       | VHF,       | Band    |        |
|       |                | Channels   | Channels   |         |        |
|       |                | 2-5        | 7-13       |         |        |
+-------+----------------+------------+------------+---------+--------+
|       |                |            |            | C       | Ch     |
|       |                |            |            | hannels | annels |
|       |                |            |            | 14-36   | 38-69  |
+-------+----------------+------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 1     | Open Land      | 0          | 0          | 4       | 5      |
+-------+----------------+------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 2     | Agricultural   | 0          | 0          | 5       | 6      |
+-------+----------------+------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 3     | Rangeland      | 0          | 0          | 3       | 6      |
+-------+----------------+------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 4     | Water          | 0          | 0          | 0       | 0      |
+-------+----------------+------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 5     | Forest Land    | 0          | 0          | 5       | 8      |
+-------+----------------+------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 6     | Wetland        | 0          | 0          | 0       | 0      |
+-------+----------------+------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 7     | Residential    | 0          | 0          | 5       | 7      |
+-------+----------------+------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 8     | Mixed          | 0          | 0          | 6       | 6      |
|       | U              |            |            |         |        |
|       | rban/Buildings |            |            |         |        |
+-------+----------------+------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 9     | Commerc        | 0          | 0          | 5       | 6      |
|       | ial/Industrial |            |            |         |        |
+-------+----------------+------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 10    | Snow and Ice   | 0          | 0          | 0       | 0      |
+-------+----------------+------------+------------+---------+--------+

**APPENDIX B**

#######  Rule Changes

Part 73 of Chapter I of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 73 -- RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

1.  The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.

2.  The title of Section 73.683 is amended to read as follows:

Section 73.683 Field Strength Contours and Presumptive Determination of
Field Strength at Individual Locations.

3.  A new subsection 73.683(d) is added as follows:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(d) For purposes of determining the eligibility of individual households
    for satellite retransmission of distant network signals under the
    copyright law provisions of 17 U.S.C. §119(d)(10)(A), field strength
    shall be determined by the Individual Location Longley-Rice (ILLR)
    propagation prediction model. Guidance for use of the ILLR model for
    these purposes is provided in OET Bulletin No. 72. This document is
    available through the Internet on the *FCC Home Page* at
    http://www.fcc.gov.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  A new subsection 73.686(e) is added as follows:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(e) In the case of measurements to determine the eligibility of
    individual households to receive satellite retransmission of distant
    network signals under the copyright law provisions of 17 U.S.C.
    §119(d)(10), if a satellite carrier and the network station or
    stations asserting that the retransmission of a signal of a distant
    network station is prohibited are unable to agree on a person to
    conduct the test, the American Radio Relay League, Inc., 225 Main
    Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494, shall designate the person or
    organization to conduct measurements based on the technical
    qualifications and independence of proposed testers. The satellite
    carrier and network station shall propose testers and provide their
    qualifications in writing to the American Radio Relay League
    (ARRL). Individuals may also volunteer themselves as testers by
    submitting their qualifications to the ARRL. The ARRL can be reached
    by telephone at 860-594-0200, or email at hq@arrl.org.

## **APPENDIX C**

####### Parties Filing Comments and Reply Comments

######## Parties Filing Comments

1.  ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC Television Affiliates Association

2.  Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers

3.  Communications Technologies, Inc.

4.  DIRECTV, Inc.

5.  EchoStar Statellite Corporation

6.  Fox Television Stations, Inc., and Fox Broadcasting Company

7.  Harry R. Anderson (EDX Engineering, Inc.)

8.  National Association of Broadcasters and Association for Maximum
    Service Television, Inc.

9.  National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative

10. Paxson Communications Corporation

11. Peter Moncure (RadioSoft)

12. Richard L. Biby, P.E.

13. Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association

14. du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc.

[Parties Filing Reply Comments]{.underline}

1.  Richard L. Biby, P.E.

2.  EchoStar Statellite Corporation

3.  Fox Television Stations, Inc., and Fox Broadcasting Company

4.  National Association of Broadcasters and Association for Maximum
    Service Television, Inc.

5.  National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative

6.  Potomac Instruments, Inc.

[^1]: *See* 1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act, 17 U.S.C. § 119 (1988).
    Congress enacted the SHVA as an amendment to the Copyright Act in
    order to protect television broadcasters' copyright interests while
    simultaneously enabling satellite carriers to provide the signals of
    broadcast network stations to those satellite subscribers who are
    unable to obtain local network stations over-the-air. Congress
    considered these subscribers to be "unserved" by their local
    stations.

[^2]: *See* Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 ("SHVIA"),
    Title I of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus
    Reform Act of 1999 ("IPACORA"), PL 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, Appendix
    I (1999) relating to copyright licensing and carriage of broadcast
    signals by satellite carriers, codified in scattered sections of 17
    and 47 U.S.C., signed by the President on November 29, 1999.

[^3]: *See* SHVIA, section 1008.

[^4]: In CS Docket No. 98-201 the Commission endorsed a prediction
    procedure it referred to as the Individual Location Longley-Rice
    model. See *Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved
    Households for Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act; Part 73
    Definition and Measurement of Signals of Grade B Intensity*, adopted
    February 1, 1999, 14 FCC Rcd 2654 (1999).  The Individual Location
    Longley-Rice (ILLR) radio propagation model is used to make
    predictions of radio field strength at specific geographic points
    based on the elevation profile of terrain between the transmitter
    and each specific reception point. A computer is needed to make
    these predictions because of the large number of reception points
    that must be individually examined. Computer code for the ILLR
    point-to-point radio propagation model is published in an appendix
    of NTIA Report 82-100, *A Guide to the Use of the ITS Irregular
    Terrain Model in the Area Prediction Mode*, authors G.A. Hufford,
    A.G. Longley and W.A. Kissick, U.S. Department of Commerce, April
    1982. Some modifications to the code were described by G.A. Hufford
    in a memorandum to users of the model dated January 30, 1985. With
    these modifications, the code is referred to as Version 1.2.2 of the
    Longley-Rice model.

[^5]: *See* SHVIA, section 1005. Section 1005 of the SHVIA amends
    section 119(a)(2)(B) of title 17 of the United States Code
    (Copyrights) to require that "\[I\]n determining presumptively
    whether a person resides in an unserved household ... a court shall
    rely on the Individual Location Longley-Rice model set forth by the
    Federal Communications Commission in Docket No. 98-201, as that
    model may be amended by the Commission over time under section
    339(c)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934 to increase the accuracy
    of that model."

[^6]: The SHVIA also directs the Commission to evaluate all possible
    standards and factors for determining eligibility for retransmission
    of signals of network stations to determine whether it may be
    appropriate to recommend, in a report to Congress, modifying or
    replacing the Grade B intensity standard for the purpose of
    determining eligibility, and, if appropriate, to make a further
    recommendation relating to a standard for digital signals. See
    section 339(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by
    the SHVIA, section 1008. The Commission will address the signal
    intensity matter in a separate proceeding.

[^7]: *See Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, ET Docket No. 00-11, FCC
    00-17, released January 20, 2000, 65 FR 4923.

[^8]: The LULC database is provided by the United States Geological
    Survey. See USGS web page at
    \<http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/glis/hyper/guide/1_250_lulc\>. The 10
    categories proposed for use with the ILLR model were designed by EDX
    Engineering, Inc. and have been suggested for use in radio
    propagation analysis by the WG8.8 Committee of the
    Telecommunications Industry Association in document TSB-88.

[^9]: Thomas N. Rubinstein, "Clutter Losses and Environmental Noise
    Characteristics Associated with Various LULC Categories," *IEEE
    Transactions on Broadcasting*, Vol. 44, No. 3, September 1998.

[^10]: ^?^ Fresnel clearance is a geometrical property of the radio path
    from transmitter to individual receiving location. The receiver is
    considered to be in a shadowed location if a terrain elevation point
    along the path extends 0.6 of the way into the first Fresnel zone.

[^11]: The latest member of the Landsat family of earth satellites,
    Landsat 7, was launched into orbit on April 15, 1999. Landsat
    satellites, a NASA program, gather remotely sensed images of the
    land surface and surrounding coastal regions for global change
    research, regional environmental change studies and other civil and
    commercial purposes. Previous Landsat missions provided the
    information incorporated in the USGS LULC database. After data
    reduction, Landsat 7 will provide data of greater significance for
    radio propagation prediction. Industrial and governmental
    organizations in Canada are already deriving radio propagation
    prediction databases from the latest Landsat images.

[^12]: Okumura, Y., E. Ohmori, T. Kawano, and K. Fukuda (1968), "Field
    strength and its variability in VHF and UHF land-mobile radio
    service", (Tokyo), *Rev. Elec. Com. Lab.* 16, pp. 825-873.

[^13]: The Biby scheme uses the urban factor developed by Anita G.
    Longley (the Longley partner of the Longley-Rice model) and reported
    in "Radio Propagation in Urban Areas", OT Report 78-144, United
    States Department of Commerce, Office of Telecommunications,
    1978. Biby applies the whole or specific fractions of this urban
    factor to receiving locations according to their LULC category.

[^14]: The NAB/AMSTV study compared approximately 1,000 field intensity
    measurements in five different geographic regions \-- Miami,
    Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Raleigh/Durham, and Charlotte, North Carolina
    \-- with the corresponding ILLR prediction results for those
    locations. The field intensity measurements include: (1) over 600
    measurements taken near 500 randomly selected households for
    purposes of the *PrimeTime 24* litigation in federal court in Miami
    and North Carolina, and (2) nearly 400 measurements taken at
    neutrally selected radial and grid points in the Charlotte area as
    part of the Grand Alliance DTV system field testing in the early
    1990s.

[^15]: The exact strength of the signal at individual reception
    locations depends to some extent on the refractive index of air for
    propagation of radio waves. The index is a function of atmospheric
    pressure, temperature, and humidity; and it largely determines the
    amount a radio wave is bent, or refracted, as it passes through the
    atmosphere. Surface refractivity, the value of this index at the
    earth's surface, is an externally settable parameter of the ILLR
    model.

[^16]: The median value we proposed is commonly used. It corresponds to
    an effective earth radius 4/3 times the actual radius of the earth.

[^17]: To avoid confusion, we point out that some of the Longley-Rice
    1.2.2 input parameters have values different from those utilized for
    application of the model to DTV service. The Longley-Rice model used
    for analysis of DTV and analog TV service in the DTV proceeding is
    described in \"Longley-Rice Methodology for Evaluating TV Coverage
    and Interference,\" OET Bulletin 69, Federal Communications
    Commission (July 2, 1997)
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/#69\>.
    Longley-Rice is the Commission\'s designated methodology for
    determining the area where service is provided by a DTV station.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. §73.622(e). *See also Advanced Television Systems:
    Sixth Report and Order* (\"DTV Sixth Report and Order\"), 12 FCC Rcd
    14588, 14672-76.

[^18]: ftp://www.fcc.gov/pub/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Databases/mmb/fm/model/taso/

[^19]: 17 U.S.C. § 119(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I) (*as amended by* § 1005 of the
    SHVIA).

[^20]: 47 U.S.C. § 339(c)(2) (*as amended by* § 1008 of the SHVIA).

[^21]: 47 U.S.C. § 339(c)(4) (*as amended by* § 1008 of the SHVIA).

[^22]: *Id.* at § 339(c)(4)(A).

[^23]: *Id.*

[^24]: *Id.* at § 339(c)(4)(B).

[^25]: *See Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, ET Docket No. 00-11, FCC
    00-17, released January 20, 2000, 65 FR 4923 at 15.

[^26]: The responses to the *Notice*'s request for recommendations on
    this matter tended to address the technical qualifications of the
    testers rather than the identity of the independent and neutral
    entity to be designated by the Commission. DIRECTV proposed that the
    Commission appoint a "joint working group composed of
    representatives of the trade associations of each of the
    broadcasting and satellite industries, which would then be
    responsible for identifying, if possible, one or more qualified
    consulting engineers in each Designated Market Area (DMA) of the
    United States, who in turn could be called upon to settle particular
    testing disputes in the relevant DMA."

[^27]: *See* 17 U.S.C. § 119(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II) (*as amended by* § 1005 of
    the SHVIA); 47 U.S.C. § 339(c)(4) (*as amended by* § 1008 of the
    SHVIA); and 47 C.F.R. §73.686(d).

[^28]: Letter dated May 4, 2000 to Mr. David Sumner, Executive Vice
    President, American Radio Relay League, Inc. from Dale N. Hatfield,
    Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, FCC.

[^29]:  The RFA, *see* § 5 U.S.C. S 601 *et. seq*., has been amended by
    the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
    104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^30]:  5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^31]:  5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^32]:  5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. S §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies \"unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register.\"

[^33]:  Small Business Act, § 15 U.S.C. S 632.

[^34]: ^^ This regrouping into 10 categories for use with the ILLR
    model was designed by EDX Engineering, Inc.